The New Trend

[funyun]

What about a really intelligent curriculum that doesn't belittle anyone's beliefs that includes evolutionary principles that have been tried and tested?

They already have that. It's called biology.

When people not necessarily you, have a preconceived notion about someone's intelligence than you have already lost the battle on getting someone to change their minds.

I'm sure Creationists are, on the whole (like every other demographic) very intelligent people. The problem is that they are collectively ignorant. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but it's true. Notice I chose my words carefully: I used "collectively". This means that they never think originally, and instead just bounce the same old ideas off of each other again and again. They think collectively. To quote MIB "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it."

Sometimes, though, we'll get one who intentionally disregards the evidence and logic presented before him/her and keeps spouting the same mistakes corrected earlier. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance or just stubborness, but these I have no sympathy for, and see no reason why they should get any.

 

[gluadys]

* Case in point: My own province has slowly removed almost all references to "evolution" simply to avoid controversy. There was an article about it and how a lot of students that go on to study biology don't learn much, if anything about evolution in public school.

Goes to show you can't assume anything. I was thinking Alberta until I looked at your profile. If Ontario is removing evolution from high school texts that means more than one-third the high schoolers in Canada are not getting decent teaching in biology. That is very worrisome.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

If i could find incontrovertible evidence that God exists

When has this debate ever been about the existence of God?

and that he made the earth in 6 days would you become a christian?

I can't speak for others. But personally, but if the Bible was shown to be completely accurate about such a thing, then I would certainly be taking another look at Christianity.

Also, does it matter? If we are a bunch of backwards folk who cares? Its our belief let us to them. Dont get so emotional over it if it doesnt really matter.

Well... which group is going around trying to put stickers in the others' books? If various YEC groups weren't going around claiming science proves they're right and proves everyone else wrong, and trying to push what look like religious or philosophical ideas into science classes, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion or even have this debate forum.

 

[Lilandra]

You are new at this, aren't you?

I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

I never claimed such a thing in this thread or any other, and in fact a few posts ago I spoke of some of the greatest scientists of all time-- Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo-- all of whom were theists, and Creationists at that, at a time when Creationism was a scientifically acceptable possibility. It is you who are making the fallcy in assuming that belief in evolution equals atheism. My OP was addressing the issue of Creationism, not Christianity.

Yet you equate ID with YEC in your OP. It’s hard not to draw a conclusion that you have a gripe with all Christian scientists. Plus you have committed a fallacy by confusing ID with YEC.

Aha, I said; I smell a rat. I wouldn't be surprised if this reaches to the highest levels of Creationist organization. I have a feeling pretty soon most of the well-known YEC groups will jump on the bandwagon and adopt their new mantra.

Originally Posted by: consideringlily

Either you are condescending to Creationists by comparing them to bacteria.
In which case if you are an indication of evos than you guys gotta a major problem with hubris.

That's right, I was being condescending, though the scenario is perfectly analogous. It has nothing to do with hubris, and everyhting to do with the truth. If my post was an indication of hubris, it logically follows that yours is as well, since you are chastising me just as I chastised Creationists. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Your one too eh? Great come back. I’ve got another childish comeback. You started it.

If I was, I wouldn't have posted my opinion in a public forum, now would I? The main point of the post, which seems to have been forgotten by you (or, more likely, not registered at all) was not to poke at Creationists, but speak out about my own perception of the changing face of Creationism. I'm more than prepared to defend any and all of my scientific and philosophical beliefs. Of course, keeping in mind who the opposition is, that in and of itself doesn't really say all that much for my debating skills.

1.You post under a pseudonym in a public forum. From observing conceited people in real life. The more loudly they talk trash the more insecure they are.

• You claim that you didn’t start this thread to poke fun at Creationists but you compare them to bacteria. Hmm not sure you even believe that yourself.
• You prove my point by ending this portion by talking trash about how weak your opposition is.
  
  Originally Posted by: consideringlily

I have seen one thread after another belittling the intelligence of Creationists. You guys really need to let some of the air out of your shirts.

​

Maybe we do, but respect is earned, not given freely, especially in the scientific community. In order to gain clout you need to put up or shut up, and Creationists do neither.

No one is entitled to respect. But since this is a discussion forum courtesy will do.

 

[SplitRock]

Genetic engineering, which i suspect is what you mean by medicne and agriculture do not need evolution to be advanced.

I guess you are unaware of the fact that genetic engineering is based on evolutionary theory. Evolution explains why it is possible to transfer a gene from one species and put it into another and still have it function.

 

[funyun]

I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

Yet not only do you argue philosophy in a science forum, but you can't tell the difference between the two.

Yet you equate ID with YEC in your OP. It’s hard not to draw a conclusion that you have a gripe with all Christian scientists. Plus you have committed a fallacy by confusing ID with YEC.

