What the…? You mean to tell me that it’s just a THEORY? And all this time I thought it was true! I’m going to become a creationist now! I just hope the theory of gravity is still considered to be…
<floats off chair, out the window and off into space>
You’re reasoning from the first principle that “fact only becomes so by [consensus].” That principle is demonstrably incorrect.
HF: Thanks for the comments. My responses:
Apart from what I described in my OP, you simply don’t know what my experiences are with the statement in question. So I’m at a loss to understand why you think I’m taking it out of context. I have 30+ years of broad, diverse, and direct/personal observation of what American creationists say, when they say it, how they say it, and why they say it.
But this is a minor point. Moving on…
I didn’t describe the statement as “the pillar of creationist reasoning”. I described it as a fall-back position of many (not all!) creationists in the face of their nearly-constant losses in the public forum.
Creationists have NOT, in fact, done plenty of research to support their claims. How could they? How would one devise a scientific experiment to support the idea that “God created the world”? Even with a loose, non-overtly-Christian hypothesis of “intelligent design”, what exactly would one test? How would it be tested? How could the study be replicated? This is one of the (many) unanswerable challenges that creationists faced in the Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover ASB trial. Creationism/intelligent design simply isn’t science. It can’t be. Religious doctrines and scientific experimentation fundamentally don’t mix.
I’m aware that there are a small few practicing scientists who are creationists, and that there are even a handful of creation science “journals” in which “research” is published, but it’s rather telling that these papers are not always subjected to peer review. And when they are, it’s not actual peer review: it’s review by fellow ideologues. Mainstream scientists are NOT invited to critique creationists’ studies/papers/whatever. There’s a strong reason for this; misguided and deluded as they may be, creationists aren’t fools: they know better than to submit their “research” to actual scientific scrutiny. I’m reminded of a childhood chum of mine, who, after telling me a very tall tale and swearing to it as the truth, made a little disclaimer: “Don’t tell my mom, or she’ll say I’m lying.” This is exactly the approach that creation “scientists” take vis-a-vis their “research” before an audience of actual scientists: “Don’t tell a real scientist about my work, or she’ll reveal it as bunk.”
This talk of “views” has you confused. Science education doesn’t traffic in the currency of “views”. Biology class isn’t like a history class, or a course in philosophy or literary interpretation, where reasonable men and women can differ in their analyses. We’re not talking about the pros and cons of capitalism vs. socialism here, or something similarly debatable. In science education there are no grey areas in which one’s pet Weltanschauung informs the conclusion. We’re talking about hard science. And between science and metaphysics, only the former belongs in the science classroom. In other words, you shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that dialogue in the science classroom follows the same patterns and standards as dialogue in the humanities classroom. It just ain’t so.
But let’s assume for a moment–for the sake of argument–that it did. Let’s say that the curriculum of a biology class is properly (somehow) as open to analysis, discussion, debate, and variant interpretation as say, a class in comparative religion. You state that evolution shouldn’t be the only “view” taught (there’s that word again)…OK, fair enough, which other “view[s]” should be taught? Lamarckian evolution? Intelligent design? Christian Biblical creationism? Islamic creationism? What about $cientology’s creation doctrine? How 'bout that of the Zoroastrians? Nordic or Anglo-Saxon origins myths? Where do you draw the line? Does the fact that the majority of Americans believe in the Bible necessarily mean that it’s more likely to be right, than any of these others? (I think I know what you’ll answer, here, but you’d be wrong.)
The whole “teach-the-controversy” rhetoric is just foolish. We don’t offer a glimpse into alchemy in chemistry classes, nor astrology in astronomy classes, nor numerology in math classes. Only SCIENCE belongs in science class.
Wait…what? Fact is established only by democratic consensus? Hoo boy, I don’t even know where to begin, with that one.
(Actually, I do, and I’ve included a link below to a good starting place.)
The American public’s view on evolution (which is generally quite ignorant and misguided anyway, but that’s another issue) has no bearing whatsoever on its standing as a scientific theory (or “theorum” as Dawkins calls it, to suggest its dual standing as theory and fact).
But you seem to think that fact is determined by majority vote, so I’m not sure that you’ll see the flaw in your line of thinking here, either.
