How to make a your posts scientific.

[madbear]

``Even if we do not yet understand how certain naturally occurring structures such as this develop. Is it prudent to conclude there was an intelligent designer? Doesn’t this just smack of “god of the gaps” rationale?''

Well, I'm a bit loathe to write in defence of something that I don't really support myself, but I'll try to represent the irreducible complexity argument as best I can Other people can do it much better.

The basis of IC is not that we don't understand how certain biological structures developed, or even that they are too complex to have arisen by Darwinian processes, but that IC structures have no simpler functional precursors. Classic neo-Darwinism requires that every biological entity have a simpler functional precursor, because non-functional structures do not contribute a selection advantage in their current generation. Structures that are alleged to be IC are not all that complex compared to, say, the cell replication machinery. They are complex in a very particular way. Of the 200 or so proteins that comprise the flagellum, it appears that every single one is essential to its proper function. The flagellum has to cross the cell wall, which means that it needs a very complex mechanism even to extrude its components through the wall. Then these components have to be assembled in a very particular way, so that about a hundred different proteins can interact in such a way as to rotate the whole structure. Take one protein away, and the whole thing falls apart (metaphically speaking).

This is a different kind of complexity than that possessed by, say, the eye. You can take any number of bits away from the mammalian eye while still maintaining something that produces some sort of selectional advantage. Even a single light-sensitive cell might provide some selectional advantage. Not much, but you don't need much. But take anything away from the flagellum, and you ain't got nothing.

There was a certain amount of rejoicing among opponents of IC (i.e., more-or-less everybody) when it was found that the genes coding for the type-III secretory system had homologies with the genes coding for the flagellum. Irritatingly, however, the balance of authority even among IC sceptics is that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum.

I think that the IC argument is quite a bit different from a classical `argument from ignorance', in that it asserts that IC structures, as a matter of principle, have no functional precursors. That may or may not be true, but either way I don't think it reduces to an argument from ignorance. It will need a lot more research to determine whether the fundamental tenet of IC is true or not, and it's difficult, time-consuming, and above all expensive research, so it will probably not get done.

The reason I don't fully buy into IC is that we don't really understand how mechanisms like cooption affect it. It could be argued that, although the flagellum has no functional precursor as a flagellum -- because it wouldn't work -- it has a functional precursor as something completely different. There's little doubt that cooption does occur, but it's not clear whether something as complicated and, above all, specialized as the flagellum can be the result of cooption. Opponents of IC, as I understand it, claim that the flagellum must result from cooption, because otherwise neo-Darwinism is wrong. Proponents claim that the burden of proof is on the opponents to show even one example of cooption of a specialized micro-structure that would serve as a template for the flagellum. That, I think, is the current stalemate.

While IC isn't a `science' in its own right, it's something that has to be accomodated within the prevailing evolutionary model, or explained in terms of it. I reserve judgement on which outcome is most likely Until one of those two things happens, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to present the neo-Darwininan model of evolution as without any credible scientific objection. Sigh... people are going to start accusing me of being a `creationist' for even contemplating such a thing

For all that, I can imagine few things worse than trying to teach the principle of IC in a school biology classroom. It's difficult enough to explain the most rudimentary facts of cell biology even to undergraduate medical students.

For what it's worth, although `intelligent design' proponents tend to be religious believers, there is at least one person doing research in this field (whose name escapes me) who claims that life was seeded on earth from space by a bunch of alien genetic engineers. Ironically, this is essentially the same argument that Francis Crick used to account for the insufficient length of time for which the Earth has been hospitable to DNA

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The basis of IC is not that we don't understand how certain biological structures developed, or even that they are too complex to have arisen by Darwinian processes, but that IC structures have no simpler functional precursors. Classic neo-Darwinism requires that every biological entity have a simpler functional precursor, because non-functional structures do not contribute a selection advantage in their current generation. Structures that are alleged to be IC are not all that complex compared to, say, the cell replication machinery. They are complex in a very particular way. Of the 200 or so proteins that comprise the flagellum, it appears that every single one is essential to its proper function. The flagellum has to cross the cell wall, which means that it needs a very complex mechanism even to extrude its components through the wall. Then these components have to be assembled in a very particular way, so that about a hundred different proteins can interact in such a way as to rotate the whole structure. Take one protein away, and the whole thing falls apart (metaphically speaking).