Yes, I equate the ID movement with YEC movement (actually, more accurately I identified them with each other). What does either one have to do with Christianity as a whole? ID is not synonymous with Christianity any more than Creationism is.

I don't have a "gripe" with Christian scientists. Many scientists are Christians. Lucaspa is one example that comes to mind on these forums, as well as Aeschylus. The problem is I have problems with Creationists who use the same tired arguments, and IDers who refuse to see the difference between philosophy and science.

There's no such thing as "Christian science" any more than there is such thing as "atheist science" or "pagan science". Your inability to understand this is the basis of most of our mutual dissent.

Your one too eh? Great come back. I’ve got another childish comeback. You started it.

It’s true though. If simple chastising makes one guilty of committing hubris, then we’re both guilty. Of course, it doesn’t, so neither one of us has to worry about it. Your resorting to simply reducing what I said to a childish remark shows you have no real argument. I mean, in truth, you can reduce any logical argument to a childish remark. Doesn’t make for a convincing argument.

1.You post under a pseudonym in a public forum.

And you don’t? What does this have to do with anything? Total non-sequitur.

From observing conceited people in real life. The more loudly they talk trash the more insecure they are.

I didn’t talk trash. If you would actually read the OP, you’d see the point was that I was expressing my observation on the changing face of the YEC movement. I threw in some satirical content for entertainment value.

You claim that you didn’t start this thread to poke fun at Creationists but you compare them to bacteria. Hmm not sure you even believe that yourself.

There’s a difference between content and theme. It’s quite a simple distinction, really.

You prove my point by ending this portion by talking trash about how weak your opposition is.

And you prove my point that the pot is calling the kettle black. You call me for something, just as I call them for something. I guess we’re both guilty of hubris, by your definition.

No one is entitled to respect. But since this is a discussion forum courtesy will do.

Oh, I show courtesy, when attempts are made by the opposition at intelligent conversation and discussion. I see no need to be courteous considering the kinds of things most YECs do in this forum, when they do it ad nauseum.

 

[Lilandra]

Yet not only do you argue philosophy in a science forum, but you can't tell the difference between the two.

Yes, I equate the ID movement with YEC movement (actually, more accurately I identified them with each other). What does either one have to do with Christianity as a whole? ID is not synonymous with Christianity any more than Creationism is.

I don't have a "gripe" with Christian scientists. Many scientists are Christians. Lucaspa is one example that comes to mind on these forums, as well as Aeschylus. The problem is I have problems with Creationists who use the same tired arguments, and IDers who refuse to see the difference between philosophy and science.

There's no such thing as "Christian science" any more than there is such thing as "atheist science" or "pagan science". Your inability to understand this is the basis of most of our mutual dissent.

Until someone posts how preposterous the Bible is. I post from a Old Earth Creationist perspective. This is a Creationist/Evolutionist forum. Not a what an evolutionist considers science forum. For my part I do listen to what Evolutionists say about origins with an open mind. It just gets a little tiring being compared to a bacteria. Another post Creationists do you want to make some money was totally demeaning. How would an Evolutionists/Atheists make big money debunk the Bible it hasn't been done in thousands of years thread have been received here?

It’s true though. If simple chastising makes one guilty of committing hubris, then we’re both guilty. Of course, it doesn’t, so neither one of us has to worry about it. Your resorting to simply reducing what I said to a childish remark shows you have no real argument. I mean, in truth, you can reduce any logical argument to a childish remark. Doesn’t make for a convincing argument.

You came across condescending and insulting not chastening.

And you don’t? What does this have to do with anything? Total non-sequitur.

You were saying that if you were insecure why would you be debating here and I said you are using a pseudonym so your point?

I didn’t talk trash. If you would actually read the OP, you’d see the point was that I was expressing my observation on the changing face of the YEC movement. I threw in some satirical content for entertainment value.

There’s a difference between content and theme. It’s quite a simple distinction, really.

You make this kinda comment and then you don't own up to it.

Oh, I show courtesy, when attempts are made by the opposition at intelligent conversation and discussion. I see no need to be courteous considering the kinds of things most YECs do in this forum, when they do it ad nauseum

My point briefly...

Though I am not sure by that last comment, although I am not a YEC, whether you consider me intellectually capable enough is this. Are you here to high five other evolutionists and congratulate each other on how much smarter you are. Or are you here to discuss/ debate with people that don't agree with you?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Serious? Where do you live? I'd believe it of Surrey, or Bountiful, but a whole province? Disturbing.

Read all about it: http://www.comstec.org/Forum/evo4.html

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Miracek may not agree with me but I admire evolutionary theists for trying to bridge the gap.

What about a really intelligent curriculum that doesn't belittle anyone's beliefs that includes evolutionary principles that have been tried and tested?

