Charlie Daniels' View On Evolution

[FinnAgain]

@Liberal

What natural causes can you test? What causes an electron’s orbit to collapse? You’re mistaking mechanics for causes. You know how much gravity a mass will exert, but you don’t know the cause.

The point isn’t that we know all the causes now, it’s that Occam’s Razor demands we look first in reality for those causes before positing that there is a magic being which is non-resident in space/time that sets up these laws or influences things directly.

We have two options: create and test various hypotheses for causes of gravity, or assume that a magic invisible being did it somehow.

@Liberal

Science cannot even prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

So?
Math is a language with its own syntax and grammar. It’s a language which we created.

@Liberal

Why all this bizarre reverence for a rather limited system of falsification?

Because it’s the best system we have, flaws and all.

Wish in one hand, spit in the other.
See which fills up first.

@Liberal

You don’t (and can’t) know that.

Eh? I don’t believe in a God, and yet my laptop is working right this minute. Many people don’t believe in God, and their technology has not suddenly stopped working. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. The null hypothesis is that there are no magic invisible monsters which make my computer work. If you suggest otherwise, you have to prove it.

I’d also enter into evidence that our ancestors discovered the technology of making fire long before Yoshua Ben Yoseph walked the earth. I’d point out that the Romans had advanced engineering and the Greeks had advanced science too. I’d point out that the Egyptians developed papyrus without a helping hand from Christian or any other monotheistic faith. So it certainly does seem that non-belief in your God doesn’t shut down technology.

@Liberal

Like I said, computers are great. Now get science to warm the hearts of dictators so that their people can access discussions like these, and I’ll be impressed.

You’re conflating two issues.

Science can tell us how to grow enough food to feed our population. Various social/economic/political theories can tell us what to do with the food once we grow it. But religion, no matter how fervent, will never sprout a seed or harvest wheat. Moreoever, virtues like compassion are not the sole domain of religion.

Also, religion certainly doesn’t always do a great job of when it comes to justice. The Crusades spring to mind. The Inquisition springs to mind.

Science cannot tell us the ‘why’ of a thing, that’s left to philosophy. But science can tell us the ‘how’ of a thing. Science is responsible for everything from velcro to clock radios to atom bombs. You can pray till you turn blue in the face, but you won’t create any atomic weapons out of thin air.

[SteveG1]

@FinnAgain

You’re conflating two issues.

He does that. At least, to use his example of warming a dictator’s heart, science and technology already give us a ready answer - a big fucking bullet to the chest

[ultress]

Charlie grew up in a small town not more than 20 minutes from me. Believe me when I tell you, you are taking him way, way too serious. Probably more serious than he takes himself. And certainly much more serious than the people who know him and have spent a lot of time around him. He is really not any different than many others (Waylon Jennings, Toby Keith, Willie Nelson, Hank Williams, Jr., the list goes on) it’s the setting, the group, and the background. He’s just got a web page and the others don’t.

[The_Tooth]

“Not really different from Toby Keith” is faint praise indeed:

@Toby Keith

Toby Keith says the producer of an ABC 4th of July TV special rescinded an offer to have the country singer perform his current hit after the show’s host, World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings, heard the song and vetoed it.

The single, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American), is an outpouring of grief, anger and frustration Keith wrote in the wake of Sept. 11 and the earlier death of his father. The controversial, patriotic song tells of a veteran who lost his eye in a combat training mission and also features a number of confrontational verses. “I find it interesting that he’s not from the U.S.,” Keith says of Jennings, who is Canadian. “I bet Dan Rather’d let me do it on his special.”

This happened before it was established that Dan Rather hated America, I suppose.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2002/2002-06-13-toby-keith.htm

[ultress]

@The Tooth

“Not really different from Toby Keith” is faint praise indeed: This happened before it was established that Dan Rather hated America, I suppose.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2002/2002-06-13-toby-keith.htm

My comment was meant neither as praise or condemnation…merely a comparison to be taken as you like. The few that were listed were just random ‘same type of thought as Charlie Daniels’ type. You can hardly pick one out of the crowd to throw stones at unless you just take the whole bunch.