Is there any credence given to the fact that even if the structure wasn’t functional or even part of a co-option it could have had a vestigial precursor or come about in part by a co-option of vestigial structures? I assume this would hinder it’s survival efficiency but I think there are examples of beneficial development attained via detrimental precursor mutations right? IIRC there was some cell disorder that gave rise to a beneficial trait posed about in here recently.

The reason I don't fully buy into IC is that we don't really understand how mechanisms like cooption affect it. It could be argued that, although the flagellum has no functional precursor as a flagellum -- because it wouldn't work -- it has a functional precursor as something completely different. There's little doubt that cooption does occur, but it's not clear whether something as complicated and, above all, specialized as the flagellum can be the result of cooption. Opponents of IC, as I understand it, claim that the flagellum must result from cooption, because otherwise neo-Darwinism is wrong. Proponents claim that the burden of proof is on the opponents to show even one example of cooption of a specialized micro-structure that would serve as a template for the flagellum. That, I think, is the current stalemate.

Without knowing how many precursor structures developed and failed (since there would be no record to my knowledge) wouldn’t it be hard to say if there were dysfunctional precursors? Can something like that ever be preserved in a fossil record?

While IC isn't a `science' in its own right, it's something that has to be accomodated within the prevailing evolutionary model, or explained in terms of it. I reserve judgement on which outcome is most likely Until one of those two things happens, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to present the neo-Darwininan model of evolution as without any credible scientific objection. Sigh... people are going to start accusing me of being a `creationist' for even contemplating such a thing

Not at all. Nobody here, IMHO, seems to have a problem with credible scientific objection. We understand it’s what makes science stronger. It’s not even IC that’s so objectionable to me. It’s the whole ID ball of wax. That’s jumping to radical conclusions from nothing more than a criticism to a current scientific theory and wanting it presented in science class as an alternative to the ToE (Theory of Evolution). That’s out of line.

For all that, I can imagine few things worse than trying to teach the principle of IC in a school biology classroom. It's difficult enough to explain the most rudimentary facts of cell biology even to undergraduate medical students.

For what it's worth, although `intelligent design' proponents tend to be religious believers, there is at least one person doing research in this field (whose name escapes me) who claims that life was seeded on earth from space by a bunch of alien genetic engineers. Ironically, this is essentially the same argument that Francis Crick used to account for the insufficient length of time for which the Earth has been hospitable to DNA

At least his position is potentially verifiable.

P.S. To quote a person you are responding to surround their text with [ q u o t e = n a m e] and [ / q u o t e ] (Without the spaces)

 

[madbear]

AnEmpiricalAgnostic]
Is there any credence given to the fact that even if the structure wasn’t functional or even part of a co-option it could have had a vestigial precursor or come about in part by a co-option of vestigial structures?

You're not asking the right person My field of specialization is (was) the biophysics of the cell membrane. Asking me about cooption in bacteria is like asking a car mechanic for an opinion on the strange knocking noise from your helicopter rotor blades I know that cooption is a biggie in the IC world at the moment. Loads of stuff on this on Bill Demski's web site, e.g.,

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/547

I just don't know the molecular biology well enough to take sides on this one, even if I cared all that much. Which I don't, really, to be honest. It's just not my field.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic]
That’s jumping to radical conclusions from nothing more than a criticism to a current scientific theory and wanting it presented in science class as an alternative to the ToE

Yeah. This whole business makes me a bit itchy. On the one hand, I don't think you can `teach' ID as a science, because there isn't really any science available yet; maybe there never will be. On the other hand, if you teach, even by implication, that the neo-Darwinist model absolutely precludes all forms of religious belief, you're overplaying your hand. It's tricky. FWIW, people who want ID taught in science classes don't make my skin crawl quite as much as people who equate the statement `neo-Darwinism might not be the whole story' with the statement `let's return to witchcraft'. But that's just a matter of personality, not doctrine, and both groups make me want to take a shower, to be quite honest.