So? What is the significance of this fact? That the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate, and stronger education in biology is called for? I’d heartily agree. But your argument here is totally fallacious: it’s just an appeal to popularity.
Again, your main thesis reduced to its essence seems to be that popularity of an idea = that idea’s truth. It just ain’t the case. Not in science, not in the humanities, not in anything. Never has been, never will be. It’s a classic fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Thats not a universally accepted catholic idea. I tend to think that that was just a PR move by the papacy. The theory of evolution just doesnt jive with the bible. The order that the bible claims that species were created is different then what evolutionists believe the order was.
I am more then aware that you, and more then likely, he as well, understand that there are additional justifications beyond that. Yet thats really not the way he presented it. The way a large number of creationists interpret all this, the way they make sense of the overwhelming legal and educational tide against them, is NOT to reason that:
What he’s saying here is cleary inferring that, like I said, creationists rest their beliefs on “The world belongs to the Devil”. And I have to tell you that this idea is not, the “bedrock assumption on which those justifications have been constructed.” This is really just an attempt to paint Christians as morons by slapping a overly simplified idea onto them that is absurd by all at first glance.
On this certain subject we could argue for hours I’m sure, but for brevity’s sake I’ll try to stick to a couple simple points. Athiests love to wave the banner of the first ammendment as evidence that the founding fathers would take theri side. Yet even the slightest research can refute this. Now I could line up a scores of quotes that show the weight that the founding fathers put into Chrisitanity, but again, for brevity’s sake, I’ll simply name some facts. The first ammendment in no way says thats religion cannot be prommoted government, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What this IS saying is that the state cannot restrict or interfere with religion in any way. You see, its the atheist community that slaps “Seperation of Church and State” onto the first ammendment. The phrase of which, I feel I should mention, is not written in any legal document of that time–if ever for that matter. God is invoked four times in the Declaration of independance. Now does that sound like seperation of church and state?
If you want to disagree with the founding fathers, by all means go for it, but don’t fool yourself into thinking they’re champions of modernist values.
…Well you sure seemed to have a problem with only one side being taught when it was christianity…
Accept it or not, every single founding father would have told you that without religion of some form life would be meaningless; so thanks to religion you have a great country to live in. For better or for worse, religion over the course of human history has brought out both the very best and very worst of what humans are capable of. Ha, but you can take what you want from that.
Well I can see that I have to restate that I am not bagging on science. Yet somhow, miracuously, both sides do all the same tests, examine all the same data, and yet come up with two different sets of opinions. Theres an interesting documentry by Ben Stein that has quite a few interviews of scientists who began to think that evolution was very improbable after looking at the same data as their contempories and were promptly fired. So as much as you want to flaunt “scienitific fact” out there your gonna have to come to terms with the fact(heh) that our country doesn’t even agree on that, and that it should be illegal for it to fund one specific side.
Yes…which is why I said “which of course is a bit off, but it is clear that majority of Americans don’t downright believe in the Theory of Evolution.”
I can see I messed up the quoting pretty badly, so no one needs to point it out. You COULD be helpful however and tell me how to not make the future mistake.
Alright, I’d love to deal with all these statements, but I kind of need to hit the hay, so I’m just gonna make it quick with a couple things.
You, as well as miller, apparently skipped a few things that I wrote. Your statments,
“Wait…what? Fact is established only by democratic consensus? Hoo boy, I don’t even know where to begin, with that one.”
“Again, your main thesis reduced to its essence seems to be that popularity of an idea = that idea’s truth. It just ain’t the case. Not in science, not in the humanities, not in anything. Never has been, never will be. It’s a classic fallacy”
is really quite frustrating, seeing as to how I clearly stated I am not saying that there isn’t a scientific truth out there outside of demacratic consensus. Yet, the actual things that we humans take into our head and hold as ‘truths’ are a demecratic consensus, regardless of their actual verity. 1500 years ago the human race thought the world was flat. A ‘Fact’, established by democratic consensus, proved by the most brilliant minds of the day.
This really wasn’t my main thesis at all, but I can see its the thing you took most offense too. But buddy, like I said, truth to you and me will always be a democratic consenus. Like I’ve been saying however, you think your right, and I think I’m right, and the country is very nearly split down the middle, so if we get back to the educational issue, it should illegal to shove your view–because thats precisely what it is–down the throats of half the country.
