Loading ...
« Epic Fail | Main | Line status… »
Stupid People Wasting My Time
By Jesse Morgan | August 4, 2008
ok, this has been gnawing at me for the last few weeks. As I get older I become a lot less patient with people who waste my time on stupid things. I try not to get involved with religious or political debates mainly because they always seem to lead to hurt feelings and me putting someone on a life-long banlist.
However.
I’m getting *really* pissed at the anti-science bullshit that’s going on. I’ve made the unfortunate mistake of reading Bad Astronomy and Angry Astronomer as of late. It’s straight up madness. This shouldn’t be happening in the 21st century. What am I talking about? Well, let’s see here:
- People pushing creationism in science classes who can’t comprehend that creationism IS NOT SCIENCE BECAUSE IT HAS NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS AND CANNOT BE FALSIFIABLE. JUST SHUT UP. Come back when you have a real theory. I fear the day my son is dragged through a high-school level class where this vomit is spewed under the guise of ‘teaching alternative theories’. It’s not a goddamn theory. Stop it.
- People who claim evolution is false because it doesn’t cover what happened before the big bang or how life was started. News flash- SEPARATE THEORIES. Evolution makes no claim about that sorta thing.
- People who claim evolution shouldn’t be taught because it’s ‘just a theory’. Yes, much like gravity, atomic theory, game theory, string theory, etc. are all theories as well, should we not teach them? Either way…You FAIL.
- People who claim a banana is proof of intelligent design, while turning a blind eye to coconuts, poisonous berries, pineapple and of course the Durian. These are all either delicious or will kill you. Does that seem like a good idea? Ever see the delicious red berries of Belladonna, aka Deadly Nightshade? You FAIL.
- People who think the world is flat- seriously, there are people who think the world is fucking flat. It boggles the mind. This has to be some sort of sick joke- are we really still this backwards?
- In no particular order- people who deny global warming because winters are getting nastier, people who deny gravity is strong enough to cause stellar formation without having ANY science to back it up, people who think “controversy” should be taught in science by allowing bullshit into the classroom, people with political agendas who claim to know more about science than the experts in the field, people against stem cell research, People who buy into crop circles despite the original perpetrators admitting they did it for 15 years, etc
Before you try and argue this shit with me, go read The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It’s very readable, if not slightly depressing.
I’ve had some great science teachers in my life - my father and Mr. Mac being at the top of the list. I remember watching Nova and Newton’s Apple when I was a kid, specifically an experiment where they created a tornado in a box. I remember thinking how cool that was. I never forgot that clip, and whenever I think of science, it reminds me of that fuzzy memory from the early-to-mid 80’s. I can only hope I can inspire that interest in science for Ian as he grows up.
Now, I’m all for imagination and testing new hypothesis, but you DAMN sure better have some heavy science behind you before making that claim. It’s absolutely unreal that this shit is still going on. They’re not attacking just the ideas or the theories- I’d be fine if it was just that.
- Got an alternate theory for String theory? Go for it.
- More accurate equation to calculate gravitational forces? FINE.
Show me the math and wow me. More importantly, wow the people who are experts in the field. I’d love to see someone put out a theory that makes Hawkings say (in a robotic accent) “holy shit, why didn’t I think of that.” Just don’t attack science itself. Don’t attack Scientific Theory, the method for understanding our world. Don’t crap on how we try to understand our world unless you have a better way, and throwing your hands up in the air and saying “God did it!” doesn’t count. It doesn’t even come close.
At one time people thought a flaming chariot dragged the sun across the sky - seems silly now, doesn’t it. At one time, they thought the sun rotated around the earth - crazy talk now, huh? Hell, people even used to think the world is flat, but we know better…Oh right, we still don’t.
If you disagree with this rant in part or in whole, read the Sagan book, and follow the astronomy bloggers I mentioned above. Pay attention for one month. Then we’ll talk.
