Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Dr. Torch Wrote:Like these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Quote:If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,"

By their very nature scientists should be very skeptical of anything and everything. I could sign that statement and it would be true (except for the PhD).

Yes they should be. But history shows, that they often aren't that diligent:
Geocentric universe, phlogiston, Piltdown Man, Pepper Moths...

Quote:HS Biology teachers that have PhDs, eh? Please. In a quick search through the list, I found one (1) high school teacher. The fact that you have to misrepresent this list shows me that you have absolutely no argument against it.

No, I haven't reviewed the subject and misremembered it. I do point out that it reeks of consensus science.

Quote:There's really no reason to debate these lists anyway, because they are both an appeal to authority, which is why the Project Steve list is done in jest anyway.

I disagree, the skepticism of the first list is an appropriate appeal to authority, since most people are indeed taught that science has "proven" evolution. This appeal shows that those who understand science, can articulate why the proofs are, *ahem* "incomplete".

The latter is an inappropriate appeal, because it is simply bullying people by saying "we're scientists, you're not." Is it done in jest? I see it mentioned often enough that it is not always used that way. Scientists w/ integrity would remove themselves from such an abused "joke".

DrTorch Wrote:Yes they should be. But history shows, that they often aren't that diligent:
Geocentric universe, phlogiston, Piltdown Man, Pepper Moths...

Same old creationist canards. And you know science ruled them out when it gathered enough evidence.

DrTorch Wrote:I do point out that it reeks of consensus science.

Yeah, after I pointed it out. You rolled out your list first. I rolled out this list in response to you appeal to authority.

DrTorch Wrote:I disagree, the skepticism of the first list is an appropriate appeal to authority, since most people are indeed taught that science has "proven" evolution. This appeal shows that those who understand science, can articulate why the proofs are, *ahem* "incomplete".

Proof, you want proof? You can have proof. Show me one theory that is proven. You can't. There is no such thing. All one can do is pile up the evidence, which you have completely ignored. I posted one link above, and not a single response. Your silence on that speaks volumes. I guess your next post will be about how Talk Origins is a Darwinian conspiracy website. Please do that and I'll just keep on laughing.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Yes they should be. But history shows, that they often aren't that diligent:
Geocentric universe, phlogiston, Piltdown Man, Pepper Moths...

Same old creationist canards. And you know science ruled them out when it gathered enough evidence.

"Science" supported all of these flawed ideas for DECADES, despite enough evidence. I am suggesting that the same is true for "Evolution" although that word seems to morph into whatever is convenient for the day.

DrTorch Wrote:I do point out that it reeks of consensus science.

Yeah, after I pointed it out. You rolled out your list first. I rolled out this list in response to you appeal to authority.

DrTorch Wrote:I disagree, the skepticism of the first list is an appropriate appeal to authority, since most people are indeed taught that science has "proven" evolution. This appeal shows that those who understand science, can articulate why the proofs are, *ahem* "incomplete".

Proof, you want proof? You can have proof. Show me one theory that is proven. You can't. [/quote]

I do it all the friggin time! So do others!

I admit, I have the eaiser job, it's easier to disprove a theory than supply enough evidence to "prove" it. But, it's been done! Many times over.

Quote:There is no such thing.

No such thing? It's friggin' everywhere! It's not me who "doesn't understand." Quite the contrary.

Quote:All one can do is pile up the evidence, which you have completely ignored. I posted one link above, and not a single response. Your silence on that speaks volumes.

No, I've grown tired of providing evidence. I've posted links, book recommendations, and even offered books. I haven't been silent, just fatigued from the same baseless arguments that have been dispelled more than once.

Quote:I guess your next post will be about how Talk Origins is a Darwinian conspiracy website. Please do that and I'll just keep on laughing.

Conspiracy? No, but it's a tiresome website. I haven't been there in 8 or 9 years. I was bored then w/ their silliness, and I doubt that has changed.

Quote:I do it all the friggin time! So do others!

Yes, you can prove something false, but it is impossible to prove a scientific theory true (at least it has never been done). It's very difficult to do even with seemingly simple mathematical ideas. Sorry, if you misunderstood my point. I understand that it only takes one example to prove something false, but if you recall you were the one calling evolution unproven as if it could be proven.

