Scientific bigots can be just as annoying as religious bigots

[Used and Abused]

I've noticed a lot of "holier than thou" attitudes here on the boards today, with regard to the evolution debate.

The bottom line is, the majority of Americans (including the majority of Democrats) are Christian. We should not bash and make fun of their beliefs.

We should all try to get along and understand one another.

[trotsky]

1. There are Christians who acknowledge evolution too.

This is not a Christian vs. atheist debate, this is a mythology vs. reality debate.

[Used and Abused]

10. your response is the perfect example of what I'm referring to

"Mythology vs reality"

[eleonora]

17. It *is* mythology vs. reality

Schools should stick with science. You can teach your kids creation at home. There is no concession to make for me.

[trotsky]

54. The only "evidence" for creationism

is found in a religious text written by uneducated desert nomads.

I'm sorry, but until and unless creationism (or "intelligent design") can get some real-world evidence to back them up, they DO NOT belong in the public classroom.

[lgardengate]

61. All Theory about how life began are just that...theory

No one can prove anything.I don't see why creationism can't be discussed as one theory.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. There are theories and theories

Some theories have good evidence backing them (i.e. fossil records, DNA similarities between species, observed mutations in simpler organisms etc.)

And some are supposed to be believed true because "God said so".

See a difference?

[trotsky]

66. Because there's no evidence for it.

What's so difficult to understand here?

You, like many creationists, make the mistake of confusing the different definitions for the word "theory." Here's a clue: gravity is a theory just like evolution is.

[mom-mad-about-bush]

137. You really should check out the book "The Science of God"

This book uses science to prove facts from the bible.

[trotsky]

152. Oh, you mean this book?

http://www.csicop.org/bibliography/display.cgi/335

In other words, IF you accept the literal truth of Genesis, THEN you can "prove" facts from the bible. Okey dokey.

[mom-mad-about-bush]

171. Not really???? Have you read the book???? Or, did you just read the

bibliography???? Regardless of what "theory" you believe, the book is about trying to show how both can support each other.

[trotsky]

180. Yes, it tries.

And in doing so it totally blows away the creationist story.

If you think that's OK, then I'm confused.

[Xipe Totec]

84. Theories cannot be proven

They can only be disproven.

Creationism has been disproven.

Evolution has not.

That you you do not understand the difference means that you are not in a position to suggest which theories should be thought in school, and which fairy tales should be taught in church.

[Sterling]

90. It's called scientific theory.

It means it has to be based in reality and testable.

Now anyone can make up some dumb shit and call it a theory but is not something I want taught to my kids as science unless it passes the mustard. Get it?

[St. Jarvitude]

248. Evolution is not a theory.

That evolution occurs is observable fact.

The popular belief that evolution is a "theory" is baloney. Natural selection is a common theory which explains evolution. It also happens to be a theory with some pretty solid evidence to back it up. You could come out with a theory that evolution is advanced via some sort of divine intervention, and that's fine... there just wouldn't be a whole lot of evidence to back you up.

As a hopefully eventual double biology/chemistry major, it irks me to no end to see evolution carelessly tossed aside and dismissed as mere "theory".

[WyLoochka]

266. Evolution is a theory

Creationism is cretinism with a couple of extra vowels.

In science, to become a "theory" mega amounts of observations and data are collected, analyzed and verified over a considerably long period of time.

You are confusing a "hypothesis" with the word "theory." A "hypothesis" is a kind of conjecture - a "maybe it works this way because ...." After the hypothesis is formulated experiments are designed to test the conjecture. Far more hypotheses fail than prove out.

The science classroom is not the place to discuss all of the failed hypotheses, interesting as they may be. Creationism is the hypothesis posed by the writers of the book of Genesis. It has long since been shot full of holes and no one has any business taking up valuable science class time to even bring the subject up.

Creationism can and probably should be mentioned in a history of religion class. But that's as far as it goes.

[prodigal_green]

179. well, I wouldn't say completely uneducated

They did seem to know what they were talking about when trying to do a medical differential on Leprosy (sorry, can't remember the current term for the disease). It takes up something like three chapters in Leviticus.

I always thought the story of genesis was a bit abbreviated, just something to tell the kids to get them to stop asking questions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. I'm a Christian (preacher's kid no less) and

it IS a mythology versus reality debate.

My father's response to people who tried to get him to promote creationism was, "The Bible isn't a science book. God gave us brains to figure out the natural world for ourselves"

Having been to seminary, he knew that if you read Genesis closely, you find that there are two creation stories, one in Genesis 1, and the other in Genesis 2. In one of them, man and woman are created together, and in the second one, Eve is created from Adam's rib. Genesis is in fact woven out of three separate ancient stories passed down by oral tradition, and they are identified as the J strand (because God is referred to as YHWH), the E strand (because God is referred to as Elohim), and the P strand (the so-called "priestly" stories). At some point a few hundred years B.C., they were all written down.

I'm trained in linguistics, and scholars who look at texts can tell whether they were all written by the same author (because writers have their own habitual styles and turns of phrase) or whether they were all written at the same period, because language changes over the years. (Think of how different Shakespeare's English is from ours.)

This stuff has been known since the mid-nineteenth century, and if your ministers are telling you that the Bible is literally true and was written by Moses in 3,000 B.C., then they are either ignorant or lying.

The fundamentalists want the Bible to be literally true, because you can find a Bible verse to justify just about anything. But note that they pick and choose.

They use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, but they do not condemn the rich who exploit the poor and defenseless (e.g. WalMart, Enron, wealthy ranchers who hire illegal immigrants for less than minimum wage), as the Hebrew prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah do at great length.

They condemn sex outside of marriage, but they don't condemn violence and aggressive war, despite the Sermon on the Mount.

They love to condemn people to hell for not "accepting Christ" in their prescribed way, but they somehow never get around to citing Romans 2:12-16.

They want their children to be able to show off their piety in school prayer (which never existed in most of the U.S.) and yet they ignore Jesus' instructions to pray in secret.

It's odd that people will type on a computer, which is based on science and engineering that the Bible never mentions; take medicines that are based on biology and chemistry that the Bible never mention; ride in airplanes that are based on physics that the Bible never mentions; understand that the earth moves around the sun, even though the Bible says that Joshua made the sun stand still, and yet they balk at accepting evolution.

Personally, I find it much more exciting to think that God started the whole evolution ball rolling than that he just zapped everything into being like a cartoon wizard.

Think about it.

[Columbia]

148. I totally agree

Especially this part: Personally, I find it much more exciting to think that God started the whole evolution ball rolling than that he just zapped everything into being like a cartoon wizard.

[charlie]

174. Your dad's a swell fellow

I'm amused by the fundie desperation to shoehorn religion into the rubric of science. They're sowing the seeds of their own destruction, building a rickety edifice of patches, special clauses, and just-sos that only makes religion look goofball by their bleating assertions that what they're doing is science. Religion isn't a litany of mechanical howtos and science has nothing to say about affairs of the heart or unanswerable mysteries, they're seperate bailiwicks.

But I'm hardly surprised. Fundies are Cargo Cult Christians, fascinated with rituals and structure, with no clue as to the depths below the surface of their own religion.

[MaineYooper]

205. thanks for your post

Extremely well written. Your father sounds like a great guy.

I'm a scientist (physicist by education, computational molecular biology by profession) and lapsed Methodist now leaning agnostic. All that said, I've had the great fortune to have extended contact with three ministers (two Methodist, one Lutheran) who viewed this much the same way as your father. None of them found a conflict between evolution and Christianity because none of them found the need to treat the beginning of Genesis as a literal history. As a matter of fact one of the Methodist ministers used the "two stories of creation in Genesis" argument exactly the same way to present Genesis 1 and 2 as mythology.

As a scientist, I have to follow scientific principles and methodology, which includes addressing the limitations of any theory. We certainly don't understand all the details of evolution (as evidenced by the near holy-war arguments between proponents of varying theories), but it is the best model currently available. My own belief is that there is room for, but no necessity for, God in evolution, but I have no great problem with other people trying to assign one, provided it falls into the category of things the model can't explain. (for instance, assuming God is there, what we call random events are not necessarily so for a supreme being.)

But, as I said at the top, I mainly wanted to complement your contribution. cheers

[neoteric lefty]

271. Lydia, great post.

I think the religious leadership in this country needs more folks like yourself and your father. I am an atheist (mostly from a philosophical reasoning) but I really respect Christians like yourself who seem to have a profound faith in the Creator but a healthy respect for the natural world around them.

The Bible has many, many great messages in it. However, it has become like Star Trek for a lot of people in this nation. Here's what I mean: Some folks are so wrapped up in the literal words of the text, that they forget to think critically about what those words mean in context of the natural world; much like Trekkies who dress up daily as Spoke, Kirk, Picard, etc. on a daily basis and believe that they should model their lives after the characters in the show on a literal basis. You have to peel back the layers and understand its meaning and use those in your own life, as well as taking from other aspects of the world around you. I hope I have not lost you on this analogy :).

Again, thank you for your post. It definitely put a smile on my face.

[Sterling]

89. It's really not a debate.

People who reject Science are insane. Fuck them if they can't take it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

102. It IS Mythology: did Zeus or Odin create the heavens?

Jesus, pick up a science book!

[RUDUing2]

268. they might have..nobody knows..

as Kahlil Gibran said: all religions are but fingers on the hand of God...

Jupiter, Odin, etc are just other names for the supreme being..

Science can not disprove the existance of God/the supreme being/the Creator..and religion can not prove the existance of God/the supreme being/the Creator..

Science cant prove how the universe or life came to be..they can offer theories and explanations of how it evolved though..

Religion cant prove how the universe or life came to be...they can offer theories and explanations on how it evolved though..

To claim that one rules out the other is to simply show that you have a closed mind, whether you are supporting science or religion.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

2. Good luck with that

Ask yourself this: does the Christain Right try to get along and understand us?
(Psst...the answer you're looking for is "no". Or even "HELL NO")

[sangh0]

6. So it's OK to be a bigot

so long as it's a scientific one.

I disagree

[Sterling]

95. "Science bigot"

Wow now I have heard everything. Now we are calling people who acknowledge reality bigots.

Great. I can tell we have a bright future to look forward to.

Maybe we can think of bad things to call people who read books that are not the bible?

[mike_c]

195. I'll bet the Taliban hates those awful "science bigots," too....

eom

[sangh0]

255. And the truly religious LOVE the science bigots

as much as they love ALL of God's children

[sangh0]

264. Do you think people who believe in science can't be bigots?

To have such a strong and extreme opinion, which is unsupported by the facts, suggests that this belief of yours is a bigoted one.

[prodigal_green]

182. Perhaps it's really a question

of the Enlightenment versus the Dark Ages.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. who cares about the christian right?

this is not about them.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

20. I disagree. The OP said "we should all try to get along with one another"

And the odds of the "Christain" Right (I use the word Christain in quotes becuase the CR are most definitely not Christains) trying to "get along" with us are somewhat close to zero.
I don't have any easy answers. I don't try to be narrow-minded when it comes to religion. But when someone gets in my face and says "THIS is what you will be teaching your children in public school because I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE!" you better believe I'm going to be a little more resistant.