Update:
I also missed the AntiVaxxers- that group of wonderful people who pin an epic woe on a vaccine and encourage people not to get it. Thanks to this, there are people dying and suffering from easily treatable diseases, like polio- POLIO for crying out loud. Hey- the 1950’s called, they say they want their eradicated epidemic back.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Jesus loves you.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Love your site . 100% agreed
August 5th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“People who claim evolution shouldn’t be taught because it’s ‘just a theory’. Yes, much like gravity, atomic theory, game theory, string theory, etc. are all theories as well, should we not teach them?”
The only slight disagreement I have is that you can get a masters degree in college without being forced to learn about gravity, atomic theory, game theory and string theory, but you can’t get through 2nd grade without being forced to memorize useless facts about evolution.
I don’t care how long ago the dinosaurs lived, or the age it was theorized that lungs evolved on the first creature. I’ve never had to use this information, and I never will. Yet I was forced to memorize it for tests, even when I was attending christian schools, because it was going to be on the standardized testing.
For the love of the God you may or may not believe in, isn’t knowing how gravity works more important than this? Isn’t atomic theory more useful? Even string theory, would be more useful if only to bend those little 2nd graders minds around a bit.
As a Christian I have no problems with process or theory of evolution, but I think it belongs in college while other more useful things could be taught in grade school.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’m a total non-believer, but I will say this: just because it’s an unprovable (or for a lack of a better term, yet unproven) theory, it does not make it any less of a theory. The fact that a large portion of Earth’s human population decides to blindly follow said theories as truth is another matter altogether. Whether it should be taught in schools or not, I honestly have no opinion over. I could go into a whole speech about the effectiveness of schools (with or without intelligent design on the curriculum) but that’s probably for a different thread.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Here is my problem with evolution, whats being taught in grade school about evolution has pretty much been scientifically refuted as not being fact and honestly barely being a theory. And we aren’t talking about crack pot religious zealots, actual experts in their respected fields of science.
The Miller Experiment is a big one - debunked
Darwins Tree of life - debunked
Haeckel’s embryos - a fraud
ooo and
Java Man - “which consist of nothing more that a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth, and a whole lot of imagination”
these are some of staples of evolution that over the scrutiny of time have not held up to science.
Also you say creationism has no testable hypothesis i could say the same thing for evolution…. It can’t be tested or observed so how is it a theory??
And if you have a open mind, I would ask you to take a look at “A Case For a Creator” by Lee Strobel
Lee Strobel was a would be atheist who tried to prove the bible was fictitious and that God didn’t exist via historical and scientific evidence.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Yojimbo- you also had to study the anatomy of a flower, how rocks are formed, where Napoleon fought his final battle, calculus, the simon bolivar and many many many other things that you’ll never use but had to learn. Daily usage doesn’t equate to importance. As different diseases become resistant to antibiotics, evolution will start seeming a hell of a lot more important. Dealing with cancer? that’s the other edge of the blade- genetic mutations (DNA damage) that are detrimental to individuals.
Shabbs- testibility is part of the definition of scientific theory- predictive, logical, and testable. Without having some way to test, and hence prove true or false, it’s not a scientific theory, and should not be presented as one.
Mr Bojangles-
Please provide resources as to it being refuted as well as barely being a theory- that second part intrigues me because I just don’t grok how someone could claim that. You can create all sorts of predictive tests, and those have been created- anywhere from fossil records to genome mapping to watching evolution in a jar with a critter with a short life (like mice or e. coli).
Miller-Urey experiment- not evolution, autobiogenesis- completely different subject. See bulletpoint two, where I specifically cover this.
Tree of Life- I’m presuming you mean phylogenetic taxonomy, aka common decent. As a theory, it’s the best they’ve been able to figure from simple observation. While the categorization of species is changed to provide a better fit as more knowledge is amassed, DNA evidence so far supports this overall and will make it more clear as time goes on. Please provide evidence of it’s debunking, or correct me if I misinterpreted.
Haeckel ’s drawings- this has to do with the theory of recapitulation, besides modern biology hasn’t used this for over 15 years. That’s the great thing about science- the theory was able to be proven false. Besides, Haeckel’s work came out after Darwin’s, and the influence was the other way around. This doesn’t change anything for the theory of macro-evolution.
Javaman- yes, that was true until more were found a few miles away, and even then, older skeletons have been found in the great rift valley. I found this great image showing the evolution of the human skull.