FWIW, I don't think that belief in (any) God is contingent on proving that evolution doesn't happen just the way Dawkins and his apostles describe it. That Dawkins a pompous prig doesn't mean he isn't right. I know that some Christians have a hang-up about this, but most don't seem to, not in Europe anyhow. Henry Morris, one of the most vocal critics of ID, is a Catholic, for example. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Dawkins get a poke in the eye, of course

 

[madbear]

Urgh... looks like I didn't get the `quote' thing right

 

[Jet Black]

Classic neo-Darwinism requires that every biological entity have a simpler functional precursor, because non-functional structures do not contribute a selection advantage in their current generation.

look up exaptation.

 

[Jet Black]

For what it's worth, although `intelligent design' proponents tend to be religious believers, there is at least one person doing research in this field (whose name escapes me) who claims that life was seeded on earth from space by a bunch of alien genetic engineers.

probably Chandra Wickramasinghe. The problem with him though is that he seems to think that everything comes from space. the flu? from space. SARS? from space.....

 

[madbear]

look up exaptation.

I don't think exaptation is fundamentally different from cooption/coaptation in this particular context. I think that even IC enthusiasts accept that cooption is potentially a defeater for their theory. Where they disagree with their opponents, I guess, is on the allocation of the burden of proof. Opponents say ``prove that this structure couldn't be a cooptation'', and proponents say ``prove that it could''. Unfortunately, this puts the IC people in position of having to prove a negative. My gut feeling is that if you said to somebody like, e.g., Michael Behe ``Have you ever considered that the flagellum might be a coaptation?'' he probably wouldn't slap himself around that face and cry ``Damn! I never thought of that!''. It isn't as if cooption is today's news, after all.

As I said before, I'm a biologist, but my specialism is the biophysics of the (animal) cell membrane. My knowledge of bacteria extends to learning which antibiotics were good for getting rid of them, about 15 years ago. I'm no more qualified to comment on the evolutionary history of the flagellum than of the big toe. I'm not really interested enough in this subject to get stuck into bacterial microbiology, which I think is what would be required to defend or criticize IC properly.

As I also said, I'm not a particular supporter of IC anyway; I was just trying to represent their position as fairly as possible.

 

[cerad]

It will need a lot more research to determine whether the fundamental tenet of IC is true or not, and it's difficult, time-consuming, and above all expensive research, so it will probably not get done.

To me this is the key point. People and organizations pushing ID are not poor. They have plenty of money and have plenty of sponsors with deep pockets. Instead of just speculating they really should buckle down and do some serious research.

 

[madbear]

To me this is the key point. People and organizations pushing ID are not poor. They have plenty of money and have plenty of sponsors with deep pockets. Instead of just speculating they really should buckle down and do some serious research

My impression is that people who want to investigate issues related to ID as a serious scientific endeavour don't have much money. The problem is that ID has been, well, hijacked (lacking a better word) by people with non-scientific, even anti-scientific motives. For example, ID in the USA has been picked up by right-wing creationist elements. Creationist organizations, on the whole (I appreciate this is a generalization) don't want to fund open-ended, serious scientific research -- they want a stick to beat Darwin with. The kind of people who would be technically competent to carry out research of the quality required, simply do not want to be used in such a way.

