Now that’s my kind of God; I could really get behind religion if Jesus showed up on my doorstep with pizza and wine. Or heck, he could just bring the pizza; I’m sure with my perfectly drinkable tap water he can also take care of the wine, no problem.
Does Jesus deliver pizza in my zip code?
How’s about you give me a cite that shows that creationism is a bullshit theory. Please do so without showing me any evidence that evolution is a legit theory. For the purposes of this excercise, I will say that evolution unequivocably is true.
Now go forth and show me where the idea that we were created by an intelligent being is flawed.
After that, I want at least 3 cites proving which is better, apples or oranges.
Thanks,
Erek
Their own words, in general:
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_5.html
The bullshit part is that creationist theories jump from accepting is not science to pretend it is science.
You need to listen to this recent NPR article on DNA as Software:
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1244325
While the complexity is impressive, the organization of it has been found to be a mess:
Some quotes from the report:
**“It is the worst kind of spaghetti code you could imagine”
“It is the kind of code you get by NOT planning in advance”**
I like the part were they talk about genes: Imagine an organization were members do many different tasks: one person sometimes processing mail, cooking French fries or go to a board meeting.
**“Nature would never get good grades designing computer programs.”
“DNA is so hard to understand because a bad programmer made it.”**
Designed by trial and error by nature, Intelligent designer? forget it!
[King Arthur]What apples or oranges do you mean? the natural varieties or the really genetically designed ones?[/King Arthur]
Not for you until you give me the cite for your asinine allegation that “Evolution is NOT a better theory.”
I don’t know what it means exactly for Creationism to be a “bullshit theory.” However, it is not a scientific theory. Whether or not the “idea that we were created by an intelligent being” is flawed, it is not a fallsifiable scientific hypothesis, let alone a well-tested theory supported by physical evidence, and thus has no place in the science classroom. You can believe in Creationism or ID as a matter of religious faith if you chose to, but neither one are scientific theories and have no place in a science classroom, except as an example of what a scientific theory isn’t.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. This article is fairly even-handed, despite being from About.com’s atheism section. It explains what a scientific theory is, and why Creationism isn’t.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. From CSICOP (you probably know their biases) about why the Creationist claim “evolution is ‘just’ a theory” and the claim that Creationism is an equally valid “theory” are a) incorrect, but b) very persuasive to laymen.
Creationism is not science. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the attempt by Creationists to imply that Creationism as simply an alternative scientific model to evolution fails because Creationism is not scientific.
ID is not a scientific theory. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Creationism and ID are not science. According to the National Acadamy of Sciences.
Creationism is not science. According to the American Geophysical Union.
And, my favorite, from the Supreme Court decision cited above:
You do that an awful lot. You examine something that has compelling arguments for both sides, select that side that you liked better before the examination, and tout it while ignoring the other side altogether — and you do it especially with published comments about published comments. People in their long careers say different things at different times, often completely contradictory to each other. Your tendency is to discard what contradicts your own view and embellish what suits you, declaring your findings as undisputable fact. It’s the same thing you do with Jesus. You find a scholar who says that other scholars’ work is bunk, and then you report back that other scholars’ work is bunk. I like you, as you know, but that side of you is… irritating. If I’ve angered you by this, please don’t bother responding. My object is not to get in a war with you. Lord knows, you suffer almost as many pile-ons as I do. I just wish you had Darwin’s Finch’s objectivity. You already have his brain.
How about the idea that we were created by an intelligent being is NOT SCIENCE? What the hell do you find so hard to understand about this? People here are offering you cites (and saying basically what I’m saying, though you don’t appear to have listened to any of them) that creationism is not a scientific theory (though why you’d need cites for that is beyond me). Evolution, whatever you think about it, IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Therefore it has a place in a science curriculum. Religious beliefs do not. What the fuck is your problem with that? Ae you against the separation of church and state? If not, I honestly don’t see the dilemma for you. You’re getting all defensive and saying evolution is not a “better” theory than creationism. That’s not what the issue is. It’s whether it’s a scientific theory. Because it’s a science class. The scientific method cannot (at this point) address whether or not the universe was created by a deity, so why the fuck should that even come up in the course? I mean, if you really want them to apply the scientific method to creationist claims, I think you’d be even more pissed off with the results.
