Reasons To Believe...wow

[On the Narrow Road]

Thank you... most of us are already well aware of where the exact phrase "separation of church and state" comes from. But regardless of where the words originate, the idea of remaining religiously neutral, and not using government authority to promote any one religious ideology over another, is inferred in the Constitution... at least according to a long history of Supreme Court decisions.

So while we appreciate the history lesson, it really doesn't change SCOTUS's rather dim view of government institutions promoting anybody's religion under the guise of science.

As you said, "study harder."

Study harder is always good advice. There are some really good books out there discussing original intent, maybe we should all read them. By the way, when the country was founded, did we pray in school? Did we teach Creation in school? Another good question..was the Bible used in school?

Just because the Supreme Court reaches a decision, doesn't make it the right one. Roe vs. Wade comes to mind. How about the decision that governments could sieze private property to give to a developer, thus increasing the tax base. This decision doesn't require a public need and clearly violates the property rights of the citizens. How about the fact that the Supreme Court is considering international law and the laws of other countries in their Constitutional decisions? I find the to be very disturbing.

I guess the bottom line is that people are fallable and tend to view the world through the prism of their own belief system. Thus we get liberal judges imposing their views on the counrty. We also get both sides of the creation/evolution debate looking to prove their position.

I personally don't believe in evolution as I find the evidence to be weak at best. If taught appropriately, with it's flaws and shortcomings, I have no problem with it being taught in schools. But I have to agree with some of the earlier posters, evolution takes a certain amount of belief. And when one believes something to be true, they view the evidence in that light. I don't claim to have the answers, but I think it is premature to believe that evolution occurred as is currently explained in the textbooks. I wonder how much more we might discover with science if the majority of our scientists didn't limit themselves by approaching new discoveries with belief that evolution occurred.

Just my 2 cents worth. Hopefully we can all learn from each other as we watch this debate continue. It is obvious it will not end in the near future...unless we go over to the end times section

God bless!

 

[random_guy]

I personally don't believe in evolution as I find the evidence to be weak at best. If taught appropriately, with it's flaws and shortcomings, I have no problem with it being taught in schools. But I have to agree with some of the earlier posters, evolution takes a certain amount of belief. And when one believes something to be true, they view the evidence in that light. I don't claim to have the answers, but I think it is premature to believe that evolution occurred as is currently explained in the textbooks. I wonder how much more we might discover with science if the majority of our scientists didn't limit themselves by approaching new discoveries with belief that evolution occurred.

Just my 2 cents worth. Hopefully we can all learn from each other as we watch this debate continue. It is obvious it will not end in the near future...unless we go over to the end times section

God bless!

You mean how much scientific work would not be done/redone. A large part of biology works in tandem with universal common descent. This is because we can compare biological systems to determine what makes them different through the use of cladistics. Without UCD, we would have no idea what makes other animals similar. Common design doesn't work, since any similarities are explained by common design, but any differences are explained as creative design. Evolutionary theory explains both similarities and differences. Common design just says, "just because". Do a scholar.google search on biological research, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Science doesn't assume evolution, it's a conclusion based on the evidence. Your statement makes about the same amount of sense as thinking what amazing discoveries would be made if scientists didn't assume gravity happened, atoms existed, or germs cause disease.

Second, I'm all for teaching shortcomings of evolution. However, can you name one that's not a PRATT? Can you think of any scientific reasons to reject evolution? Any scientific evidence against evolution?

 

[Dannager]

If taught appropriately, with it's flaws and shortcomings, I have no problem with it being taught in schools.

That's how it's taught currently. Fortunately, its flaws and shortcomings are few and far between.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Study harder is always good advice. There are some really good books out there discussing original intent, maybe we should all read them. By the way, when the country was founded, did we pray in school? Did we teach Creation in school? Another good question..was the Bible used in school?

Much has changed in 400 years. And the Constitution didn't come along until quite some time after the Country was founded.

Just because the Supreme Court reaches a decision, doesn't make it the right one. Roe vs. Wade comes to mind. How about the decision that governments could sieze private property to give to a developer, thus increasing the tax base. This decision doesn't require a public need and clearly violates the property rights of the citizens. How about the fact that the Supreme Court is considering international law and the laws of other countries in their Constitutional decisions? I find the to be very disturbing.