Which staples have not held up? I’ve not seen any that are actually about evolution- most are about autobiogenesis and the big bang.
Evolution has an easily testable premise- critters change over time to survive in a changing environment. Pepper moths (proved, refuted, then proved yet again) are a good example of this, as is the Lenski paper. 50k generations of e. coli and the species gains a new ability to better survive in it’s environment.
I’ll look into Strobel, but my understanding was he was a writer, not a scientist. I’ll see what I can find on his book.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Well from my experience from what was and is taught in grade school those items I mentioned are associated with evolution and Darwinism. Might not technically be about evolution but have been used to bolster evolutions and Darwinism’s point of view.
For the Tree of Life - Cambrian Explosion as a counter point
For the rest of your comments I wait till I get home to much typing for those.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
you can get a masters degree in college without being forced to learn about gravity, atomic theory, game theory and string theory, but you can’t get through 2nd grade without being forced to memorize useless facts about evolution.
What sort of shitty school did you attend? I remember learning gravity in elementary school (not the mathematical equations, but the general idea). Atoms were in junior high.
Sounds like your education is just sub-par.
Even string theory, would be more useful
Yes. Let’s teach kids a theory that makes no testable predictions (so it’s not really a theory), and is entirely based on math that 99% of them will never see in their lives. Smart idea.
just because it’s an unprovable theory, it does not make it any less of a theory.
Yes it does. In fact, by the very definition of “theory” as it’s used in science, it completely invalidates it from being a theory at all. To be a theory, it has to make testable predictions that are confirmed!
whats being taught in grade school about evolution has pretty much been scientifically refuted
Only if you listen to the strawman version of Creationists.
Miller Experiment is a big one - debunked
Nope. Confirmed numerous times. Organic molecules can be spontaneously formed.
Darwins Tree of life - debunked
Nope. Confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Most notable homology, DNA, embryology….
Haeckel’s embryos - a fraud
Which is why they haven’t been used as “evidence” for evolution in nearly 100 years. But that doesn’t stop Creationists from blathering on about them as if they discovered the fraud (they didn’t and honest scientists did).
Java Man
Not the best example of common descent, but far better than anything Creationists have. Something is still better than nothing.
Stop cribbing off Wells next time. He’s a grade A idiot.
I would ask you to take a look at “A Case For a Creator” by Lee Strobel
I did. It’s nothing but a list of logical fallacies.
Cambrian Explosion as a counter point
Speaking of logical fallacies, here’s a great one: “I don’t understand how the Cambrian Explosion happened, thus magic man.”
Fail.
The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem for evolution unless you create a strawman out of it like Creationists are so apt to do. Try again. Next time with some honest research.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
First off Well’s is a grade ‘A’ idiot and you have a PH. D in what?? Who are you scribbling off of?
I’ll start backwards. Even if you don’t make a strawman out of the Cambrian Explosion, it is still contrary to Darwin’s Tree. Take his one statement out about the magic man and look at the facts about the Cambrian Explosion. (I’ll say something specifically homology, dna, embryology in another post)
So the facts and research he states within his book bear no weight because he interjects his opinions as to why the facts he states leads him to believe in intelligent design? He states on multiple occasions throughout the book that the scientific evidence does not prove that God exist but from it he leans toward design. Just as on the other hand their is scientific findings that seems to point to evolution but there is nothing that is evolution is the answer.
The book mentions that Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox refute Millers experiment. And it’s stated that ‘the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation’. This is said not by Strobel or Wells but scientist within this field of study.
I’ll say something that is a little more recent like within the last couples year a guy name Bada who got Millers experiment to work with tweaking the experiment some more. So you can see that I see both sides.
I say what I say about the book because you call him a Grade ‘A’ idiot because he states and opinion you don’t agee with. But he also states scientific facts that is backed up by credible researchers and scientist.
Just as you look at research such as Bada’s which is a ‘possible’ senerio you choose to infer the evolution is true.
They looked at scientific research and infer that intelligent design is true.
continued…
August 5th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Sitting here thinking I could type and scribble off of ‘idiots’ for hours but that wont do me any good and quite honestly I am lazy.
