Evangelicals Hijack Education In Texas (And Beyond)

[bigg cheese]

This is absolutely silly.

1) Science needs no gods. Time is not a God, it is a unit of measurement. It happens. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Belief in natural selection requires no faith. If the theory is ever proven wrong......SO WHAT! The facts are still here, we just need another explanation to try to explain why the facts fit together like they do. It doesn't require faith. Faith means there is no direct evidence. Evolution requires no such thing. It is simply a (possibly temporary) best explanation.

I agree that it is silly to think of Time in such a sense, but so it is with MANY if not MOST of the people with which I discuss this topic. They will not say it so bluntly, but it is how they present it. If it's in the college professors, .... so goes the unassuming student body...

Everyone has access to the facts, and it is the individual's world-view that colors the interpretation. Strict use of the scientific observational method is impossible for evolution. I have never seen a feline produce a non-feline. The term species is at best, flawed. one has never seen an animal produce a creature not of its own "kind." There are several forms of defined evolution (differences created to confuse those who don't care to study, like micro and macro-evolution). Macro has never been observed.

Any study of fossils is at best interpretation, and unprovable. I on the other hand can look a cat and predict that it will produce a cat, because all recorded history proves it.

2) No belief in the unknown is required for non-religion.

I agree, and belief in evolution is a religion, for the reasons noted above.

Everything that goes from disorder to order has outside influence. Natural selection is a great example of the same principle.

Thank you for proving my point. I'm not trying to talk past you, so forgive if I sound that way. So what was the outside influence that created the big bang? Or what was the outside influence that spontaneously created life?

Supposedly the big bang "everything" exploding, so what was left to cause the exploding? What EXACTLY were the conditions that created life?

SO MANY people believe in the BB and Spontaneous generation of life but cannot prove it. Still more won't admit they believe in them, but continue to place more and more hypotheses atop an unprovable base, and still it's considered science and not religion? I call shenanigans...

It's also wrong to claim 2nd law of thermodynamics (which may be coming next). Entropy is increased in any action. When you set off a stick of dynamite on a pile of sand, the overall entropy will be increased. The entropy in the small area under the stick may be decreased to allow for a more ordered bit of glass to be produced. By the way, entropy has nothing to do with disorder. They are completely different ideas. Entropy has to do with the dispersal of energy. Depending on the perspective, entropy could increase while the overall picture appears more orderly which would go against most people's views of the phenomenon.

Accepted. I picked the wrong word -- Apologies

4) For the last time, evolution and natural selection have nothing to do with origins. They explain the gradual transition from simple organisms to complex ones, and from one type of animal to another of long periods of time. At the time they are the best explanation of these processes.

Absolutely they do. If evolutionists continue to attempt to show us the "geologic history" of life from one organism to the next, they should be able to show us what came first, and how it happened. Origins is the foundation.

It is wrong to insert a God into something simply because you don't understand it.

I won't say it's wrong, but it isn't scientific, but where we part company is when I hear professors (who are teaching the masses) that with enough time, even the most mathematically unlikely event will happen.

I don't play the lottery for that exact reason.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Three thoughs, see below next to your text. Mine is in blue.

2) No belief in the unknown is required for non-religion. There are simply things we don't know. That's fine. We don't need a magical being to explain them. Faith is not required. Science is absolutely NOT faith based. It is so very much the opposite of faith. We have direct evidence. Here it is. Now, lets try to explain it with a theory. We'll test it constantly, and match new facts up to the theory. If any new facts prove it wrong...then we throw it out and propose a new one. Faith requires that you start with the answer and then find ways to make the evidence fit. It has been stated so many times in this thread alone.

This is true only in theory, but not in practice. Scientist like other professionals have too much invested in their theories to discard them when contrary evidence arises. One good example of this is the current snafu on global warming. Scientists had conflicting data so they rationalized the data to fit their theory. They should have altered their theory to match the data, but didn't because their grant money and investment money would dry if the end was supported.

Some scientists, like other professions, start with an end in mind and sometimes work towards that end creating tests which will provide data which ultimately supports their end. This is normal, but we can't overlook the reality of the situation because our belief in the infallibility of science.

