hardcore:
You’re right. I was wrong. I found Ross’s cite when someone asked about theistic interpretations about black holes. I didn’t see the detail you presented.
What about the people at Faith and Reason? Looking around I see:
And…
They seem to reasonably reconcile science with their faith.
Anyway, my point is that there are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and Christ. I just recommend against using hysterical bully tactics to fight ignorance.
Okay, Ben. As you wish. Before I go, please let me apologize for hijacking your thread. Much success in your endeavors.
Libertarian, I agree with you that there are many fine examples of people who have successfully reconciled science and faith. Your most recent cite appears to be an excellent one. And I appreciate what you are trying to say with your emphasis on criticizing the bullying tactics of some in the evolutionist camp. But in my limited experience, most posters on the SDMB tend to respond in kind to the attitude of the creationist in question. In general, debates seem to follow your model of the “Effective way” to win friends and influence people. That is, until the poster reveals himself to be interested only in proselytizing and disregarding any rational debate. Once it reaches this point, the pitbulls descend and the debate quickly degenerates into a mudslinging match, and I’m just as guilty as anyone for enjoying it. However, I don’t think it is fair to characterize the majority of debates and posters by the events that follow once the creationist has shown himself to be impervious to reason.
As an aside, I found it interesting that Dr. Ross was quite willing to accept the current scientific consensus in areas related to his expertise (astronomy), yet was more than willing to toss it aside and submit to his preconceived notions once outside of his realm (biology). I suspect he would have established a different worldview if he would have studied biology instead of astronomy, probably more in line with the authors of the Faith and Reason website you referenced.
Not necessarily so, O Wise One…I seem to recall a biology teacher of mine who spent only two days teaching evolution–arguably the most complicated topic and deserving of an in-depth treatment of all those we studied that year–and then only because she had to. If someone is irrational enough to, as you say, “toss aside” scientific evidence in one area of science and defend it in another, I imagine they would do the same within a subdiscipline as well.
That’s great, but even Jack Chick can draw better than that. (Oh, how I hated saying that!)
**
[QUOTE]
Why’d you have to go and call me a racist? Well, to get things set straight, no, I’m not in anyway racist. However, I beleive that people have a right to believe as they wish, although racism is ignorance…
Now, to my main point. This is what I’m talking about. I’m not taking creationists side here, but what religions are false? You’re obviously an evolutionist, correct? If so, don’t try to preach is from the other side of the fence. Also, I don’t see how you can call it junk? Evolution and Creationism are both theories, with equal concrete evidence to support both sides.
Honestly, I must admit that I have no room to debate here. All I asked for was for people to clean up their styles a little bit and to show some respect, but from what I can see from you Opus, is that this is just like a bunch of little kindergarten kids and the classic case of “Well they started it.”
The next generation of children will see the way people like you and argumentative fundamentalist christians are acting and say, “I don’t want to take either side.” We need to teach our children one way or the other, how to defend themselves, and how to respect everyone and their beleifs at the same time.
Now I’m off to start a new thread…Ask the American Teen, Part 1? dunno. I’d welcome suggestions.
See, this is false. No one has ever come forward with evidence that supports Scientific Creationism. The best they’ve ever done was to find evidence that appears to refute evolution, but which doesn’t actually do so. Even if they could find evidence refuting evolution, why is the assumption that biblical Creationism would automatically be accepted into its place? What evidence does Scientific Creationism have that Hindu Creationism doesn’t? How about the Asian cosmology of the Egg laid by the Great Bird? What about the Australian aborigine belief in the Dreamtime? Why are any of these less acceptable than Scientific Creationism?
“Toning down our arguments” won’t work. Unless we evolutionists roll over and play dead, the Scientific Creationists will continue to act as if we’re part of a great scientific conspiracy to prevent “The Truth” from being told.
jayjay (very tired of this argument…)
Pinky: But evolution is just a theory, right? NARF
Brain: You’re really starting to annoy me.
My apologies jayjay. I wasn’t arguing over Scientific Creationism. I was talking about evolution and creationism in general. And yes this argument is getting old.
But creationism is, supposedly, science. And scientific theories can certainly be false.
NO…THERE…ISN’T!
Nnnnnrgh!!!
There is a vast amount of evidence in support of the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If we look specifically at Young Earth Creationism, then there are mountains of evidence to support the conclusions of geology and astronomy and cosmology that the Earth and the Solar System and the Universe are many orders of magnitude older than the Young Earth Creationists claim.
There is NO evidence to support the claims of the creationists. Their “theories” have long since been falsified. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. There was no global flood. All living things now existing evolved from other forms of life, and all known living things now existing descend from a common ancestor. These statements apply to human beings, who evolved from non-human ancestors, and who are related to all the other non-human forms of life now on this planet.
No, you certainly don’t.
If its not a theory, tell them to call it the fact of evolution or something… And tell them to quit teaching it as the Theory of Evolution in schools. Need to get it straight before you go on the warpath.
Oh, and quit watching so many cartoons, ok big fella?
shagadelicmysteryman wrote:
I didn’t call you a racist. I asked whether you liked racist beliefs because they make things interesting, even though they are wrong. I agree that racism is ignorance. So is creationism.
