I didn’t read all of the posts here, so I’m just shooting from the hip:
First off, I disagree with the original posters comments about religion being taught in the public schools.
Secular humanism is the religion of choice for the public school system. Secular humanism does have a manifesto, and, most certainly, that manifesto is being followed.
However, I would probably agree that ID shouldn’t be taught in a public school system…
That being said, I don’t feel it’s appropriate to teach anything about evolution that can’t be observed and tested, and to be proven absolutley true, via scientific means, in the public school system, either. Of course, it most obviously is…
Who mentioned secular humanism? Oh, are you trying to say that science is a religion?
In other words we shouldn’t teach anything in science class? What is the concept of absolutely true? Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be proven absolutely true!
In short, I really don’t understand what you are saying…
The theory of gravity can’t be proven to be absolutely true, either. I guess we’d better stop teaching kids about gravity, huh? Ditto for atomic theory.
The fact of the matter is that science doesn’t prove anything to be absolutely true. Ever. There’s an old saying “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.”
Further, your commont that evolution cannote be observed is false. Cases of speciation have been observed. Also, what do you think is happening when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics but evolution?
I never said that science was a religion. I stated that the public school system is secular humanism (addressing the original poster who stated that no type of religion is taugh in the public school system).
Perhaps I could’ve worded the science comment differently…
After observation and testing, the confidence level may (or may not) increase on a given theory. When the confidence level reaches a certain point, it becomes rather obvious that it’s pretty much a fact. The theory of relativity comes to mind. The confidence level there is 99.9999 etc…%.
We all know that there are, in fact, several ideas within evolution that can be neither observed, nor tested, and therefore must remain ideas…and yet, they are treated as though they are fact!
Examples? Please note that “observed” need not mean that it is observed now. We can’t directly observe reactions in particle accelerators. But we can see the trails left in a bubble chamber, which makes it a type of indirect observation… The fossil record is similar, and when combined with what we can observe directly, leaves little doubt that evolution is correct.
Yes.
Since always. Otherwise , I guess we can’t really know how mountain ranges formed, since no one was there to observe it directly.
Reject faith as ‘irrelevant’, and you regard those people who believe as irrelevant, and in turn they will reject your theories. That is what is going on.
Don’t just say, ‘But it is’. Faith is a very important part in many people’s lives, and the denigration of those who believe is causing the backlash. Insulting them will not serve to change their minds or persuade them.
But it is. It has nothing to do with “insulting” them.
Those who believe are not irrelevant, they’re obstacles at best and dangerous lunatics at worst. It doesn’t matter how important these beliefs are in their lives, or how much they feel marginalized when science dismisses them. Rational thinkers do not reject a position merely because they don’t like it or they don’t like the people who hold it.
capacitor: Faith is irrelevant to science. It doesn’t belong in a science class or a scientific journal. Lots of things are irrelevant to science which are very important to people, including many individual people who happen to be scientists. Faith is also excluded by our Constitution from the competance of the government, which includes public school systems. If everyone else must make everything “relevant” to your faith, then your faith is dangerously totalitarian.
rklewis2: Public schools are not teaching “secular humanism”. The only way this charge can be justified is, again, if a totalitarian definition of religion is adopted: “Public schools are not teaching our religion, therefore they must be teaching secular humanism, because everything that is not in accordance with our faith is against our faith.”
I believe you’ll find that Dobzhansky did not permit his religious views to affect his scientific understanding.
Now, if Dobzhansky had been involved in researching the origins of life, and he allowed his religious beliefs to dictate the conclusions he would consider, then he would be an obstacle to the discovery of truth, yes.
No more than my religious beliefs interfere with my understanding of science. However, your statement was “Those who believe are not irrelevant, they’re obstacles at best and dangerous lunatics at worst” and Dobzhansky was a believer.
Your post seems largely directed at me, particularly given your emphasis on the word “irrelevant”. But judging from your response, you’ve badly misinterpreted my posts, and you are also still evading my simple and very sincere question about who it was at NCES who agreed with your assertion that, in your words: “Evolution should be treated as a logical extension of faith…”
Once again, please tell us the name or email address of that person at the NCES so that we can learn more about this view.
By the way, no one here – least of all myself – claimed in any kind of universal or general that faith was “irrelevant”; I simply stated that your response in which you cited the fact that some members of the NCES have divinity degrees was and is entirely irrelevant to your assertion that they agreed with your amazing claim that “Evolution should be treated as a logical extension of faith…”
Please respond with the information I’ve requested. Thank you.
The faithful feels that they have been insulted, disrespected, unnecessarily maligned by those the field that was spawned by faith and religion, namely science. Those by TVAA have proved my point. Science should be seapated from faith, but faith will never leave from many people’s lives, no matter what pill or ray or field of rhetoric science conjures up. And you wonder whay the faithful for the most part reject your views on evolution?
If you want, here is information on the person who corresponded to me:
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc. branch@ncseweb.org
I think that faith can be a motivating and inspirational factor for scientists on a personal level. They may feel a spiritual reverence for that which they study, for instance or they may feel called by God to study it. Scientific method cannot rely on or be allowed to be obstructed by faith but the personal faith of a scientist is not necessarily a problem (as long as he is rigorous in his method) and may even enhance the performance of a scientist inasmuch as it affects emotional health, inspiration or even an ethical sensibility (not that faith is required to have those things but it is capable of providing them).
** And why then don’t they feel called by God to study the nature of God, or the nature of their faith? Don’t they feel a spiritual reverence for their spiritual reverence?
Of course, these are rhetorical questions. We know perfectly well what happens to people who rigorously examine their faith.