Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Creationism in USA (and Ireland)
Options
-
22-10-2005 6:17pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
robindch wrote:> Maybe someone would be interested in working with me on this in Ireland?
What kind of work do you have in mind? And with what aim?
Certainly, I think it would be interesting to try to find out whether or not there's much support for creationism within the country, and what personal traits/habits/etc are associated with it.
Survey to transition years to arts/science students and to other groups e.g. Jehovas Witnesses, Scientologists (if you can find more than tem in Ireland) born again christians, skeptics, humanists etc. .
covering pseudo scientific beliefs (astrology, creationism?, etc.)
Ireland's first sceptic barometer.
The aim would be to look at the overall attitudes and also compare them to the sub groups and note what differences there are. Obvoiously one might predict some differences in advance but there might well be some surprises as it wont to happen in research.
then we can doctor the data and say it proves psy powers exist and we will both be famous!
Anyway, to go into detail I would have to go to PM and bind you to confidentiality. After all I dont want someone else continuing on from where I left off before I have now do I?
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
robindch wrote:Here's a bit more on the Republicans in Dover who put creationism on their science curriculum:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html
...and their unhappy fate at the hands of the voters of Dover
:cool:
Sweet isn't it
To be fair, I think people are making a far bigger deal out of Kansas than needs be. Its really more local politics than an affront to science.
For anyone with a reasonable memory will remember that this stunt was pulled before, Evolution was actually banned on the Kansas State curriculum in 1999. Which meant no exposure at all for students. At least now, students are allowed make up their own minds (even if it is a farce).
In 2001, Kansas voters ousted that schoolboard too and normal service was resumed.
I'll give the current situation a 18 months before its resolved.0 -
> I think people are making a far bigger deal out of Kansas than needs be
You're quite possibly right in this, but having said that, reading the wedge document does rather suggest that getting ID onto the curriculum is one part of a specific strategy in which is intended to install fundamentalist christianty as the dominant political force in the USA (with frankly predictable results for the rest of us). Take a look, for example, at the first "application" of the "statement of worldview" of the fundamentalist Patrick Henry College:
http://www.phc.edu/about/BiblicalWorldview.asp
This institution is closely linked with the White House (internships are given preferentially to PHC students) and seems, as far as I can make out, to be attempting with considerable success to turn itself into the American, or at least the Republican, version of the French ENA.
While I'm not a conspiracy merchant and can live happily until my dying day without ever hearing of Kansas again, the above does give me a dose of the willies...
0 -
robindch wrote:> I think people are making a far bigger deal out of Kansas than needs be
You're quite possibly right in this, but having said that, reading the wedge document does rather suggest that getting ID onto the curriculum is one part of a specific strategy in which is intended to install fundamentalist christianty as the dominant political force in the USA (with frankly predictable results for the rest of us). Take a look, for example, at the first "application" of the "statement of worldview" of the fundamentalist Patrick Henry College:
http://www.phc.edu/about/BiblicalWorldview.asp
This institution is closely linked with the White House (internships are given preferentially to PHC students) and seems, as far as I can make out, to be attempting with considerable success to turn itself into the American, or at least the Republican, version of the French ENA.
While I'm not a conspiracy merchant and can live happily until my dying day without ever hearing of Kansas again, the above does give me a dose of the willies...
I think what makes this so unlikely is that the US will never change the constitutional amendments required to make it so. The one thing that US politicians will always stop short of is tampering with the constitution. This is why the gun laws in the US will always remain, even after incidents like columbine and to a lesser degree 911 (well that and the fact that you'll never get anyone brave enough to actually go down to the southern states and get everyone to hand their guns over).
Every single US president has been an openly active christian (whether personally or politically motivated) and many have had strong ties to the church, but not one of them has tried to take on a change to the first amendment.0 -
In trying to taclke this extreme denial of reality we should try to embrace the moderately religious and try to emphasise that god and reality are not incompatible concepts. The earth being 6,000 years old is incompatible.
Oh, when I said god and reality are compatible I meant theoritically, if thier actually was a God. Very unlikely.
Its like dealing with terrorism, if your attack them they will become more extreme. We need moderation even if it is a little irrational.
Also try not to be too condesending towards the moderately religiuos.....however hard that may be somethimes...:D
0 -
Well you're talking about one main religion there actualy, not the world populations of "moderately religious" as a whole.samb wrote:In trying to taclke this extreme denial of reality we should try to embrace the moderately religious and try to emphasise that god and reality are not incompatible concepts. The earth being 6,000 years old is incompatible.
Furthermore, the head of the churchof the specific religion you're alluding to, has conceeded that that genesis defined creationism is not literal.
If you wish to be considered scientific, please try not to generalise, speak (or in this case type) in clear concise terms and separate specific facts from unspecific wooly thinking.
Ok, I'll preface this next bit with "I don't believe in the 'christian god'"
Ok, you seem to be falling on science to launch this attack on "belief based systems", so lets turn the tables.Oh, when I said god and reality are compatible I meant theoritically, if thier actually was a God. Very unlikely.
What scientific evidence do you have that there is no "higher being". You say that it is "extremely unlikely" I'd like to see source material or some sort of reference that separates that statement as a qualified scientific conclusion, as opposed to .wait for it...your own belief.
