Intelligence Inquiry

[pitabread]

Look for one if you like, but after two days of discussion about religion not being allowed in public school, you'd think my statement would be obvious.

Just out of curiosity, do you own any books on science, biology and/or evolution specifically?

 

[pitabread]

Nice try... my last statement?

What statement?

You mean this: "I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education."

What about it?

 

[inquiring mind]

If you already think you know, then fine. I'm interested in going where the data goes. That's why I like looking at things like surveys, studies, etc. It lets us separate our personal opinions from factual data.

Think 'I' know... 'everyone' knows. People don't need data or a study when they see the truth.

 

[inquiring mind]

What statement?

You mean this: "I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education."

What about it?

Do you think that's a good bet or not?

 

[pitabread]

Think 'I' know... 'everyone' knows. People don't need data or a study when they see the truth.

If you're posing a question that can be measured objectively, then we look to objective data to answer it.

If you just want to believe whatever you want to believe, then why even ask? The answer appears to be irrelevant then.

 

[pitabread]

Do you think that's a good bet or not?

I honestly don't know. Like I said, I go where the data leads. I don't like guessing.

 

[inquiring mind]

If you're posing a question that can be measured objectively, then we look to objective data to answer it.

If you just want to believe whatever you want to believe, then why even ask? The answer appears to be irrelevant to you.

I honestly don't know. Like I said, I go where the data leads. I don't like guessing.

You don't need to play 'confused' and derail our discussion; it's not that difficult to follow.

 

[pitabread]

You don't need to play 'confused' and derail our discussion; it's not that difficult to follow.

I'm not confused by what you posed. I'm answering it honestly: I don't know. I would need to look at the data before hazarding an answer.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not confused by what you posed. I'm answering it honestly: I don't know. I would need to look at the data before hazarding an answer.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You're the one having a problem understanding. Science is mandatory in public school; theology is not allowed. I suppose you had math.

 

[pitabread]

You're the one having a problem understanding. Science is mandatory in public school; theology is not allowed. I suppose you had math.

Your prior statement wasn't restricted to public school. You said, "would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? ".

The inclusion of informal education itself could speak to any number of different avenues for that education.

Second, theology studies are allowed in schools. The idea that theology isn't allowed in schools is a myth. What isn't allowed is the endorsement by public schools of specific religious beliefs (at least in the U.S.). Things like comparative religious studies courses are allowed.

Third, there are theological schools out there. For example, where I live there is a Catholic School Board that includes religious teachings in its curriculum.

Fourth, your question wasn't strictly restricted to simply looking at education. It was a question about who was better qualified and prepared to discuss the other's beliefs intelligently. Which implies more than strictly the amount of education, but rather who has better relative knowledge of the subjects.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your prior statement wasn't restricted to public school. You said, "would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? ".

The inclusion of informal education itself could speak to any number of different avenues for that education.

Second, theology studies are allowed in schools. The idea that theology isn't allowed in schools is a myth. What isn't allowed is the endorsement by public schools of specific religious beliefs (at least in the U.S.). Things like comparative religious studies courses are allowed.

Third, there are theological schools out there. For example, where I live there is a Catholic School Board that includes religious teachings in its curriculum.

Fourth, your question wasn't strictly restricted to simply looking at education. It was a question about who was better qualified and prepared to discuss the other's beliefs intelligently. Which implies more than strictly the amount of education, but rather who has better relative knowledge of the subjects.

Do you really believe there is a chance that any of these statements (combined) would post numbers contrary to my statement?

 

[pitabread]

Do you really believe there is a chance that any of these statements would post numbers contrary to my statement?

I don't know what you mean by "post numbers contrary to my statement". Are you talking about relative education or are you talking about relative knowledge?

You may wish to rephrase what you're trying to ask here to be more clear.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't know what you mean by "post numbers contrary to my statement". Are you talking about relative education or are you talking about relative knowledge?

You may wish to rephrase what you're trying to ask here to be more clear.

Maybe it would help you to read my post again?
“On average, which of the two, Creationists or Evolutionists, would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education.”

 

[pitabread]

Maybe it would help you to read my post again?
“On average, which of the two, Creationists or Evolutionists, would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education.”

In re-examing your post, I think it needs a rewrite for clarification.

For starters you are emphasizing education, but the question itself relates to discussing each others' belief "intelligently". As I already said, the way you posed your question implies you are examining relative knowledge of a topic and not strictly amount of education. If you want to ask who has more education, then just ask "who has the more education on the subject".