Quote:This appeal shows that those who understand science, can articulate why the proofs are, *ahem* "incomplete".

My point was, "well duh."

Again, I point at all the evidence that you claim does not even exist.

Quote:just fatigued from the same baseless arguments that have been dispelled more than once.

You should also be tired of rolling out ancient creationist canards as well, then.

Look over a year ago, I took your advice and looked into intelligent design. I seriously looked into it. I examined their evidence and I found it convincing at first glance. It makes a lot of intuitive sense. But once I really started to critically examine it, I found that their ideas were completely lacking when compared to the theory of evolution.

Coming at this from a slightly different angle...

I would argue that if you approach Christian scripture in a way any other than as a testimony to Jesus Christ, then you are completely missing the point of scripture. When written, and even when cannonized, the point was never to lay out a scientific history of the world. Rather, it was to testify to the teachings and life of Jesus, who Christians supposedly follow.

Just my take.

HowardD11 Wrote:Coming at this from a slightly different angle...

I would argue that if you approach Christian scripture in a way any other than as a testimony to Jesus Christ, then you are completely missing the point of scripture. When written, and even when cannonized, the point was never to lay out a scientific history of the world. Rather, it was to testify to the teachings and life of Jesus, who Christians supposedly follow.

Just my take.

Oooooooh, but not if you're an evangelical. Then you get the 2-1 deal of the bible substituting as a science textbook. Because dont you know, everything you need to live your life is in the bible, and if it says the world was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago, well it must be so. If you read scripture contextually, you're just a pagan mincing the words of God

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

HowardD11 Wrote:Coming at this from a slightly different angle...

I would argue that if you approach Christian scripture in a way any other than as a testimony to Jesus Christ, then you are completely missing the point of scripture. When written, and even when cannonized, the point was never to lay out a scientific history of the world. Rather, it was to testify to the teachings and life of Jesus, who Christians supposedly follow.

Just my take.

Oooooooh, but not if you're an evangelical. Then you get the 2-1 deal of the bible substituting as a science textbook. Because dont you know, everything you need to live your life is in the bible, and if it says the world was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago, well it must be so. If you read scripture contextually, you're just a pagan mincing the words of God

You've hit the nail on the head, and if that's the case, I guess I'm a pagan.

Ofcourse however, I do claim the title Evangelical Christian, because to be evangelical means really nothing more than to based in spreading the good news, and to be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ. (Note it does not mean to be anti-evolution) Most theological circles would substitute the word evangelical for fundamentalist in this sense (fundamentalist meaning holding fundamentally to the Bible as the only source of all necessary information). In short, all fundamentalist Christians are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalist.

It is my understanding that the people who are against evolution and pro-creationism are so because they believe that every part of the Bible must be 100% literal truth or none of it can truly be taken with any grain of salt. Black and white. Nevermind the fact that it is a collection of indirectly related books brought together by a council, everything must be factual truth. If Genesis didn't happen as written, then how can we be certain the Acts of the Apostles were?

That's what I was told from the people making the Creationist Museum.

OK, back to the original question.

I also think that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, unless you are a literal believer in the King James 17th century English translation of the latin translations of the Aramaic texts that comprise Genesis.

But I tend to think that evolution is correct becaue:
1. it explains mistakes and dead ends. Evolution is a trial and error process, in which some results don't make sense. For example the appendix. Much more logical that it is an evolutionary dead end than a mistake by an otherwise perfect Creator. Ditto dodoes, mammoths, neanderthals, dinosaurs, etc.
2. It fits the evidence, such as fossils, starlight, and geological evidence, better, while Creationism must assume these things are put there by the Creator to confuse us. How do fossils come to be? We know the speed of light, and that the light we are seeing emanated from thes stars billions of years ago. Why plant that misleading stuff if we were created as is 6K years ago?

I believe in evolution because:
1) It fits with my observations of how the world works
2) It fits in with the way the world works scientifically
3) There are mountains of evidence supporting it
4) If your beliefs of why the world exists as it does come from the Bible, I strongly recommend you watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=16ElyZBTN1Y

Or indeed almost any Richard Dawkins documentary.

Fanatical Wrote:That's what I was told from the people making the Creationist Museum.