Personally, I think they’re all wrong, but I didn’t say that here. I said that creationism is wrong and dangerous.
Okay, I’m going to try to follow the theme of this thread and be nice. I realize that you’re probably not an expert in the creation/evolution debate. But many people are. For decades after Darwin, scientists debated whether the evidence supported gradual evolution or spontaneous creation. About a century ago, they decided that it overwhelmingly supports evolution. So your statement that both creationism and evolution have “equal concrete evidence” behind them is just false. I realize that you may find this difficult to understand. But consider another great debate in scientific history: the geocentric or heliocentric view of the universe. Eventually, as the evidence continued to mount, scientists realized that heliocentrism was correct, and geocentrism wasn’t. Nobody today would say that both theories have “equal concrete evidence” behind them. The same goes for evolution. If you’d like to learn more about the evidence for evolution, you should go to http://www.talkorigins.org. It’s a very good site, with many articles. that are accessible to the layman.
Well, I apologize if I was overly harsh. But as I stated earlier in this post, it really pains me to see people making completely ignorant statements.
I hope that people decide what to believe based on the evidence, not based upon the personalities of those on each side. But I realize that few people are this rational.
Who said all creationist beleifs were scientific?
Prove that God didn’t create the earth, or that he didn’t have some hand in it. And prove that he doesn’t exist.
Scientific Creationism doesn’t include all of creationism, Buckner.
I would like to use this as a learning experience to enhance my knowledge on the subject at hand. However, Buckner, you seem to seem far too egotistical to grant me that right. You’re right and I’m wrong. You could have a potential ally here. I like to keep my mind open to these things. Too bad that people like you have to come along and close it.
The very first words of the OP of this thread are “What’s the best way to fight creation ‘science’?” The title of this thread is “Best way to fight creationist pseudoscience?” This is not a philosophical debate about the merits of a theistic versus an atheistic or naturalistic worldview in general. It is about the claims of some people–who are motivated by religion, but claim to be doing science–that various conclusions of modern science about the history of the natural world are wrong. Scientific debates about the history of the natural world are settled by evidence, not by saying “Well, gee, everyone is entitled to their opinion!” As a matter of Constitutional law, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. As a matter of morality in a free society, everyone is entitled to their opinion, in the sense that no one ought to be sent to prison or killed merely for peacefully expressing their opinions, however wrongheaded they may be. Buy no one is under any obligation to respect someone else’s opinion about matters which can be decided by an appeal to the evidence, where the evidence shows that opinion is clearly false. If you claim that the Earth is flat, you can expect other people to conclude that you’re either delusional or a fool, or that you’re a fraud of some kind.
Only after you convince schools to stop teaching Newton’s Theory of Gravity, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and atomic theory, for that matter.
Or, maybe you should learn about what scientists mean when they use the word theory.
Theory as defined by Webster’s Dictionary:
Theory n,- 1. abstract thought, 2. the general principles of a subject, 3. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general priciple offered to explain observed facts, 4. hypothesis
Why not tell the scientists to use proper reading vocabulary? You’re only creating more confusion with something like that. If they’re facts, name them as facts. You’ll gain more support that way.
I also know that a theory can not be proven only disproven. Oh Gee Golly Gosh Mommy, I actually did learn something at school today!!! Can I have my cookie now?
Actually, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It’s a fact–about as well established as anything gets in science–that evolution (species of living things changing over time into new species) has taken place and continues to take place. Theories of evolution deal with the mechanisms of how these changes take place. Even here, the terminology can be misleading–theory doesn’t mean “guess”, but something more like “a model, well supported by lots of evidence, which can explain many facts and suggest lines of inquiry for discovering new ones”. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and its modern descendants, is a very powerful theory for explaining many facts about the world, including the basic fact of evolution itself.
Different groups of people have different vocabularies of specialized terms. To a physicist, “power” is “the rate at which work is done” (and physicists also have a rather idiosyncratic definition of the word “work”). To a political scientist, “power” might be defined as “the ability to compel others to do as one wishes”. To someone in the movie industry, “power” might suggest the ability to get lots of people to shell out $7.50 on opening day; i.e., “star power”. Are any of these definitions “wrong”, in their proper contexts? No, but it would be pretty stupid of an actor to say to a physicist “Oh, something which generates so-and-so many megawatts isn’t generating any ‘power’, 'cause who’d pay $7.50 to see a hydroelectric dam?” For that matter, it would be a fairly obtuse of a physicist to tell someone who’s busy holding up a wall, “Oh, you’re not really ‘working’.” In the context of science, “theory” does not mean “wild ass guess”.
That’s exactly what pages like the one I linked to above are trying to do. Let’s face it though, in a climate where politicians in some jurisdictions want to slap scientifically illiterate “disclaimers” on school textbooks, a move to re-label “the theory of evolution” as “the fact (and theory) of evolution” is not likely to be warmly greeted.
When referring to the theory of evolution (or of gravity or of electro-magnetism or the germ theory of disease), this is the definition scientists are using.
Right. What part of the third definition are you having difficultly with?
You can have a cookie once you get your foot out of your mouth.