Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa: You are at the next layer. The question is: why does the UNIVERSE exist? Answer: Because God created it. Next question: why did God create the universe. Possible answer: Because it pleased God to do so. Next question: Why did it please God to do so?

OK, we left science behind some time ago, didn't we? I mean, getting into the personal preference of a hypothetical deity doesn't sound like something that's ever going to make it into Science or Nature.

Not now when we don't have the data or tools to even say there IS a deity. But you wouldn't write the article NOW. You would only write it AFTER you answer the first two layers. And then you would have to have the tools to get empirical data on the question.

Depends. I assume that this multi-universe business came out of (or at least via) cosmology theory, not just directly out of the recesses of someone's imagination.

It came out of attempts to deal with the second question: why does the universe have this order rather than some other order? The weak Anthropic Principle says the universe has this order because it is the order that allows us to be here to observe it. Hypothesizing an infinite number of universes each with different order guarantees that, by chance, ONE of them will have the order we see.

Theories can be falsified by experiment, but they can also be shown to be incorrect in themselves. My PhD research was pure theory, no experiment at all, but it could still have been shown to be incorrect by someone going through it and finding mistakes in the mathematics.

Isn't testing to see if the math is correct an experiment to attempt to falsify the theory?

The multi-universe scenario, even if not testable by experiment (that we know of), could be shown to be scientifically impossible if the theory itself is shown to be incorrect.

Uh, aren't all falsified theories "scientifically impossible if the theory is shown to be incorrect"? Isn't that what we are saying about ID adn creationism?

I think what you meant to say "if there is a mathematical error such that there is a mathematical contradiction"

Pure math theories are also tested by comparing what the math says the universe should look like to the real universe. This is why Einstein put lambda in his equations of relativity. By themselves, the first equations showed a universe collapsing due to gravity. Therefore they were false. Lambda -- the cosmological constant -- was there as a repulsive force to keep this from happening. Only then did the equations match the universe we see.

String Theory is in this mode now. Various forms of string theory have been falsified as the equations are not consistent with the universe we observe.

Scientifically we're that much further forward if we know which theories are self-consistent and which aren't.

What do you mean by "self-consistent"? Do you mean the math is mathematically correct? Or do you mean that the mathematical theory is consistent with the universe we observe? Either one is an experimental test of the theory.

Although while I was doing my PhD, I and my colleagues were forever coming up against the opinion of experimental scientist that theoretical research was a total waste of space,

Nearly ALL hypotheses/theories are "theoretical" at the beginning. That is, they are leaps of imagination that, at the moment of conception, do not have ties to experiment. The FIRST test of a new hypothesis (by the hypothesizer) is alwasy to test it against known data. Most hypotheses die right there as experiments already done (but perhaps not known to the hypothesizer) falsify it.

("I'm not having some thoretician tell me what I can't do..." - sigh -).

In that sense, they are right.

"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself. " In the way you are using it, self-consistency falls under "how things logically ought to be". That doesn't mean they are.

 

[lucaspa]

That wasn't polite was it? (can you guess where this is going to come up again?)

You already said we didn't have to be polite when you said you had no respect for me. Having foregone politeness, it's a little hypocritical to hold me to a standard that you say you don't have to.

See? I had a feeling you got what I was saying all along.

The problem, DGB, is that this is NOT the ONLY thing you have been saying. You may have meant it to be the only thing, but what you meant and what you have been saying are not the same thing.

I suspect that's why you don't want to get specific. I submit that you know that you have been saying the specifics, but don't want to admit it.

 

[lucaspa]

Like what? I have yet to hear any scientific explination of the beginning that was any more plausable than God did it.

Like Siliconaut, I want to hear how do you define "more plausible"? Also, you are making this more plausible to YOU, which is not the same as "more plausible" objectively. So what are your subjective criteria for plausibility?

 

[lucaspa]

[/color][/font]


Simplicity is no evidence of truth - one can't repeat that too often...

VERY GOOD. You do realize that you just discarded Occam's Razor as a means of determining truth, don't you? That's fine. It should be discarded. I just wanted to make sure you realize it.

 

[Cantuar]

Isn't testing to see if the math is correct an experiment to attempt to falsify the theory?

Not really. It's just a check to make sure you didn't screw up. Unless you have some independent way of coming at the problem mathematically, I don't really think it has the same weight as experimental testing of a mathematically correct and scientifically sensible theory.