[bryant69]

33. Yeah but most of those posts that he is complaining about are right here

ON DU.

A place where only 6% favor giving much credence to Creationist teaching in our schools --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2766476

The evolution posts here aren't about getting along with the Christian right, they are about getting along with the Christian left.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

40. Oh, well when you put it that way...

I understand. That's what I get for not paying attention in GD.
Oops.

[Djinn]

64. cool teach Christian creation

but teach it in religious studies. Then kids can also be taught the views of creation from ALL religions.

[Sterling]

98. But that would mean they can't force others to go along with the joke

What fun would it be for them if we got to believe something that the don't like?

[Sterling]

97. For some odd reason "some" here think it is.

They go on and on about how we need to reach out to these freaks and not offend them. Eat me to that shit.

I refuse to pretend that these people have a rational legit point of view. That kind of shit is what got us here and is ensuring things will only get worse.

If this was a war I would be fragging these Vichy Dem douche bags.

[Book Lover]

3. Darwin was a Christian

Being a Christian does not equal being a Creationist. Bashing Creationists does not equal bashing Christians.

And it doesn't matter if Christians are a majority or a minority - no one should be ridiculed in the public arena for their religious beliefs. Privately or within the context of an academic or intellectual discussion, that is a different matter.

on edit: why does it matter to you that Christains are the majority religion in eth US? What's your point?

[Used and Abused]

11. What I'm saying is that both sides need to use tact

Outright insults from either side are wrong, and on the boards, I've noticed a lot of outright insults towards those who, through their faith, choose creationism.

[Book Lover]

31. I am not

obligated to hold any amount of intellectual respect for someone who not only believes that a fairy story is real, but wants to use my tax dollars to force my child to learn it as if it were fact.

[karlrschneider]

59. Ding, Ding! You have it exactly right!

...

[Djinn]

67. if my faith says

we arrived via intergalatic travel (like the Heavens Gate mob) are you going to give that the equal respect you think should be given to people who believe other stories?

[datasuspect]

92. or similarly

what if my faith proscribed the consumption of white beans and proclaimed that irrational numbers were heretical?

would you think i was a nut? the pythagoreans believed this some 1500 years before christianity.

NOW, how would you feel if i attempted to use the law to ensure that your kids were taught this as science in public school (pythagorean theorem nothwithstanding).

this is the problem many rational people have with christianity.

for me christianity and pythagoreanism are equivalent. that is, they are patently absurd.

[Xipe Totec]

86. I'm game. Lets teach Aztec creationism too!

This is the fifth act of creation according to Aztec beliefs, and human sacrifice is required to keep the Gods from destroying the world again.

Any volunteers?

[datasuspect]

94. or vedic cosmology

or let's adopt the brahman cycle of multiple creations and use their calendar as well.

maybe the druids are sorely underrepresented too?

[Randers]

109. There is no end to it

And people who insist that "their" creation myth must be taken seriously at the expense of all other creation myths are NOT being reasonable.


The rest of the country can go along with the charade....


Nobody on this board should have to pretend or be silent.

[abburdlen]

139. I agree

with treating honest and reasonable people with respect. Most people who cannot accept evolution however tend to be intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

Sorry if some out ther on the creationist side find it insulting to be told they are wrong.

[cruadin]

12. I agree--Christianity is not incompatible with evolution...

not all Christians are Biblical literalists. Many Christians accept the concept of creation through the agency of the Divine without taking as "literal" truth the Biblical account.
Even non-Christians, who nonetheless accept the presence of a Divine power, acknowledge evolution.
That's because, for many people, evolution does not explain the origin of life, it merely accounts for its gradual differentiation over time.

[Getchasome]

15. Yes it is.

Christianity, or religion in general is based on "faith." Faith has nothing to do with the scientific method or evolution, NOT ONE THING. One is based on believing in a book written 2000 years ago by people who thought the earth was flat and the stars were lanterns in the sky, and the other is based on observing facts around you and testing and retesting theories that support how those facts came about.

[cruadin]

28. So...how did life begin?

I mean, what started evolution?
Not everyone who believes in a supreme being accepts the literal word of the Bible.
I don't know what part of that statement you don't understand. Attacking Biblical literalists is just a diversionary tactic, it's a straw man.
Believing in a supreme being is not incompatible with believing in science. Many people believe that science is just the most effective way that to figure out how things work in a vast and complex universe.
Science does not really explain how it all got started, it just explains what has happened since that beginning.

[Getchasome]

37. I still don't see how that makes it compatible.

Just because science has figured out how the big bang, or however it started, occured doesn't mean a "God" did it. That's just answering a mystery with another mystery. God of the gaps. We don't understand how something happened so we throw God in as the answer? We may not know how it all began, but we're making very slow progress to find out. Even today we can see in quantum physics that atoms will appear and disappear out of nowhere. Maybe this is the beginning of finding the answer to how it all began and once again taking "God" out of the gap. You say that "Believing in a supreme being is not incompatible with believing in science." However, isn't this having your cake and eating it too?

Although, I would much rather deal with someone like yourself than these crazy right wing, fundies.

[cruadin]

48. I think a lot of the problem in these sorts of discussions...

comes from the use use of the emotionally laden terms--"God" and "religion"--if for no other reason than that so many people have already freighted them with their own baggage.
When I use the term "God" or "Supreme Being" I am referring to a God of MY understanding. It is merely a convenient term for a divine (again a term of convenience) being that exists outside of the bounds of our universe. I do not subscribe to anybody else's religious or personal definition of this force that I believe exists. Perhaps it is no more than the comprehensive energy of the unexplained and the unexplainable.
I do not incorporate this belief system into my thinking due to "faith", rather it is born of a "nagging suspicion." I think that there are forces and energies all around us that are yet to even be perceived, much less explained. How long did it take humanity to figure out gravity and magnetism? and those are readily apparent in everyday life.
For that reason, I do not reject the lessons of science, I merely maintain that there may be limits to questions that science can answer.

[datasuspect]

96. right

and that "god of your understanding" is an entirely subjective experience and highly personal.

when people begin to introduce their personal subjective beliefs (not saying you do) as universal truths AND then try to infect politics, education, and the public commons with their belief, that is where the problem comes in.

not everyone believes in god.

[Liberaltarian]

49. beats me...how did god begin?

answer me that. (and "he always was" doesn't cut it...he/she/it had to come from somewhere)

[RUDUing2]

269. yes you can...I believe that Evolution is true and factual..

I also beleive that God created the original gases, mass, etc and set evolution in motion and then allowed it to progress on its own...

you are buying in to an assumption about what religion is...one that is not necessarily factual or you are basing it on incomplete data and limited observation...not a very scientific method...

[moggie]

251. Was he?

This "Darwin was a Christian" meme crops up all over the place, usually for honest reasons (though not when it's coupled with "and he renounced evolution on his deathbed!"). But how true is it? There are some notes on the subject here:

Was Darwin a Christian?

(Warning: kooky site)

It seems he started devoutly Christian, but gradually lost his faith as he learned more about how the world works. Note in particular this statement:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."

That seems pretty unambiguous, to me. There are, of course, many biologists who are Christians, but I think you're on shaky ground if you claim that Darwin was one.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. The ones who crack me up

are the ones who insist that we disagree when we actually agree. Some people just need their crusade.

[mmonk]

5. Sounds good to me

as long as science class in public schools and institutions only have science related materials and teaching.

[Getchasome]

19. I couldn't agree more.

Religion belongs in Church or Sunday school, not science class. Not one shred of religious belief belongs in science class. And anyone worth their salt in critical thinking can rip the intelligent design argument to shreds. That's the argument they want stuck in the science books. A back door method of pushing religious belief.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Sorry, but when someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old....

And that dinosaurs and man co-existed, they are gonna the same reaction from me that a fundamentalist would give if someone tried to say that Gaea sprang forth from Chaos and spawn the Greek pantheon which led to Prometheus creating man out of mud and life being breathed into the clay figure by Athena.

[mom-mad-about-bush]

127. You should check out the book "The Science of God"

This is a great book that uses science to prove facts in the Bible...specifically the six days of creation. You can get it for only a few bucks on Amazon.com.

[GOPFighter]

9. Apples and oranges

Evolution vs. Creationism is apples and oranges. One starts with the facts and puts them together to seek an answer. The other starts with an answer and seeks to fit facts to support it.

/s/
Not Holier Than Thou

[info being]

13. Enough "intellectual reletavism" already

I'm tired of Fundamentalists pretending that their beliefs are just as valid as mine. Christian Fundamentalist beliefs are wacko...and I've had enough of this Intellectual Reletavism crap. Sometimes an idea is either valid or it isn't. Not all ideas are equal.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. And brings us the issue of "equal time" placing everything equally.

Like 5 million scientists who agree on a specific thing and someone who is totally politically motivated demanded their view be heard also in the interest of presenting all opinions.

All theories are not created equally.

The notion that I, as the dissenting opinion should get equal time for my theory that the earth sprang forth from the anus of a giant turtle who had eaten the primordial lotus flower as the theory of evolution in science class is ludicrous.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

14. National Geographic November 2004

In their November issue titled,"Was Darwin wrong?" the answer inside the start of the story is a large "NO". Science is based on data and logical analysis. When the creationists are willing to present their data to the scientific board, then we can talk about changing school science studies. Here's a snip from the article:


If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact.

[Used and Abused]

21. the reason why some people still call it a theory

For one thing, my college biology text referred to it as a theory.

Secondly, it's not farfetched to believe that there may be evidence one day that shows that monkeys didn't exactly evolve into human (don't overanalyze this sentence, i'm sure you get my point). Sure, evolution on the small scale has been proven, but evidence of large scale speciation (molecule to an intelligent human being) is not completely solid.

[depakid]

25. All that post demonstrates is a profound misunderstanding

(or ignorance of) paleoanthropology both in terms of the fossil record and DNA analysis. While there are still intriguing questions, the overall pattern is supported by overwhelming evidence- and unless you choose to deny the overwhelming evidence using some form of the classic "well, God put it there to test our faith," it IS farfetched (to say the least) to believe that humans and monkeys don't share a common anscestor.

Views like the one just stated illustrate the danger inherent in entertaining creationism notions in the science classroom. It lends them undeserved credibility... and considering the fact that most people find science "hard," it would be much easier to cop out and take the easy way out and avoid the more difficult critical thinking.

That kind of thing leads to myriad problems elewhere in people's lives and threatens a healthy society.

[Sterling]

106. I agree it is really hard discussing these things with people who

have never bothered to understand the science. That is about %100 percent of people who believe in creationism.

They never intended too seek the truth because the truth was given to them already. Anything that shows that "truth" to be flawed must be the work of the devil. Better to just ignore it.

I would really like to see results of IQ tests for people who believe this crap.

[Randers]

118. I don't think IQ answers the question

of why someone believes this.

I have a family member with a science (engineering degree) that has come to believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. (He was in accelerated classes all through school). I think he realizes that if you don't say the Bible is 100 % literal - it is too easy to discredit many of the things in there - and for whatever reason - this is unacceptable for him.

Maybe his life would have no meaning or maybe he doesn't trust himself to be moral - so he has to believe it. (As some one else around here has pointed out - there is the drugs/alcohol phenomena of "born agains" - trading one addiction for another...)