Not only is it your right to be disturbed, but in some cases, I'm disturbed by it right along with you. But the issue is the law. Feel free to disagree with the law all you want, but recognize that it is the law until it gets changed.

And in the case of Church/State Separation, it's a good law. I, personally, neither need nor want my government throwing its official weight behind anybody's God... not even my own.

I guess the bottom line is that people are fallable and tend to view the world through the prism of their own belief system. Thus we get liberal judges imposing their views on the counrty.

And conservative judges doing the same, so hopefully, it all evens out.

We also get both sides of the creation/evolution debate looking to prove their position.

Except that the overwhelming majority of evidence is solidly on the evolution side.

I personally don't believe in evolution as I find the evidence to be weak at best. If taught appropriately, with it's flaws and shortcomings, I have no problem with it being taught in schools. But I have to agree with some of the earlier posters, evolution takes a certain amount of belief.

Such as?

And when one believes something to be true, they view the evidence in that light. I don't claim to have the answers, but I think it is premature to believe that evolution occurred as is currently explained in the textbooks.

My brother is a schoolteacher, and he could give you a long tirade about the quality of textbooks in this country... certainly there's room for improvement in how evolution is presented.

I wonder how much more we might discover with science if the majority of our scientists didn't limit themselves by approaching new discoveries with belief that evolution occurred.

And what would the new "limits" be?

 

[vossler]

I'm all for teaching shortcomings of evolution. However, can you name one that's not a PRATT? Can you think of any scientific reasons to reject evolution? Any scientific evidence against evolution?

I really don't believe evolutionists are for teaching the shortcomings of evolution. It's counter-productive reasoning to state this. Why would a group of people who have a belief system promote the teaching of any material that could prove their belief to be wrong? When in the past presented with evidence that is contrary to their own position the evidence is summarily dismissed.

 

[sfs]

I really don't believe evolutionists are for teaching the shortcomings of evolution. It's counter-productive reasoning to state this. Why would a group of people who have a belief system promote the teaching of any material that could prove their belief to be wrong? When in the past presented with evidence that is contrary to their own position the evidence is summarily dismissed.

Scientists of all sorts, not just those studying evolution, generally favor teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of current scientific knowledge. They are much less interested in having invalid criticisms of science taught, however. Almost all of the arguments I've seen advanced against evolution have been, to be frank, really crappy. They deserved to be summarily dismissed.

Your response seems to rest on a serious misunderstanding: evolution is not a "belief system", but a scientific theory (or set of theories), accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields, regardless of their philosphical or religious belief systems.

 

[vossler]

Your response seems to rest on a serious misunderstanding: evolution is not a "belief system", but a scientific theory (or set of theories), accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields, regardless of their philosphical or religious belief systems.

Yes I believe it is a belief system based upon a scientific theory. That's why you can have so many atheists, agnostics and christians believing it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I really don't believe evolutionists are for teaching the shortcomings of evolution. It's counter-productive reasoning to state this. Why would a group of people who have a belief system promote the teaching of any material that could prove their belief to be wrong? When in the past presented with evidence that is contrary to their own position the evidence is summarily dismissed.

because the scientific theory of evolution is not a belief system therefore is not only not beyond challenge but it challenged constantly as a matter of routine science.

i missed the evidence contra evolution, can you repost it please? i've spent 30 years looking for it, thus far, unsuccessfully.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes I believe it is a belief system based upon a scientific theory. That's why you can have so many atheists, agnostics and christians believing it.

this is the category error, the failure to distinguish between the levels of the discussion.

there is a science of the theory of evolution. it talks about common descent, random mutation and natural selection.

there is a metaphysics of scientism or evolutionism or materialism or naturalism, you choose your favorite label.

they are not the same thing.
for instance


the TofE states that man is an animal.
the metaphysics states that man is nothing but an animal.
these are very different kinds of statements, the first is a scientific one, the second is a metaphysical one.

to continually confuse the two systems is to fight good science with bad theology and miss the important battle of fighting bad metaphysics with good theology, to be AWOL from the battle of our times, because you mistaken the levels.

i do not believe the TofE, i am convinced by the evidence that it is a good theory. i am not a metaphysical naturalist i am a supernaturalist. to confuse the two is to lose sight of the real issues. when someone says the man is nothing but an animal he is making a metaphysical claim not a scientific one. when the TofE says that man is continuous with the rest of life via common descent it is not saying that you do not have a soul.

it would be nice if people could see this point.