What do you mean by "self-consistent"? Do you mean the math is mathematically correct?

Yes. And if other things are correct too. If you leave out some important scientific aspect, you have a fairly useless theory even if what you have is mathematically correct. And you don't necessarily need an experimental test to tell that you've left out something you ought to have included.

("I'm not having some thoretician tell me what I can't do..." - sigh -).
* *
In that sense, they are right.

Not in the sense they were using. It was much more a case of "you have no right to tell me that." Some of the experimental scientists really didn't think that the theory group was doing anything relevant, so when we came up with things that applied to their work, they ignored it because it was just a bunch of stuff on paper that clearly had no bearing on their work in the lab, and people who didn't work in the lab couldn't possibly have anything useful to say. It wasn't that they took the work we did and tried to falsify it or test it; they just dismissed it. You'd say, "It won't work; look at the equations," and the answer would be along the lines of, "*** the equations! Who needs equations!" and they'd go ahead regardless and waste a lot of time on stuff that wasn't going to work because they didn't think the theory was relevant. Grrrr...

 

[ikester7579]

The Bible wasn't thrown out. The local high school has a copy in the library.

Have you looked lately? Mine does not.

Why is Christianity not promoted in public schools? Not from science, but from the lesson of
1. The Reformation Wars, where governments were linked to particular Christian denominations and killed people who worshipped differently.

Yep, your right. Man taken God's word and using it to their own adavatage. But I'm sure you don't judge all Christians by this do you? To even bring up something like this as an example makes me think you do.

2. From the Puritans fleeing persecution in England where the Anglican Church was the religion supported by the government.
3. From the laws of various states in the 1700s. If you were not a Congregationalist and lived in Massachusetts, you were taxed to support the Congregational Church. In Virginia, you were taxed to support the Episcopalian Church.

Maybe. And all who did wrong in the eyes of God will be judged accordingly. No one is exempt from judgement.

So the Founding Fathers kept religion private and would not allow the schools to support a particular religion. At first, this was mostly to keep rival denominations of Christians from fighting, but later it keeps Christians from oppressing Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Jainists, and atheists. Notice that none of these is allowed to promote their religion either.

Wrong! In Califrona they teach Islam right in school. They say the Quran(correct spelling) prayer everyday and they have a banner out side the school that says Allah is the only God!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25997
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/prin....com/archives/articles/2002/6/27/165113.shtml
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/020802IslamTaught.asp?option=print

Actually, the battle has always been the other way. Remember, the laws were originally forbidding the teaching of evolution. Science was attacked by Biblical literalists.

And which way is it now? Does that make you and science and evolution any better for it? Evolution put itself in the same catagory as the ones you speak of by now doing the same, and saying: It's okay that we do it, but not when you do it?

Just Biblical literalists, not "those in the christian faith". Remembver, Ikester, the people who sued to keep creationISM out of public school in Arkansas were ALL Judeo-Christians. Of 26 plaintiffs, 23 were ministers or rabbis. They included the Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, and African-Methodist bishops of Arkansas.

Your right. And most of them did not even believe that Jesus ever came back and died on the cross. That was their main objection to creationism. Is that "one part" about Jesus, would be taught also and they did not like that. And when people can't agree(which includes scienctists) they vote to disagree as well. Even though it may hurt them more than it helps.

No one ever said you couldn't talk about creationism in a philosophy and comparative religion classroom. You just can't teach it as what it is not: a valid scientific theory. Actually, you could teach it like geocentrism is taught -- a falsified theory -- but you wouldn't approve of that, would you?

Found another way to call us liars again have you? Has evolution been proven? YES OR NO! NO? Well I rest my case. But be sure to use your scientific jargon to explain it away why science cannot, but still make it sound like fact even though it's a theory. But O yes, there's "scientific theory". It's so much better than theory. Because it has all those working mechanISM that make it look and sound so cool. Then just add 1% fact and it works. And if someone challenges it, we will use our philosophy about theories and how they work to explain and confuse the masses so they will feel stupid for even asking. Sound about right?

Ikester, this sounds like a rant against atheism. If you want to protest what you consider undue influence of atheism in public schools, that's fine. But the basic flaw here is that science is atheistic. It's not.