So here’s the conclusion I came to, someone will state a point from said ‘insert researcher’ and someone on the other side will insert counterpoint from said ‘insert researcher’ that agrees with their point of view.
ie I would use people like Wells and Strobel and others with supporting evidence to boaster my point. In which case they are ‘idiots’ because they mention God in their writings.
I believe everyone here has seen evidence presented on both sides and have come to their conclusions of what they believe.
And its in my opinion it is ‘Belief’ in both sides.
There are bits and pieces of scientific facts and theories that opponents to intelligent design use to create/explain the universe as we know it and it is not possible to do so fully and accurately.
And you all are aware of the beliefs of those who agree with creationism
So if someone who disagrees with creationism has read ‘A Case For A Creator’ and Well’s ‘Icons Of Evolution’ and belief creationism doesn’t have a leg to stand on, they(Strobel/Wells) are a lot more convincing than I am and have done way more research than I ever will, they reference reputable sources and state facts. But they also squeeze in their beliefs and if someone cant get past that it’ll be a hard read…
August 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
First off Well’s is a grade ‘A’ idiot and you have a PH. D in what?
My degree is in astronomy.
Even if you don’t make a strawman out of the Cambrian Explosion, it is still contrary to Darwin’s Tree.
Care to provide evidence for this claim?
He states on multiple occasions throughout the book that the scientific evidence does not prove that God exist but from it he leans toward design.
Except that he offers no scientific evidence. He offers a bunch of logical fallacies. It’s 100%, “I don’t see how it could have happened, thus, magic man done it.”
That’s not evidence. That’s an argument from ignorance.
their [sic] is scientific findings that seems to point to evolution
You mean aside from the fact that we’ve observed allele frequencies changing in populations due to selection pressures (which is the very definition of evolution), that we’ve directly observed species diverging in labs, that we’ve got well documented fossil records for numerous species showing divergences (just as Darwin’s tree predicts), etc….
Sounds like you’re working really hard to ignore evidence.
that ‘the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation’.
You’re right. It contained more oxygen than is suspected to have been present. However, even without oxygen, most of the organic molecules were still able to be produced spontaneously in short order in subsequent experiments. Thus, while the original Miller experiment was flawed, it still showed one very important thing: Organic can come from non-organic. Later experiments verified that this holds for other types of atmospheres as well.
you call him a Grade ‘A’ idiot because he states and opinion you don’t agee with.
No. I call him a “Grade A idiot” because he, like every other Creationist out there, abuses logical fallacies and presents no real evidence.
They looked at scientific research and infer that intelligent design is true.
Again, logical fallacies are not scientific research.
quite honestly I am lazy.
Quite obviously. You apparently never even cared enough to understand the fundamental principles of science in elementary school.
[Wells and Strobel] are ‘idiots’ because they mention God in their writings.
No. I have no problem with mentioning God in writings. But abusing logical fallacies, scrapping the scientific method, outright lying as creationists do, is something that will earn scorn. You might actually want to learn why Creationists are rejected before you continue making ignorant claims next time.
its [sic] in my opinion it is ‘Belief’ in both sides
This is the fallacy of equivocation. Try again.
There are bits and pieces of scientific facts and theories that opponents to intelligent design use to create/explain the universe as we know it and it is not possible to do so fully and accurately.
True, but irrelevant. That’s the nature of science. You never have all the facts, so your theory can never be 100% correct. It can only be 100% accurate to all the information we have. Modern science has done that via the Big Bang theory, Evolution, and many others.
Creationism can also claim that 100% figure, but the difference is, that to do so, it invokes magic. Thus, it can explain anything, and when you can explain anything, you’ve truly explained nothing.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:37 am
You have read Wells arguments against evolution and you say that he provides no scientific basis for it.
“Except that he offers no scientific evidence. He offers a bunch of logical fallacies. It’s 100%, “I don’t see how it could have happened, thus, magic man done it.””
A bunch of logical fallacies for what? He didn’t say he had scientific evidence for the existence of God. They state evidence that whats said about evolution is not wholly correct.
So, where does he outright lie?