 

[random_guy]

I really don't believe evolutionists are for teaching the shortcomings of evolution. It's counter-productive reasoning to state this. Why would a group of people who have a belief system promote the teaching of any material that could prove their belief to be wrong? When in the past presented with evidence that is contrary to their own position the evidence is summarily dismissed.

Please, by all means, start listing off scientific weaknesses of evolution. I'm all for it, but I have yet to see valid argument against evolution. Let's see the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the irreducibility complex, the no beneficial mutation, or the "can't gain information" theories get listed off. How many of those have been published in scientific journals? What scientific evidence do you have against evolution, let's see it.

 

[random_guy]

Yes I believe it is a belief system based upon a scientific theory. That's why you can have so many atheists, agnostics and christians believing it.

Let me guess, gravity, math, and germs are also belief systems. That's why atheists, agnostics, and Christians support it? Isn't it amazing how one line easily show the flaws in your logic?

 

[vossler]

Let me guess, gravity, math, and germs are also belief systems.

Not as far as I know, unless there's something new that I'm not aware of. Are they now making claims that can't be proven too?

 

[random_guy]

Not as far as I know, unless there's something new that I'm not aware of. Are they now making claims that can't be proven too?

Seeing how nothing is proven in science, I'm going to say yes. This is what happens when you get people that are less knowledge about science debating about the validity of science in an irrational way. Please tell me why evolution is a belief system because people of all religions accept it, but gravity is not, even though peopl eof all religions also accept gravity.

 

[sfs]

Yes I believe it is a belief system based upon a scientific theory. That's why you can have so many atheists, agnostics and christians believing it.

What is the content of this belief system you believe exists? Where is it taught? And what is the evidence against it that you were talking about? (Was that evidence against the scientific theory, or against the belief system?)

 

[vossler]

Please tell me why evolution is a belief system because people of all religions accept it, but gravity is not, even though peopl eof all religions also accept gravity.

I can't think of a single person, but maybe you can, who doesn't believe in gravity. There are millions of people who don't believe in evolution. The fact that it isn't universal and requires a person to trust something/someone makes it a belief system.

 

[vossler]

What is the content of this belief system you believe exists? Where is it taught?

Unproven information such as man evolving from some lower life form into what he is today which is taught in public and private schools and universities.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I can't think of a single person, but maybe you can, who doesn't believe in gravity. There are millions of people who don't believe in evolution. The fact that it isn't universal and requires a person to trust something/someone makes it a belief system.

an odd definition for a belief system.

let's see.
germ theory, lots of people don't believe in germs. it requires trust that a vaccine can work and that doctors know what they are talking about.
therefore germ theory is a belief system.

working for a living.
lots of people don't believe in working for a living.
you have to trust your parent's or a welfare system or begging for your next day's meal.
therefore working for a living is a belief system.

conversely.
the idea that i need to breath and eat and drink and sleep is universal among people since everyone knows that they will die without doing these things. therefore there is no belief systems about breath (and i though lots of yoga and tai chi was about breath, i guess that parts aren't belief systems) or about eating (i guess all the religious dietary restrictions from LDS and coffee to Islam and pork are not part of a belief system)

afaik, this is not a good definition of a belief system.

 

[random_guy]

I can't think of a single person, but maybe you can, who doesn't believe in gravity. There are millions of people who don't believe in evolution. The fact that it isn't universal and requires a person to trust something/someone makes it a belief system.