4) For the last time, evolution and natural selection have nothing to do with origins. They explain the gradual transition from simple organisms to complex ones, and from one type of animal to another of long periods of time. At the time they are the best explanation of these processes.

I understand what you mean, but the problem with "origin" is where many people struggle. We can see direct evidence of minor variation within a specie where those traits serve purposes in the environment. This makes sense because the odds are so much more believable. Several thousand animals breeding together with random mutations surviving to the next generation. What we don't see is the origin of life from in-animate material and its hard to see that because the odds in that situation become incomprehensible.

Finally, the overall origin of the universe remains unexplained except for that there was a beginning point. There is no explanation for what caused this sudden explanation.

I'm not saying that God has to be the reason, because I'm ok with saying we just don't know. What I am saying is there are problems with the theories and most people in most situations are used to world fitting together in a way that makes sense. We can't expect everybody to make the leap to being ok with not knowing.

It is wrong to insert a God into something simply because you don't understand it. Different situations have different explanations, but order can come from chaos just as chaos can come from order. Entropy, chaos, order, etc. can become very confounded depending on the explainer. Hopefully I clarified things a bit.

Now here I'm confused. You say order can come from chaos, but I'm not sure I can think of a situation where that has happened. This is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is always increasing and entropy is a measure of disorganization. Thus, without some other force the universe moves toward disorganization.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I was not offering a proof, what I was saying is that making people confused and angry because you believe you're right, and you may be right may not help your cause.

What you are doing is dividing and causing anger. I think your imparting your own traits and abilities onto others and expect they act as you do. Most people are not trained as you have been or educated as you have been.

You try treating them with some common decency and kindness rather than berating them. They might actually listen to your point and think about it.

As to your proof below, I'm not sure at all what it is saying. Could you try presenting it in another form? My simple mechanical engineering brain doesn't comprehend it nor does my simple legal mind.

This is an invalid proof:

a->b
a
C: b<->the argument was said nicely.

Everyone who wants Creationism in a public school textbook is wrong. These wrong people need to be defeated.

If I defeat them by forcing them to say silly things and making them offer silly arguments, the good side has prevailed.

We should all be happy.

 

[smoking357]

I was not offering a proof, what I was saying is that making people confused and angry because you believe you're right, and you may be right may not help your cause.

What you are doing is dividing and causing anger. I think your imparting your own traits and abilities onto others and expect they act as you do. Most people are not trained as you have been or educated as you have been.

You try treating them with some common decency and kindness rather than berating them. They might actually listen to your point and think about it.

As to your proof below, I'm not sure at all what it is saying. Could you try presenting it in another form? My simple mechanical engineering brain doesn't comprehend it nor does my simple legal mind.

Sorry. Not going to play. You already have everything you need.

I saw this on another site, "You gotta hand it to creationists. They're like the Terminators of CENSORED. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, and they absolutely will not stop until long after you've given up and moved onto something more interesting."

 

[Lex Concord]

It's not about winning and its not about demoralizing your opponent to the point where they won't engage you anymore.

Au contraire, for some, it quite obviously is.

Most with common sense and even a small measure of humility agree with you, however.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

What do you mean? You given a cryptic mathematical proof and then won't explain it to somebody? Why should I understand your previous statement? What makes you think I would understand your previous statement.

I've not even said that creation should be taught in public schools. I do think that the issues with modern scientific theory should be explained so that students don't take as law (natural law) something that is still a theory. This goes beyond biology and into areas like physics as well.

When you play nice, you shouldn't give up so easily.

Sorry. Not going to play. You already have everything you need.

I saw this on another site, "You gotta hand it to creationists. They're like the Terminators of CENSORED. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, and they absolutely will not stop until long after you've given up and moved onto something more interesting."

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Thanks. When I was an engineer I often thought there was only correct and incorrect and it was matter of showing others why I had come to the right position. I also learned using that perspective that in the end I still believed I was right, but I was also still alone in my thinking.