I am not going to scribble off anymore of what he has written because obviously you didn’t see that point.
And quite honestly why do you care? Heck why does morgajel care what’s taught in school?
End the end who cares because when we die what we know and what we do means nothing. Your life and my life will be forgotten within the history of time. A couple hundred years from now if we haven’t blown ourselves to tiny little bits your children’s children wont even be remembered. Heck if we do blow the planet up and no one survives, everything we mean nothing. So again why do you care?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Because if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
Evolution is a theory- it’s an approximation, a best guess. It may not be 100% perfect- I don’t think jon or I would claim that. to believe it’s flawless in it’s current form would be a disservice to science.
HOWEVER.
It is the best we have, and when we find some model that better describes it, it’s what we’ll use. Newtonian physics aren’t perfect, but they’re *good enough* for many things. We know they break down on a sub-atomic level. Then Einstein came along. Then Hawking.
It’s the whole shoulders of giants thing. I’d be all for evidence that refined or improved the theory of evolution, but the fact is most of the claims that have been put forward don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Sure, you can say *some* tangentally related theories were flawed, but many were corrected and proven overall correct. That’s the point of science. The important part isn’t to cover your ears at any point. Recognize the theory, recognize the refutation, and recognize the refinement. Both Miller and Haeckel had flawed bits, but we don’t throw away all of their work because of it. We learn from our mistakes and move on.
It matters what they teach because it’s our future. If I could go back in time and prevent the dark ages, I would. Why? Because it’s knowledge- it’s the knowledge that matters.
Everything- Everything we do matters.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
A bunch of logical fallacies for what?
For God. It doesn’t have to be scientific evidence for him to claim it as evidence. Which is precisely what you’re doing too. Or, are you trying to argue that there’s a God and not willing to provide even that much?
Additionally, he’s providing lies and logical fallacies against evolution. Every anti-evolution claim he makes has been debunked over and over again. Check out talkorigins.
And quite honestly why do you care?
Because promoting a belief system that says adopting non-critical and magical thinking isn’t just silly; It’s outright dangerous. When people make judgment calls without evidence, people die.
So again why do you care?
I’m not going to babysit you and walk you through atheist morality. I’ve got better things to do and you’re so clueless it would be a waste of my time. Instead, I’ll just point you to a copy of Selfish Gene. Sadly, given your poor grammar and logic skills, I suspect it will be far above your reading comprehension.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Why does knowledge matter if end the end it equates to nothing?
It doesn’t matter if we are in the stone age, the middle age, the dark age, or the information age. When you die ultimately everything you did meant nothing because anyone who comes after you will die also and guess what their life will mean nothing also.
We’ve gone from horses to cars to jets to space ships. Who cares everyone who’s been apart of any of those things are dead.
Caring and wanting knowledge and needing to know how something works is a personal thing, sure someone after you might benefit(personal to whom it benefits) from the research. Sure you know how far the moon is from the earth or how fast light travels, but when you die of what use is that information for you? Heck even while living why is what you know meaningful? Because there is nothing else???
‘Because it’s knowledge- it’s the knowledge that matters.’
What law states its knowledge the matters?
Amoebas do quite fine without knowing anything. You can live without knowing anything.
I have no problem with science and understanding things that’s fine. But knowledge in the end does not matter. We all die.
‘All that matters is what we do’ and in the end it doesn’t matter.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
First when have I mentioned or said I was trying to prove God exist?
‘Because promoting a belief system that says adopting non-critical and magical thinking isn’t just silly; It’s outright dangerous. When people make judgment calls without evidence, people die.’
People make judgment calls with evidence and people die. What’s your point?
In the post above I explain my position on death. Who cares if someone dies?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
And quite honestly why do you care? Heck why does morgajel care what’s taught in school?
Possibly because we have a son who is going to be attending school within the next few years and we want him to have an education that is not any more embarrassing than what we have now.
Why does knowledge matter if end the end it equates to nothing?