Yeah, that's right. Darwin mention God in his book and that makes everything ok. When Darwin wrote his book, he had to factor in how was he gonna make that book more acceptable in a mainly christian society. Should he attack the christian faith? If he did, it would have been suicide for his book and his idea(evolution). So when God was mentioned, he made sure he had only nice things to say. But he made sure that those nice things did not include him in the christian faith as a current believer. Which should be an example to all who believe evolution that Darwin gave it up Any belief in God to push his idea(evolution) because he knew they did not mix. Darwin dying without Christ should be an example. For he was the father of evolution.

If you want to fight atheism as a rival faith, then go ahead. BUT, if you don't realize that science is NOT your enemy and keep this mistaken notion that science is atheism, then you will lose your fight against atheism. You are fighting the wrong "enemy" in the wrong place.

And I guess now your gonna say that you believe in God? And if not, what are you? And as long as science, evolution, etc.. challenges the word of God and how he created everything, Then they are against God. Because if you were for him, you would respect my veiws of his word and we would not even be having this debate.

 

[Cantuar]

Found another way to call us liars again have you? Has evolution been proven? YES OR NO! NO?

Has germ theory been proven? No. Has atomic theory been proven? No. Has the theory of orbirts been proven? No. Do we teach that microorganisms cause disease without hedging it about that it's just an unproved theory? Of course we do. Do we teach that matter is made up of atoms without wringing our hands that atomic theory isn't proved? Sure. Do we teach that moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars without people objecting that we're introducing some new religion? All the time. Evolution is the same as those others. And none of them have any bearing on the existence of God. So this charge that evolution is somehow different from the other theories in being godless is just so much nonsense.

 

[Siliconaut]

VERY GOOD. You do realize that you just discarded Occam's Razor as a means of determining truth, don't you? That's fine. It should be discarded. I just wanted to make sure you realize it.

I discarded the Razor awhile ago, after realizing it's a nearly useless tool for science.

The universe is complicated, and simple "truths" have a tendency of not fitting in.

 

[ikester7579]

Has germ theory been proven? No. Has atomic theory been proven? No. Has the theory of orbirts been proven? No. Do we teach that microorganisms cause disease without hedging it about that it's just an unproved theory? Of course we do. Do we teach that matter is made up of atoms without wringing our hands that atomic theory isn't proved? Sure. Do we teach that moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars without people objecting that we're introducing some new religion? All the time. Evolution is the same as those others. And none of them have any bearing on the existence of God. So this charge that evolution is somehow different from the other theories in being godless is just so much nonsense.

Yep your right. But why does science and those who promote it, use it to push God out of the picture? If this were not the case, then creation would be accepted as an optional theory. But is it? And why? Cause with all that science is, God is always gonna be in the way. If not. Why are we even having this debate. You would respect my veiws on God and his word instead trying to knock it down and discredit it. Or is that the scienctific way of being friendly?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Wrong! In Califrona they teach Islam right in school. They say the Quran(correct spelling) prayer everyday and they have a banner out side the school that says Allah is the only God!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25997
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/prin....com/archives/articles/2002/6/27/165113.shtml
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/020802IslamTaught.asp?option=print

You might want to double check the story there. It sounds like the article exaggerated the story for the purpose of cheesing off people like yourself.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/byronislam.htm
http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

Also, you can check the California Grade Seven History-Social Science Content Standards.

The standards they apply to teaching of the history of Islamic culture also apply to teachings of other cultures, including China, Japan, Africa, Europe, etc. (And no, there's nothing about giant banners or prayers to Allah in there.)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yep your right. But why does science and those who promote it, use it to push God out of the picture? If this were not the case, then creation would be accepted as an optional theory. But is it? And why? Cause with all that science is, God is always gonna be in the way.

ikester, falsifying creationism has nothing to do with "pushing God out of the picture". Creationism is a specific idea of how God created everything. However, people that have examined the physical evidence in His Creation have concluded that the evidence does not show that God created as per the idea of creationism (specifically Young-Earth creationism).

To accept it as an "optional theory" has nothing to do with God. It has to do with intellectual honesty and the reality that the evidence does not fit the proposed idea that God created via creationism.

 

[Siliconaut]

@ikester:

Why is Christianity not promoted in public schools? Not from science, but from the lesson of
1. The Reformation Wars, where governments were linked to particular Christian denominations and killed people who worshipped differently.
Yep, your right. Man taken God's word and using it to their own adavatage. But I'm sure you don't judge all Christians by this do you? To even bring up something like this as an example makes me think you do.