[depakid]

233. No, you are right it doesn't answer the question

and many of us- so many us- search for meaning- a commonality.

But that search lies within the realm of metaphysics- and perhaps religion- but certainly not of science itself. Both Einstein & Spinoza had very distinct (albeit nondenominational and ephemeral) spiritual beliefs- but when it came to doing the science itself- it seems to me that they knew- even though they struggled with- the boundaries.

[superconnected]

146. 148.

whats yours?

[depakid]

227. 148? Highly Unlikely

148 on Stanford Binet means that you are 3 (count 'em) standard deviations above (to the right of) the mean of 100 and IQ's (such as they're worth) follow a "normal" frequency distribution.

Check out what a "score" of 148 translates into:




I suspect you may want to reconsider the implications of your "score" before boasting again.

[muse]

190. theory=explanation in science. It is not "just" a theory. Not a guess.

You have a misunderstanding of what theory means in science. A theory is an accepted explanation of a law. A law is a known natural phenomena that has been repeatedly observed, tested, and has had data collected on it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the correct term for "evolution". Natural Selection is the Law.

The following link is to the National Science Teachers Association position statement on teaching evolution.

http://nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10

[depakid]

16. Nothing bigoted about it

Keep the fucking religious dogma in theology classes- and out of science classes.

Denominational religion and science haven't much to do with one another on a substantive level, despite idiotic assertions to the contrary.

Having little tolerance for stupid people who would degrade the scientific knowledge base is not the same as bigotry. When was the last time you saw a scientist try to preach evolution or the benefits of a particular therapy from a church pulpit?

[Avalux]

22. Arrrggghhhh -

*frustration*
The freedom to believe what one wants without penalty is part of what makes this country so wonderful (or used to, anyway). I have no problem with teaching creationism as a religious belief. However, the problem occurs when certain people insist creationism belongs in science class when there's absolutely no factual proof human beings were created as described in the Bible. NONE.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

24. Exactly...keep it out of science class!

At least evolution is an accepted scientific theory which adds more evidence every year to its credibility. Creationism has no scientific method behind it. That's why the creationists make an end-run to local school boards to get it into science classes...they couldn't go through the accepted process of presenting their "evidence" to the established scientific board.

[UdoKier]

23. I haven't seen that sentiment.

Granted, it may well be there, but I don't have time to read every response to every thread.

But saying that evolution is fact or that it is science whereas creationism is NOT, is not bashing or ridicule.

But getting down to brass tacks, it is rather ridiculous to expect people to be all reverent and respectful, when religious people expect us to treat a book of parables and metaphors as though it were some sort of history book or scientific tract.

If you need humanity's beginning 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve to be SCIENTIFIC FACT for your God to be real, I truly pity you.

Religion is not supposed to be about the empirical.

This whole problem arises from evangelicals wanting to push their mythology into places where it does not belong - a science classroom. The problem is NOT "bigotry" on the part of those of us who acknowledge science and logic. I can even respect the fundamentalist who believes in talking snakes and burning bushes and parted red seas, but I will not have it taught to my child as science or history. My child deserves a real education.

[Quill Pen]

26. If we all did as you said...

There would be no discussion boards. The only acceptable response to "I believe in creationism" would be "Oh. OK. That's nice." End of thread. Yawn. Not much of an engaging discussion.

>>>We should not bash and make fun of their beliefs. We should all try to get along and understand one another.<<<

I am Christian, and I (along with a lot of other people at my Episcopal church) happen to think the creation story is pure mythology. But just so you know, telling me I need to soft-pedal an opinion because it's not held by the majority is pretty much waving a red flag in front of my nose.

As for getting along and understanding one another, if that was your true aim, you would not have started this thread. "We all just need to get along" is about as passive-aggressive a statement as one can make.

[BiggJawn]

27. The majority of Murkans are ReTHUGlicans, too...

Should we try to 'get along" with them as well?

Wasn't that what Tom Daschle and Joe Liebermann were preaching for the last 4 years? Sure got Tom what he wanted, right?


Admonishing me to not "make fun" of somebody else's "beliefs" is to tell me to be dishonest to myself. A 2,000 year-old book of stories does NOT constitute a PROOF. I suppose you want me to say "nice, very nice, good for you..." when confornted by the popular Creation Myth?

Oh, very well. After all, "Majority Rules", right?

But, beyond all that, Keep your religion out of my school, and MAYBE I'll keep my Science out of your Church.

[genieroze]

29. I'm a Christian, I don't care if you teach evolution.

Teach creationism in theology class.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Actually, as I noted in my post above,

an intellectually honest theology class does NOT teach creationism except in analyzing the Genesis texts.

[genieroze]

203. I don't think it belongs in science class.

Unless they come up with some scientific proof of creation.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. I have seen this too

Just because someone is religious or spiritual, doesn't mean they should be "written off." I have seen bad attitudes on both sides on this board. However, I find it interesting that those who do not believe are, often, as dogmatic as ones who do believe. I agree that science needs to be free of religion, but to ridicule someone for their faith is no different than a religious person telling you that your beliefs are wrong.

[BiggJawn]

34. OK, then....

"...but to ridicule someone for their faith is no different than a religious person telling you that your beliefs are wrong."

And they usually add something about "Eternal Damnation" too.

I have NEVER had a person professing Christian belief take what *I* believed (or not) at face value. The kindest response usually runs along the lines of "Oh, Jawnn, Jawnn, Jawnn...Can't you FEEL Christ calling out to you? Doesn't your heart HUNGER to live in the LORD?"

The majority flare their nostrils at me and make some sputtering about my burning in that "Hell" place...


They're so adamant about either trying to "convert" me or condemn me, why should I not do the same?

[Behind the Aegis]

36. If they try to 'convert," knock yourself out!

I agree with you that those who get "in your face" with religion are obnoxious, and if they have ANY power, can be dangerous. What I am saying is that because I hold spiritual beliefs doesn't make me intellectual deficient. I have found some non-religious people here very crass and unnecessarily abusive. I don't make anyone believe the way I do, as I feel that is between me and my "creator." As much as I dislike people knocking on my door telling to accept the "True Way," I find it just as distasteful for people to ridicule my beliefs because they don't share those beliefs.

[BiggJawn]

183. Fair enough.

And I'm sorry for the abuse I've heaped on you and others.

It's so counter-productive.And I'm not sure it matters anymore who's right and who's wrong. Because if the Fundies get their "Armageddon" jerk-off fantasy going, most of us are gonna be dead anyway, both church people and atheist.

[Kali]

32. we should all get along?

No. We should keep religion in church, at home or at the VERY most in the study of religion classes and NOT IN SCIENCE CLASSES.

[Artemis Bunyon]

35. The majority of Germans at the time of WWII were Christians too.

So what's your point?

[mom-mad-about-bush]

147. No one really wants to acknowledge that......do they????

An interesting fact....and I hear it alot. No one seems to have an explanation for that.

[toddaa]

38. Shakespeare in Math class

This whole evolution debate borders on ridiculous. Why don't we teach Shakespeare in Math class? IT'S A DIFFERENT SUBJECT. Evolution is a science topic. Creationism is a religion topic.

There is a reason that Americans are losing their jobs to offshore outsourcing. Some of it is our own DAMN FAULT for being pigheaded ignorant. Don't come crying to me when Johnny graduates from college and gets a job flipping burgers because he doesn't know the first thing about the basics of science.

[thinkingwoman]

39. yes they can

Frankly, Christians can believe in evolution too. It's just not necessary to be so divisive.

Wish more people would learn that.

Thanks for posting this. I was unhappy with a lot of the posts I was reading on the evolution thread and couldn't quite put my finger on the reason.

"Holier than thou" sums it up nicely.

[DrWeird]

41. Evolution is kind of like the Earth being round.

It's round. That's a fact. If you want, you can go ahead and believe it's flat. It doesn't matter what the reason is, because the Bible says so, because your Grandma told you, you'd still be wrong. And quite stupid.

[Fleurs du Mal]

42. There's reason to be biased against Christians

The followers of Christianity have caused more misery in this world than any other group of people I can think of. A violent mythology gets no quarter from me.

[w4rma]

53. Every power center can be used for violence when it is misused. EVERY

power center. Any religion, any corporation, any government, any army, any police force, any group of people.

Is that a reason to oppose all organisations? No. Is it a reason to hate Christianity? No. It is a reason to fend off those who want power in order to abuse it.

[Fleurs du Mal]

80. I didn't say religion

I said "Christianity" spank you very much. The crimes committed in the name of the Christian church over centuries is more than enough evidence for any rational being to treat the motives of it's practioners with, at least, skepticism if not outright contempt.

[m berst]

239. ridiculous

If you were the victim of identity theft, and the crook went out and did things in the name of "Fleurs du Mal" that would not reflect badly on you.

To say that everything bad that was ever done in the Christian world is the fault of Christianity without also crediting Christianity with everything good that was ever done in the Christian world is dishonest and is a perfect example of unwarranted and irrational hostility to Christianity.

Bach wrote all of his music "in the name of Christianity," as just one example.

[ChairOne]

43. lol - and I'm a reality bigot....

... because I prefer reality to fiction....

Any time someone disagrees, just call em a bigot... beautiful...

Bottom line: Scientists are the only ones who are qualified to assess the validity of scientific claims. As long as they're with evolution, so to will I be...

The rest of the crowd can go re-watch the medulla oblongata section of The Waterboy, if you like...

It's not a matter of "getting along" - why get along with falsehoods? Nor is it a matter of "understanding one another" - Christianity is incredibly well understood. Not so biology. If understanding is to start somewhere, let it be with understanding exactly what scientists are saying - otherwise cricism will justifiably fall on deaf ears...

[datasuspect]

45. "Any time someone disagrees, just call em a bigot... beautiful..."

or say they angry or hateful

it's called pathologizing someone.

a lot easier than dealing with arguments though

[trotsky]

56. "a lot easier than dealing with arguments"

Boy ain't that the truth.

[Xipe Totec]

99. It's the Karl Rove Method

Control the language and you control the debate. That should tell us a lot about where these Fair-Minded-People-Interested-In-Reasonable-Debate-About-Creationism are suddenly and spontaneously spawning from...

[datasuspect]

108. language hijacking

and meme-control

yes yes yes

i notice this everyday. i feel like i live in zombie world or bizarro world more and more everyday.

it's all a setup.

[Ready4Change]

44. I respect the majority of Christians.

I may not agree with their beliefs in many instances, but I respect their right to hold those beliefs.

However, there is a minority of Christians who deny the validity of science, and would replace science in schools with their specific theology, were they given the chance. Those are the ones I oppose.

I'm sorry if more reasonable Christians take offense at my opposition to those few radicals fringing their ranks. But mislabelling my responses "bigotry" won't halt them.

Just as I wince when I read someone calling Christianity, or any other religion, mere "mythology", I also take offense whenever science is debunked as being "just" theories.

[bhairava]

46. Science is NOT a democracy or a tea party!

Here is an excerpt from a good article:


"Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative religious organization, delivers what could be the signature line for our backwards times in America:


"There's an arrogance in the scientific community that they know better than the average American."