I know people who would be interested in investigating `serious' ID issues such as Specified Complexity. It is an interesting and challenging area of multi-disciplinary research, requiring high levels of expertise in biology and mathematics. I know people who would take this on for the pleasure of advancing scientific knowledge, with no partisan interest in the eventual findings. But could they get funding for this? Could they hell. It's difficult enough to make ends meet as a research biologist at the best of times -- I should know. The only way to get the money would be from one of the creationist organizations, and the effect of that would be that nothing you did would ever get published. Nobody would take it seriously. You'd be a `creationist' or a `flat-earther' or a `young-earther' or whatever. Look at Demski's efforts to distance himself from creationism. It doesn't matter how often, and how loudly, he says `I am not a creationist', somebody will say `Aha! But you took money from the Discovery Institute, blah, blah, blah...'. The fact that nobody else was prepared to fund his reasearch doesn't seemed to have occured to them. Well, of course it has; his opponents aren't stupid. But it's easier to shout `creationist!' than to wade through six hundred pages of probability calculus, I guess

 

[cerad]

I never said it would be easy but there are many creationist organizations just rolling in money. So I doubt if funding would be a problem. And in my opinion one should first do the research then worry about getting it published.

 

[madbear]

never said it would be easy but there are many creationist organizations just rolling in money. So I doubt if funding would be a problem. And in my opinion one should first do the research then worry about getting it published.

Ever been a professional scientist? There's a word for a person who starts work without thinking of publication, and that word is `unemployed'.

There's also a word for a person who puts aside his or own principles to make a quick buck, but as this is a family site I won't repeat it.

I find myself being sucked back into defending the ID movement, which I don't really want to do, and I'm not really qualified to anyway. But my point is that you can't just make good science happen with money, even lots of money. Sure you do need lots of money to do molecular biology, but it's not all you need. You need brains, for a start. Since no mainstream biologist is going to get involved with creationist organizations (because apart from anything else, it would be the kiss of death for his career) the creationists would have to recruit and train their own. This would take ten years, at least, to get people with sufficient technical skills and the wits to use them. Then they have to build lab facilities and fit them out. This is mega-$$$.

But why should creationists do this? I'm not aware of any scientist with an interest in ID (as opposed to, say, a politician or a minister of religion) who is saying the kind of things that a young-earther wants to hear. The closest claim I've come across is that DNA was pre-programmed to mutate into particular forms during the cambrian explosion. I don't think that's something I would go a long with, by my point is that it's not going to be any more palatable to a young-earth creationist -- we're still talking about something that happened half a billion years ago, after all, not 4000 years ago.

 

[cerad]

1. Creationist organizations already have mega-$$$ so funding is not an issue.
2. A professional scientist with creationist based funding shouldn't have to worry about being employed.
3. The principles of ID go back at least 200 years. Plenty of time for serious research to have been done.
4. Perhaps a bit off topic but the federal agency National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine had a budget of something like $117 million dollars in FY2004 to fund research into things like homeopathy. If these folks can convince the US taxpayers to give them money then I really don't see why IDers can't as well.
5. The goal of creationism is not to prove ID but rather to discredit evolution. They could care less about the details.

 

[madbear]

1. Creationist organizations already have mega-$$$ so funding is not an issue.
2. A professional scientist with creationist based funding shouldn't have to worry about being employed.
3. The principles of ID go back at least 200 years. Plenty of time for serious research to have been done.
4. Perhaps a bit off topic but the federal agency National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine had a budget of something like $117 million dollars in FY2004 to fund research into things like homeopathy. If these folks can convince the US taxpayers to give them money then I really don't see why IDers can't as well.
5. The goal of creationism is not to prove ID but rather to discredit evolution. They could care less about the details.

I agree with everything you say, at least in part, but still come to different conclusions. Strange, isn't it?

1. No quibble there.

2. As a scientist, I wouldn't take money from a creationist organization. Well, I might if the alternative was starvation, but not otherwise. Why? Because I just can't take enough showers in a day to make it practicable. I've refused funding from tobacco companies for the same basic reason. If you throw in your lot with these people, you're making a life-long committment. It will pay the bills but, you know, so will selling crack. It's extremely difficult to do research properly when it is backed by an organization that has a strong vested interest in the results going in a particular direction. Creationist organizations could recruit their own scientists, as the tobacco companies have. They could even institute their own scientific publications, it anyone would read them. But there's no reason that creationist-funded scientists will be taken any more seriously than tobacco-funded scientists. This is already what is happening with scientists who have received money from creationist sources. They are assumed to be in the pockets of their paymasters, and need not be taken seriously.