Honestly, I don’t get this whole push to even have creationism mentioned as an alternative theory in science classes. Do science teachers demand that they be allowed to speak in churches during sermons to offer their explanations for religious phenomena/history being discussed? And how would you react if they did? One thing has nothing to do with the other. Fuckin’-A. Look, if you’re worried about your kids being taught something that goes against your religious beliefs, you can take them out of class during the period they’re teaching evolution, or just reinforce your own views to them on the subject, or whatever. I don’t know why there’s this fear that they won’t get to hear about creationism if they don’t mention it in Biology 1. I (and everyone I know over the age of 15) sure as fuck am familiar with it. There is, however, a real danger that if evolution isn’t taught in school people will go through life with dumb-ass ideas that it means we evolved from apes, as you seem to believe.
Fuel for the fire:
Here’s an interesting sidebar from CBS News.
This is the disturbing, tragic part. Kids who aren’t yet intellectually capable of conducting a nuanced debate like the one many of us attempt here are being spoon-fed bad science by interest groups and then told to take that flawed reasoning into the classroom and make teachers’ and other students’ efforts more difficult.
A couple of the “Ten Questions…” students are told to ask (the full list is in a frame to the left of the CBS news story):
One may argue that a competent science teacher should be able to dispense with such questions in a professional manner: by providing a well-reasoned, age-appropriate answer that neither marginalizes the importance of scientific debate nor ridicules an intellectually curious student. A more sophisiticated scientist than I - for I’m just a lowly trial attorney with a science fetish - may even argue that those questions are in some way valuable (although they all look loaded, circular and even downright inane to me).
The CBS article insinuates, however, that in the classroom setting, neither does purposeful scientific debate result from, nor does intellectual curiosity ground, the interruption of science lessons with such questions. The students, depending upon their grade levels, may or may not fully understand the words coming out of their own mouths. In the worst case, they are simply vassals who may as well be reading cue cards; the questions themselves are simply meritless subterfuge.
Here’s another article that may be of interest. I’ve edited it a bit for readability:
Let’s look at Einstein’s own words:
I don’t see any ambiguity there, nor have I seen a compelling argument for Einstein being a theist. He flat out denied it in his own words. I don’t know what else you need.
I make my own decisions as to how I feel about Jesus scholars, by the way. I do not dismiss anyone as bunk because another scholar says so. I think what you find is that I am dismissive of apologists or scholars who start with a religous agenda or faith based assumptions. I plead guilty to that and I won’t deny it.
I join SteveG1 in apologizing for lack of clarity. I apparently should have added the following to my post.
That Alice is one good writer. Thanks for introducing her to us.
I’ve stayed out of this part of the discussion until now. Are you seriously claiming that there is no way to distinguish natural life forms from designer life forms? Here’s a clue: If it can’t survive in the wild, and/or is meant to be on your dinner plate, it’s a designer life form.
Or did I completely misunderstand the question.
First you have to tell us what the theory IS. It’s hard to falsify a “theory” which has never been formulated and makes no predictions…
Indeed, and I must confess my own confusion on his position, which we all must admit he fostered to a limited extent. More of his words from here…
What think you, DtC? An agnostic deist?
I don’t see a real suggestion of Deism in that quote, just a declaration that he does not feel any urge to crusade against religion and feels humility and awe for the universe as a whole. He was describing a personal, aesthetic, emotional response to the universe, not a positive belief in a deity. He didn’t believe in a controlling “intelligence.”
I don’t think so. That’s why you need your own, personal, Jesus. And remember, man can not live on breadsticks alone.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think you may have misunderstood. I am, in fact, attempting not to claim anything (I’m pretty sure I’ve peppered my posts here with enough qualifiers indicating as much!), beyond what I see as a viable, scientific direction for Intelligent Design. We know that we are capable of such design; if IDers focused on just trying to identify our own handiwork, I suspect they would gain scientific acceptance. The way they are choosing to proceed, however, is not scientific.
Also, I don’t think “can it survive in the wild?” works as a diagnostic criterion, except in very specific cases, based on a couple examples: 1) dogs. Domestic dogs are very clearly the product if “intelligent design” (in that individual breeds have been shaped by our desires, rather than by natural selection), yet many have little difficulty surviving “in the wild”. 2) Humans. Many people would, in fact, have great difficulty surviving in the wild, if left to their own devices. Granted, neither of these (or even both taken together) constitutes proof of anything; they only illustrate that criteria by which we can unambiguously separate “designed organisms” from “naturally-occurring organisms” are not so easy to come up with. Add in the complications of hybridization between wild-types and domestic-types, and the problem becomes much more complex.