In fact, of course, scientists do know quite a bit better than the "average American" about the matters for which their scientific expertise equips them. Those with knowledge, surprisingly, know more than those who are ignorant. Is that arrogance?

As Chris Mooney remarked, "science is not a democracy," and in a democratic culture, that inevitably becomes a cause of resentment, ... resentment of competence..."




Article

[toddaa]

50. Pardon my language

But what a fucking tool. The fact that the guy is proud of being an ignorant fuckwad is what really disturbs me.

Here's a fun question to ask a brainiac young earth knuckle draggin' buffoon when they bring up the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ask them what the Third Law is.

Am I a bigot? Yes, I think anyone who believes in hollow earth/flat earth/young earth nonsense is an idiot. I have not found one exception to the rule.

[MaineYooper]

224. as a scientist

I'd like to think that five and a half years of graduate school, six years of post-doc, and six years of professional experience better equips me to know my field of research better than the average American. If not, I (and the rest of the scientific community) probably been wasting my time.

sheesh.

[xerox]

47. Yep

you said it. I agree.

[seabeyond]

51. try to get along and understand one another.

you cant pin this on the dems. maybe a handful doesnt understand, but the majority of democrats puts vast amounts of time and research to understand. if the other christians, seeing how i am a christian, put even a little effort into understanding then we might have a chance.

now the bible is story, many many of the stories are just that, story, not a truth, not a reality, but it is all true in greater sense. to say evolution is par to creationism, just simply is not factually true. so the best we can do is say, believe the non truth if you want out of respect for your bible, which i dont interpret that we are to interpret it literally, and believe this non truth, but in fact, it is still a non truth.

we can understand why they chose to believe the non truth. we do not have to accept the non truth

we can understand why they create bush a hero, regardless of all the historical facts, and present information that we have that factually tell us he is anything but............but, we do not have to accept a non truth for our belief

a teacher for my third grade son held a bible up to me last spring and told me it is written.........in talking about bush and what the fundies were doing, and passion whipping them into a frenzy of hate, i told her,............i can love the lying snivelling cowardly bush, i dont have to create him in lies to love

that is what christ conscious says to me. that is christianity for me.

now, let the fundie put a little bit of time to understand me. quit calling me in moral decline, satan, unamerican, un patriotic, terrorist, unchristian

[Beetwasher]

52. What A Load Of Crap, Who's Attacking Christians? We're Fighting Ignorance

How's the view from up there on that cross? Yeesh...All these persecuted attacked christians who run everything :eyes:

Yes, let's just allow unchecked ignorance to run rampant because it's associated w/ a religion. I mean that's never hurt anyone before, right? And I mean, it's not like it's being shoved down anyone's throat, right?

[AgadorSparticus]

278. and it says alot when someone cannot hold up their religious beliefs

for examination and scrutiny. i was raised that every value and belief you have should be scrutinized--religious ones included. especially religious ones. they are the most dangerous to hold so blindly.

if it was worth a damn, it will hold up time and time again. and perhaps, it is because creationism cannot hold up to scrutiny that people have problems questioning it.

[ComerPerro]

55. Here is why creationists get made fun of

At least, this is why I ridicule them:

They assault ideas like Evolution because it doesn't sufficiently hold up to enough evidence to satisfy them. That would be fine, if they stuck to this principle.

But, then, they turn around and insist upon a creation story whose only evidence is written in a book of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by an unknown source.

I mean, come on. Its just idiotic and hypocritical to say that Evolution doesn't have enough evidence to support it while believing firmly in something just because the Bible says so.

[jdj]

71. "thousands of years ago" just ain't that long

that's the infuriating point.

It's not even that long considering how long this planet has been spinning, or how long life has existed here. Mother earth has been fecund with fertility for millions and millions of years, birthing babies of infinite variety, and just because she's a woman these assholes don't want to give her any credit.

[w4rma]

57. The Earth is not flat. The Sun does not orbit the Earth. Evolution is the

process that created human beings. Human beings didn't just appear out of thin air.

How would you teach a lesson on "creationism" in school? Bible verses in a science class? Bible verses belong in religious studies or history or English or maybe even social studies or political science and definitely your church. But not the science classroom.

[knight_of_the_star]

58. I have particular issues with that

More because I study metaphysics and the occult and the supernatural and mainstream science and most scientific people I say this to think I'm full of it when I've seen and done things that blows science out of the water at times. I think that to say there is ONLY one way to describe the universe and what people should believe is arrogant, short-sighted, and stupid, applying both to hardline science and hardline religion.

[Baclava]

73. Humans are naturally short-sighted

It has to do with their lifespan.

That's why EVERY generation thinks they hold in possession all the accumulated "scientific" knowledge that's ever been created.

Fucking humans.

[CanSocDem]

100. I'm developing NEW beliefs....

"...I think that to say there is ONLY one way to describe the universe and what people should believe is arrogant, short-sighted, and stupid, applying both to hard-line science and hard-line religion."

Yet this thread seems to suggest we have only two choices. I know I have problems with some big players in the scientific community. Notably, the institution of Medicine. The 'institution' has the power of the 'church' and doctors, the moral and spiritual authority of priests. They often fight among themselves for people to "save".

Wanting NO part of either cult is a very rational response!!

[knight_of_the_star]

188. Yeah, I would have to agree with and support that

I know many places I could lock a skeptic into for a night and they would come out a fervent believer in ghosts and magick and things that aren't supposed to exist.

[datasuspect]

237. i would cherish that opportunity (eom)

and there are some people out there who will pay $ for that kind of evidence.

[knight_of_the_star]

243. Some problems with that

Getting actual physical proof aside from eyewitness accounts of ghosts is nearly impossible since it is difficult to record such phenomena. Sure, you can use electromagnetic field measures as well as temperature guages and the like, but such forms of evidence as well as tape recordings, photos, and video recordings, are often dismissed as doctored or inconclusive. Then again, I think that is because the ones who dismiss such proof can't face what they are seeing. If anyone wants to know the names of some locations like what I have described, pm me for more info.

[CanSocDem]

252. Like this,for example...

http://www.coralcastle.com/home.asp

[karlrschneider]

60. So how are you with the idea of tax money used to teach the Easter Bunny

is real? T

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. Right. While we're at it, let's not make fun of people who think...

...that the capital of Brazil is Buenos Aires.

[karlrschneider]

70. LOL.....good one.

:D

[Cats Against Frist]

69. I think that science bigots and Christian bigots should read some Derrida

some Foucault, some Lyotard, some Wittgenstein, and some Deluze & Guattari, and get back to me, after they've learned what the words "contextual epistemologies" means.

[Bridget Burke]

256. That's some really cruel punishment you're proposing....

Hey--let's put Shrub in a little room & make him read all those guys. Maybe Condi can summarize their theories into one-page memos.

Watch his brain explode....

[Runcible Spoon]

72. you can bitch about us when

When:"In Darwin we trust" is emblazoned on all of our currency.
When: Being viable candidate for high level office requires a public acknowledgment of evolution.
When: Main themes from Origin of Species is posted in all federal courthouses, maybe even as a bronze monument.
When: President-elects swear into office with hand placed on a Stephen J Gould work.
shall I go on???

[greenohio]

79. Do you believe people have rights?

[Xipe Totec]

101. I Used to, But With Republicans in Power I'm not so sure any more

[Runcible Spoon]

103. umm complete non sequitor

not in the habit of answering rhetorical questions, but if by "rights" you mean imposing christianity or any other religion on state entities, then i would say that your right to put "god" on money violates my right to not have state sponsored religion

[greenohio]

111. I don't know where Christianity comes into my question.

My point was that belief only in things that can be proven scientifically won't fit with a Democracy that believes in human rights. Mostly because you can't prove that anybody has them.

Which brings me back to my question, do you believe in human rights?

[Runcible Spoon]

130. I think you should know where I'm coming from first.

I'm not arguing that you can't have belief in something, and that "thing" whatever it may be, human rights, religious beliefs, whatever, and that just because it cannot be quantatively measured and directly observed doesn't make it less "real". I think there can be more than one sphere of human experience and understanding. I am by no means a scientific reductionist. I think science is better equipped to answer certain things, and in this case, evolution is one of those things. There is a fossil record that existed before we had the means to record our own history, that was not the handiwork of homo sapiens. Human rights, on the other hand, are largely a cultural (human-made, if you will) construct, and arguments for universality are most convincing when couched in terms of cultural similarities of experience and suffering, and further bolstered by data that proves that quality of life among societies with certain human rights is higher in terms of access to basic needs for living and social freedom. So yes, I believe in human rights, but not necessarily because science tells me to, though science has gone a long way towards helping us reach those goals. I only jumped on this thread because it saddens me to have to defend science here of all places.
On edit: I only mentioned Christianity because the original poster's rant was framed in those terms.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

112. They have rights to believe whatever they want

but not to use my tax money to shove it down my throat!

[greenohio]

136. I would agree with that.

[Randers]

135. The creationists don't know how good they have it...

Yet they are so many "Christians" are so sure they are oppressed.

[DrWeird]

74. Mathematical bigots can be just as annoying as religious bigots.

I've noticed a lot of "holier than thou" attitudes here on the boards today, with regard to the value of pi debate.

The bottom line is, the majority of Americans (including the majority of Democrats) believe in the Bible. And the Bible says the value of pi is equal to three. We should not bash and make fun of their beliefs.

We should all try to get along and understand one another.

[datasuspect]

212. as a pythagorean

i for one am appalled at your mention of pi.

as an irrational number it surely has no place sullying the public commons of the internet. you can NOT prove that it is a rational number and in harmony with the fundamental elegance of the universe.

don't get me started on the square root of 5.

[depakid]

240. Yarrrrr... we PI-rates

resent the notion of so many decimals and all the rounding errors.

Off with those decimal heads! The dread PIrate Nothoughts hereby proclaims that all irrational numbers shall be within 5 decimals of a whole- after that- we shall lop them off with our cutlasses.

e and the square root of 2 suck anyway....

[NCN007]

75. Agreed

Science is great, but like anything else, it has its limitations. It can only shows as much as we can observe and measure. There are a lot of things it still fails to and may never explain. In this lays the importance of faith in coming to grips with that which cannot be logically or scientifically explained.

[Sterling]

170. Sorry, that is idiotic

You don't just fill in the blanks with god. Sorry. Today's mysteries are tomorrows science. Unless of course the fundies have their way.

[knight_of_the_star]

191. OK

So what is your opinion of unexplainable supernatural phenomenon, because I know a few places I could send you to where you would only need to spend one night in to go from being totally faithful in science alone to being accepting that there are things science can't explain.

[mike_c]

76. unfortunately, much of the problem stems not from any conflict...

...between religion and science, but from basic misunderstandings, probably on both sides but certainly misunderstandings about fundamental scientific concepts. I focus on those because I'm a scientist, and know how badly topics like evolution have been mangled, even by intelligent, otherwise well educated people. I'm less qualified to speak about religious misconceptions, but I'd be the first to admit to not understanding WHY christians object to the notion that populations of organisms change from one generation to the next.