Hold Fast:
When quoting only specific sections of someone’s post, make sure you close each section that you’re quoting with this:
[/QUOTE]
That way, you can comment on each section, one at a time.
Keep in mind also that when you close a quoted section this way, to start another quoted section, you have to use the exact same code, only without the forward slash:
[QUOTE]
Quick summary: To start a quoted section, use the word quote in all caps, surrounded by square brackets. To close a quoted section, do the same thing, only with a forward slash ( / ) right before the word.
I fixed up your post for you. For future reference, you need to end the quoted portions of your post with a close quote tag, like this:
[/quote]
The quoted portion should start with an open quote tag, like this:
[quote]
When text is surrounded by both tags, it will appear in a quote box,
That way, you can comment on each section, one at a time.
Keep in mind also that when you close a quoted section this way, to start another quoted section, you have to use the exact same code, only without the forward slash:
Ah, alright thanks. And I’ll try to get back here tomorrow, so be sure to rip into me good guys, lol.
Also, I couldn’t help but notice a reoccurring theme in all this that I feel I should mention, which can be summed up by Admiral Ackbar–“It’s a trap!”
Of course it’s not universal. But it’s still official church policy, which is a pretty strong indicator that it’s the majority view among the layity. And, by the same measure, Creationism isn’t universal among protestants, either. In fact, looking at Christianity on a global scale, the vast majority of Christians believe in evolution. It’s really only in the US that a very slim majority of them embrace Creationism.
And also, a PR move? Seriously? Since when has the Catholic church ever been willing to change its beliefs to fit public sentiment? And weren’t you just arguing a few posts back that Creationist outnumbered non-Creationists? If that were true, why the hell would the Vatican care about PR with non-Creationists?
Lastly, keep in mind that evolution does not jive with a literal reading of the Bible. The vast majority of Christians worldwide are not Biblical literalists. Biblical literalism is a recent, and largely American, phenomenon.
More absurd than Creationism? That’s a pretty tall order.
Well, let’s save that for another thread, as we can only deal with so many misconceptions at one time. Instead, I’ll simply stipulate that what the Founding Fathers may or may not have felt about Christianity is not germane to the current status of federal law. The founders were very wise, far-sighted men, and they established a system of government that was capable of growing and changing to meet the needs of an evolving society. We are not the same country we were in 1776. It would be absurd to think that we could be governed by exactly the same laws. That being said:
Actually, it does, right there in the first part of your quote: “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.” Which is to say, the state cannot say, “This religious idea is true.” Nor can it say, “This religious idea is not true.” The state has no business weighing in on religious matters one way or the other. It is to remain neutral on the subject.
Actually, it was Thomas Jefferson who first applied the phrase to the first amendment. Allow me to quote:
Bolding mine, natch. Whether Jefferson was one of the “atheist community” is, as I said above, a subject for a different thread, but for the purposes of this debate, I’m willing to let you claim him, if only for the amusing way it undercuts your prejudices.
The Declaration of Independence isn’t a legal document. Its contents have no bearing on how we run this country. And note that those same founders who signed the DoI conspicuously failed to insert any mention of God into the Constitution, the document that describes the actual laws under which this country was to be run. How do you explain this curious omission?
Considering how many of them owned slaves, that’s not a mistake I’m likely to make.
No, I have a problem with one side being taught as science, when it is demonstrably unscientific.
I have absolutely no beef with religion in general, or Christianity in particular. You are falling into the second trap common of Creationist: you are confusing support for evolution with opposition to Christianity. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of scientists who work in fields that touch evolution (which is pretty much every scientific field) are theists of one stripe or another. In the US, most of them are Christians, even.
It’s not that miraculous if one side is cheating. Hate to break it to you, but there’s a long and well-documented history of creationist scientists lying and falsify research in order to arrive at their preconceived conclusions.
That would be interesting… if it were remotely true. Unfortunately, it is not.
Why?
A difference of thirty percent is a lot more than “a bit.”
And science should not be a matter of public vote. The facts say what the facts say. The refusal of the body politic to recognize that does not invalidate those facts.
