You never know until you ask.
That strikes me as naïve in the extreme. That which is paid for by acts of elected legislators is by definition affected by politics. Pretending otherwise is self delusional.
Actual science, (as opposed to some nebulous conspiracy of “Scientists”) doesn’t really examine the spirit much. True, some people who misunderstand the appropriate use of the scientific method try to use it to promote their own beliefs. Like the so called “science” of creationism, or anti-religious propaganda demanding “proof” of matters which are not of the physical world.
Science is a discipline, and a method of examining facts. It does not presume the desired belief, and seek facts to support it. It requires multiple, verifiable, and repeatable physical observations of real world phenomena which can be measured and recorded. That type of examination is inappropriate for the matter of spirit or the nature of God, since the nature of God is not even definable in human terms.
Science is appropriate for the examination of claims of “psychic” sensory abilities, or prognostication. Such a claim has examinable real world aspects, and if real, should be repeatable, and verifiable. Generally, such claims have fallen short of that level of credibility. While they may be important to understanding the intricacies human behavior and belief, they are not important in terms of planning real world matters. Aluminum foil hats won’t stop psychic mind blasts; they just make your head hot. It doesn’t matter about the former, since no one has ever shown that one exists. The temperature of the brain is important in some instances. You evaluate the relevant risks by your choice of techniques.
My original post was not a critique of science, or ID, but rather a caveat that The Smithsonian Institution is not particularly reliable in presenting science, and has not been for a very long time.
Tris
and
and
You are spectacularly missing the point.
1/ Your talk of silencing one side is hysterical nonsense. This film could be shown at any one of thousand upon thousand of venues, 99% of which would not have caused Randi to do what he did. There is no silencing.
2/ JREF followers do not think they are going to be reduced to gibbering incoherence by this film. What they know (and what Randi knows in particular) is how DI will use this incident. There is a reason DI want this shown at the Smithsonian and not at some neutral venue. That reason is obvious. You are smart enough to know what that reason is. Being disingenuous and pretending you don’t is unbecoming. The reason is not honourable.
3/ The Smithsonian can say what it likes in little disclaimers that hardly anyone is going to read. None of it will stop DI from saying later (truthfully, but utterly misleadingly) to potential followers that this film was shown at the Smithsonian. How many Joe Averages are going to know that this simply means DI hired a venue that happened to be at that place? They are going to say this because they know that Joe Average is going to read that as meaning some sort of endorsement, whatever is said in the fine print.
4/ The whole debate about science access and scientific debate and what Joe Average is smart enough to figure out is not to the point. I’m smart, I’m well educated, I’m very interested in science and I still have no option but to accept/reject much information by studying where that information comes from and who endorses it. I just can’t do it all first hand.
5/ Randi’s tactics are not flawless but they are best available. He used a publicity stunt to fight a publicity stunt. It worked as well as anything else that he could have done.
It’d be nice if it was all about calm measured fact and logic debate. It isn’t.
Lekatt:
I can’t tell you that any of what you believe about God is wrong. What I can tell you is that there is no contradiction between what you believe and evolution.
You must have heard this before, but… here goes anyhow…
Suppose I want to create a cup of hot chocolate. I can (if I’m a magician) snap my fingers and cause a cup of hot chocolate to materialize in thin air. At that point, the tiny little chocolate people who live in it would worship me as a creating god.
I could ALSO go get a cup, get the hot chocolate mix, put the cup and hot chocolate mix under the sink, pour in the hot water, and let stand for several minutse.
At that point, some of the little chocolate people would want to study the after effects of the “Big Pouring” that they theorized to explain their chocolate universe. Others would insist that the universe had been created by their god, me. Oh no! The scientists and religious types are fighting! But see? They’re both right.
What is more impressive, noble, and spiritually fulfilling to you? A God who says “ok, snap, earth exists” or a God who says “ok, snap, universe exists, following basic laws, and I know, being God, that zillions of years from now, earth will exist and humans will exist, and I pray that they are smart enough, and respectful enough of my works, to study the clues that I have given them to their origin, and the rules by which the universe operates”?
True, I don’t believe in God. But I don’t claim to have any proof that God doesn’t exist. Nor do you (presumably) have any proof that God does exist. It’s totally possible for us to both believe what we believe. However, if you believe that the theory of evoultion is actively FALSE, (and remember, you can certainly believe in a loving, caring, active, judging God and still recognize the validity of evolution) then the onus is on you to demonstrate why. Belief in God is faith, and can not be proven. Belief in evolution is not, and it can.