You gonna go when it opens?

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I believe in evolution because:
1) It fits with my observations of how the world works
2) It fits in with the way the world works scientifically
3) There are mountains of evidence supporting it
4) If your beliefs of why the world exists as it does come from the Bible, I strongly recommend you watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=16ElyZBTN1Y

Or indeed almost any Richard Dawkins documentary.

That's the problem though: Penn and Teller make a great (although flamboyant) argument as to how the world exists (an argument I tend to agree with), but it doesn't explain why the world exists.... leave the how questions to science, and why questions to religion, and we will all be fine.

I wouldn't say the books of the Bible are completely unrelated, but you have to understand why they were chosen: Collectively, the early church councils thought they would best testify (thus the names New and Old testament), to God's work in the world, and to who Jesus Christ, and what his life means for humanity. The fact is, Christianity got along for over 300 years without cannonized scripture: The idea of scripture is to have an authoritative means of understanding Christianity in its puriest form.

By the way GTS, your link was too Penn and Teller's episode on PETA. I think you meant for it to either link to their episode on Creationism, or the one on the Bible Myth.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:That's what I was told from the people making the Creationist Museum.

You gonna go when it opens?

I can't wait. My lil anthropologist sister and I are going to make a filed trip, if it ever opens.

Indeed ... my error on the link. The appropriate link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=viMPB_rXZrk

HowardD11 Wrote:That's the problem though: Penn and Teller make a great (although flamboyant) argument as to how the world exists (an argument I tend to agree with), but it doesn't explain why the world exists.... leave the how questions to science, and why questions to religion, and we will all be fine.

I wouldn't say the books of the Bible are completely unrelated, but you have to understand why they were chosen: Collectively, the early church councils thought they would best testify (thus the names New and Old testament), to God's work in the world, and to who Jesus Christ, and what his life means for humanity. The fact is, Christianity got along for over 300 years without cannonized scripture: The idea of scripture is to have an authoritative means of understanding Christianity in its puriest form.

That's the problem though. Very very very few religions simply stick to WHY we are here. They attempt to explain much of the world..... and in a view that is starkly opposite to that of science. The only purely "why are we here / why is there something instead of nothing" religion I can think off straight off the top of my head is Deism. It's becoming more and more the opposite these days. Far right evangelical faith attacking science. It's disturbing. There's a large portion of a Richard Dawkins documentary devoted to this. I strongly recommend watching this:

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion
Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=v3p51MBKMLk
Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=O_aw1O6nyms
Part 3 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=ussdzdnj_dE
Part 4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=NZU111Q5ASs
Part 5 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZgX4lSy-Mg

He gets to the religious attack on science in late Part 2 and Part 3. There's in depth looking at religious authority and in particular Catholicism in Part 1 and early Part 2. And he gets to extremist religion (suicide bombers etc) in the last bits... and makes a VERY interesting assertion about the systems that support such behavior. I'll let you watch. If you're skeptical, are uneasy with your religion, or you're truly open minded, please do watch the above. But if you're a close minded highly religious person... I don't recommend watching, as you will find yourself peppered with questions I bet your dogma doesn't cope with at its core.

HowardD11 Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I believe in evolution because:
1) It fits with my observations of how the world works
2) It fits in with the way the world works scientifically
3) There are mountains of evidence supporting it
4) If your beliefs of why the world exists as it does come from the Bible, I strongly recommend you watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=16ElyZBTN1Y

Or indeed almost any Richard Dawkins documentary.

That's the problem though: Penn and Teller make a great (although flamboyant) argument as to how the world exists (an argument I tend to agree with), but it doesn't explain why the world exists.... leave the how questions to science, and why questions to religion, and we will all be fine.

I wouldn't say the books of the Bible are completely unrelated, but you have to understand why they were chosen: Collectively, the early church councils thought they would best testify (thus the names New and Old testament), to God's work in the world, and to who Jesus Christ, and what his life means for humanity. The fact is, Christianity got along for over 300 years without cannonized scripture

You have a very different view of history than I.