My personal view is that if my position is so clearly correct, I should be able to communicate those points to others in away that does not alienate their views and maintains the field for further discussion later. Sometimes it takes people a long time to evaluate their thinking and alter it. If you crystallize their thinking against you from day one, they may never alter their thinking no matter how incorrect they are.

We progress together through establishing our common ground, defining our points of disagreement, and maintaining our relationship so that further discussion can happen. People aren't like horses. You don't break somebody one day and expect them to follow you the next.

Au contraire, for some, it quite obviously is.

Most with common sense and even a small measure of humility agree with you, however.

 

[Lex Concord]

Are you actually saying that one is unjustified in using the courts to seek relief from an unconstitutional governmental action?

Yes, I think you are. That's one of the weaker feints to come out of this thread.

What do you propose in response to an unconstitutional act? Accepting the act, like a docile slave? That is what Liberals usually want.



I see I backed you into a corner of making up nonsense and engaging in circular arguments.

That win took only a couple moves.

Not every question asked is an exercise in the application of logic, grasshopper. Nor should it be.

Your strongest adversary hides within the mirror. Learn to see him, and put him in his place, and you may see yourself moving forward.

 

[smoking357]

.

 

[turnandshoot4]

And what if this where the Quaran instead of The Bible? Would everyone be for it? It still teaches about God.

How about Catholic Christianity? Not Protestant? How about Westboro Baptist?

Since our government can not choose one religon over another how can letting religon in schools be justified?

Evolution does not tell me or my child HOW to live life. There are plenty of private schools to teach that. If we always taught what religon did the world would still be flat.

 

[Lex Concord]

..

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Did I miss something else?

.

 

[PatriotPride]

Did I miss something else?

I'd say that post was an improvement. He must need more time to come up with a super-argumenative comeback. Here: a>b only when -a=b+d* and r+w=j

 

[jdhaines]

I agree that it is silly to think of Time in such a sense, but so it is with MANY if not MOST of the people with which I discuss this topic. They will not say it so bluntly, but it is how they present it. If it's in the college professors, .... so goes the unassuming student body...

I guess I'm not to be lumped in with most then.

Everyone has access to the facts, and it is the individual's world-view that colors the interpretation. Strict use of the scientific observational method is impossible for evolution. I have never seen a feline produce a non-feline. The term species is at best, flawed. one has never seen an animal produce a creature not of its own "kind." There are several forms of defined evolution (differences created to confuse those who don't care to study, like micro and macro-evolution). Macro has never been observed.

Any study of fossils is at best interpretation, and unprovable. I on the other hand can look a cat and predict that it will produce a cat, because all recorded history proves it.

As long as we are going by natural selection, we should never see a feline turn into a non-feline. If we saw such a thing it would undoubtably disprove the theory of natural selection and evolution. Everyone agrees on microevolution because it has been actively witnessed. There are no known barriers to large changes given time, and small changes will continue to accumulate based on continuously changing external stimuli, therefore microevolution proves macroevolution unless you can prove either of those two facets incorrect. Where do you want to draw the line between micro and macro evolution? Wolves have evolved into both St. Bernards as well as Chihuahuas. Without knowing anything about the common ancestor of the two breeds, it would be easy to claim macroevolution. Instead, creationists keep pushing the limits of microevolution to the very limit of our ability to observe. Scientists have a definition of macroevolution that is already proven (species changes, which have been observed), but creationists like to make their own definitions.

There are types of whales that still have hooves inside their bodies and have been genetically shown to be closer to hippos than other species of whales. Is that macroevolution? I would say yes, but creationists say no because we haven't seen a hippo give birth to a whale. That's a (insert fancy logical fallacy word here). <-- Thrown in for good measure. Either way, it's a false argument. Of course we'll never see a cat have a pig as a baby, or a "Crock-a-Duck".

I agree, and belief in evolution is a religion, for the reasons noted above.

Define: Religion - My belief in scientific fact, and my possibly temporary support for an explanation of those facts does not fit into any of these definitions. Absolutely not, no matter how many times you claim it does. I'm not taking anything on faith.

Thank you for proving my point. I'm not trying to talk past you, so forgive if I sound that way. So what was the outside influence that created the big bang? Or what was the outside influence that spontaneously created life?