When people not necessarily you, have a preconceived notion about someone's intelligence than you have already lost the battle on getting someone to change their minds.

What model is better assume most people are dumb and dictate to them using the bully pulpit of the public school system?

or

Explain your position assuming that we are highly evolved primates (joking) and may just be able to figure out the right thing themselves.

My use of the term "backward folk" was simply referring to mjiracek's post. I wasn't trying to belittle.

But that's besides the point. I firmly believe that the general public is too ignorant of science to make a firm stand on issues of science education. And yes, I lump myself in there as well. This is why I believe we should leave matters of science education to the scientific community.

As far as school curriculum goes, I believe what should be taught are the prevailing scientific theories that are supported by the evidence and have been tried and tested over the years. This obviously includes biological evolution which, in over 150 years, has become a major part of biology. You simply can't become familiar with biology and deny this.

The problem I have with either taking evolution or inserting ID or creationism are this: 1) People aren't taking evolution out for the right reasons. Just because it offends some people's religious beliefs is no reason to pretend a scientific theory like evolution is somehow controversial or seriously flawed. There was a time when people didn't like heliocentrism. They got over it.

And 2) if people want ID and/or creationism taught in a science class, then prove it can stand as science. So far all my readings of creationism and ID has either been an attack on mainstream science, or a loosely held collection of ideas with very little empirical support. Until these ideas are on as solid ground as evolutionary biology, then they have no business in a science classroom.

And hey, I for one, think ID is a really cool idea. I've spent hours combing ID literature looking for anything that can be used to empirically detect biological design. I'm still looking and so is, apparently, the ID community (and yes, I've read Dembski's stuff on CSI and Behe's stuff on irreducible complexity; their ideas have some merit, but aren't useful for detecting intelligent design).

I am sorry about your Biology curriculum. What of Evolution is left?

Part of a single (and optional) senior biology class in high school. Read more.

 

[michabo]

But if he wants to live in a democracy he needs to accept me and not get mad. If he is the majority then i wouldnt worry atall about me voting him out.

I don't see what democracy has to do with science. We may vote on what to teach, but reality and history are unaffected.

Do you think children should be tought known falsehoods?

Do you agree that, within the US, there is a constitutional separation of church and state?

 

[michabo]

I was thinking Alberta until I looked at your profile. If Ontario is removing evolution from high school texts that means more than one-third the high schoolers in Canada are not getting decent teaching in biology.

Ontario? You're right, that is disturbing. I think I'll have to look into that some more. Thanks for bringing it up, Pete.

 

[funyun]

Until someone posts how preposterous the Bible is.

Guilty by association, eh? I don't think the Bible is preposterous. I think it's a poor science book, though.

I post from a Old Earth Creationist perspective. This is a Creationist/Evolutionist forum. Not a what an evolutionist considers science forum.

You're right. But, and I am saddened that I have to repeat this for the 105th time, according to the definiton of science, that which is unfalsifiable is not science and ID is unfalsifiable. You can whine about that all you want, and even blame it on a conspiracy, but the law is the law, and one dictated by theists and Creationists hundreds of years ago, no less. So it's not what I consider science to be. It's what science is.

For my part I do listen to what Evolutionists say about origins with an open mind. It just gets a little tiring being compared to a bacteria.

To be honest, I was looking for an analogy, and the first one that popped into my mind was the bacteria one, because it is actually quite analogous. I peronally don't see what's insulting about being compared to bacteria-- that sounds like a personal problem to me. If I had used something more "complex", would it have offended you just as much? Would the complexity be the reason for the lessened offense, or would it be soemthing else. Interchange the word "bacteria" with anything you like and pretend that the phenomenon applies to that, and then you may see my intention.

Another post Creationists do you want to make some money was totally demeaning.

More guilty by association. That wasn't me, so why are you even brinign it up? But let's be honest, there are some people out there, who will not be named here, though we all know who I am talking about, who purposefully con YECs for their own monetary profit.

How would an Evolutionists/Atheists make big money debunk the Bible it hasn't been done in thousands of years thread have been received here?
You came across condescending and insulting not chastening.

I really wish you would stop equating atheism to belief in evolution. As for the rest of the post, I don't really care that much to tell you the truth. How I came across is not the reason I made the OP. Once again, a personal problem.

You were saying that if you were insecure why would you be debating here and I said you are using a pseudonym so your point?

I can just as easily claim that you are insecure and that's why you post here under a pseudonym. In fact, I could claim that you're so insecure that you feel the need to debate with a 16 year old, rather than your peers. Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?

Of course that's ludicrous. Just cuz I say it doesn't mean that claim is actually valid.

You make this kinda comment and then you don't own up to it.

That really wasn't meant as a jab; I was merely stating a fact. To be fair, you did not seem to get it, though. There is a difference, and though I know you are more than sufficiently intelligent to recognize that, I think in that instance you didn't, for whatever reason.