I think we also have to understand that correcting misconceptions is not implicitly disrespectful. I might not expect christians to share my beliefs, but I do think that no one is served if we don't at least have a correct understanding of one another. My purpose in starting that evolution thread was to try and clear up some rather obvious and gross misconceptions about what biological evolution is. The fact that in the end many folks simply proceded to bludgeon one another with the misconceptions anyway suggests that the attempt was not successful, but also highlights the need for making the attempt. We can't have a meaningful discussion about evolution-- let alone a civil one-- until we stop arguing about two very different understandings.

[mom-mad-about-bush]

164. I am just finishing a book called "The Science of God"

This is a great book and it is basically showing that science is in the process of proving the existence of a creator.

[Sterling]

175. That is creationist nonsense.

Again, filling in the blanks.

[lateo]

77. Give me a scientific bigot any day....

Because the later bigot...well...I don't need to even finish it...

[greenohio]

82. You can keep the science bigot.

I'd prefer no bigots thank you.

[Sterling]

173. Science bigot = not a real thing

Science bigot is something some idiot made up to have a bad word for people who actually care to learn and observe reality. There is no way to connect science and bogotry, period.

[knight_of_the_star]

194. Exactly

I think that saying there is ONLY science or religion as the only ways of describing the universe is foolish mostly because I know and have experienced things that are beyond explanation by science. Just human nature is beyond explanation by itself, think of the irrational things that people have done throughout history. Do you think any rational human would have been at the Spartans' stand at Thermopylae? Do you think any rational human would have thought the Revolutionaries would have beaten the British Empire? Do you think any rational human being would have stood and defied Hitler after the fall of France?

There are things in human nature and in the universe that science simply cannot explain.

Can you weigh love, measure rage, or contain desire?

Can you distill the essence of truth and beauty into one simple equation?

Can you explain everything that happens under the sun rationally and with science in a measurable fashion?

[datasuspect]

214. you are creating a false dichotomy (eom)

[knight_of_the_star]

244. Who is?

And how exactly? I wasn't creating any kind of false dichotomy between science and religion, I was pointing out that confining everything into those two nice neat boxes is simply a poor way to look at the universe as it discounts too many possibilities.

[muriel_volestrangler]

262. Those actions you give are explainable as rational actions

because they all increase the survival of the actors' genes. Not by the person themselves surviving to breed further, but by their descendants, or relations, surviving. Cooperation is beneficial to many species, especially humans. Our societies are based on it.

[greenohio]

78. There are science bigots here.

One of the threads you are referring to was arguing that evolution (specifically the evolution of species) is not a theory. Non-believers or skeptics were berated. I am not a creationist or fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. That said, I don't necessarily BELIEVE that one species evolves into another, simply because I don't know of a single experiment where that happened. I hear over and over again where evolution of species is testable and observable. I am open to looking at any if someone has links to them.

[mike_c]

81. you didn't read very closely....

The point of that thread was that what you think you understand about evolution is incorrect. If your beliefs are based upon a misunderstanding, how can you have any faith in them?

[greenohio]

83. I opened the door for you to give me scientific

reproducible examples of evolution of species. But, hey, you can just tell me I misunderstand. That helps the cause.

[DrWeird]

87. Apparently you didn't read the thread you said you read.

Because there were plenty of examples linked there:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Here's the same link on speciation with dozens of examples from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

So maybe you just didn't see the link. Or maybe you're just ignoring it.

[greenohio]

105. Fascinating Link...

How about from an unbiased sight, rather than one whose dedicated to debasing creation?

His definition of species for his list is interesting:

'Behavioral isolating mechanisms,' he says, 'rely on organisms making a choice of whether to mate and a choice of who to mate with.'

If two individuals choose not to mate then, according to Boxhorn's definition, they are 'reproductively isolated.' And if they are reproductively isolated then you have a new species. A 'speciation event' has occurred. His examples fit this definition of species.

I don't buy this definition. Sterile children and resistance to mating with parents does not evolution make. Chihuahuas and Great Danes can mate, but in general they don't. They are the same species however, Canis familiaris. These dogs are certainly 'reproductively isolated' and they certainly do not 'choose' to mate with each other.

Help me here. Do you have a site from a College or University rather than bob's bar and evolutionary science page?

[Xipe Totec]

113. That'as so funny!

You're using the language of evolution in your arguments and your'e not even aware of it!

"Chihuahuas and Great Danes can mate, but in general they don't. They are the same species however, Canis familiaris. These dogs are certainly 'reproductively isolated' and they certainly do not 'choose' to mate with each other."

Why don't you explain the genetic variation between Chihuahuas and Great Danes using Creationist 'theory'?

While you're at it, tell us whether Adam and Eve were white, black, Amerindian, Chinese, Aborigine, and which one of us looks like them?

[greenohio]

116. Not a creationist. Can't help ya.

[Xipe Totec]

121. Cop out. You have nothing to contribute then,

[Avalux]

123. We're spinning in circles here

this dude is oversimplifying and keeps asking for specific examples of evolution in a controlled environment. I'm not playing anymore.

[Xipe Totec]

131. Yea, I'm bored too

I'm familiar with this game, though. It's called raising the proof standard. If you raise the standard high enough you can't even prove to yourself that you exist. It is a dishonest game meant to sow confusion.

[greenohio]

149. Once again I walk away disappointed.

I am not the one saying that evolution is observable, testable, reproducible and scientific. I am just asking for a reputable experiment that is controlled and reproducible. You give me a bunch of experiments that doesn't even use the common understanding of species from someone who is obviously bent on proving evolution and nothing else.

Surely Cal Tech, or somebody has an experiment where they bred an animal species a whole bunch of times and got a new species that can mate with each other but not with the parent strain. Sure, when this was done, other universities repeated the experiment, proving once and for all that evolution is fact. Are you saying that this experiment raises the bar to high?

[Xipe Totec]

167. That is a Fundie Talking Point and You Know It

The lack of an experiment does not disprove a theory.

Theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven. Judging by the other exchanges we've had on this thread it is clear that you know enough about science in general and evolution in particular to know better than to ask for an experiment that PROVES a theory.

Therefore your arguments are disingenuous at best.

[muse]

207. Misconception about the nature of science

The nature of science does not mean that you have to experimentally reproduce something in order for it to be true. Much of science is proven because it is observable or because data was collected, not because an experiment was conducted over and over again like you learned in high school (the so called "scientific method"). Think about the geologic record or what we know about astronomy. The things we know about these subjects are not because we have run the types of experiments that you talk about, but because of observations and data that have proven to be true repeatedly.

I refer you to the National Science Teachers Association position paper on the teaching of evolution for further information:

http://nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10

I also refer you to the American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061 on the Nature of Science:

http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/chap1.htm

[TankLV]

210. One word - viruses. HIV is a good example of evolultion.

I can think of millions of others if I wanted to waste my time with someone who, like a child asking a "why" question, simply for the fun of annoying their parent.

I'm architecturally and constructionally arrogant because I have earned that right because I have mastered the knowledge - especially around someone who tries to tell me something I know is wrong about construction techniques.

Same with science.

Deal with it.

Don't like it - LEARN more about it.

[greenohio]

217. Mutating virus is not evolution of species.

One virus mutating into another virus, is still..... a virus. mike_c seems to have a better handle on this.

[DrWeird]

276. You seem to think that "virus" is a species.

Bacteria have been observed evolving into different species. And there are more than one species of bacteria, which you seem not to understand.

[trotsky]

126. Whether you find the site "biased" is irrelevant.

The site may be dedicated to dispelling creationist nonsense, but it does so by simply reporting known science & that which has been OBSERVED. Just like you want. But because you were given what you want, you have to find some way to dismiss it.

It is a very common misunderstanding among creationists that speciation must mean that one day, a dog gave birth to a cat, and that's evolution.

Sadly, it is also completely wrong. But by insisting that MUST be how evolution works, you can always say, "Nope, you haven't shown me proof that it's true."

[greenohio]

128. You ignore the point that his defition of speices

is they won't mate together. Not they can't.

[trotsky]

138. OK, if you don't like that particular individual's definition...

Then disregard his 5% of the page, and move on to the rest.

Of course, part of being a different species is recognizing another animal as food or a threat rather than something with mating potential. Because ultimately organisms exist to propagate their DNA, and an organism that tries to mate with everything it encounters isn't going to be very successful reproducing, and thus will be a lot less likely to pass on its genes. Again, evolution at work.

[mike_c]

161. see my response below-- a selection of peer reviewed papers...

...discussing examples of evolution. There are so many it's hard to choose....

[TankLV]

216. "Chihuahuas and Great Danes can mate, but in general they don't"

And - to keep your farce going - beautiful people ugly people can mate, but in general they don't.

I've seen many a result of Chihuahuas and Great Danes - and ugly and beautiful people, too.

You just love to hear the sound of your own voice.

[greenohio]

218. You're reinforcing my point

that guys definition of species was "loose."

[DrWeird]

275. You're being facetitious.

The link contained dozens of references to peer-reviewed scientific articles. It's not just some biased "sight" (sic).

And the definitions for species are correct. Wolfs and dogs can have viable offspring yet they are considered different species.

[Avalux]

88. I'll give you an example of evolution -

http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

Speciation in Progress - salamander micromutation leads to the formation of a new species

[greenohio]

110. Much better.

This is a reputable site, but it is not what I am looking for. This example is where, in nature, we have observed different salamanders not mating with each other and are deciding whether or not to reclassify them as a separate species. Even the sight says that "it appears" we have a case of evolution.

Most importantly, we can't reproduce it and we don't know where the separate species came from (common ancestry.) Isn't there a case where we took some mice or something, bred them a whole bunch of generations in the lab and got some new mice-like creatures that CAN'T breed with the ancestors, but CAN breed with each other?

[mike_c]

156. ok, here's a bunch of relevent papers and citations....

http://www.umainetoday.umaine.edu/Issues/v4i2/evolving.html

http://users.ipfw.edu/gillespi/BIOL%20598/Articles/Ghlalambor,%20et%20al.%202003.pdf

http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/150.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/pdf/nature02918.pdf

http://www.bio.uu.nl/evolpopbio/personeel/gerdiendejong/pdfs/Bochdanovits%20&%20de%20Jong%20Evolution%2057%20082003%201829-1836.pdf

http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/endler/publications/publications.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030716090941.htm

This is just a TINY selection from an immense pool-- Google search terms like "rapid evolution", "evolution selection" or "evolution drosophila" for hundreds more.

I presume you're capable of doing your own research if you're actually interested in finding out more. But that's not the point. Your comments about evolution do indicate a very flawed understanding of just what evolution is. Here's a definition from a respected general biology textbook:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

That's it. That's what I expect my biology students to know, hopefully by the time they graduate. That's what all the fuss is about. Put another way:

" Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Why do you find this notion-- which is both commonsense and easily observable all around you-- so threatening and offensive?

[greenohio]

206. I never said that I found it threatening or offensive.

I'm just openly questioning the theory. I know that is unsettling for some. I hope none of your students question it either, based on your response.

I'm going through your list now. The first two are not speciation as they talk specifically about interbreeding between the lower and upper pool guppies. I do plan to get book, "The Beak of the Finch" they site though to learn more.

Its going to take time to read the rest.

Your definition helps me with the a better understanding of evolution: "heritable changes...spread over many generations."