The quote tag doesn’t have to be in all caps…
Hold Fast, what is the meaning of the word “science”?
Pot meet kettle.
Non sequitur meet cottage cheese with pineapple chunks.
No, he’s right.
Well… half right.
People routinely disagree with Der Trihs and ask for evidence of his more bizarre assertions. But DT does not call that sort fo attack on him “religious intolerance” or even “intolerance.”
He simply refuses to provide cites, or moves the goalposts.
OK, I gotcha. You’re saying that truth value itself is not determined by majority consensus, but the labels of “truth” or “fact” are. Right? Fair enough; that’s not an Appeal to Popularity, after all.
But refresh my memory please: What exactly is your point here? That just because society has been mistaken in the past with respect to what we call “fact”, that we should forgo any such absolutes in public education? Are you seriously implying that the theory of evolution is just another thing we’re mistaken about, like a geocentric solar system model, or a flat earth?
If that is what you’re saying, then you are woefully, WOEFULLY undereducated about evolution, and the evidences for it. (I don’t find this surprising, though; I have NEVER met a creationist/ID advocate who actually really understands what evolution is, or is knowledgeable about the many lines of evidence that show its scientific factuality [facthood?]. Creationism rests upon a foundation of scientific ignorance.)
Yeah, I understand your position now, HF, but here’s the problem: The evolutionary “view” (there’s that word again, that keeps tripping you up) that you describe and insist is just a view, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, is NOT just another “view”. It’s solid, demonstrable, experimentally-verified science. (Creationists have tried for 150 years to destroy it, and it’s now stronger and more evidentially-supported than ever.) The “debate” over evolution that you’re referring to isn’t actually a real debate. It’s just a matter of half the country refusing to acknowledge scientific truth. We don’t stop teaching important factual subjects to our children in public schools, just because x% of people aren’t comfortable with those facts.
What you need to do, instead of arguing against the teaching of evolution in schools, is educate yourself on WHY scientists and scholars advocate its teaching. Check out the FAQ at talkorigins.org, or read U of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne’s excellent pop-level book, Why Evolution Is True. From there, assuming you have a decent background in biology (maybe AP credit in high school, would be sufficient), you should read Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution.
If you do this–if you take the time to learn about why we know evolution to be an accurate model of species development–you will see that the issue of public disagreement over it, fades away into utter irrelevance.
I grew up with a similar background in the rural woods of East Texas. What shattered my religious belief was going to college and learning of the evidence for evolution.
I sometimes think that if my religious belief had not been so hard and tight, whether that belief would have been flexible enough to adapt to my college education and remain intact. But as it was, “shattered” is the only word to describe it.
This gets back to the very basis of my OP. For either Perciful or Hold Fast:
How do either of you–assuming you are both creationists or anti-evolutionists of some sort–explain the court decisions in Edwards v Aguilar and Kitzmiller et al v Dover ASB?
Why is evolution taught in very nearly all public schools (and even most private schools), all over the Western world?
Surely you have some theories on the phenomena. If evolution is just rubbish, why is it so popular with scientists and education experts? Why do our nation’s leaders insist that it–and only it–be taught in schools? Why do attempts to wedge creationism or ID into the classroom almost always fail?
'm very curious to hear what you will answer. I’m hoping you can give me something more nuanced than “The world belongs to the devil.”
How far do you want to take this? For every possible issue, there are multiple sides. For every ‘x’, “‘x’ is true” is one side, and "‘x’ is false is another. Should every claim taught also have it’s opposite taught too? Should children be taught that 2+2=4 and that 2+2=5? That Niel Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon in 1969 and that Michael Jackson was the first person to walk on the moon in 1983?
Doesn’t it make more sense to teach children what the current evidence shows is most accurate and not worry so much about what the majority believe?
Yep. If I hadn’t taken my Christian faith as deadly bloody serious as I did, I probably wouldn’t have lost it.
In my case, it was actually an astronomy class, in which the evidences for the age of the earth were discussed, that was the crack in the dike, for me.
You know what baffles me? It’s the extreme fundamentalists who are always complaining about “moral relativism” in the first place, and then they turn around and talk about truth as relative. You know what you call someone who considers there to be an absolute truth, and tries to found out what it is? A scientist.