My point briefly...

Though I am not sure by that last comment, although I am not a YEC, whether you consider me intellectually capable enough is this. Are you here to high five other evolutionists and congratulate each other on how much smarter you are. Or are you here to discuss/ debate with people that don't agree with you?

Intellectually capable? Yes, of course.

Why am I here? On these forums, I don't even know anymore, because I very rarely see intelligent debate lately. I see wellman's 4 or 5 Flew/Hawking appeal to authority threads, and I see the people in there (including me) wasting our time trying to show him the difference between testable science and philosophy. Why am I here in this thread? As I've said before, because I wanted to know if I'm not the only one who has observed this changing face of Creationism.

 

[Vance]

What I find ironic is that the leading ID proponents are closer to TE than OEC or YEC. While they don't believe the mechanics of Darwinian evolution are supportable, they DO believe that the universe is as old as scientists have concluded, that species existed in the time and in the order that science says, some even agree that man even developed over billions of years. They just think that God managed it all directly, hands on, according to a specific design, rather than just let things happen randomly.

Most Creationists would get a bit nervous if they actually knew the ultimate stances of their idols, like Denton and Behe. AiG even wrote an article with a very schizophrenic feel. On the one hand, they realize that ID is the thin edge of the wedge that can get their anti-evolution position heard. On the other, they disagree with almost everything that these ID luminaries believe!!!

 

[reconciliation]

What I find ironic is that the leading ID proponents are closer to TE than OEC or YEC.

It just proves that the critics of the Neo-Darwinian theory don't try to harmonize science with their religious beliefs as evolutionists want to imply but they have just perceived that Neo-Darwinism isn't credible.

While they don't believe the mechanics of Darwinian evolution are supportable, they DO believe that the universe is as old as scientists have concluded, that species existed in the time and in the order that science says,

Some of them believe that and many don't. Btw, science doesn't say anything, scientists do, and they have often different conclusions.

Most Creationists would get a bit nervous if they actually knew the ultimate stances of their idols, like Denton and Behe.

Most people who take evolution for granted without knowing anything about the theory would get much more shocked if they knew what the leading evolutionists of the world, as Richard Dawkins, really think. Atheism is a minor phenomenon and if people understood the connection between it and evolutionists, many would start to think!

 

[Tomk80]

Most people who take evolution for granted without knowing anything about the theory would get much more shocked if they knew what the leading evolutionists of the world, as Richard Dawkins, really think. Atheism is a minor phenomenon and if people understood the connection between it and evolutionists, many would start to think!

What I think is really ironic about creationists is that they always focus on atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, but somehow always seem to forget the large number of theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. I wonder why?

 

[Jet Black]

It just proves that the critics of the Neo-Darwinian theory don't try to harmonize science with their religious beliefs as evolutionists want to imply but they have just perceived that Neo-Darwinism isn't credible.

of course they don. The thing is, that one has to remember that there are a number of different groups from the Raelians to AiG who attempt to harmonise science with their religious views, who have invariably determined that Neo-Darwinism does not fit their theology and therefore rejected it, prior to attempting to force fit a solution.

Most people who take evolution for granted without knowing anything about the theory would get much more shocked if they knew what the leading evolutionists of the world, as Richard Dawkins, really think. Atheism is a minor phenomenon and if people understood the connection between it and evolutionists, many would start to think!

The difference is, that Dawkins is not idolised in the way that Behe and so on are, and their fame is achieved through their scientific contributions, rather than their appealing to a particular philosophical stance which followers find comfortable.

 

[funyun]

Most Creationists would get a bit nervous if they actually knew the ultimate stances of their idols, like Denton and Behe. AiG even wrote an article with a very schizophrenic feel. On the one hand, they realize that ID is the thin edge of the wedge that can get their anti-evolution position heard. On the other, they disagree with almost everything that these ID luminaries believe!!!

It wouldn't surprise me if AiG and similar groups sold out just to win. It really wouldn't.

Most people who take evolution for granted without knowing anything about the theory would get much more shocked if they knew what the leading evolutionists of the world, as Richard Dawkins, really think. Atheism is a minor phenomenon and if people understood the connection between it and evolutionists, many would start to think!

I love how you contradict yourself in the same post-- the same sentence, even. Yes, Dawkins is an atheist, yes atheism is a minor phenomenon in that it is the minority, in the genral population as well as in the scientific community. There is no connection between atheism and evolution, and you are deluding yourself if you think there is. Many of your fellow Christians like Vance believe in evolution.

Evolution is in the mainstream, and is among the majority. I wonder then, how you conclude a connection between the minority philosophical atheistic stance and the majority scientific evolutionist stance. Just more proof people will say anything they can to give creedence to their side.