Using that definition, the plant polyploid examples don't fit evolution. First of all, polyploid is just the duplication of the current genes, not creation of new ones or new combinations. The redundancy in the genes may result in minor changes in traits as genes cancel each other out, but that process can hardly be used to support evolution since it results in no new "heritable changes" to the genetic code. Your not going to get a tree eventually if you keep duplicating the same genetic code over and over. All you are going to get is the same flower with different genes activated. Second, it happens immediately, not "over many generations."

Thank you for your help. I will spend some time reading these. Hopefully what I am looking for is here.

[mike_c]

223. polyploidy is the result of evolution....

Note that the RATE of change is not specified in the biological definition of evolution. Genetic change can be spread over many generations or it can happen overnight, as it does in the case of polyploidy.

Also, you're confusing evolution and speciation. Evolution is simply change in allele frequency or other aspects of genetic structure-- such as chromosome number-- from one generation to the next. And by the way, that's not "my" definition-- that's the accepted biological definition of evolution. It's the definition that's published in basic biology texts. Those guppy papers illustrate clear and unambiguous examples of evolution because they provide data showing changes in genetic structure among different guppy populations.

Speciation, on the other hand, is a consequence of evolution and occurs when evolution leads to the accumulation of sufficient genetic differences to justify calling the derived organisms a new species. There are numerous ways to define species and to set the standard for "sufficient genetic differentiation"-- not all work for all organisms-- but the species concept you've cited, based on reproductive isolation of parent and offspring, is illustrated unambiguously by polyploidy in plants, and represents an overnight speciation event. Nor is it rare or isolated, or an artifact of genetic manipulation. A substantial proportion of natural plant biodiversity is the result of polyploidy- in some plant families the majority of species level diversity is likely the result of polyploidy.

[greenohio]

238. We might have been talking past each other here.

My focus was on "evolution of species", one species evolving into another, speciation. The guppy papers do show genetic changes due to selection and environment, but in the end, still guppies. I agree with that premise. I also agree that viruses "evolve" or mutate into other viruses.

Where I have trouble is when I am asked to believe that a virus will evolve eventually into fly. A virus will never become a fly through polyploidy (duplicating its own genes over and over again). All it will ever be is virus, with lots of copies of virus genes.

[greenohio]

236. Thanks for you help.

I read/skimmed them all. The first four on guppies are NOT examples of speciation as they speak specifically about the different "species" mating.

The the fifth and the sixth don't even talk about trying to get the different pools of Forficula auricularia and Drosophila to mate, respectively. My guess is because they weren't trying to create an example of speciation, which is what I am asking for.

The last on Caribbean Lizards is the same as the previous. It doesn't look like they were trying to produce a genetic species that could not mate with with the parent line.

I believe these are fascinating research articles on genetics. They are not examples of speciation.

I have ordered the Finches Beak book. Hopefully there will be something there. mike_c, I thank you for your help and your patience.

[Forkboy]

85. A shock of shockers!

[Xipe Totec]

91. Lets turn it around.

Show me some practical applications of cretinism... excuse me, creationism.

Then explain hybrids,

explain mutations,

explain somatic inheritance,

explain genetic defects,

explain gene splicing.

without postulating that DNA changes through time and does not replicate exactly from generation to generation, as implied by creationism.

[Avalux]

93. Your request may be too complicated

I'm waiting for a response to my salamander post. Doubt it will happen.

[Xipe Totec]

104. Agree

This thread is nothing more than a freeper assault on DU.

[greenohio]

133. That right.

Anyone who wants scientific proof for a scientific theory are freepers.

[Avalux]

143. If you were truly interested in discussion,

you would play an active part by giving input - not demanding the rest of us provide you with information. You seem like an intelligent person, I'm sure you're quite capable of finding what you need from a reputable source on your own.

[greenohio]

151. I can't find it.

I am giving you a chance to prove your point.

[Avalux]

155. What was my point, anyway?

Did I ever once say I could provide evidence of evolution in a controlled laboratory setting in a university? One more thing before I go - a scientific theory (evolution) stands until proven wrong - it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.
So here's YOUR chance - prove it wrong.

[greenohio]

160. Help me.

What would an experiment look like that could disprove evolution.

[Avalux]

166. Are you serious?

If you figure it out, then you win the big prize.

[Xipe Totec]

246. Take a lump of clay, mold it into a man,

then breathe on it an make it come to life.

If you can do that you will have disproven evolution.

[DrWeird]

277. Find a human being in 3 billion year old strata.

Next dumb question please.

[Xipe Totec]

150. That sounds like a theory to me

prove it, or disprove it.

[greenohio]

114. I'm not a creationist, so I can't help you.

I know it is hard to believe, but there are people who are skeptical about evolution without being Bible thumpers.

Genetic defects, gene splicing, mutations does not evolution of species prove. One reproducible example of a species, bred in a controlled fashion, resulting in a child that cannot reproduce with the parent strain but with each other would. I am looking for one from a college or university. Have links to any?

[Xipe Totec]

120. Okham's Razor

Given two theories which explain facts equally well, chose the simpler one.

If you are skeptical of evolution, postulate an alternative theory and lets see how long it can witstand scrutiny.

If you have no alternative to propose, then you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion. Therefore your skepticism of evolution would be irrelevant.

[greenohio]

129. If you don't have the solution, you can't scrutinize

ignores the process that science has followed for years. Peers review theories all the time, without having to prove an alternative one. The thought that you must have a solution to question a theory is asinine. How you hooked that to Okham's Razor is a joke.

[Xipe Totec]

144. You are not my peer, don't even go there.

You dont have to have a 'solution' you only have to have an alternative that explains facts equally well, or better. A theory stands until proven wrong.

You offer nothing. THAT is assinine. This lame attempt to confuse is getting tiresome. There is a vast literature of science which has explored this subject thoroughly. You know it and I know it.

If you were actually seeking enlightment, you would be at the library reading up on the subject, or taking courses on it. Instead, you come to a political discussion board like this, hoping to achieve what?

[greenohio]

163. Visit your library?

Guess I'll have to. The scientists here won't help me.

[Xipe Totec]

177. Visit yours. It's called a Public Library for a reason.

I have studied the subject of evolution to MY satisfaction and find it not only consistent with the general body of human knowledge, but able to produce practical applications based on the assumption that evolution and its underpinnings in DNA replication are correct.

Based on our exchanges so far I can tell that you are intelligent and already posses enough knowledge to understand the material available in the library. All that is lacking is the will to do it; If I can do it so can you.

The fact that you doubt the theory of evolution, per se, does not add new information that would make me reevaluate my position vis a vis evolution. Your doubts are in fact irrelevant because they are not based on any new material knowledge to which I have not been exposed.

If you know of any experiment that has been conducted that might disprove evolution, or call in into question, please let me know. THAT would be truly interesting.

[mike_c]

185. I have posted numerous citations to "help" you....

You're evidently ignoring them-- you won't accept explanations, so I've posted links to original source material. Happy reading.

[greenohio]

208. I've started reading.

Haven't found what I am look for yet, but hopefully something is there. Thank you.

[karlrschneider]

107. Here you go. Check it out when you have a spare month.

www.talkorigins.org

[greenohio]

122. Not what I'm looking for.

Surely there is some university that has published the results of a reproducible experiment where, in a controlled fashion, they have bred an animal repeatedly to generate a new species that cannot breed with the old animal line, but CAN breed with the NEW line.

I'm not looking for opinion as that site espouses.

I am looking for reputable, repeatable and controlled.

[Avalux]

124. Ever heard of Google?

And if you find something, please share! :hi:

[RFM]

140. ever hear of Artificial Life?

that uses the scientific rules of evolution to write entire programs without a programmer.

it's a very powerful theory that has contributed greatly to science and our understanding of nature.

http://google.com

thank GORE he 'invented' the INTERNETs ;->

[Runcible Spoon]

145. not all of science is petri dishes and "controlled experiments"

some of the mechanisms of evolution cannot be "controlled" by humans, though we do warp the environment without intending to, which may prove to have quite "interesting" consequences for speciation. Evolution is change in allele frequencies. We can measure allele frequencies. We CANNOT recreate natural selection, it would be "man-made" selection, and we can see that occurring in domestic animal breeding. Just because some theories can't be plugged into a lab experiment doesn't mean they aren't observable and scientifically valid.

[greenohio]

153. Are you saying that there is no experiment

that is controlled, reputable, reproducible, and meets a reasonable definition of species? Have people tried?

[Runcible Spoon]

162. ***sigh****

re-read. Humans can't duplicate natural selection. This would be "man-made" selection. What we can do is observe the consequences of the mechanisms of evolution. I'm sure it won't be too long before we can duplicate speciation in a lab experiment. However, speciation is not evolution, it is merely one possibility of evolutionary forces. Some species don't change in millions of years. Some species die out quickly due to selection. Some species split into new species.

[ilife]

168. we use the laws of evolution in computer science

and it works very well...

What is Artificial Life?
by Chris Adami and Titus Brown

"The term "Artificial Life" is used to describe research into human-made systems that possess some of the essential properties of life. As it turns out, there are many such systems that meet this criterion--digital, test-tube, and mechanical--and these can be used to perform experiments aimed at revealing the principles and the organization of living systems on Earth as well as elsewhere. This effort is truly interdisciplinary and runs the gamut from biology, chemistry and physics to computer science and engineering. While a large part of Artificial Life is devoted to understanding life as we know it - that is, life on earth - a significant effort concerns the search for principles of living systems which are independent of a particular substrate. Thus, Artificial Life also considers life "as it could be", exploring artificial alternatives to a carbon-based chemistry.

Artificial Life is often described as attempting to understand high-level behavior from low-level rules; for example, how the simple rules of Darwinian evolution lead to high-level structure, or the way in which the simple interactions between ants and their environment lead to complex trail-following behavior. Understanding this relationship in particular systems promises to provide novel solutions to complex real-world problems, such as disease prevention, stock-market prediction, and data-mining on the Internet. "

more...
http://www.alife7.alife.org/whatis.shtml

:hi:

[Runcible Spoon]

172. fascinating stuff. and welcome to DU

I think someone above was also interested in this.

:hi:

[ilife]

176. thanks

yep, saw that and thought i'd contribute to the discussion :hi:

[mike_c]

211. yes and succeeded, many times....

I've provided you a couple of citations on immediate speciation by polyploidy in another response-- which you continue to ignore-- but ANY first year biology student knows about this one (or at least they should).

[greenohio]

220. I've answer this elsewhere in the thread.

Polyploidy cannot explain evolution of species because it is just genetic duplication. You will never get anything but a flower from a flower through polyploidy. I am reading your other posts. I was really looking for one good one, animal preferably.

[ilife]

222. it is demonstrated in computer science

daily :hi:

What is Artificial Life?
by Chris Adami and Titus Brown

The term "Artificial Life" is used to describe research into human-made systems that possess some of the essential properties of life. As it turns out, there are many such systems that meet this criterion--digital, test-tube, and mechanical--and these can be used to perform experiments aimed at revealing the principles and the organization of living systems on Earth as well as elsewhere. This effort is truly interdisciplinary and runs the gamut from biology, chemistry and physics to computer science and engineering. While a large part of Artificial Life is devoted to understanding life as we know it - that is, life on earth - a significant effort concerns the search for principles of living systems which are independent of a particular substrate. Thus, Artificial Life also considers life "as it could be", exploring artificial alternatives to a carbon-based chemistry.