You’re right. It doesn’t matter what we know when we die; however, the knowledge we find today will benefit future generations. And that matters. It’s not always about improving our lives, but improving the lives of our children and grandchildren. I think it’s very selfish to think that whatever we do today only affects us and won’t affect future generations or anyone else for that matter. Whatever someone does, no matter who they are, their actions and research affects the world they live in. In the grand scheme of things, whether you believe in evolution or intelligent design, it’s knowledge that sets us apart from the monkeys and our ancestors. What we learn from our past only makes us stronger and we were given that power to use. So why shouldn’t we? It’s all about Free Will. If we want to refute the idea of creationism, it’s our god-given right. Regardless of how we came to be here.
Amoebas do quite fine without knowing anything. You can live without knowing anything.
Amoebas don’t have daVinci’s creations (both scientific and cultural), Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, or can appreciate a good steak. They live very simple lives and there’s nothing to them. They may not know anything, but their lives are dull and meaningless in the end. I wouldn’t want to live like that.
__________________________________
Personally, I have no problem with intelligent design being taught in schools, as long as it doesn’t center around Christianity. If it’s going to be taught, then it needs to include all forms - Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamic, Wiccan, Scientology, Paganism, Pastafarian, etc. Whether it’s in a science class or a philosophy class, that’s the true debate. Where it should be in the curriculum. It also needs to be taught in a very unbiased way. The idea shouldn’t be used as a conversion tactic, because then you’re getting into the area of Church and State and that doesn’t belong in a public school system. Ideals shouldn’t be forced upon young minds, but should allow those young minds to make their decisions.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
:(. Hmm.
But in my reasoning I am just trying to follow the logical path of what in means to say something came from nothing, as it pertains to what proponents of darwinism/evolution/big bang, state. IF you believe that something came from nothing and we all go to nothing, everything inbetween is meaningless/of no value.
On the other side, proponents of ID are asking a simple question… How can something come from nothing? Since in science something can’t come from nothing. Evolution / darwinism / big bang cant explain this but they claim it does. Lots of Creationist have no problem with any of those theories. But when they ask a simple question they get blasted and ridiculed.
One thing creationist also say is sure God can’t be scientifically proven so sure He is our magic man. But on the other side for proponents of Evolution / darwinism / big bang to claim something comes from nothing, that is also magic. So when a creationist looks at both of these magical claims they say the God magical claim makes more sense.
Me personally I have no problem with evolution / darwinism / big bang to be taught in schools just make sure it’s taught accurately and if there is viable evident to the contrary that is taught also. Just not a blatant statement saying we all came from monkeys as if it were fact.
I could care less if ID was tought in schools as a science. As the grade A idiot Wells even stated ID is not ready to be tought in schools at this point as a science. I would lean more to it being topic discussed in philosophy. Also Since the law of the land is also to keep church and state seperate I agree with you also that specific religions if ID was ever taught in schools should not be attached.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“On the other side, proponents of ID are asking a simple question… How can something come from nothing? ”
That’s the crux of the whole thing that is driving the scientists bonkers- evolution doesn’t care where it came from! For all an evolutionary biologist cares, god coulda stuck his finger in a pool full of goo and said “let the fittest survive.” Evolution really doesn’t care. Now Jon might, but that’s his deal.
Here’s essentially what you’re saying: “a screwdriver is a useless tool because it’s not heavy enough to pound concrete nails. Screwdrivers are obviously flawed and should not be used.”
Evolution is the wrong tool for the job- it’s not supposed to cover something coming from nothing (that’s autobiogenesis, aka ‘the tackhammer’). This is the point many biologists are trying to make. Much like the screwdriver, you’re trying to apply it for a job it wasn’t meant to do.
BUT, just because it can’t do that job doesn’t mean it isn’t good for the job it’s intended for. When it comes to driving screws, a screwdriver is a great tool. When it comes to explaining why e. coli was suddenly able to start processing citrate as a food source, evolution (via genetic mutation) is the proper tool.
Be it the stirring finger of god or autobiogenesis (maybe they’re the same thing), it’s not evolution’s concern.
“I could care less if ID was tought in schools as a science.”
ID It belongs in a biology class as much as the study of the Ego and Super Ego. There are different types of theories, and much like Freud’s, ID is not a *scientific* theory. As much as I hate to quote wikipedia:
“In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. ”
Where are the testable predictions in ID?