Funny, I'm sure you'll find millions of people that don't accept quantum physics or relativity, also. Tell people about the "Twin Paradox" and the majority (if they have little scientific background in physics) will reject it. Does this make general relativity a belief system? Not only that, there are many people that think HIV does not cause AIDs, and many people in Africa think that HIV doesn't cause AIDs or some other bizarre belief like it's not sexually transmitted. Does this make HIV/AID theories just beliefs? Even more people think that .999~ != 1. Does this make limit theory just a belief system?

From what I can tell, you're picking on evolution since you disagree with it, however, you can't get over the fact that it's a sound scientific theory, and since you have no way of attacking it due to your lack of scientific resources, you think calling it a belief system is good enough.

 

[sfs]

Unproven information such as man evolving from some lower life form into what he is today which is taught in public and private schools and universities.

No, that's wrong: the descent of humans from earlier life forms is part of the scientific theory, and is supported by a great deal of data from several fields. You may not like the science, but don't kid yourself -- you are indeed attacking a science, not a belief system. Now, what was this evidence against evolution that you were talking about?

 

[shernren]

Unproven information such as man evolving from some lower life form into what he is today which is taught in public and private schools and universities.

You know, a week ago I caught a cold.

Today I told my cousin (who's an avid UFOlogist) about it, and he said "Your cold wasn't caused by germs, it was caused by little aliens from Mars who tried to set up a nanotechnology factory in your nose mucus. Every time you sneezed it disrupted their work, and therefore after a while they left - and your cold was suddenly cured."

"That's utter hogwash."

"Oh yeah? Well, I think your germ theory is just a belief system. Tell me something, have you ever seen any germs before?"

"Sure! Go look at - "

"I mean on your own. Can you trust a 'photograph'? After all, with Photoshop, I could easily create a picture of a Jupiterian, and then everyone would believe that they exist."

"But I thought you believe that SETIs exist."

"Not on Jupiter. At least not any more. See the Great Red Spot? That's their funeral pyre."

"Oh-kayyyyy."

"Anyway don't shift the goalposts! Have you ever seen a germ before?"

"Alright, alright, I haven't. But I know lots of people who have."

"You mean scientists? Well of course! They believe in germ theory! They interpret all their evidence to fit germ theory! And the pharmaceuticals won't let any Martian-nanotechnologo-theorists go anywhere near them. That's why I'm a bummer. Persecution."

"Laziness, actually."

"Whatever. But see, you can't even prove that germs exist!"

"That's it. I'm going to shower and then stay naked for two hours, catch a cold, send some mucus off to the lab, and show you some real live germs."

"Ah, but that's operational science. You may know that germs caused your colds today, but to assume that germs caused your colds last week as well is simply an unfounded, uniformitarian assumption! You can't just use the present to interpret the past willy-nilly!"

"Alright then, if your theory is so great, why isn't it in the scientific journals? Why don't you have any evidence for it?"

"Well, it's not a matter of fighting over the evidence. I know what you're seeing in your head: germ theory has a big pile of evidence on its side, and Martian-nanotechnologo-theory has only a few scraps. But that's really not what it's like. You need to see that your starting presuppositions are completely wrong. Both germ theorists and Martian-nanotechnologo-theorists have the same evidence, but they interpret it differently. After all, even if the germ theorists' evidence is correct, their interpretation might be wrong."

"I really don't believe you. Whatever then. What are you going to do the next time you have a cold?"

"Take Clarinase."

"But I thought you - "

"Martians are allergic to it. Poor things. Gives them welts all over."

==================

If I'm witty enough I (or you, or anyone who bothers to) can make any theory in science rest on "unproven information", such as that my cold last week was caused by germs and not Martian nanotechnologists. I might as well say that gravity is a NASA conspiracy to lure bright young scientists to form a human parallel-computing matrix ala The Matrix, and that Aristotelian physics was right all along; I might as well say that meteorology is a myth invented by crazy mathematicians who had been fired by the oil companies. Any theory in science rests as much on past observations as present observations and on "assumptions" (the way creationists define assumptions) as much as "facts", it is as much "observational" as it is "origins".

And yet that is no good reason to reject germ theory or gravity. So why should it be a good reason to reject evolution?