DrTorch Wrote:

HowardD11 Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I believe in evolution because:
1) It fits with my observations of how the world works
2) It fits in with the way the world works scientifically
3) There are mountains of evidence supporting it
4) If your beliefs of why the world exists as it does come from the Bible, I strongly recommend you watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=16ElyZBTN1Y

Or indeed almost any Richard Dawkins documentary.

That's the problem though: Penn and Teller make a great (although flamboyant) argument as to how the world exists (an argument I tend to agree with), but it doesn't explain why the world exists.... leave the how questions to science, and why questions to religion, and we will all be fine.

I wouldn't say the books of the Bible are completely unrelated, but you have to understand why they were chosen: Collectively, the early church councils thought they would best testify (thus the names New and Old testament), to God's work in the world, and to who Jesus Christ, and what his life means for humanity. The fact is, Christianity got along for over 300 years without cannonized scripture

You have a very different view of history than I.

Do I? most history books I am aware of introduce our cannon no earlier than 315-350 a.d. Indeed particular cannons existed prior to that, but not consisting of the 27 books we have today. Can you explain to me what is incorrect about that?

Let me be clear: I'm not questioning the validity of scripture. My only point is that Christians follow Jesus, not the Bible. Becase the Bible as a complete cannon was not decided on until after Christianity had existed for 3 centuries.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

HowardD11 Wrote:That's the problem though: Penn and Teller make a great (although flamboyant) argument as to how the world exists (an argument I tend to agree with), but it doesn't explain why the world exists.... leave the how questions to science, and why questions to religion, and we will all be fine.

I wouldn't say the books of the Bible are completely unrelated, but you have to understand why they were chosen: Collectively, the early church councils thought they would best testify (thus the names New and Old testament), to God's work in the world, and to who Jesus Christ, and what his life means for humanity. The fact is, Christianity got along for over 300 years without cannonized scripture: The idea of scripture is to have an authoritative means of understanding Christianity in its puriest form.

That's the problem though. Very very very few religions simply stick to WHY we are here. They attempt to explain much of the world..... and in a view that is starkly opposite to that of science. The only purely "why are we here / why is there something instead of nothing" religion I can think off straight off the top of my head is Deism. It's becoming more and more the opposite these days. Far right evangelical faith attacking science. It's disturbing. There's a large portion of a Richard Dawkins documentary devoted to this. I strongly recommend watching this:

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion
Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=v3p51MBKMLk
Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=O_aw1O6nyms
Part 3 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=ussdzdnj_dE
Part 4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=NZU111Q5ASs
Part 5 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZgX4lSy-Mg

He gets to the religious attack on science in late Part 2 and Part 3. There's in depth looking at religious authority and in particular Catholicism in Part 1 and early Part 2. And he gets to extremist religion (suicide bombers etc) in the last bits... and makes a VERY interesting assertion about the systems that support such behavior. I'll let you watch. If you're skeptical, are uneasy with your religion, or you're truly open minded, please do watch the above. But if you're a close minded highly religious person... I don't recommend watching, as you will find yourself peppered with questions I bet your dogma doesn't cope with at its core.

Richard Dawkins lumps all of Christianity into the fringes. He's a great apologist for atheism, but to say that very, very very few religious people attempt to stick to why we are here shows an unfamiliarity with Christianity. Indeed, many don't, but there are just as many who do. Probally the reason you aren't aware of us, is, well, we believe in evangelism (spreading our beliefs) through realtionships and open mindedness, as opposed to through hatred, televangelism, sensationalism, and in your face offensive claims. Do many Christians take this approach? Sure. But that's not what Christianity is, and it's not fair to catagorize it as such.

HowardD11 Wrote:Richard Dawkins lumps all of Christianity into the fringes. He's a great apologist for atheism, but to say that very, very very few religious people attempt to stick to why we are here shows an unfamiliarity with Christianity. Indeed, many don't, but there are just as many who do. Probally the reason you aren't aware of us, is, well, we believe in evangelism (spreading our beliefs) through realtionships and open mindedness, as opposed to through hatred, televangelism, sensationalism, and in your face offensive claims. Do many Christians take this approach? Sure. But that's not what Christianity is, and it's not fair to catagorize it as such.

I was raised a Methodist. While it is much more low key and non-extreme, it still suffers from the safe fallacies in rational thought, logic, and science as Catholicism, Southern Baptism, etc.