How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

It's relevant to the discussion Gaffer and I were having from the Kansas curriculum discussion - I can't help that the evidence for creationism thread got merged with this one. I didn't put it on the Katrina thread, because I think it was way out of place there. But I think it's very relevant here, and people need to think about and discuss terrible things, instead of running away from them. Only then can we fully deal with them.

Like you, I'm horrified at the terrible things going on. Like you, my heart is warmed by the actions of people like Katrina.

I think it vitally important to think about why. And if your explanation is that we evolved to feel that way, then take that and sleep with it, along with all its implications - that there IS nothing truly wrong with the atrocities taking place over there. Do you really believe that? If so, embrace it fully, and say things like, "Isn't it interesting how I hear of rape and murder over there and I feel something we call pity? However, I know that that's only something that evolved in me, and there's no real meaning to the word or my feelings. After all, if my ancestors felt pity towards the ones that were going to be selected against, I would never have evolved to what I am!"

Can you say that?

I think people generally don't have the guts to embrace what they say they believe. They just pick out the parts they like, and run from any uncomfortable parts, instead of truly thinking them through and being unafraid to embrace them (or realize that if they have problems with certain aspects of their worldview, that perhaps it's because their worldview is incorrect, and start thinking about other worldviews.)

I think it's terrible - TERRIBLE - how many people over there are acting. Yet if they're beasts, why do you object to them acting like beasts?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

science says "how could x,y,z" have come about naturally... or, to put it in your terms: is it possible for what we see today to have come about naturally

Nope - the assumption of naturalism is merely a recent fad.

What about the SETI and Mars rover scientists?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And once again, neither is particle-to-people macroevolution.

how about ape to human?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't hear anything from you about my comments on SETI scientists and looking for intelligent life on Mars, which are totally applicable to the situation, since we currently don't know any Martians to ask them, "How would you make this thing?"

you said it yourself

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yet we DO have experience of intelligence, and signs of intelligence, and THAT is what I think an open-minded person, who truly loves science (knowledge), would be willing to consider.

we have observed intelligence enough to makes theories (just as we've observed evolution on a small scale)... we have not observed "creation"

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you evolutionists object? If so, what are your logical reasons for objecting? If it's just that you feel bad because you evolved with a tendency to help others, and it's not like there's any real absolute truth that it's wrong for all time to come up to a woman holding her baby and then kill the bothersome baby and rape the woman, then why are you sending your aid and your condolences over here? Why? Since you're now enlightened and you realize that your compassion is merely a by-product of natural selection and doesn't really mean anything, then I hope you'll get back into your senses and keep your money for yourselves.

Shouldn't you rejoice that your theory is being supported?

we had months of discussion about this in the past, and if you took absolutely nothing from it then, i really doubt you will now

i have no problem finding meaning looking no futher than the people around me... i don't need any bigger purpose or reason than that

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

how about ape to human?

It's certainly not directly observeable, although people can pick up artifacts and say it happened, but that's only a guess. It is NOT testable in the sense it's at all observeable by the scientific method in the real world today.

you said it yourself

What I'm asking you is what YOU think about these guys - should they just close down the SETI facility? Should Mars rover scientists, if they see a 10-story building with windows and ornate decoratins, allow themselves to ONLY entertain theories about how it could have gotten there thru the actions of wind, sand, etc?

we have observed intelligence enough to makes theories (just as we've observed evolution on a small scale)... we have not observed "creation"

Hey, maybe that's the problem here - I"m using "creation" in the sense of making something, like how people make something. I'm not using it in the "poof" sense - I'm using it in the same way to describe how I crochet a scarf.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

we had months of discussion about this in the past, and if you took absolutely nothing from it then, i really doubt you will now

sadly, ditto but you never know Sometimes people (including me) can't grasp a concept for a long, long time, then something in the way it's said, or something that happened to illlustrate it, suddenly makes it click. I think thoughtful, intelligent discussion among kind people is a GOOD thing. Even if I never change my POV, or you change yours, personally, I've been greatly enriched by our conversations, because it's made me think a lot more, and it's helped me understand other people's POVs, and it's a pleasure to get to know you as a person, even tho we disagree on some things

i have no problem finding meaning looking no futher than the people around me... i don't need any bigger purpose or reason than that

I know you don't. What I'm saying doesn't relate to how YOU find meaning - it's that you object to how OTHERS do, like Dahmer. If you choose to make meaning in the way YOU want to, why can't others make their meaning in the way THEY want to? It is illogical to allow the first but not the second.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've been greatly enriched by our conversations, because it's made me think a lot more, and it's helped me understand other people's POVs, and it's a pleasure to get to know you as a person

Plus, it's fun .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hey, maybe that's the problem here - I"m using "creation" in the sense of making something, like how people make something. I'm not using it in the "poof" sense - I'm using it in the same way to describe how I crochet a scarf.

yes, but you crochet a scarf with yarn, that is made from animal fur, and so on

a "creator" in your sense would be someone who wanted a scarf and willed it to appear... not an intellectually impossible theory, but not physically impliable by anything we observe in the world around us

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

sadly, ditto but you never know Sometimes people (including me) can't grasp a concept for a long, long time, then something in the way it's said, or something that happened to illlustrate it, suddenly makes it click. I think thoughtful, intelligent discussion among kind people is a GOOD thing. Even if I never change my POV, or you change yours, personally, I've been greatly enriched by our conversations, because it's made me think a lot more, and it's helped me understand other people's POVs, and it's a pleasure to get to know you as a person, even tho we disagree on some things

i agree, of course

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I know you don't. What I'm saying doesn't relate to how YOU find meaning - it's that you object to how OTHERS do, like Dahmer. If you choose to make meaning in the way YOU want to, why can't others make their meaning in the way THEY want to? It is illogical to allow the first but not the second.