3. The `principles' of ID, such as they are, go back a lot further than 200 years. They go back to the earliest days of monotheism, at least. But I assume you're referring to Paley's pocketwatch, etc. You're assuming that modern ID people are claiming at the microbiological level what Paley claimed about the eye, etc., I guess. But I don't think that modern ID claims are even of the same type, let alone of the same level of sophistication. I'm not saying the claims are right -- I don't have the necessary scientific background even to give them a fair reading -- I'm just saying that they aren't just Paley-with-maths.

4. Well, I think the hammer has just hit the nail Why is it possible to get funding for homeopathy and not ID? It's simple -- people understand homeopathy, and have a good reason to care about the results. You might be sceptical, but you'll understand easily enough what it's proponents claim, and you'll know whether the claims stand up or not. ``If you rub this on here, the rash will go away''. It could hardly be simpler. Now, if you take a phenomenon like irreducible complexity, only about one person in ten thousand will know enough about evolutionary biology to understand what is being asserted, and about fifty people worldwide understand the horrendous technical details sufficiently to give a fair and accurate assessment of experimental results. Moreover, most people wouldn't care one way or the other. Most Christians don't really get worked up about evolution, not in Europe at least. Most non-religious people don't care either, because it has damn all effect on their lives. The only people who really care are the geeks who work in the field, the young-earth creationists, and people who think that casting any doubt on Darwinism represents an immediate return to the dark ages. My experience is that it is this latter group that cares most of all.

5. Quite. The problem is that, although opponents of ID keep trying to lump ID proponents in with the Christian right-wing, there's absolutely nothing in ID that stops the `designer' from turning out to be a Martian

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[MartinM]

``If you rub this on here, the rash will go away''

Hah! Good luck pinning a homeopath down to something that specific.

 

[Micaiah]

15. Scientific claims need to be measured and supported mathematically.
16. Be sceptical of any mathematics you see used in science to support the claims made.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Sorry I had to skip out on this conversation but I was attending the Microsoft SQL 2005 Launch Convention in Orlando.

The only people who really care are the geeks who work in the field, the young-earth creationists, and people who think that casting any doubt on Darwinism represents an immediate return to the dark ages. My experience is that it is this latter group that cares most of all.

As you can tell by where I have been, I don’t think I seem to fall in any of your groups. I was always a good science student and probably have a better understanding of biology in general and the ToE specifically than most but the computer industry is where all my serious education dollars and hours go. I have known, but never really cared, about the creationist shenanigans going on in my country. Only when the proverbial fecal matter started hitting the fan with schools seriously considering teaching ID, in science class, as a viable alternative to the ToE to children did I get motivated to get involved in some way. I support organizations like Americans United for the separation of church and state and I am trying to be vocal, in whatever way I can, against the anti-science creationist fringe. I know it’s not much but if everyone did a little to quell this lunacy I think it would go a long way.

I appreciate your objective view and I honestly think you have a good (and honest) take on this whole mess. People on the side defending the ToE seem to get very hardened in their position because the fanatical creationists love to take even the slightest bit of uncertainty about the smallest details of the theory and use it as a reason to throw out the entire thing and inject their god in its place. When you deal with fanatics all the time it tends to make to more fanatical to cope.

Yeah. This whole business makes me a bit itchy. On the one hand, I don't think you can `teach' ID as a science, because there isn't really any science available yet; maybe there never will be.

And this is really the point. As you have said before, the lunatic fringe has hijacked IC and wrapped it in theism and are actively pushing it to be taught in science class. This is what really ****es me off. If my kids are taught ID, as science, with my tax dollars I do think it’s a step back to the dark ages. The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step and if you just these fundies an inch they want to take ten thousand miles.

