No, they are not. I have not encountered any case outside of a Chick Tract where a science teacher has actually made the odd claim that evolution disproves the existence of God. Claiming that kids in science class are “often” taught that evolution disproves God is simply not true, although it sounds like some of the rhetoric put out by liars such as Hovind and Gish.
Repeating such falsehoods does not improve your credibility.
I would very much like to see a citation from a reputable scientist for either of these claims.
It’s also completely irrelevant. Science is essentially a phenomenological pursuit, not an epistemological one or even really an ontological one. It doesn’t actually matter what the ultimate “truth” is or what truly does or does not “exist.” Science describes perceived and predictable phenomena. Phenomenologically speaking, evolution is as factual as is gets. If you’re going to object to teaching science on these kinds of (frankly desperate) epistemological grounds then you can’t really teach anything in school. You can’t even teach what happened yesterday because you can’t prove yesterday"truly" happened.
This isn’t the first time or the first board where I’ve encountered this tactic of citing Cartesian doubt as a means of obfuscating the evolution debate. It seems to be kind of trendy lately.
Well, by all means. Teach science in science classes–which of course includes evolution in biology class, and the Big Bang theory in an astronomy or cosmology class–teach philosophy in philosophy class. There’s also nothing wrong with a science class discussing the philosophical issues raised by the pursuit of scientific knowledge (the provisional nature of scientific knowledge; epistemology and so on), but there’s nothing uniquely provisional or philosophically shaky about evolutionary biology. No one has ever seen an atom; the germ theory of disease is “just a theory”; the periodic table of the elements is simply a human construct, etc., etc.
bobthebuilder’s references to “New genetic material” and “new information” smack of Demski and his completely fallacious “Law of conservation of information.”
The only way one could consider evolution not a fact is if you were to posit that God is playing tricks on us with all those fossils and geological/cosmological phenomenon…and DNA…and other fun things of that nature.
Even so called “Intelligent Design,” if you look at in detail, is basically Evolution-Lite. You can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist.
An analogy is gravity. Gravity is obviously a fact but – unless I missed something in the news of physics lately – we don’t really know how it works. We have some good theories that work pretty well in most situations but there are a couple of places where there are some holes that may or may not be solved in the near future. Just because it’s not perfect doesn’t mean we start talking about how God is really putting his invisible finger on us to keep us on the ground. That doesn’t help us figure out satellite trajectories, ya know?
No offense, bob, but you seem to be arguing the position that things like God and evolution and atomic physics and the infield fly rule are all too complicated for anyone to understand so it’s all just a matter of opinion what you choose to believe in. You have to realize there’s a difference between those things (like evolution and atomic physics) which you personally may not know and those things (like God and the infield fly rule) which are not knowable by any person.
Evolution doesn’t say God doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t say God does exist. It’s neutral on the subject.
Consider the following statements:
2+2=4
2+3=4
Which one do you believe is true? Which one is true? And do you think your belief has any effect on which one is true?
2+2=4 and that’s not a matter for opinion or debate; it’s a fact. And if you want to believe that 2+3=4 you can’t go around claiming that you’re entitled to believe whatever you want and your opinion is just as good as somebody who believes 2+2=4. People don’t believe 2+2=4, they know it. And anyone who believes otherwise is simply wrong.
Now if you want to say that God exists because 2+2=4 then you may have a strange theology but there’s nothing provably wrong with your belief. But if you want to say that God exists because 2+3=4 you’re going to run into some problems because your beliefs are going to keep conflicting with reality. And no matter how much you go around claiming 2+3=4 and how many people you might convince to agree with you that 2+3=4 and even how many alternative arithmetic theories you get introduced into public school curriculums, none of that will have any effect on the reality that 2+3=5. It’s just not a philosophical issue.
I think that most common people don’t have the mental ability to comprehend evolution… or understanding a change so gradual and the idea of millions of years going by. Evolution isn’t as “common sense” as we think it is.
IMO these same people can’t think beyond a diety created everything for us either. Genesis is easy to understand.
I think you’re mixing up two different belief systems here.
I think that people who believe in astrology, i.e. New Agers, generally believe in evolution.
Contrariwise, the people who disbelieve in evolution are mostly fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, for whom evolution goes against their creation myths, which they take literally.
**Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.**What this boils down to is that 51% of the country is fundie, and only 15% is atheist or something pretty close to that.
I don’t find the latter statistic surprising or disturbing. It’s hard to believe in God and at the same time think that He had nothing to do with creation.
But 51% fundie–that is sobering and depressing. BTW, it is a growing movement. I read an astouding statistic that 25%+ of sub-Saharan Africans are now evangelical Christians, and the fundies are making huge leaps in South America as well.
What is practical depends upon what one is practicing. How to fold a shirt may be useless information for you, but indispensable for a launderer.
Gratuitous assertion gratuitously denied. You do not know what is or is not required to put natural selection into motion.
Well, of course you would. That’s because of your point of view. Your side is approaching things rightly, while the other side is approaching things wrongly.
The tool that you are using to examine their statements of faith — it wouldn’t be science, would it?