[The_Tooth]

Why not? I’m not going to base my opinion of Willie Nelson on what Charlie Daniels says, just my opinion of Charlie Daniels. Just like I’m not going to base my opinion of Sean Hannity on what Ann Coulter says. I would think basing my opinion of the whole bunch, whatever bunch that might be, on the comments of one member is exactly the wrong thing to do.

[NDP]

@ultress

Charlie grew up in a small town not more than 20 minutes from me. Believe me when I tell you, you are taking him way, way too serious. Probably more serious than he takes himself. And certainly much more serious than the people who know him and have spent a lot of time around him. He is really not any different than many others (Waylon Jennings, Toby Keith, Willie Nelson, Hank Williams, Jr., the list goes on) it’s the setting, the group, and the background. He’s just got a web page and the others don’t.

[Boldness added.]
I certainly don’t consider my knowledge of country music to be comprehensive but, somehow, I’m willing to bet that at least Willie–a pot-smoking supporter of ultra-liberal Democrats like Dennis Kucinich–is probably a little more different than someone like Charlie Daniels.

[wolf_meister]

ultress
Since I started this thread, I guess I should reply to your posting.
I take Charlie Daniels seriously because others take him seriously.

Just look at some of the replies to his soapbox rants. Granted, maybe the majority of the replies could be phony. Also, the message board replies on one guy’s website may not be indicative of the opinions of the majority of Americans. However, his conservative views seem to reflect (in my opinion) a kind of anti-intellectual sentiment that seems to be gaining popularity in this country.

[The_Highwayman]

I seem to recall footage of Charlie Daniels providing the music for Jimmy Carter’s inaugural celebration.

I think we liberals (from the Latin word meaning “free” liber or libertas “freedom”) should do a little more thinking about what “red staters” want before we are so quick to condemn them for their beliefs. I bet they aren’t as against entitlement programs as we think. I bet that they can be encompassed in a broad coalition of voters that can help us regain the majority.

Do not become what the Republicans would have us be. We need to point to our record and take them to task over their lies. The Democratic party has room for every person with a broad spectrum of ideas. Remember that the great Democrat William Jennings Bryant opposed Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial.

Remember that our party is both more grand and older than theirs.

[Liberal]

@FinnAgain

The point isn’t that we know all the causes now, it’s that Occam’s Razor demands we look first in reality for those causes before positing that there is a magic being which is non-resident in space/time that sets up these laws or influences things directly.

Science cannot discover causes. Period. That is the point.

We have two options: create and test various hypotheses for causes of gravity, or assume that a magic invisible being did it somehow.

I ask you again: what is your test for the cause of gravity?

So?
Math is a language with its own syntax and grammar. It’s a language which we created.

So science is not a proper system of knowledge for every problem in every instance as you seem to think it is.

Because it’s the best system we have, flaws and all.

For testing the falsity of empirical hypotheses only. Not for anything else.

Wish in one hand, spit in the other.
See which fills up first.

What the hell are you talking about?

Eh? I don’t believe in a God, and yet my laptop is working right this minute. Many people don’t believe in God, and their technology has not suddenly stopped working. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. The null hypothesis is that there are no magic invisible monsters which make my computer work. If you suggest otherwise, you have to prove it.

Sometimes, you’re such a dumbass. Who said anything about your faith?

I’d also enter into evidence that our ancestors discovered the technology of making fire long before Yoshua Ben Yoseph walked the earth. I’d point out that the Romans had advanced engineering and the Greeks had advanced science too. I’d point out that the Egyptians developed papyrus without a helping hand from Christian or any other monotheistic faith. So it certainly does seem that non-belief in your God doesn’t shut down technology.

Nonsense. Christ has always existed.

You’re conflating two issues.

Science can tell us how to grow enough food to feed our population. Various social/economic/political theories can tell us what to do with the food once we grow it. But religion, no matter how fervent, will never sprout a seed or harvest wheat. Moreoever, virtues like compassion are not the sole domain of religion.

Also, religion certainly doesn’t always do a great job of when it comes to justice. The Crusades spring to mind. The Inquisition springs to mind.

You’re conflating two issues: religion and politics. You think science heals all ills. And yet, people are starving.

Science cannot tell us the ‘why’ of a thing, that’s left to philosophy. But science can tell us the ‘how’ of a thing. Science is responsible for everything from velcro to clock radios to atom bombs. You can pray till you turn blue in the face, but you won’t create any atomic weapons out of thin air.