“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences
again, wiki bad, but still a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
August 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
My opinion…don’t teach either one in science class. Sure at the appropriate grade level you can imply that there are various theories, and then it is on the student to read up on evolution vs. creation, and they can make their own decision. I do think that the both evolution and creation can be taught in some type of philosophy elective, but not in a science class. Science class is a place for exactly that…science, not a place for religious doctrines, or for that matter, personal preference to certain theories. Keep the class neutral and everyone would be much happier.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I pretty much agree with most of what was said in the last two post.
But here is the issue that is driving the creationist bonkers with evolutionist / Darwinist. I can’t find the exact quote… But Darwin makes a statement along the lines, “I’m afraid I killed God”. Thats not science. And also Dawkins who loathes God and religion, he uses Darwinism (which encompasses evolution) to bolster his claim that God doesn’t exist. They move past science into a philosophy/belief… -> and this creeps into schools under the guise of evolution.
Jon will probably not respond anymore but I have been reading through excerpts from Dawkins “The God Delusion”, and its full of the same fallacies and opinions that are found in “A Case For a Creator”. It’s his opinion, and the scientific facts and theories leads him to believe that there is no God. You could call his book “A Case for NO God”. And thats not to over look what evidence he does present but the fact is he cannot prove there isn’t a God. But does that warrant him as a Grade A idiot?
IDist, some of the ones I have read/heard, state they aren’t disputing the science behind evolution (at least the science that is correct), but the underlying philosophy and belief that has become so apparent as a result of Darwinism. There sheer # of websites that you find if you search for God and Evolution, that follow this belief / philosophy is a testament of this.
“Evolution is the wrong tool for the job- it’s not supposed to cover something coming from nothing (that’s autobiogenesis, aka ‘the tackhammer’). This is the point many biologists are trying to make. Much like the screwdriver, you’re trying to apply it for a job it wasn’t meant to do.”
And this is what quite a lot of Athesis/Darwinist/Evolutionist are trying to do, use evolution for a job it wasn’t meant to do.
Here is a couple video on the philosophical aspect of ID and the philosophy and belief behind darwinism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW1EBuNkp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXXLXA-_YE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUJzmiwQHY0&feature=related
3 part series about 30 min total.
One last point from a quote in the initial posting
Morgajel - “At one time people thought a flaming chariot dragged the sun across the sky - seems silly now, doesn’t it. At one time, they thought the sun rotated around the earth - crazy talk now, huh? Hell, people even used to think the world is flat, but we know better…”
Well here how I see this statement. Sure people at one time didn’t know any better. At the time they had no way or disproving or proving any of these things scientifically. or what little evidence they did had the came to these conclusion. At the point of their hypothesis are they crazy? If they didn’t imagine or wonder, they wouldn’t have tried to even tried to find out what was the actual truth.
Sorta how atheist pokes fun at faith. How can someone belief that something that they can’t see is there.
I would assume morgajel that you have hope in certain things.
Such as you hope that you will be alive tomorrow.
You hope that you can provide a good life for you wife and kids.
But these things cannot be scientifically proven as true so should you have no hope in them?
Is it so crazy for someone to hope that there is a God and that he loves them and at the end of the this, not always so nice life, there is a better place?
Would it be so hard to call people crazy after its been scientifically proven that God does not exist. Or vice versa
Gosh to many thoughts i am ranting….
In conclusion religion shouldn’t not be taught in schools and likewise the philosophy that God doesn’t exist shouldn’t either.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:07 am
“or what little evidence they did had the came to these conclusion. ”
or what little evidence they did have allowed them to come to these conclusions.
horrible typist in general even worst when I am half asleep.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Dawkins has an agenda, and hence he falls under people who piss me off for pushing a political agenda. There was a good article a while back from someone who said “hey, I believe in evolution, but people like Dawkins and [some other guy] are hurting the science because they’re turning it into a religion. Their wrong to do so, and it has no place in science.” I agree that there are people who try to pervert evolution for their own ideals- be it atheism or whatever, but that doesn’t change the facts. You could start a cult that thinks Rainbows are the coolest thing ever, that doesn’t mean light refraction is bunk.