Second, we also need to qualify what is meant by "beliefs" in this context. By creationism are you talking strictly about Christian theological concepts? Are you talking about different specific creationist beliefs? Is is a mixture? You need to clarify what you are going for here.

Ditto with evolutionists. Are you asking about generalized knowledge of science? Knowledge of biology? Knowledge of evolution? Narrow down the scope to make it clearer what you're asking for here.

For example, I could tell you a lot about what Young Earth creationists believe with respect to the historicity of the Earth, having read a fair amount of YEC literature from major creationist organizations. In these discussions I find I know more about YECism than most creationists I encounter.

Conversely, if we were to test strict Christian theological knowledge, I'd probably do less well in that regard.

And finally I'd still look to the data. I'd hunt for surveys, studies, etc, to attempt to answer the question for me. Like I said previously, I don't like blindly guessing for an answer. I prefer to go with where the data leads. If you don't like that answer, tough beans.

 

[inquiring mind]

And finally I'd still look to the data. I'd hunt for surveys, studies, etc, to attempt to answer the question for me. Like I said previously, I don't like blindly guessing for an answer. I prefer to go with where the data leads.

By all means, please do that, instead of continuing to try to cloud my post. Then let us know your answer.

 

[Astrophile]

Actually it wasn't the creationists who "picked the fight". Prior to 1925; creationism was the the only theory of origin of the universe taught in schools in America. The first case to challenge that was the Scopes trial in 1925.

Darwin didn't write "Origin of the Species" until 1859; and ideas of origin outside of a religious context didn't exist until the 1830's. In all the thousands of years of history prior to this; all questions of origin of life were always couched in a religious belief system.

Further to my previous reply (post 320), I omitted to quote Darwin's account of the work of Lamarck. In the 'Historical Sketch' at the beginning of The Origin of Species, he said, 'Lamarck ... first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his Philosophie Zoologique, and, subsequently, in the Introduction to his Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertèbres. In these works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.'

I think that this quotation shows that 'ideas of origin outside of a religious context' did exist, at least in France, before the 1830s.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By whom though?

By slave owners, mostly.

 

[The Transcendentian]

You hate it when people tell the truth?

Both creationism and ID have been literally put on trial

I hate it when people say they are telling the truth, and they know they aren't.

Now I'll grant that there could be a case made for legitimate scientific inquiry into ID, but up until now (or at least up until Dover), ID was primarily a political/religious movement with the purpose to challenge science (e.g. evolution) that directly contradicted certain people's religious views (e.g. creationism).

All of this was laid bare in the Dover trial. ID proponents need to be well aware of the history of the modern ID movement. What we're seeing in this thread is exactly the type of thinking that led to the Dover trial in the first place.

I agree that ID was (and I think it still is) primarily a political/religious movement with the purpose to challenge what many sincerely believe to be irrefutable scientific truth.

Science + evolution is a political/anti-religious system created with the purpose to challenge religion. It's no accident that it "directly contradicted certain people's religious views".
I don't think science itself is a political system, I think your version of it is.

I believe micro-evolution is real and happens all the time, but macro-evolution is not real.

 

[pitabread]

Science + evolution is a political/anti-religious system created with the purpose to challenge religion.

Science wasn't created with the purpose of challenging religion. Science was created as a methodology to understand the universe in which we live. And it seems to be a pretty good method of doing so.

That it results in findings that contradict previously held religious beliefs isn't the fault of science; it's the fault of reality not lining up with people's religious beliefs.

I don't think science itself is a political system, I think your version of it is.

I don't lay claim to a "version" of science.

I believe micro-evolution is real and happens all the time, but macro-evolution is not real.

By "macro evolution" I assume you mean common ancestry of species. Like it or not, common ancestry of species is a conclusion that resulted from the scientific investigation into biology.

 

[The Transcendentian]

Science wasn't created with the purpose of challenging religion. Science was created as a methodology to understand the universe in which we live. And it seems to be a pretty good method of doing so.

That it results in findings that contradict previously held religious beliefs isn't the fault of science; it's the fault of reality not lining up with people's religious beliefs.

I did not mean to say that Science itself was created to challenge religion.

I do mean to say that "isn't the fault of science" is true, while "it's the fault of reality" is not.
The findings in "it results in findings" were purposefully sought out. Elite evolution advocates start with the unfounded hypothesis that evolution is true, and then the proceed to look for scientific proof of it.