Consider also: suppose after humanity is wiped out (perhaps by a designed super-virus…), alien xenopaleontologists are digging around on Earth and find a fossil of a domestic cow. Could they reliably determine that this animal was the product of human intervention? If we are ultimately able to modify the genome of a fetus in utero, would an outsider be able to tell a “natural” human from a genetically-modified one, without a priori knowledge of genetic manipulation techniques?
You’re ignoring certain significant words that you quoted, like “personal”. His statements that he does not believe in a “personal God” might be made by any Deist.
But what I was saying in my post to you was that you pick out a couple of quotes from the many he made in his career and present them — misinterpreted, no less — as representative of an unchanging life-long belief. He also said:
“I believe in a Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings.” — Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929 (Cited by Calaprice, Quotable Einstein, p. 147)
I don’t see any ambiguity there. He flat out says he believes in a particular God. Just not a personal one.
He also said:
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man…In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” — Letter to a child, January 24, 1936 (Calaprice, p. 152)
And he said:
“What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind.” — (Cited by Mayer, Bite-size Einstein, p 56)
At the very least, you should acknowledge that there is some controversy with respect to his beliefs, and not announce categorically and authoritatively as you did that “Einstein did not believe in God.” That is simply not true.
I should point out that the above links are to people with a physical deformities. People upset by such things should avoid opening.
Were you ever a high school classroom teacher? Your expectations are unrealistic (and unlawful) in most situations. And certainly an hour is inadequate in the situations described in Guy Incognito’s post (#167).
You again seem woefully unaware of what you have actually posted. Allow me to refresh your memory:
Regarding your anti-intellectualism:
Then may I suggest that your philosophy professor is also an intellectual and that you are projecting characteristics and personality traits onto the physics professor that you do not have personal access to. He may seem arrogant and stuck up to you, but that does not mean that your judgment of him is accurate. Smarmy is a little vague. By the way, what was the topic of the debate?
It certainly sounds to be like you feel somehow threatened by those who adhere to scientific principles. Since I find value in both the scientific and the mystical and am not in the least intimidated by restricting science classes to scientific topics, I am wondering why you are.
If you ground the little monster’s heads in correct scientific terminology, such as the difference between hypothesis, theory and law, then no, Creationism doesn’t last too long in a scientific debate. And what are we going to do with kids who ask unsettling questions? Arrest them, try them, and put them in prison for asking politically incorrect questions in a public classroom?
Quote the whole thing, Zoe. Context, ya know.
While I did say this:
It was in response to this:
By bringing up “religious or other private institutions,” I inferred you meant “equal time” or “equal credence.” I have never advocated giving Creationism either.
fair shake: : a fair chance or fair treatment <give the negative side a fair shake>
My “fair shake” is standing the two side-by-side, so to speak, and comparing them using accepted scientific principles of hypothesis, theory, and law; not a “fair shake” as in giving both equal air-time, or equal credence. I’ve been quite explicit about this, consistently throught this thread, and quite explicit that I don’t think Creationism/ID will stand up very long against Evolution, or sophisticated models of the origins of the Universe. Why you’ve felt the need to take my words, twist them, and regurgitate them back at me is puzzling, and frankly it’s getting a bit wearisome.
**smarmy:**1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction —New Yorker>
Were you at the debate? The topic was “Concealed Carry and Public Access Facilities,” and took place a few weeks after a proposed change to Texas’ Concealed Carry Laws were being contemplated in response to the Ft. Worth shooting a few years earlier.
Both were against it; the Physics professor came with a “Here’s the facts, they’re the facts because I say they’re the facts, and anyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant lout” attitude, to which just about everyone objected, judging by audience response (lots of murmuring and restlessness). I clearly heard more than one student sitting around me say words like, “What an asshole,” “Dick,” etc.
Prof. Mills put him quite in his place with a reasoned exposition of his “facts,” even as he agreed with the Physics Prof. (forget his name) on the overall issue. Lots of applause for Mills.
I can only influence other people’s misinterpretation of my words so far, and no further. If you’d read what I’ve posted so far, I’ve never said anything other than good things about science-as-a-philosophy, but not science-as-dogma.
And No, I have not stopped beating my wife yet. Do you know why?
Because I’m not threatened or intimidated by intellectuals, or intellectualism; I’m aggravated by the type of intellectuals who are arrogant in their intellectual superiority, condescending (at best; often outright insulting) towards those they perceive to be of a lesser intellect, and who are threatened by any challenge to their assumed supremacy in the realm of thought, reason, or logic.