Wrong - the reason why no particular religion should be promoted is, that we have hopefully learned from the error of linking goverment and religion. Don't blame the christian, blame organized christianity.

2. From the Puritans fleeing persecution in England where the Anglican Church was the religion supported by the government.
3. From the laws of various states in the 1700s. If you were not a Congregationalist and lived in Massachusetts, you were taxed to support the Congregational Church. In Virginia, you were taxed to support the Episcopalian Church.
Maybe. And all who did wrong in the eyes of God will be judged accordingly. No one is exempt from judgement.

Welcome to non-sequitur land? If you would care to elaborate, please?

Wrong! In Califrona they teach Islam right in school. They say the Quran(correct spelling) prayer everyday and they have a banner out side the school that says Allah is the only God!

And christians are allowed to wear crosses and sing "praise the lord". So what? The worst mistake would be to ban islamic religion classes and leave the pupils in the clutches of fanatic imams in quran school - and the same holds true for christian kids, btw...

And which way is it now? Does that make you and science and evolution any better for it? Evolution put itself in the same catagory as the ones you speak of by now doing the same, and saying: It's okay that we do it, but not when you do it?

Is your "beign repressed" reflex playing up a bit? Last time I checked, the teaching of christianity in religion classes was legal. Teaching falsified theories in science class would be giving false witness, something christians are specifically exhorted not to do.

Your right. And most of them did not even believe that Jesus ever came back and died on the cross. That was their main objection to creationism. Is that "one part" about Jesus, would be taught also and they did not like that. And when people can't agree(which includes scienctists) they vote to disagree as well. Even though it may hurt them more than it helps.

I'd like to see you back up your claim that the suing christians did not believe in Jesus' crucification.

Found another way to call us liars again have you? Has evolution been proven? YES OR NO! NO?

Do you have eyes to read? Yes or no? Science does not *prove* theories, it tries as hard as it can to disprove them. CreationISM has ben *disproven*. Relilgion does not *prove* anything, either, and it shuns evidence as this would interfere with faith.

Well I rest my case. But be sure to use your scientific jargon to explain it away why science cannot, but still make it sound like fact even though it's a theory. But O yes, there's "scientific theory". It's so much better than theory. Because it has all those working mechanISM that make it look and sound so cool. Then just add 1% fact and it works. And if someone challenges it, we will use or philosophy about theories and how they work to explain and confuse the masses so they will feel stupid for even asking. Sound about right?

All you have shown is that, even though it has been spoon-fed to you a dozen times, you don't want to understand how science works, as this tears your strawman to shreds. Science observes facts, then, a hypothesis is constructed to explain these. If it can, and additional observations and intensive peer-review do not do away with it, it is accepted as a reliable theory. There are no class distinctions, even though you try to pass science off as being arrogant and superioristic. If even 1% of the facts cancels out a theory, it gets thrown out of the window. Philosophy doesn't even enter the equation, no matter how much you wish it were so.

Darwin mention God in his book and that makes everything ok

You do have a Darwin fixation, don't you? He doesn't just mention god, he ascribes to him the obvious source of creation, the founder of everything. If you call that a mentioning, the bible mentions god, too.

And I guess now your gonna say that you believe in God? And if not, what are you? And as long as science, evolution, etc.. challenges the word of God and how he created everything, Then they are against God. Because if you were for him, you would respect my veiws of his word and we would not even be having this debate.

Ignorance must be bliss. Lucaspa and I had our clashes, since I'm resolutely atheistic and he resolutely christian. It's your interpretation of christianity that doesn't wash with the idea that a person can understand science and still be a devout christian...

BTW: I don't see how this forum should work if everyone utterly respected everyone's worldview, and were loathe to post anything that might involve the other in discussion... after all, it's a *discussion* forum...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Because if you were for him, you would respect my veiws of his word and we would not even be having this debate.

Nice quote ikester. Reeeal nice. You want people to respect your views? How can they, when you've effectively made the statement that people who disagree with you are against God.

You are NOT God. You do not get to decide the final word on the Holy Bible. Your opinions and views are just that: your opinions and views. Only God gets the final say in the matter. But you are NOT Him.