Artificial Life is often described as attempting to understand high-level behavior from low-level rules; for example, how the simple rules of Darwinian evolution lead to high-level structure, or the way in which the simple interactions between ants and their environment lead to complex trail-following behavior. Understanding this relationship in particular systems promises to provide novel solutions to complex real-world problems, such as disease prevention, stock-market prediction, and data-mining on the Internet.

more...
http://www.alife7.alife.org/whatis.shtml

psst... pass the word ;->

[mike_c]

229. see # 223....

eom

[Runcible Spoon]

231. why animal preferably?

??

[mike_c]

178. ok, it happens all the time in plants-- breeders have taken...

...advantage of it for decades. The easiest method is polyploid induction. You can find lots of articles on the web. Here's a couple:

http://cis.arl.arizona.edu/markow_lab/bioone.pdf

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2004.00998.x/abs/

[greenohio]

213. Polyploid induction

is the duplication of the gene set, in effect doubling the number of genes. Using this process, certain traits appear because of genes canceling or reinforcing each other. It doesn't support evolution as I stated above because there is no way to get anything but a flower by copying flower genes over and over. You will not eventually get a tree or anything else. You are correct though, the descendants produced by this process cannot reproduce with the parent line but can reproduce with flowers that have the same genetic count. We're getting close here!

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greenohio]

132. Welcome to DU

[RFM]

134. thanks greenohio

good to be somewhere where you can spout off against the DAILY bs, it's like we're all living in BIZARRO WORLD :crazy:



:hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

250. Unbrilliant

First, evolution does not indicate evolving into a different species. So, the premise of your lack of "belief" is fatally flawed.

Secondly, observable evolution at the microbiological scale has occurred many, many, many times. So, there goes your "single experiment" argument.

Thirdly, more complex organisms by definition, evolve so slowly that we'd have to spend decades or centuries in your "experiment".

Lastly, since you would be looking for species to "evolve into another" you won't find any links since that's not what evolution is. You describe it as if it were Lamarckian acquired characteristic theory. If a species, the way it is, is surviving just fine, and there is no statistically meaningful advantage for an expansion of a certain genetic mutation, then no evolution will be in evidence.

Before one can be a skeptic, one should know something about the subject matter. Questioning to the void while ignorant of the subject matter is cynicism and is the domain of the small mind.
The Professor

[HawkerHurricane]

115. Creationism and Fundamentalism...

both were concieved of AFTER Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

In the 1880's, a new religious movement swept the United States... Darwin's theory, having been generally accepted by the majority of scientist AND major church leader lead certain church groups to reject both, in favor of a system called 'dispensationalism'. The system was formalized in the early 1900's in a series of pamphlets about 'the Christian Fundementals', and the movement adopted the term 'Fundementalism' for itself. It rejected the 'modernist' (liberal) church beliefs of reading the Bible as metaphore and dealing with real world problems of poverty and racism in favor of creating a NEW belief that required a LITERAL reading of the Bible and claiming that the Bible was absolutely TRUE; there were NO contradictions. This system is the origin of the modern Religious Right, and thier claims of being 'Traditional Christianity' are nonsense.

To take the Bible literally is to believe that the world is flat, pi = 3, and donkeys confronted by angels can talk rationally to thier riders...

[knight_of_the_star]

197. Modern Fundementalism anyway

Religious extremism has existed about as long as you have had organized religions.

[HawkerHurricane]

253. Oh, of course

I merely commented on how old this particular religious fanatacism was; religious fanatacism as a whole probably dates to the 3rd Shaman accusing the 2nd one of heresy while the 1st was still trying to get the story straight...

[mom-mad-about-bush]

117. No need to take sides.

The truth is that evolution could not have existed without creation, and creation could not have existed without evolution. I recommend the book "The Science of God" to anyone who needs more evidence of this fact.

As a Christian and a Democrat, I agree that we should all try to get along. I think any religion or teaching that supports exclusion as apposed to inclusion is part of the problem and not the solution. We should all respect each others beliefs, and practice love, not hate.

[Sterling]

181. "creation could not have existed without evolution." Bullshit.

That is certainly NOT a scientific theory. I have read this kind of nonsense before. That may be your spiritual belief but it is not science.

[Hans Delbrook]

187. I respect your beliefs

I'm a believer myself.

But as a scientist I will defend to the death science from attacks by believers. (Just as I would defend my religion from attacks by other scientists.)

That means defending science against the debasement that occurs when non-scientists insist that their unscientific theories (that are unsupported by evidence or data or observation, and are not peer reviewed) be held equal to theories developed from the scientific method.

I have skimmed "The Science of God" and I find offensive it's basic premise - that I take the Bible on faith - then fit science to it. To be a scientist you must go into every situation with no preconceived notions - and you must be willing to discard any theory that is unsupported or contradicted by data. Whenever someone who works for me presumes to "know" how an experiment is going to turn out, I always say, "Science is not professional wrestling - we don't get to decide how it turns out before we do it." That's the problem w/ "faith-based" science - you've already decided how it's going to come out.

I believe we are best served when science stays out of religion and religion stays out of science.

P.S. Someone should ask Mr. Schroeder how he fits string theory into his cosmology.

[muse]

198. Of COURSE teaching evolution excludes creationism.

Evolution is not a belief system and doesn't have anything to do with religion or faith so why would this even be in a discussion about respecting each others beliefs? I don't get it. If evolution threatens your position as a Christian and a Democrat, that is something you are going to have to deal with, but you can't expect others to tiptoe around you when they discuss the theory of evolution just because you are a Christian. Do you want them to tiptoe around you when they discuss the Germ Theory of Disease? Theory of Relativity? String Theory?

By the way, I am a Christian and a Democrat also and I certainly don't expect the scientific world to take care with my feelings about my faith be "inclusive" in explaining natural phenomena. I absolutely do not expect scientists to "respect my beliefs". They would not be practicing science if they did so.

[Cats Against Frist]

119. Oh, Come On

There's a lot of "Crazy Relativism" going on here. It's like CRAZY to say that creationism is true, but then the same accusor will turn around and say something like "but I believe in God or an eternal 'energy,' or some equally nonsensical, constructed idea that they have no basis in "fact" for.

And then someone will ultimately say, "you can't make fun of that person because 'so many people believe in God,' which doesn't make the argument better -- just more fallacious -- "argumentum ad populum" to be exact. Just because a lot of people believe it -- DOESN'T mean it's true.

Hyperreligiosity is a mental disorder. Meaning that some people will starve themselves "because God told them to," and they'll get sent up to a mental hospital. At the same time, Rapture Pearl sends half her income to Pat "Shiny Diamond" Robertson, who builds a fascist theme park with some of it, and pays dictators off with the rest -- and she's "got core American values."

It's time we started talking about this realistically. Everybody's crazy -- from women who shave their legs to people who spend 50 large on a luxury car, to those who give a shit about what's happening on some dumb reality sitcom. There are a lot more people living in a fantasy world than just the Christian Fundies. Everything that's happened since the birth of the industrial revolution is simply distracting bullshit. Sure, there have been some technological advances -- but in another wormhole, that maybe could have happened without all the bullshit.

Point: believing in God is just plain A-1 fucking nuts, but so are about a million other things we do.

[superconnected]

141. yep

I think this thread has proved it's point.

[indigobusiness]

142. Both sides are wrong.

And all bigotry stinks.

[Runcible Spoon]

158. yes bigotry stinks, but....

when there is a clean disparity in power and influence(in this case I think we can all agree that religious fundamentalists have more clout in policy making than do Nobel Prize winners), why is it "bigotry" to disprove specious claims of persecution?

[indigobusiness]

165. I wouldn't call it bigotry to disprove

specious claims of anything.

[fshrink]

154. Any religious belief deserves to be made fun of.-

[Carl Brennan]

157. Religion is mind control. Through

peer pressure people learn to say and "believe" a fairy tale and then are forced, via the same pressure, to go out and try to make others believe it.


Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
- Voltaire, 1767.


Voltaire's quote is nowhere more apparent than the US involvment in Iraq.


Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance.
Thomas Paine

[superconnected]

159. as opposed to what

Believing there is no sin. Dumping guilt all together. Hey, lets eat the dead, why let the meat go to waste.

[Runcible Spoon]

169. there are more than just religious reasons to not eat your own species

one being spread of disease. Very few carnivores are cannabilistic, and even then usually only in times of extreme food shortage.

[Sterling]

184. Don't bring science into this,

Of course every common sense thing humans do was passed down on stone tablets from on high.

Threads like this really make me hate these people. Fucking retards down to the last one.

[datasuspect]

228. yeah really

and the taboo against cannibalism has been pretty consistent throughout western civilization for some time.

that proscription was evident a few thousand years before christianity.

if people can believe there was a literate, historical record before christianity.

[Carl Brennan]

186. You should read a book called Cannibals and Kings by Marvin

Harris. Cannibalism ended because it was not an efficient use of resources. But you'd have to read the book to understand it. Another book he wrote was Cultural Materialism and he shows how many taboos against certain behaviors were based on enviromental pressure, not some divine inspiration.

[Runcible Spoon]

189. hmmm....Harris has a lot of good points....

but I don't buy his theory lock stock and barrel...am generally cautious of biological determination as the end all be all of cultural adaptation/change...plus Harris' framework leaves no explanation for individual agency, or deviation. However, it was a landmark work and has a lot of pioneering concepts. Sorry to pick this apart, but I'm studying for my comprehensive exams for my MA and need to recall Harris a bit!
:hi:

[Carl Brennan]

196. I don't buy him totally either but he does offer some damned interesting

theory. Like the reason why pork is a Jewish taboo is because pigs tear up the land and in Middle East its a bigger problem than elsewhere because the soil is more fragile. The Aztecs engaged in cannibalism because there were not enough large mammals to supply the requisite protein.

I tried explaining this along time ago to some religious types and their jaws hit the floor and they called me a loon, blah, blah. They could not understand that my description of the theory was an endorsement of it. Bigotry and prejudice is indemic to religion.

I want to change the wording of the Constitution from "freedom of religion" to freedom "from" religion. Have religion free/free thought zones where religious talk is restricted, hee, hee.

Good luck on your exams. :hi:

[knight_of_the_star]

199. That wasn't the only reason for the taboo

Trichinosis is quite deadly, and they didn't know how to treat pigs for it then.

[Carl Brennan]

235. Could be, but I don't think back in Biblical times Trichinosis was

understood for what it was.

[knight_of_the_star]

245. That's what I heard it was anyway

No one knew that trichinosis was caused by a parasite carried by pigs, and if you didn't know that wouldn't you think that eating pork was bad after seeing someone eat some and get sick and die and see this happen on a repeated basis?

[Used and Abused]

192. Why must people who don't blindly follow every evolution idea

be labelled as freepers? Seriously folks, that is the attitude I'm referring to. Its very bigoted and insulting. As for myself? I do believe in evolution! I have a BS degree from a respectable university.