I didn't prove your point. I don't know what caused the big bang. I wasn't there, and we may never have the facts to actually know for sure. Why would I need to make up a magic guy to explain it's creation. We THINK it happened...we don't KNOW it happened, and we don't know why it happened IF it did happen. Maybe we'll figure it out someday. I'm fine with not knowing.

Supposedly the big bang "everything" exploding, so what was left to cause the exploding? What EXACTLY were the conditions that created life?

Actually, the proposed big bang theory includes nothing like an explosion except that the matter continued to spread out after. It was an expansion of extremely dense matter. Not an explosion. Totally different. The point, again, is it is a theory which may be completely wrong.

SO MANY people believe in the BB and Spontaneous generation of life but cannot prove it. Still more won't admit they believe in them, but continue to place more and more hypotheses atop an unprovable base, and still it's considered science and not religion? I call shenanigans...

Absolutely they do. If evolutionists continue to attempt to show us the "geologic history" of life from one organism to the next, they should be able to show us what came first, and how it happened. Origins is the foundation.

We certainly can't prove spontaneous generation of life. I have no idea how life started. I realize that some scientists try to show their ideas as facts, and that is massively wrong. I also get that people propose evolution as fact sometimes incorrectly. It's just an idea. It's ok not to know. There is still no need to insert God.

Evolutionists can try to explain the history of life from one organism to the next and may be right or wrong. This doesn't mean that anyone should be able to show you the first organism and how it came about. That's a question no one can answer at this time. I've heard some new research is ongoing about a possibility, but that far back any ideas or proposed theories are simply that, possibilities.

I won't say it's wrong, but it isn't scientific, but where we part company is when I hear professors (who are teaching the masses) that with enough time, even the most mathematically unlikely event will happen.

I don't play the lottery for that exact reason.

I realize this is a major rub, and I end up fighting for people that I don't agree with. I certainly don't believe in a God, but I also don't believe that science has near the answers that many propose it has. I believe in the facts that we know, and that's it. I'm perfectly fine knowing that there are huge gaps which may never be filled. I'm fine with that.

As to the OP, I don't believe creation should be taught in schools but I equally don't believe that evolution should be taught as fact. It should be carefully noted that "Here are the facts" and "here is our current best explanation, which is a theory that could be proven incorrect at any time." As good scientists we should be willing to throw theories out the window at any time. I will fully concede that many scientists are willing to do no such thing.

 

[jdhaines]

I think I got all of your quotes...it's really hard to respond to inline comments.

This is true only in theory, but not in practice. Scientist like other professionals have too much invested in their theories to discard them when contrary evidence arises. One good example of this is the current snafu on global warming. Scientists had conflicting data so they rationalized the data to fit their theory. They should have altered their theory to match the data, but didn't because their grant money and investment money would dry if the end was supported.

Some scientists, like other professions, start with an end in mind and sometimes work towards that end creating tests which will provide data which ultimately supports their end. This is normal, but we can't overlook the reality of the situation because our belief in the infallibility of science.

I completely agree that scientists are not good at giving up theories when they no longer explain the facts. Global warming is a fully accurate (and sad) example of scientists dug in. I think natural selection is the best explanation for many things right now, but I wish more shared my willingness to throw it out the window if good enough evidence comes along (it hasn't yet, but may in the future). Science can fail us only when they stop looking objectively at the facts.

I understand what you mean, but the problem with "origin" is where many people struggle. We can see direct evidence of minor variation within a specie where those traits serve purposes in the environment. This makes sense because the odds are so much more believable. Several thousand animals breeding together with random mutations surviving to the next generation. What we don't see is the origin of life from in-animate material and its hard to see that because the odds in that situation become incomprehensible.

Finally, the overall origin of the universe remains unexplained except for that there was a beginning point. There is no explanation for what caused this sudden explanation.

I'm not saying that God has to be the reason, because I'm ok with saying we just don't know. What I am saying is there are problems with the theories and most people in most situations are used to world fitting together in a way that makes sense. We can't expect everybody to make the leap to being ok with not knowing.