That contradicts what you said before. The why is the cause; the how is the mechanism. As I said, you have those two confused.

[FinnAgain]

@Liberal

Nonsense. Christ has always existed.

Nonsense, “Bob” has always existed.

@Liberal

Science cannot discover causes. Period. That is the point.

Stating a thing doesn’t make it true. And calling a cause a mechanism doesn’t eliminate causality.

@Liberal

I ask you again: what is your test for the cause of gravity?

You really want me to link you to current research and string theory and the search for gravitrons? Are you playing devil’s advocate again?

Is some obfuscatory bullshit about how ‘you can’t prove the causes of the causes of the causes of the causes at a certain point’?

@Liberal

So science is not a proper system of knowledge for every problem in every instance as you seem to think it is.

Need some extra straw?
Science is the proper system of knowledge and inquiry for any problem having to do with the pysicality of Universe. That science cannot tell us what to do with its inventions does not eliminate the fact that science, not faith, is what actually gives us those inventions.

@Liberal

For testing the falsity of empirical hypotheses only. Not for anything else.

Um, yep…for anything having to do with the world of cause and effect.

@Liberal

What the hell are you talking about?

It’s fairly simple. If you really need me to explain it to you, I’ll see what I can’t do.

@Liberal

Sometimes, you’re such a dumbass. Who said anything about your faith?

:rolleyes:
You’re the one claiming that we have no way of knowing if computers would work without faith in God (while not proposing any mechanism, at all, by which belief would effect solid state electronics), and I’m the dumbass? The null hypothesis is that my computer works due to known physical laws, and not anybody’s belief in magic sky pixies. If you have any evidence to falsify the null hypothesis, you should surely share it.

I also pointed out, quite clearly, that technology has worked when people believed in different Gods, and works for people who do not believe in your, or any other, God. If you’re honestly saying that you and those like you believing in God makes my computer work, you need to check into a mental hospital.

@Liberal

You’re conflating two issues: religion and politics. You think science heals all ills. And yet, people are starving.

You can build some mighty fine scarecrows with all that straw.

Again, science can give us the technology to ‘heal all ills’, it’s up to us to decide how to use it. Science can tell us how to maximize our production of food. This does not mean that people will utilize this technology or distribute the food fairly.

@Liberal

That contradicts what you said before. The why is the cause; the how is the mechanism. As I said, you have those two confused.

No, it really doesn’t.
How things happen, ya know, cause and effect, is well within the domain of science. You’re obfuscating. Calling the process of cause and effect a ‘mechanism’ doesn’t change the fact that one thing happened, which caused another.

[LonesomePolecat]

@GLWasteful

I thought that Hendrix was in the Air Force. Not that it much matters, I just recall hearing that back in the day. Y’know, when he had only been dead for less than twenty years.

Hendrix was supposed to have been pretty anti-Communist too, wasn’t he? I seem to remember reading this somewhere but can’t find a reference on the net …

[FinnAgain]

I have to ask, are you playing devil’s advocate in this thread and the other? Do you honestly believe that my computer wouldn’t work if nobody believed in your Christ, or are you just pretending that you believe that in order to argue?

[wolf_meister]

Highwayman
That was a well-written reply.
I agree with most of it even the fact that other people’s ideas and beliefs should be accepted. When it is a belief about higher taxes, going to war, a cleaner environment and so on, I sure can accept other people’s views on this.
However, when it is a definitive emotional statement condemning a scientific principle such as Charlie saying “I believe Evolution is a big lie” that’s where I draw the line. Has he conducted copious observations and experiments to verify his 'hypothesis"? Has he published this work and has it gone through a rigorous peer review?
He doesn’t “believe” in Evolution on a religious and emotional point of view. Some people are alcoholics yet they’ll deny it vigorously because they are uncomfortable about facing up to that fact. Scientists have shown you can’t turn lead into gold by any ordinary chemical process. Well that might also make some people uncomfortable. Some might argue we should bring back alchemy into our schools.
I’m sure a case could be made to bring all kinds of superstition, magic, witchcraft, voodoo, etc into the schools. I feel the American student population is performing poorly enough as is. I think it would be very detrimental to force the teaching of “beliefs” in science classes.