“IDist, some of the ones I have read/heard, state they aren’t disputing the science behind evolution (at least the science that is correct), but the underlying philosophy and belief that has become so apparent as a result of Darwinism.”
See, that’s funny because the impression they like to give off is we “didn’t come from any damn dirty monkeys” (as my 6th grade science teacher put it).
Pretty much saying God made everything exactly like it is- from saying the grand canyon was carved out of solid granite in 6 days (due to the flood of course) to arguing against stellar formation to saying People and dinosours existed at the same time… it just… I don’t even know how to end this sentence.
According to creationists, we can throw out the following sciences because they’re obviously wrong: Evolutionary biology (obvious in this context), genetics (common genes between like species mean nothing), radiocarbon dating ( car odometer sucks at measuring inches logic), geochronology (earth layers don’t really represent timeline), plate tectonics (crazy theory about continents zooming around the earth and then suddenly stopping, known as catastrophic plate tectonics, again due to the Flood), study of glaciers (only one ice age so all evidence of multiple ice ages must be wrong), erosion (mountains would erode too fast, see theory about grand canyon), astronomy (supernova remnants couldn’t be millions of years old- note, this is why Jon gets so pissed off), Lunar Science (dust on the moon is too fine), stellar formation (no one has directly witnessed a million year process hence it doesn’t happen), Anatomy (eyeballs are irreducibly complex so god made them), study of the coral reefs (they can’t be that old!) and anthropology (Neolithic age couldn’t have happened 7000 years ago because the earth is only 6000 years old). Note that I did not make any of this up- these are all arguments that creationists have made. They say that creationism isn’t about damaging science, but it is- it really is.
There’s a common phrase called the God of the Gaps- the idea that God exists between the gaps in our knowledge. I think that’s the fear of leading creationists- the more we explain, the more science diminishes their God. That’s what Darwin meant when he said “he killed God”- he simply filled in a large gap. There will always be gaps, and there will always be a need for a God (for some people). I have no problem with that. (I find it somewhat ironic that God gave us freewill to blindly follow the bible… seems… almost subverted. But that’s another discusssion entirely). I have a problem with people trying to destroy science to open those gaps back up. And that is exactly what we see happening on so many of the bullet points above.
“At the point of their hypothesis are they crazy? ” It got crazy when the church deemed heliocentrism heresy, leading Coppernicus not to publish until the year he died, or the grief Galileo had to deal with- but that’s neither here nor there. My point was we’ve since learned that these ideas were wrong and fixed them, and now it’s almost as if we’re going backwards. We’ve successfully used the theory of evolution for decades to fight evolving viruses and diseases, as well as learn more about genetic sicknesses and genetic engineering. Saying evolution is bunk is ignoring the many advances across the board that we’ve made in the last 40 years.
As for hope… Hope has no place in science. Hypothesis does, but hope does not. Yes, I do hope I can feed my family tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean that I WILL be able to. It just means I hope I can. You have to follow the data, despite what your emotions may want you to believe. The data says I have a fairly steady job, am able to pay my bills mostly on time, and have multiple options of something horrible was to happen (family, foodstamps, soupkitchens, etc).
The real thing- the REAL thing that bothers me is that the line has become so blurred on A) what a scientific hypothesis is, something we all learned in junior high/middle school and B) that people are so quick to throw out both a true scientific theory and ‘an idea’ because they aren’t able to recognize the difference.
When you throw out both, you lose something much more important. You lose the foundation of science.
It’s important to be able to recognize WHY evolution is an actual scientific theory. I’m not talking about Dawkin’s bullshit psuedo-religious christian bashing. I’m not talking about life being created from nothing, or where the universe came from- hell, I’m not even going to argue that plants and animals evolved from the same single cell critters (if it were autobiogenesis that kicked things off, it’d be silly to presume that it only happened in one instance, unless there’s some strong genetic evidence stating otherwise).
I care what’s taught in our schools because it’s important that in a science class, the people teaching and the people being taught can differentiate between a scientific theory and a philosophical idea. If they can’t differentiate, those gaps are gonna grow.