Oh, and I still disagree with you re your comments about how the taxpayers should get their way at the Smithsonian, for two reasons:
(1) If a bunch of taxpayers want to federally fund NASCAR, then they can vote for it, and it might get federal funding. That doesn’t mean that it should take place AT THE SMITHSONIAN.
(2) Federal funds should NEVER be spent to endorse a specific set of religious beliefs, no matter what percentage of the populace holds them. Do you not believe that ID is a specifically Christian-oriented belief system? Or conceivably Judeo-Christian?
I never felt there was any contradiction between believing in God and evolution. If fact, I wrote my own version of how the world began. As with other versions it is opinion and theory. Question 25 about Near Death Experiences.
The mistake consistently made is assuming a display of the Creation is an endorsement of the Creation. It is not. It is the museum’s job to display items, ways of living, art, and many other things. These are displays for the benefit of the public. They are not endorsements. The Creation display has just as much of a right to be in the Smithsonian as an evolution display. Those who believe not are practicing censorship and should be ignored.
I suppose anything anyone done could be called political, but I don’t appreciate being called naive even if I may be at times.
I meant the use the word “psyche” instead of “psychic”, which would change your reply.
Yes, science does consistently say that spiritual things exist only as illusions or delusions of ignorant people. I realize this may be only a small minority of scientists, but they are very vocal and have caused IMHO a loss of respect for science in general.
The Smithsonian is a museum and as such is not totally committed to science. They have displays of numerous things, these displays are not evidence of an endorsement by the museum.
Please try to understand Science is not, is not the only game in town. Neither is religion. If you can overcome the indoctrination you will see untold things you never dreamed of. But as long as you think they don’t exist your “belief system” will filter them out for you.
There’s an important difference here. The theory of evolution (which, we note, has nothing to do with the big bang or the creation of the earth itself), is a “theory” in the scientific meaning of the word, like the theory of gravity. And it’s a theory that has been confirmed and strengthened thousands of times. So while I could have a theory that life comes from expired dairy products, and it’s a “theory”, it’s not a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory. And that’s an important point. There aren’t 5 competing theories about this, one ID, one evolution, one involving the world riding around on the back of a turtle, etc. There is one scientific theory which describes how life forms have evolved from simpler life forms, but which makes no statements about the existence or non-existence of God, where the universe came from, etc. There are also people who believe that this scientific fact is incompatible with their religious beliefs (as well as others who have similar religious beliefs but who believe they are compatible). Some live with this contradiction. Others attack the theory of evolution and create spurious intellectual edificies to tear it down. ID is one such edifice. It should NEVER be given equal intellectual standing with evolution.
There’s a difference between a display OF something and a display ABOUT something. If the Smithsonian history museum has a display of holocaust stuff, is it endorsing the holocaust? Of course not. It is, however, endorsing the (correct) belief that the holocaust did in fact happen, and thus, disparaging (that’s not quite the right word) the beliefs of holocaust deniers.
The museum might have a display about holocaust deniers, but it should never have a display OF holocaust denial.
Or do you believe that by doing so, the Smithsonian would be practicing censorship?
Please stop assuming that anyone who recognizes the importance of science is somehow dead to religion, spirituality, love, poetry, flowers, happiness, etc.
Anyhow, Science is certainly not the only game in town when it comes to the totality of the human experience. But it IS the only game in town when it comes to the many topics it actually addresses. Want to predict how long it will take an object to fall a certain height? Use science.
Granted, Western Science (ie, the currently held beliefs of most scientists) doesn’t know everything, nor does it claim to. And there are, of course, enormous, and important, fields of human endeavor on which science touches only tangentially, if at all. But in those areas where science does provide answers, it provides better and more consistent answers than anything else. Period.
I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges here. What they are displaying is a Creation believed to be true by Christians. That is not an endorsement of true that it actually happened.
It is true that the evolution theory can be separated from the Big Bang theory. But I bet there is a Big Bang theory very close to the display of evolution. Now what I am saying is these are not proven theories no matter how much scientists may believe in them, so therefor have no claim greater than the creation or ID claims.
And that is only your opinion, sir, period.
They are proven theories as much as any theory in science is proven. That is to say that they are supported by millions of pieces of evidence collected painstakingly by thousands of reseachers over more than a hundred years. While ID and creationism are supported by no physical evidence whatsoever.
Yes, you can never ABSOLUTELY prove that evolution occured. But if you require ABSOLUTE proof you can never prove anything. You can’t even prove that the sun rose this morning.
