Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

Of course, you're right, and that's exactly what I want to become self-evident. You want a DEBATE? As GWB, again, has said in another context, BRING IT ON.

In fact, I've also changed my mind on MENTIONING ID in biology classes. What's to SAY, for heaven's sake, other than one or two sentences to state the CLAIM? What do we have to fear from that? No one has to listen to all that ANTI-evolution, pseudo-science crap. Just

 

Of course, you're right, and that's exactly what I want to become self-evident. You want a DEBATE? As GWB, again, has said in another context, BRING IT ON.

In fact, I've also changed my mind on MENTIONING ID in biology classes. What's to SAY, for heaven's sake, other than one or two sentences to state the CLAIM? What do we have to fear from that? No one has to listen to all that ANTI-evolution, pseudo-science crap. Just state the claim, present the POSITIVE evidence (loaves and fishes? miraculous healing? the Ark?) and let's move on.

Talk about the fly and the elephant...

 

"We walk by faith, not by sight"

Creationism is not harmful...to anyone.

Believing in the teachings of Christ, literally, can harm no one. I do not understand the fear on the one side, I understand the fear on the other. My simple opinion will not change anyone, but I appreciate hearing the other points of view.

Now, for all of you who will say "people have been killing in the name of God forever", well you can do things in the name of something else till the cows come home....doesn't make it right. I believe that you should love your neighbor as you love yourself (with all his faults and foibles) and love God with all your heart and sould and mind, as He loves you. That is what MY faith teaches.

God Bless all of you....even if you don't want Him to.

 

Creationism doesn't belong next to hard science. That's all we are talking about.

Don't you dare accuse us of being afraid... There is no fear. There is frustration that science is not respected, and it is an INSULT to scientists and educators to have science muddied by something completely unrelated to science.

And don't be so presumptuous to believe that all of us are "heathen", and our God is not the same as yours... This is not about faith. This is not a war of faith... this is about science, and how people like you are continually insulting science.... so don't go all "holier than thou" on us...

 

I don't believe JC ever participated in an ID vs. theory of evolution debate so I hardly think he can legitimately be cited.

ID is not science.
I don't think the religious right has even a crippled leg to stand on in this.
Their strategy is to keep insisting on spinning ID as an alternative to the theory of evolution using the "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it." strategy.

This is not a matter of fear, it is one of severe annoyance.
Where does the religious right get off thinking it can redefine science for its political goals?

I have no problem with teaching whatever religious stories you want in this country.
Just don't do it in public school science classrooms that my tax dollars pay for and that my kids have to attend.

 

Exactly. Science transcends politics or human faith... just because a group of lawmakers get together and decide that science is one way does not change Science... science is about reality and the exploration of the world around us...

Science is NOT democratic... it doesn't matter if everyone in a bass-ackward town thinks that the world started 4000 years ago... that doesn't make it true from a scientific point of view, even if that bass-ackward town decides to vote on it.

This is not about giving your kids a choice of what to believe. this is not about democracy... this is about science, and the very strict definition of what is and is not science, and how the ID people are mindlessly ignoring what professional scientists and educators know best.

 

You are clearly not a scientist...you are clearly attempting to map the ideas of science onto your idea of faith, but with no idea of the framework...

a scientist would have looked at all you have just posted and have taken it all with a grain of salt that none of it may be true, but that all of the best evidence of today points to that being truth...

Science is not about giving the definitive answers... that's what faith is about... science is about exploring the unknown, and science acknowledges that there is much more that we do not know compared to what we do know... but with science, we have an adaptable framework to explore that unknown.

The fact that you equate above as "faith" shows that you don't understand that framework.

 

LaughingMan -- you seem to be stuck in the mold of OLD science.

If you have not seen it, I'll dig it out. Fundamentalist repubs have brought scientific investigation (well, it's reporting anyway) to trial with demand to suppress, on the grounds that it was not good for society. In a similar vein, the white-house under the shrub suppressed EPA and DOH reports on global warming and the health of the nation, because they were at odds with the prevailing political message.

It is called by them "Responsible Science. " Sometimes, truth is stranger than ficiton.

As others have posted, *even* the vatican has learned that ideology is a corruption of thought. To paraphrase one of them: one Gallileo was enough. Unless you are wont to visit the creation museum, in which case ID is certainly part of enlightment.

I wonder what this discussion would look like on a truck owners forum.

 

Responsible Science
Blue Skies
Clean Water
Intelligent Design
No Child left Behind

Sheesh. Can we at least have a different publicity firm ? These jingles are getting SO boring.

 

To some of the good people of KS, I recommend 'Medicine by Design' the next time they feel ill.

You see, the human body is *so* complex, as are the bugs currently infesting them, that clearly this was not some random occurence, but the product of a guiding hand -- an intelligent one. I'm sure, that after being reassured by the design doctor, they will be able to go home with the comfortable conviction that everything will be ALL RIGHT ™.

Oh, and please: Thank God on the way out.

 

I'm afraid I do not follow. I do not condone what the administration has done to the EPA and DOH with suppressing information for a political message...

Was it something in my language?