Generally well said. I am personally bad at thinking everyone should be fine with not knowing like I am. It seems the best way to be, but it's because I am...which is obviously not the way to think of things. I need to step back sometimes and realize that some people need that security blanket. I personally feel like accepting this life is all we get makes it that much sweeter, where if there were an amazing afterlife like heaven, this life would be much cheaper.

Do be careful about "random mutation." Natural selection expressly denies any random mutation except for that in the DNA, as I understand it. All of the small changes are for a reason.

Now here I'm confused. You say order can come from chaos, but I'm not sure I can think of a situation where that has happened. This is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is always increasing and entropy is a measure of disorganization. Thus, without some other force the universe moves toward disorganization.

The examples I posted are samples of order from chaos. (Glass on the beach from lightning, diamonds from explosions, etc.) You have to be careful about the 2nd law argument. I didn't give it justice last time. The 2nd law is simply about entropy. Entropy must increase. The 2nd law allows for certain parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as the overall system increases. Entropy is not disorder, and describing it as such can be extremely confusing. The 2nd law doesn't say things have to break down all on their own. Check out these links which do a better job than I can about describing the fallacy of making entropy equal to disorder.

Entropy is not Disorder
Disorder in Entropy Discussions

 

[bigg cheese]

Looks like the definitions I grew up with are being changed yet again.

However, you did agree with me that a feline will never produce a non-feline. So what makes evolution between kinds of animals possible?

Like I said before the term "species" is a very poor definition, and confounds all sorts of people.

For example, people who don't believe in creation propose that Noah's ark had to be enormous because of all the thousands of "species" required. Wrong. A common ancestor was the same "kind" of animal as a wolf or dog.

Well I thank you for admitting the unknowns, but the sad thing is that even the media releases of evolutionary news couches everything in the wording as fact. The History channel has shows on "how the big bang changed the world....."

It's disconcerting for the leaders in these studies and media to cast things in such a disingenuous light.

Either way, I think we can get along

 

[jdhaines]

Looks like the definitions I grew up with are being changed yet again.

However, you did agree with me that a feline will never produce a non-feline. So what makes evolution between kinds of animals possible?

Like I said before the term "species" is a very poor definition, and confounds all sorts of people.

For example, people who don't believe in creation propose that Noah's ark had to be enormous because of all the thousands of "species" required. Wrong. A common ancestor was the same "kind" of animal as a wolf or dog.

Well I thank you for admitting the unknowns, but the sad thing is that even the media releases of evolutionary news couches everything in the wording as fact. The History channel has shows on "how the big bang changed the world....."

It's disconcerting for the leaders in these studies and media to cast things in such a disingenuous light.

Either way, I think we can get along

Haha, that's good then.

The definition of species may never be any good because the classification of organisms can be done so many different ways.

Many many years of microevolution can transform hippos to whales. It's the best explanation we have at the time. Maybe someday we'll prove or witness a true "kind change", but for now we have to go on assumptions.

The Noah's ark thing doesn't work in my mind. 99% of all species which have ever lived go extinct. At any point in history there are X species alive, and only 1% will likely live into the future. At some point when Noah was building his ark there would still have been a huge number of types of animals even if they were vastly different from what we know today. We only get fossils for a teeny tiny amount of species as the chances of a good fossil forming are very low. HUGE amounts of dinosaurs lead to a few fossils. A few of one type of animal lead to no fossils.

I agree...the media does a bad job, but what else is new. This is one of those things that happens to work in my favor, but it doesn't make it right. I wish they did a better job of explaining that evolution is not fact. Anyone who does is intentionally misleading people.

"How the Big Bang Changed the World." I can't think of a more ridiculous name for a documentary! It's like "How the Formation of Saturn's Rings Changed Cage Fighting" WTF!

 

[bigg cheese]

I actually made that one up -- a little embellishment.

 

[jdhaines]

I actually made that one up -- a little embellishment.

The sad part is it could totally be real!

 

[Von Mises]

This entire argument could be avoided if we insisted on a separation of school and state with the same zeal in which we insist on a separation of Church and state.