Uh…to whom does it “look a little different when you put it in its context”?
It looks to me exactly like Jeb Bush said what he said.
Now when, later on, outside the context of the governor’s reply , a spon doctor “clarified” it, it might look different. But that’s outside the context of Jeb’s words themselves. Heck, you might have meant “in te context of the article quoting the spin doctor”, but that’s not citing original material, is it? I mean, anyone can SAY the governor meant x. The poster you are trying to refute was responding to the governor’s own words.
Just out of curiosity, is it possible at all for you to frame the statement you made in a way free of condescention and pejorative — references to fairy tales and myths? If not, then I suggest that scientists need, if nothing else, extensive training in the art of public relations. If the only answer you can give to people with opinions that differ from yours amounts to “you’re an idiot”, then I would say that science has failed to give you useful information (namely, effective means of communication). It is amazing that anyone who communicates in this way would be surprised when political conflicts arise. You’re picking a fight, and when someone swings at you, you’re crying out, “Oh, that idiot! How can he be so ignorant?”
I don’t find the “clarification” very exculpative either. It smacks of Jebby trying to pander to the fundie morons who vote for him without having the balls to take a personal position. His position is inexcusable. The fact the some idiots don’t like the facts is not a reason to withhold a complete education from children. Jeb’s statement that “people have different points of vew” carries an implication that evolution is still unsettled or debated within science. He also called it a “scientific theory” but “doesn’t think it should necessarily be dictated in the standards.” Those two statements are logically contradictory and betrays an ignorance on Jeb’s part as to the meaning of the word “theory.”
Unless the nature of the wolrd has changed, there is no such thing as “reality by concensus” or “truth by survey results”.
It doesn’t matter if 99.99999999999 percent of the people believe the world is flat and surrounded by dragons. The world will still be a sphere. The fundies need to either learn some science, or stay completely out of it. There is no room for ID myths or ID lies in a classroom. It is not science, it is not philosophy, and it is not religion. It is the false dogma of ignorant people. Further, it is a false dogma of a minority, that has been rejected by several major religions. ID does not equal “christianity”. ID=ignorance.
Well, as far as I know, Der Trihs is not a scientist in any way, so suggestions to improve his presentation are about as helpful as similar suggestions made to His4Ever or others on that side of the belief spectrum.
I’d find your argument considerably more compelling if you were to describe precisely what you feel is scientific value in the statement “God set natural selection in motion”.
Nor do you, so I deny your denial. So there.
Sorry, haven’t a clue what you are trying to say here. What side? What things?
I am not examining anyone’s statements of faith in this discussion.
Anyway, the only point I was trying to make here, and I’ll admit it’s not an original one, is that scientists in general do not appear to be in opposition to statements of faith, only that faith is irrelevant in the discussion of scientific facts. If you want to continue to argue this point, knock yourself out, but I’d pretty much said all I can on this subject.
Let me give you, for the sake of argument, that the point of view from which you make your statement is the only valid one — that is, I’ll give you that scientific debunking of creationism determines definitively that a Biblical creation never happened. I would not ordinarilly grant such an absurd tenet, but I believe that the point here is important. One might say that Martin Luther King, Jr was a negro in every sense of the word, so what’s wrong with calling him a negro? Or one might say that the actions of the 9/11 Saudi terrorists was brave in every sense of the word, so what’s wrong with citing their bravery? Or Stephen Hawking is a cripple in every sense of the word, so what’s wrong with calling him a cripple? You know, I know, everybody knows: the point of the term “myth” is to set the belief in opposition with reality, thereby attempting to establish the pathos and psychosis of those who believe it — and especially when the term is slashed together with the term “religion”, as in myth/religion. In other words, creationism is disparaged as utterly worthless, right along with belief in God generally. Not only is that wrong at the very deepest philosophical and logical levels, but it is dumbfoundingly stupid in terms of public relations.
My mistake, and my apologies to Der Trihs. However, if he wishes to speak on behalf of science and scientists, it might facilitate the discussion if he himself discloses that fact, if for no other reason than for the sake of scientists who are attempting to present their case in a more rational and palatable manner. “There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” — Daniel Dennett
I think “necessary” would be a better word here. God may indeed be required to explain the existence of the universe, assuming the theistic viewpoint is correct. However, nobody, theist or atheist, can say that God is necessary for the existence of the universe, or that the universe necessarily exists of itself.
(Of course, if God does exist, He has necessary rather than contingent existence, but the same doesn’t apply to the universe).
When those statements are amenable to scientific investigation, yes. A creationist’s statement “I believe that God created the universe” isn’t scientifically testable. A creationist’s statment “I believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago, that all animals came into existence at the same time, and that the Earth was covered by a worldwide flood” is scientifically testable, has been scientifically tested, and been found to be false - or, rather, inconsistent with certain very basic metaphysical propositions, such as the self-consistency of the physical world, the continuity between past and future events, etc. The Omphalos argument, which is compatible both with the results of science and the literal truth of Genesis, denies that the physical world is self-consistent. I don’t know of any other creationist argument that doesn’t involve denying the results of science in one way or another.