 

I'm sorry -- I thought it clear I agree with you 100%, and was trying to be cute. I reread my post, and can see how it might seem criticism. Please add tone dripping with sarcasm at my every mention of "ID", and eye winks after each sentence.

I was trying to point out that creationism-as-science is another manifestation of ideology using the language of logic to give it a veneer of respectability.

Apologies.

 

Laughingman, you have made one of my points. This is anger...and all I said basically is you and I will never agree...I have a differing point of view, then I offered an olive branch saying God Bless you, and you go ballistic. I didn't imply anything about heathens. I never spoke against separate classes, there is only "one" God so your God IS the same as my God. Where did I insult science? You, sir, are angry....please don't be. You will not change my mind. I don't believe that we evolved out of primordial ooze. I didn't try to change anyone's mind about the validity of ID or Creationism, I entered this discussion about having ID in the schools. This thread has turned into Evolution vs. ID. So, there you go. I am definitely not "holier than thou".

 

whew, this has really taken off since i last hopped on to priuschat...

so the basic argument from the religious side seems to be this: we should present both ideas to students.

so why is it not good enough to mention id in another, more relevant class such as humanities or another cultural class? this clearly is a cultural thing and has no basis whatsoever in fact... science is based upon controlled testing, not belief. it seems that unless they are able to attack evolutionary theory where it stands, it is simply not good enough. the only productive thing attacking science would do, is crumble young students' belief in science as a discipline and decrease the number of researchers we have in the future.

let's face it. the way this world is going, we need all the medical researchers we can get. the population is aging and we need new drugs to counteract the weaknesses of the aged body. new diseases are getting resistant and we are going to need the strongest and brightest minds to come up with ways to get rid of them before we run into another Black Plague that sets us back as a society.

you know what they say, in order to have a true argument you have to take a look at both sides of the story. and i already have a degree in molecular biology and biochemistry so i have a fair understanding of that side. so i went and checked out some of the claims that id is making with a quick web search back when this was becoming prevalent. i was amazed at the complete lack of sense the id arguments made.

for one, and this is paraphrased and not an exact quote: 'the percentage of oxygen in our atmosphere was made that way so humans could live on earth.'

um.

science has shown that the evolution of trees and other plants that used co2 and gave off o2 contributed to the increase of o2 to a level that would support land-based life.

back in high school, i didn't take any required classes that included evolution, but i sure had to learn about world religions in world history classes. the only evolution i heard was in the elective advanced biology classes i took, and only when discussing the molecular biology revolution and how it contributed to further demonstrating the trends of evolution.

i see this as more of a political issue than anything else. the extreme right has decided science is an enemy and not the useful ally it really is.

 

Like I said, there was a dot, the size of a period on this page. It exploded....

Where is the proof for that theory? Observations are fundamental to scientific research. Who observed this dot? Who observed this so called explosion? Where did the original matter come from....

I am sure your scientific mind can explain where the matter came from in the beginning can't you? I would like you to explain it to me if you can.

Like I said, you have faith just like me. Dress it up in a suit and put a bow on it and call it "science" if you want too but that does not change the fact that you can't prove through scientific testing your theory, thus you trust it based on faith.

 

I do not think you understand.

Science does not have all of the answers, but science acknowledges that it is incomplete, will always be incomplete, and that there is always something you do not know... there are always new frontiers to explore. It is the question that drives science... not the answers.

Science isn't about faith... it's about questioning what you know, and refining and pushing the boundaries of human understanding of the universe around you...

it's the opposite of faith. every theory in science is open to questioning, but you must show evidence and defend your contrary theory among the scientific community...

The theory of the beginning of the universe is based on observations... the best observations that humankind can muster... there is empirical evidence that supports it. But if scientists discover some new evidence that says other wise, then science will analyze the new evidence, debate, and eventually, if the argument is strong enough, it will prevail, and scientists will accept the new theory.

What creationists present *isn't* new evidence... it's very old ideas, and a stubborn faith... that's not science.

Edit: I do not *TRUST* the theory like you think of trust... As a scientist, I am prepared for the next new discovery to turn all of the ideas upside down, and I welcome it... but there needs to be evidence. The theories that you think I "trust" are only the ones that all of the best evidence of today point to... that is the BEST we can do.

 

You insulted science by saying that:

You mentioned "a class" singular, meaning the biology class... I have been saying that the two ideas can be taught, but they are completely orthogonal, so they CANNOT be taught in the same class...

They can be taught in 2 separate classes. Keep science with science... keep philosophy with philosophy, because that is what ID is.

You may have entered this debate by saying that ID should be taught in schools, but you side with the people who would put it in the very same biology class... which i COMPLETELY disagree with... That is totally unacceptable.

I may be angry, and aggressive, but you sir, are passive aggressive.

 

Religion: Believe without seeing. And be damn proud of it.
Science: Believe only when it has been rigorously tested and challenged over and over again and still remains a logical conclusion.

 

++truth

Science is more significant than you give it credit for. I see this as a huge problem this day and age... science and reason are NOT given the respect that it deserves. Science is not some flippant thing... equating it with religion is truly an insult to both science and religion...

Two completely different things.

 

You have almost changed my mind.... All you have to do is answer the final question, where did the matter come from in the first place?

Answer that question well and you might change my mind.