i've never said i have a problem with how people find meaning out of existance... but as i've said before, i comes down to the person, not the belief... christians can use religion to justify good things, and they can use it to justify murder... so can atheists

the only thing that bothers me (and maybe i took it the wrong way) is when you say stuff like "Since you're now enlightened and you realize that your compassion is merely a by-product of natural selection and doesn't really mean anything, then I hope you'll get back into your senses and keep your money for yourselves."

you are basically saying that it is not possible for me to find meaning in life with the belief system i hold... then you turn around and say, "but, of course, you are a nice person anyway"... it just doesn't add up

i don't think i've ever said or asked, "how can you be moral being a christian?" ... because i already know that a christian can be a perfectly moral person ... but i've been asked "how can you be moral being an agnostic?" ... given my reasons many times ... and yet still they are questioned

maybe you can tell me... how am i still a moral person eventhough i have zero belief in god? (if you think i am, of course )

[Lief Erikson]

I'm just going to interject here a comment. Not interrupting the conversation or adding to it; you all can quote over me . It's something really funny I saw a few months ago.

I was watching a NOVA video on chemistry, and there was a female scientist. The movie was really getting on my nerves because people in it were treating the audience like they were in kindergarten. Then she said this:

"You may think that with all the inventions we have now, we have discovered all there is to know about science. (Condescend, condescend ) However, we are decades from that point."

[Spock]

IMO, NOVA isn't produced for the intelligensia.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm just going to interject here a comment. Not interrupting the conversation or adding to it; you all can quote over me . It's something really funny I saw a few months ago.

I was watching a NOVA video on chemistry, and there was a female scientist. The movie was really getting on my nerves because people in it were treating the audience like they were in kindergarten. Then she said this:

"You may think that with all the inventions we have now, we have discovered all there is to know about science. (Condescend, condescend ) However, we are decades from that point."

rotfl!!

brownie - I'd love to discuss your points, but am on the way out the door for a day at the beach

[Nurvingiel]

Wait a minute... these two threads were combined?

*head 'splodie*

I guess it makes sense.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

brownie - I'd love to discuss your points, but am on the way out the door for a day at the beach

no problem... i know the answer... it was more of a rhetorical question

[Rían]

it may have been rhetorical for you, but I"m going to address it anyway (a bit later) - I see there's still a misunderstanding there...

Here's an interesting article:

Thought Police Try To Stifle Academic Freedom at Iowa State University

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 1, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a blatant attack on academic freedom a small number of faculty at Iowa State University have organized a petition denouncing intelligent design as unscientific and urged the university community to essentially ban the theory from campus.

“The Darwinist inquisition is spreading,� said Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think-tank researching the theory of intelligent design. “Darwinists at George Mason University, Ohio State University, and the Smithsonian have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy. Now we see that the witch hunt has turned to Iowa State University and is focused on an astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez.�

Dr. Gonzalez, a senior fellow of Discovery Institute, is internationally known among astronomers and cosmologists as an expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones. He is a co-founder of the concept of Galactic Habitable Zones (GHZ). He and his colleagues captured the cover of Scientific American for their foundational and defining work on the very idea of GHZs. He has published over 60 peer-reviewed science papers, the latest being “Habitable Zones in the Universe� forthcoming in the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres.

He is also a leading scientist who has put forward a testable argument for intelligent design--drawing on research from cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics--and it is this that has spurred attempts to stifle scientific inquiry and academic freedom.

The Des Moines Register reports that faculty members have “accused Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda� and “fingering him as an academic fraud.� Gonzalez has commented that the incident has made his work environment less than collegial.

“A small group of narrow-minded and intolerant faculty members have started a petition to rule out intelligent design as inherently unscientific; and are seeking to essentially ban it from being researched, taught, even discussed, at ISU,� said Chapman. “In so doing they have targeted the only person on the campus who publicly is known to defend intelligent design in his work.�



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at:
http://www.discovery.org.

And here's the link: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...=discoMainPage

and two notes: they are NOT a "religious" organization (there are agnostics there), and they do NOT only deal with ID/creationism - they deal with lots of other fields, too.

[Spock]

Indeed. Unfortunately a lot of academians use their tenure as a podium for radical ideas or worse; this is just another example.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

it may have been rhetorical for you, but I"m going to address it anyway (a bit later)

i knew that too

[brownjenkins]

He is also a leading scientist who has put forward a testable argument for intelligent design--drawing on research from cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics--and it is this that has spurred attempts to stifle scientific inquiry and academic freedom.

i have my doubts about the "testability" factor, would like to see the details... if it is not testable in any real sense, than it is not science

The Des Moines Register reports that faculty members have “accused Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda� and “fingering him as an academic fraud.� Gonzalez has commented that the incident has made his work environment less than collegial.

that's hardly a "witch hunt", or have they threatened to burn him too?

as i said earlier in this thread, it's all words... and any new theory is going to have to deal with often strong vocal opposition (ask einstein or galileo)... put down some good testable theories and enough people will eventually come around to support the idea of presenting the theory in academic classrooms... whining about criticism gets you nowhere

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i knew that too

*southern accent & innocent look* Why, suh, whatever do you mean by that?

i have my doubts about the "testability" factor, would like to see the details... if it is not testable in any real sense, than it is not science

agreed, and I appreciate your openmindedness and willingness to consider the details.

that's hardly a "witch hunt", or have they threatened to burn him too?

yes, I think the article was too emotionally-laden; it would have been better IMO to tone it down. What they're referring to, I think, is some things that have happened to others at the Smithsonian and at another university.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yes, I think the article was too emotionally-laden; it would have been better IMO to tone it down. What they're referring to, I think, is some things that have happened to others at the Smithsonian and at another university.

which article? the one you posted?