The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Philosophy

Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2004, 05:25 AM   #16
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
......wouldnt put it past some folks
I have heard some very strange attempts to rationalise scientific theories of evolution with the creation myth as found in Genesis...

Last edited by DanaC; 05-07-2004 at 05:32 AM.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 06:21 AM   #17
Catwoman
stalking a Tom
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: on the edge of the english channel
Posts: 1,000
Takes all sorts... leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss - and they wouldn't understand the truth if it hit them in the face anyway.
__________________
I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.
Catwoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 06:45 AM   #18
Yelof
neither here nor there
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 179
Quote:
leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss
On a personal level I agree, I hate getting into arguments about such things as they get no where, however DanaC brought up the issue of what to teach in schools.

Not many creationists will believe this but good science is without an agenda, it is amoral, it is process. Scientific progress should be made with out supposition to the result, many advancements have been made where the originator of the hypothesis himself disagreed or disliked the conclusion, Darwin himself sat on evolution for 14 years before publishing because he was very uncomfortable about his own conclusions. As such evolution fits soundly in the mainstream of scientic process, it is required teaching for anyone who wishes to study biology, it has many uses outside biology, e.g computional science. Learning of the process of evolution is important to understand our modern world and should be required of all high school level students.

Creationist science starts with a conclusion, hides a religious agenda in scientific language that is attractive to those with little scientific knowledge and should be considered religious instruction. Whether religious instruction should be thought in state funded schools is another matter, I attended a school run by a religious order and as such believe all religion should be kept out of all schools, save the mental indoctrination to after school hours, schools should stick to the facts and to moral codes that all society agrees on.
Yelof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 06:47 AM   #19
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:14 AM   #20
Catwoman
stalking a Tom
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: on the edge of the english channel
Posts: 1,000
While children are undoubtedly highly impressionable and susceptible to religious instruction (the main argument for not teaching some of the more obscure, contraversial religions in schools), it is important also not to underestimate their decision making capabilities and power to filter in and out things and theories they may or may not agree with. My schooling had a religious element that I have subsequently (and indeed at the time) rejected. On this basis I think it is essential children are taught as wide a variety of religions and philosophies as time and cognitive ability allows.


Yelof "save the mental indoctrination to after school hours"

It is a sad thing that it should happen at any hour.
__________________
I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.
Catwoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:43 AM   #21
Troubleshooter
The urban Jane Goodall
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,012
Creation Science isn't.

It's wrong on two differing levels.

1) it doesn't follow the scientific method,
2) why try to prove something you have faith in? Contradictory, paradoxical.
__________________
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle
Troubleshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:47 AM   #22
Catwoman
stalking a Tom
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: on the edge of the english channel
Posts: 1,000
and,

3) it's a load of bollocks.
__________________
I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.
Catwoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:54 AM   #23
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"

I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!
Here Here!!!
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 09:56 AM   #24
Pete
Resident President
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 81
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 10:07 AM   #25
elSicomoro
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,486
There is no proof in science. Only support for or against a hypothesis.

Evolution has its issues, but it has a lot more support than creationism.
elSicomoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 10:18 AM   #26
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar from AIG websiteAlthough many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.
The problem with claiming that there are "gaps" in the fossil record is that whenever something is found that goes in a gap, two more gaps are created. So, even with more information available, there are more gaps for creationists to complain about. Unless every single historical animal is found and documented, there will always be gaps.
Quote:
In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.
I haven't read the book that this article is critiquing, so I can't speak to what is or isn't in it, but it's simply not true that there are no transitional forms (as defined here) known. Here's a list.
Quote:
Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).
This seems to be primarily picking apart a poorly written section of a sceptic's book. Which is precisely what I'm doing here, but I'm not claiming that what I'm doing is science.

As for the content, it seems to parallel the eye problem, saying that feathers are too different from scales to have suddenly mutated. Of course they are. It didn't happen that way. The feathers slowly evolved, and there are currently tons of different types of feathers, of varying complexity. A kiwi's feathers are much simpler than those described in the article - they have no hook and barb system, and hang loose.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 10:20 AM   #27
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally posted by Pete
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.
How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 10:23 AM   #28
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
And even the few 'laws' are just theories that have survived so many attacks that it is generally accepted.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:19 AM   #29
OnyxCougar
Junior Master Dwellar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kingdom of Atlantia
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
Originally posted by glatt

How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.
I don't have a problem with science. I don't claim to be a scientist. What I have a problem with is that, as Pete pointed out here (and I pointed out in the other thread on this topic) Evolutionary theory is still just a theory. Just like Creationism is just a theory. Biology is observable. Astronomy is observable. Geology is observable. That's science. Theories regarding Origins is completely UNPROVABLE. Any origins. Sure, some people have ideas that sound good, but then someone else comes along and shows the problem in that theory.

At no time did I intend any one to be converted to Christianity just because they visited a website. But as Dana correctly stated, I was irritated that it was dismissed out of hand, without really looking at it. It was the closemindedness that I had a problem with.

And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?
OnyxCougar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:21 AM   #30
elSicomoro
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,486
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?
In this case, your religion could suggest bias.

Last edited by elSicomoro; 05-07-2004 at 11:26 AM.
elSicomoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.