You do accept the fact that the sun rose this morning, don’t you? Then why don’t you accept the fact of evolution?
Actually they are in totally different buildings. Evolution is mentioned implicitly and explicitly throughout the Museum of Natural History. The exhibit dealing with the Big Bang is on the other side of the Mall with the rest of astronomy and space science in the National Air & Space Museum.
As far as scientific disciplines go, the study of evolution and the study of the Big Bang are about as far apart as you can get. The fact that two so very different disciplines fit together so nicely to form a coherent picture of the development of life in the universe is further evidence of their correctness.
The ID and creation theories are supported by physical evidence. just look around you at what you are standing on.
No, I can’t prove the sun rose this morning. It only appeared that way, actually the earth rotated.
I can observe the “rising sun”. I can experience it, but not evolution or ID or creation, so they are of equal value–none. So have your displays, the enlightened are not concerned.
One would expect these theories to form a coherent picture of the beginnings, but they remain theories, and have no correctness until proven. That is real science. It is also rational.
I see no evidence for ID or creationism here. What are you referring to?
But evolution CAN be observed. We can watch as bacteria become resistent to antibiotics, for example.
True, we can’t observe events that happened in the past. But that’s true for ALL events in the past, not just evolution.
So I can’t PROVE that the sun rose yesterday. I can only assume, based on a tremendous amount of evidence that it did.
Similarly I can’t PROVE that mankind evolved from one-celled organisms. I can only assume, based on a tremendous amount of evidence that we did.
If you’re serious about your claim that we can’t know anything about the past from physical evidence, and that the only thing that matters is observation, I assume that you are opposed to the teaching of history? After all, how do we know for sure that someone named George Washington ever existed? I mean, there’s a great deal of evidence suggesting that he did, but that’s not PROOF, is it? We can’t actually OBSERVE George Washington.
You know … claiming to be enlightened is proof that you’re not … .
No. Theories are never absolutely proved in science. They are nothing more than the explanation that best fits that available evidence. And as such they are always open to emendation if new evidence becomes available.
How can you debate when everything you put forth are assumptions.
I can see no real reason for teaching the evolution of man other than establishing secularism, or no real reason for teaching creation other than establishing God.
So, either teach them both, or teach neither of them, makes no difference to me. I just grow tired of the battle, the name calling, and such. Neither side knows for sure, so just admit it. Teach the truth, teach the fact that we don’t know for sure.
You seem to assume many things, including me claiming enlightenment. I didn’t do that, just another of your assumptions.
But I do know that enlightened people don’t assume anything.
Ask Aristotle about it.
I see you’ve chosen not to respond directly to my points.
Evolution is the best explanation we have for the physical evidence. If the physical evidence pointed toward creation, that’s what I would want taught. You’re assuming a philosophical agenda where there is none.
I’ve been fighting for evolution on and off for 25 years. It’s a good fight and deserves to be fought. If you’re getting tired you could always concede … . 
The point is, we don’t know FOR SURE about ANYTHING that happened in the past. We don’t know FOR SURE that George Washington was a real person. We don’t know FOR SURE that Jesus or Buddha or Lao Tzu were real people. There’s far more evidence for the fact of evolution than there is for the fact of Jesus. So your position, if taken seriously, means the extinction of history. All we’d have left would be suppositions and caveats.
Now I don’t think you really want that. I think you believe that George Washington was a real person and that our children should be taught about him in school without any disclaimers. But what you ARE doing is selectively calling for a ridiculously high standard of proof only in cases where the best explanation of the evidence is at odds with your own personal religious beliefs. You must either apply the same standard of proof across the board to all historical facts, or give reasons why evolution is a special case.
I’m sorry. Who were you referring to when you said: “… the enlightened are not concerned.”?
People, you should know by now that Lekatt thinks differently from most of us and cannot be swayed by cogent arguments and solid evidence. That he believes something to be true is, to him, sufficient, and he says it over and over yet people keep trying. Accept that he and you understand different things to be factual and move on. You waste your time and his by attempting to sway him. No one here has succeeded before and there is no reason to believe you can now.
Back to the OP, would those of you for whom this is no big deal react differently had the Communist Party paid the Smithsonian to show a film promoting Communism and the Republican Party made a counter offer? How about Nazis and Democrats or Flat Earthers and sane people? Sometimes it’s useful to do these mental exercises to get a feel for why people react the way they do.
Not to be nitpicky, but there is a philosophical agenda involved–that epiricism is something we as a society desire our children to be taught as a way of examining our world.