On the other hand, if you teach, even by implication, that the neo-Darwinist model absolutely precludes all forms of religious belief, you're overplaying your hand.

This is why I appreciate a lot of participants on this forum. They are constantly reminding people that evolution does not equal atheism and vice versa. There are many vocal theistic evolutionists here actually and I appreciate their participation.

It's tricky. FWIW, people who want ID taught in science classes don't make my skin crawl quite as much as people who equate the statement `neo-Darwinism might not be the whole story' with the statement `let's return to witchcraft'. But that's just a matter of personality, not doctrine, and both groups make me want to take a shower, to be quite honest.

Treu, but when you deal with the prople who equate “the ToE might not be the whole story” with “my god must have done it” then it polarizes the debate and harkens back to the days of book burning. You know these people would love to eradicate the ToE from every piece of literature they could get their hands on. While I understand they are the vocal minority, I can’t stand to watch “Evolution is just a theory” stickers slapped on science books and just do nothing.

 

[madbear]

If my kids are taught ID, as science, with my tax dollars I do think it’s a step back to the dark ages. The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step and if you just these fundies an inch they want to take ten thousand miles.

All I can say is -- I feel your pain In British state schools there is still a statutory obligation on schools to hold a `daily communal act of worship', so you can see why ID in science class is a minor concern We don't really have a separation of church and state. What's more, we don't really have a `lunatic fringe' in the sense that I understand you to mean the term. I suspect that most British Christians would prefer the country to be governed by decent and well-meaning atheists than by corrupt, bigoted Christians. I am a vegetarian by conviction, but that doesn't mean I favour vegetarians on polling day either. It's also worth bearing in mind that I live in London, where every school classroom will contain representatives of at least three different religious traditions; the likelyhood of imposing a fringe Christian curriculum on London schools would be very low, I think.

I guess my real gripe with creationists is not creationism per se, but with all the socio-political baggage it has picked up. It seems (from what I see of the USA) that if you are adherent of creationism, you are ipso facto a proponent of far right politics, a bigot, a defender of social inequality, and a homophobe (although I'm sure that doesn't apply to everyone). Even if you erase the creationism, you're still left with a very unattractive picture, and a form of Christianity that I think most British Christians would have no more in common with than they would with Bhuddists.

From a UK perspective, I thought that the Santorem ammendment was an emminently sensible idea (you know, the one where science education should prepare students to distinguish testable theories of science from philosophical claims made in the name of science, or whatever it was). In fact, when I first heard this, I thought it would be relatively uncontroversial. Hah! Apparently it's a `creationist's charter'. But now I think: if the Santorem ammendment is the thin end of the wedge that has a militant theocracy at the thick end, I wouldn't support it either.

I don't want my children to be taught that science (any form of science) is a defeater for religious or spiritual belief. I don't mind all that much what religious views, if any, my children end up with, but I would like them to have the opportunity to develop some if their own instincts take them that way. I also want them to have a healthy respect for science because, if nothing else, science is what pays the bills in our household. There is at least one person who posts on these forums who is a science teacher, and claims that it is his job to blow all the religious cobwebs out of his student's heads with the clean fresh air of evolution. Some people think that the world would be a better place if completely cleansed of religion; I, personally, do not.

So, in short, yes: science in science classes, philosophy in philosophy classes. But disallowing ID, etc., from science classes must be matched by disallowing science classes as a vehicle for promoting a materialistic philosophy that goes beyond what science claims.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Some people think that the world would be a better place if completely cleansed of religion; I, personally, do not.

On this I’m inclined to disagree but I think it’s due to a differing view of what religion is. I welcome those that would think deeply about the questions of life and develop a personal philosophy about life’s great mysteries. If their philosophy leads them to a god or not I believe they have the right to have it. Religion, OTOH, grabs young impressionable minds and forces a theistic philosophy on them by inculcation. I think that the potential for abuse in this process has been and is apparent in some of he worst atrocities in man’s history. I also believe it hinders our scientific advancement as a whole. When science contradicts their belief they are conditioned to rail against science in favor of their inculcated beliefs against all logic lest they burn in hell for eternity. I think it’s an inherently dishonest institution at the end of the day.