 

[ikester7579]

I have also noticed that science, scientists and evolutionists always have a prepared statement against God and his word. If science accepted those who believe in God, they would not have gone to so much trouble. Web sites that train you on how to debate a christian. Forums on science that do not welcome christians and mock them at every turn. Sites that specialize in any type of info you need to discredit a christian and his belief and his God. Here's one example: http://www.objectivethought.com/apologetics/debateaxian.html I'm sure you can make good use of it. I have even seen some of those answers here. There are a lot more sites on this. Most are very hateful. And most include those who say they are scientists against God.

 

[ikester7579]

Nice quote ikester. Reeeal nice. You want people to respect your views? How can they, when you've effectively made the statement that people who disagree with you are against God.

You are NOT God. You do not get to decide the final word on the Holy Bible. Your opinions and views are just that: your opinions and views. Only God gets the final say in the matter. But you are NOT Him.

Ok, quote one post where I said I was God? Hmmm. Can't find it? Hmmm. Makes me wonder. Is this a tacket to try and throw me off? I don't get it. If I did not say it, then why you acting as if I did?
Or is this: If you express you veiws, your are trying to replace God. Because you are not entitled to your own veiws.
Is this what your trying to tell me? My veiws make me sound like God?
Your just to funny.

 

[Siliconaut]

I have also noticed that science, scientists and evolutionists always have a prepared statement against God and his word.

Ikester, I've noticed christians always have a prepared statement for god and his word. Christians have lots of websites explaining how to debate with atheists, forums where skeptics are not allowed, sites where scientific findings are misrepresented, ignored, hushed up and falsely "disproven" - are you setting double standards here?

Your tactic seems to remain the same, though: If you can't answer a question, duck it and flail wildly.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I have also noticed that science, scientists and evolutionists always have a prepared statement against God and his word. If science accepted those who believe in God, they would not have gone to so much trouble. Web sites that train you on how to debate a christian. Forums on science that do not welcome christians and mock them at every turn. Sites that specialize in any type of info you need to discredit a christian and his belief and his God. Here's one example: http://www.objectivethought.com/apologetics/debateaxian.html I'm sure you can make good use of it. I have even seen some of those answers here. There are a lot more sites on this. Most are very hateful. And most include those who say they are scientists against God.

ikester, you are talking about atheism versus theism. However, science is NOT atheism. Some people may use science as a tool to promote their atheism. But others use science as a tool to promote their theism. However, science is neither atheistic nor theistic. It is the individuals who decide their beliefs, not science.

 

[Siliconaut]

@ikester:

Ok, quote one post where I said I was God? Hmmm. Can't find it?

Pete did that:

And as long as science, evolution, etc.. challenges the word of God and how he created everything, Then they are against God. Because if you were for him, you would respect my veiws of his word and we would not even be having this debate.

This shows that you equal your interpretation with god's word. If someone conflicts with your worldview, he conflicts with god. Aha.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Is this what your trying to tell me? My veiws make me sound like God? Your just to funny.

Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to tell you.

You stated very plainly, "And as long as science, evolution, etc.. challenges the word of God and how he created everything, Then they are against God. Because if you were for him, you would respect my veiws of his word and we would not even be having this debate."

You are heavily implying (if not outright stating) that people who disagree with you about your view of the Bible are against God--and therefore, not Christian. But you do not get to decide who is and isn't a Christian. Only God does.

If this is not what you meant in your post, then I'd advise you to choose your words more carefully so there is no confusion. Implying that people are not Christian because they disagree with your view of the Bible is not a good debating tactic.

 

[ikester7579]

Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to tell you.

You stated very plainly, "And as long as science, evolution, etc.. challenges the word of God and how he created everything, Then they are against God. Because if you were for him, you would respect my veiws of his word and we would not even be having this debate."

You are heavily implying (if not outright stating) that people who disagree with you about your view of the Bible are against God--and therefore, not Christian. But you do not get to decide who is and isn't a Christian. Only God does.

If this is not what you meant in your post, then I'd advise you to choose your words more carefully so there is no confusion. Implying that people are not Christian because they disagree with your view of the Bible is not a good debating tactic.

You seem to be mixing words here. I use the word "respect" my veiw. I did not say "accept" my veiws. The rest that you posted I agree with.
If I had said accept my veiws. Then it would mean that I thought everyone should believe the way I do. And to disagree means their not christian. But I did not say that now did I?
Respect does not push veiws of anything on any one.