I am a Christian, but certainly not a religious nut. But there are some parts to the theory--yes theory--that disturb me. Visit a zoo folks, and you may leave with the very same doubts. Life around us is a brilliant work of art. I believe in evolution, but I certainly don't believe that random combinations and collisions between molecules led to all of this!! There is more to this story, something none of us could ever fathom.

[mike_c]

201. look, I'm sorry, but you just keep spouting nonsense...

...that suggests you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss biological evolution. You seem to think "evolution" is lots of things that it's not. Evolution is change in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next. Stated another way, living organisms change through time. That's it. It's not a revolutionary concept, and it's directly observable in nature and in the lab. Most of the foods you eat are the product of evolution. If you have pets, they're almost certainly different from the parent stock they arose from several millenia ago. If you wear natural fibers-- well, I'm sure you get the idea.

Everything else that you've heard or think you know about evolution follows from this simple definition. If you genuinely don't believe that organisms can change from one generation to the next then we really have no basis for further discussion because that's tantamount to insisting that the earth is flat. You can argue about other things all night long, but unless you're arguing that living organisms don't change from one generation to the next, your argument has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is "real." Stop adding to the noise. Read the biological definition of evolution. Any other definition is simply incorrect.

Do you still find evolution controversial?

[Geek_Girl]

193. I have no problem with someone's religious beliefs

But I believe that everyone should use reason to determine what they believe and not blind faith. Some of our prominent founding fathers urged as much The Age of Reason.

As for Evolution, it is not a theory but can be observed directly by fossil records and it doesn't take a genius to see that humans have Evolved and change physically over the centuries. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand whether your religious or not. It's simply common sense.

[Razorback_Democrat]

200. Why is it so hard to pull evolution and creation together?

I'm a Christian, and frankly,until I read about a controversy, I don't remember ever thinking about one growing up.

I've always believed that the bible was inspired by a higher power, but definitely written by humans. Nomadic tribes in the desert thousands of years ago.

How could they have ever understood the way that the world was created then? We don't understand it now! (very well)

Why is it so hard to think that a higher power created the universe and evolution is the result of that process?

Remember that time as we understand it is just that, a human concept. Why would time have any meaning to a creator?

I live in a Red state in probably the reddest part! They actually tried to ban Harry Potter here, so I know that extremists on EITHER side make any argument hard to resolve.

Personally I'm happy with my understanding.

Thanks

[ilife]

202. there is no link between the 2

is the obvious first reason and the 2nd is trying to be rational with irrational believes based on nothing more than faith.

but i still love my mom who's practically a nun ;->

[Razorback_Democrat]

215. What's more irrational?

Believing that man (or woman) evolved from nothing, that life means nothing, and yet evolved in a way that works perfectly for them, and most if not all life has evolved into the way that works perfectly for them. There is a pattern in everything.

What's more irrational? belief in nothing, or taking a chance and believing in some kind of higher order to things?

Maybe I took your post wrong?

[ilife]

221. we didn't evolve from 'nothing'

and life means EVERYTHING.
our environment provides EVERYTHING
and it's patterns provide the foundation for our science.

sounds very SUBSTANTIAL and RATIONAL to me...

hey if it worked for Einstein, took us to the moon, brought us the www, who am i to argue ;->

[Razorback_Democrat]

225. I just look at it differently, and the same

I see a grand design that forms the basis for science, and then I see the boundaries that science hasn't solved yet as evidence of something that precedes life, and the universe, something that I don't understand and don't have to understand.

call it irrational if you will, but it brings comfort and peace, and meaning to life beyond what I see.

[datasuspect]

234. but

that comfort is a psychological comfort and one that i think is encoded in many humans. but it really is just a subjective, psychological comfort that is real to YOU. it might not be real to anybody else. it is especially helpful for people who index highly for conformity or for those who have a legalistic concept of the universe.

i mean, who really wants to believe in a neutral universe that isn't imbued with anthropomorphic properties? kind of a cold, scary place when you face the prospect that it comes from nothing and results in the putrefaction and decay of your physical being upon death.

geez, then you'd have to face the prospect that the only meaning in life is the meaning you create - especially if there is no afterlife and your HUMAN existence is the only chance you get.

dunno, that is more an incitement to create than anything.

i don't fear it, i embrace it.

[datasuspect]

232. why

do christians always present dichotomous arguments?

you either believe in god or you believe in nothing.

there are plenty of real, tangible things in the universe that have more explanatory power than god concepts.

it is not a black/white proposition.

[greenohio]

241. Hmmmm.

Actually there is an element in faith in both. And that is my point with the discussion above. I am skeptical about both of them. Do species evolve over time...sure. Does one species evolve into the next? Dunno, that takes a leap of faith. There is a scientific hole there, that we may fill. But it is, nonetheless, there.

[datasuspect]

230. "Why is it so hard to think that a higher power created the universe. . ."

because it is absurd.

and because people were writing better literature a few thousand years before the bible.

[TheDon]

204. Whatever...

There is correct and incorrect.

There is never a reason to humor people who are wrong in their view of reality.

I am not an atheist. But the Bible is a fairy tale written by men that happened to be the book chosen by the white conquerors who dominated the world. I am one of them and was indoctrinated like most of us.

It has NOTHING remotely scientific to offer. It is no better than the Koran, Buddhist texts, the Gita or Curious George for that matter. The time for being PC to delusional religious nuts ended on November 4th. Either Reason or fantasy dogma will reign... We'll see which.

[ilife]

209. witch?

BURN HER!

[greenohio]

242. Welcome to DU

I see you are going to be a firecracker.

[Dorian Gray]

219. Eh...

I don't really mind what anyone else believes. Personally, I believe in a Creator who happend to create the evolutionary process. But, that's just me. I also don't believe that Creationism should be taught in Science Class, though I would not mind comparative religion taught, in some aspect, in a social studies class. They could touch upon Creationism there.

[ilife]

226. the CREATOR

yeah, i like learning about all the different flavors in a social science class but certainly not in science class and that we are even debating this point in 2004 does not bode well for the survival of our species.

"I know not what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but i know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones". --Albert Einstein

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

247. BS

[ProfessorGAC]

249. Um, No!

I will no longer tolerate the progression of a theocracy. There is no negotiation on this matter. They claim absolute truth. Science does not claim to be absolute truth. They are wrong. The scientists are right. End of story.

I don't need to be lectured on this by you or anyone else.

The Professor

[kodi]

257. age old problem, doc; knowlege versus certainty

"despitus abdicare scrutinium": contempt before examination.

Latin for: a contemptible person who renounces something before making an honest search or examination.

When things like "creatonism" are held as gospel and attempts are made to thrust them into public discourse intellectual honesty demands that these positions are weighed in the common marketplace of ideas, and the sharp-edged tools of the common intellectual marketplace, viz., logic, rationality and scientific method, in short, Godless dialectic materialism, examine such ideas.

Positions on public policy driven by religious conviction are not exempt from analysis using the tools of logic, rationality, and scientific method simply because they are based upon religious dogmas. Once such ideas and opinions cross the threshold of the church door and amble down to the secular marketplace, they are open to critique. Critiques of these positions that point out the logical flaws of such positions (and their own age-old prejudices) are not prejudice or bigotry, unless by prejudice and bigotry one demands that the application of logic, rationality, and scientific method are themselves bigoted and prejudicious tools in a functioning democracy.

And that, after all of this is the point of the attack on evolution, for it is actually an attack on rationalism as a methodology of human examination of the exterior world.

[blindpig]

254. excuse me,

but the proponents of science are not going into churches expounding on theology. Creationism is a baldfaced attempt establish dogma as scientific fact. It deserves every brickbat it recieves.

[Bridget Burke]

258. Most Christians are able to grasp the Evolution concept.

The others are free to believe anything they like.

Those "others" just need to stop pressuring the schools to teach Creationism as science. That's the whole reason this topic keeps coming up again & again.

[Trajan]

259. The majority of Germans were Hitler supporters ....

The sheer number of believers doesnt make the belief valid ....

What is 'bashing', anyways ? ..

Telling someone they hold ignorant beliefs is 'bashing' ? ..

Your prefer suppliant deference when it comes to embracing your ignorant beliefs ? ...

Two relevent fallacies:

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example:

"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous."

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it."

Argumentum ad populum

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the Bible. This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more evidence do you need that Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?"

[datasuspect]

260. here is what science can offer

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104268.htm?z=1727_00000_5024_hv_03

[datasuspect]

261. here is what religion can offer

http://www.10news.com/news/3949976/detail.html?subid=22100481&qs=1;bp=t

[Endangered Specie]

263. We aren't bashing Christians...

we are bashing creationism, and the people who are dumb enough to believe it

[Felix Mala]

265. I know lots of Christians

who have no problems with evolution and wouldn't be offended by the attacks on fundamentalists found on this website. In fact, they're very embarassed by these zealots who give Christianity a bad name. They do it by pretty much subverting everything Christ did and said, and that's far more offensive to real Christians than anything a scientific "bigot" might have to say.

[RUDUing2]

267. evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how God created

doesn't prove or disprove creationism..just as creationism doesn't prove or disprove evolution...

To claim that you cant believe in God if you believe in science is just as stupid as to claim that you cant beleive in science if you believe in God.

[datasuspect]

270. yow

evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how God created

evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how God created

evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how God created

evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how God created

i'm still trying to wrap my mind around this absurdity . . .

on second thought, i think i'll go make a hot dog

[Spider Jerusalem]

272. I have no problem with people believing whatever the hell they want to...

as long as they have the courtesy to fucking keep it to themselves. When they and their beliefs begin to intrude on me, then they're fair game.

[ecstatic]

273. Scientific bigots....hmmmm....

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[bloom]

280. Definitions

bigot

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

OR

BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion
that you do not entertain.

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

Actually - I don't think it makes sense to call someone a bigot for obstinately believing that we breath air, for instance. As mike_c has made abundantly clear - if you use the biological definition - nearly everyone agrees on the facts of evolution. To acknowledge facts is not to be attached to an opinion. One could only consider Scientists to be bigots by not agreeing that there are facts. So it is just more evidence that those who think others are "Science Bigots" do not acknowledge facts (and believe that all ideas are merely opinions - where everyone may be a bigot if he/she is not willing to change based on others arguments).

Furthermore - scientists can presumably be persuaded by evidence (which changes with new discoveries) - so they are not "obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion" as people are who are basing their beliefs on faith-based arguments.

[Arkana]

274. I could give a shit if someone believes in creationism over evolution

but when the fundies say that I have to teach my kid something because their God says it's right, I get a little TENSE. :grr:

[liberalpragmatist]

279. I don't have a problem with creationism

if that's someone's genuine belief. While I do think we need to improve science education in this country (there are so many misconceptions), if people have heard all the theories and decide to follow the biblical stories, that's their right, and you're right, we shouldn't bash them.

But I'm TOTALLY against the teaching of creationism in science classes in schools. Creationism IS NOT Science. If they want to teach religious creation stories, they should teach the Abrahamic Creation Story (along with other religions' creation stories) in Social Studies classes - not science class. Until they can find empirical evidence for evolution or intelligent design, it should not be taught in a public school science class. Period.