So, in short, yes: science in science classes, philosophy in philosophy classes. But disallowing ID, etc., from science classes must be matched by disallowing science classes as a vehicle for promoting a materialistic philosophy that goes beyond what science claims.

On this we are in perfect agreement.

 

[USincognito]

15. Scientific claims need to be measured and supported mathematically.
16. Be sceptical of any mathematics you see used in science to support the claims made.

I thought you'd deserted your own thread.

Doesn't number 16 invalidate 15?

Look at it this way. If we offer mathmatically based argument X, does it not require an application of Occam's adage to check whether it is the simplist argument, or just some red herring meant to distract from the actual discussion of evidence?

To further focus, let's say DNA and fossils as evidence of common ancestry. Now, we can do the math and make sure the evidence offered is all in the numb3rs via morphology and genetic analysis, but what line of thinking should lead us to be skeptical of those numbers if they turn out to validate the common ancestry hypotheisis? Because we don't like them?

I mentioned in another thread, and started one discussing it, the book "What does it mean to be 98% Chimpanzee" by Jonathan Marks. A lot of his conclusions and assertions could be construed to be maddening for "evolutionists," but what they amount to are disagreements in degree, not in conclusion. He still thinks that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 6-8 million years ago.

Again, like the stopped clock, you're correct. One should be skeptical of the numbers (like the 98% genetic similarity), but one should not then overlay credulousness in order to bolster one's point that humans and chimps did not descend from a common ancestor.

 

[madbear]

Religion, OTOH, grabs young impressionable minds and forces a theistic philosophy on them by inculcation

Fair enough. Irreligion also has an impact on impressionable minds. So does Disneyland. It's hard to be a parent. It's natural, I think, for parents to want their children to follow the religious practices that they themselves have -- I think it's expecting a great deal from parents not to encourage this. It's also natural, I think, for a Christian to want to spread the message. Irritating, but natural After all, the NT starts with ``This is the beginning of the good news''. It's expecting a great deal of people to keep good news to themselves.

The problem is that, if you've got parents passing the message on to their children, and other Christians on to everybody else, before long you've got a church. Given sufficient time and zeal, you've got an Institution. When you've got an Institution, I guess that's when the potential for serious abuses of authority arise.

I think that the potential for abuse in this process has been and is apparent in some of he worst atrocities in man’s history

There's no doubt that religious arguments have been used to justify some thoroughly discreditable actions over the course of history. FWIW, institutional atheism does not have an unblemished record in this respect either; but two wrongs don't make a right.

If you're considering religious belief as a social force, I guess the only important question is: on balance, does good or bad come from this? Where Christianity is concerned, it can be argued either way, I think. For my part, I think that the arguments that Christianity is a force for social good are somewhat more cogent and compelling than arguments that it is a force for ill. But it's not overwhelming, and I appreciate that, as far as winning hearts and minds is concerned, ``On balance, Christianity probably doesn't f**k up the world'' isn't really a winner.

I also believe it hinders our scientific advancement as a whole. When science contradicts their belief they are conditioned to rail against science in favor of their inculcated beliefs against all logic lest they burn in hell for eternity

Well I think this is also true for people with a thorough-going materialist world-wiew but, again, two wrongs don't make a right. I suppose a counter-argument is that, in practice, (in the UK, at least) the proportion of professional scientists who actively follow a religion is somewhat higher than the proportion in the population in general. I can't speak for other countries. There is quite a marked subject-to-subject variation -- religious observance is quite rare in biology, which isn't really surprising, but much more obvious in the physical sciences, for example. In the UK, so far as I can tell, schools associated with religious movements teach the same amount of science, in the same way, as ordinary state schools, and I don't see much evidence that religious youths are discouraged from pursuing careers in science.