Now, like I said in the preface to this, I don't believe in god myself, but its my belief. Therefore I'min no position to mock anyone elses belief.
I love science, I've devoted my life to it. But I can't abide by thye misuse of so-called scientific reasoning. Which you are clearly protraying here.
Putting it in simple terms, if you're going to do something "in the name of science" then do it properly and scientifically, otherwise you're being as much of a sham as all the con artists the irish skeptic society detests.Its like dealing with terrorism, if your attack them they will become more extreme. We need moderation even if it is a little irrational.
Surely by definition, you would be referring to the "extremely religious" in this analogy and not the "moderately religios" who you referred to above. How do the moderately religious act like terrorists. Where and when have they (the moderately religious) become more extreme under challenge. Surely the whole point of referring to them as "moderates" inferrs that they do NOT tend to wards extremism.
Do you see my point on being clear when you make an argument?Also try not to be too condesending towards the moderately religiuos.....however hard that may be somethimes...:D
Well I try not to be too condescending towards those who are unable to string a coherent argument together, don't understand the concept of scientific debate or inquiry, confuse tehir own personal "belief" with a scientific axiom and haven't researched simple terms like "moderate" and "extreme" before using them in an inappropriate analogy.
Of course, I generally fail in this endeavour.0 -
Hi samb. Only your ninth post in and already you get savaged by some condescending “scientificer-than-thou”.:o
It is my belief that psi's post was deliberately rude with the intension of trying to intellectually bully another poster. I can now see why the christian forum might have band him. Perhaps they ran-out of cheeks to turn. {In terms of clarity I have difficulty with some of psi posts, I probably would get a more realistic interpretation if I were to square him. Hehe!:D
}
I would suggest that “a nice tone” is generally an important part of effective communication.
Although I don’t fully agree with the sentiment of samb’s post it is easy to see the point he/she was making and only a pedantic (NOT scientific) reading of it could follow on to psi's response. Anyway, scientific writing is a necessarily rigid exercise used pretty much exclusively when publishing in a scientific field. It is not ideally suited to human interaction on other topics.
Re: Beliefs
On a human level, beliefs are all we have. However all beliefs are not equally valid (which surely must be one of the core tenements of being a skeptic). Rational enquiry, which science is a part of, is the human endeavour that aims to evaluate and compare these differing “beliefs” to establish which ones are a more reliable basis for making decisions about the world.
Re:God
Psi asks samb to show evidence for his/her claim that a "higher being does not exist”, which is surely the oldest one in any theists book (a.k.a. “the invisible gardener” debate), since it is nigh-on impossible to disprove anything, c.f. “flying spaghetti monster”, “orbiting teapot”, etc.
My myself and ISAW have had a length debate on god in the “Why isn’t the ISS exclusively atheist in outlook?” thread, so I don’t want to colonise this thread with that issue.
But on science and atheism….
Science by definition is materialist; hence it is perfectly scientific to say that chances are there is no god, no “magical flying spaghetti monster”, no “magical orbiting teapot”, no toothfairy, etc.0 -
-
I’m sceptical of the use of “scientific dissection” as a linguistic analytical tool. In fact I’m of the opinion that linguistic deconstruction doesn’t bring much to a debate about issues, where it is the substance of points made that are of import. Naturally a minimum level of coherence and clarity are required. (Which is my big problem, since words don’t come easy to me. Unfortunately, there are also a few around the ISS board for whom language is a big part of it.)Originally Posted by psi
Yet it is difficult to perform a scientific dissection of a topic, with unclear, ambiguous language. Would you not agree?
Hence, I thought it was pedantic of you to labour over the words samb used and completely ignore the points he/she raised; which were
1. Why not take a softer line with those who are only moderately religious (in general) which would allow the highlighting/isolation of the loonier ones who are creationist, etc.
2. Taking a hard-line, (as in the case of terrorists etc), can be counterproductive by turning moderates off your opinion and hence drive them into the arms of the more extreme.
Both points were valid, clear and coherent. (Although I really don’t agree with either - sorry samb ) These are what your reply should have addressed.
As regards you getting the ball and not the man, a.k.a. attacking the belief and not the believer. I would consider……….....there is a marked difference (even outside of the pedantic realm) between attacking the belief and attacking the believers for believing. Its a subtle difference, but one that makes a world of difference between logical or skeptical thinking and say, just being - as you put it - rude.
……..to be on the rude side with not much subtlety about it.Well I try not to be too condescending towards those who are unable to string a coherent argument together, don't understand the concept of scientific debate or inquiry, confuse tehir own personal "belief" with a scientific axiom and haven't researched simple terms like "moderate" and "extreme" before using them in an inappropriate analogy.
Anyway....
I used the term “rational enquiry” earlier so that we are not straight-jacked by the rigors involved in talking in precise and pure scientific language; such talk, as I have said, has a relatively small area of application and an even smaller audience. So of course pure science doesn’t address magical teapots etc. In fact your own co-opting of science into dissecting language doesn’t fit with your later narrow, rigid restriction of it to just lofty pure science. I think if we just restrict ourselves to drawing a line under pure, hard science and ignore the rest of the “rational enquiry family” and hence claim that we can't comment scientifically on anything else, is to cut of our nose to spite our face. It does not mean that these issues cannot be resolved by a rational/scientific/sceptical approach.........And it is my opinion that science has no business lowering itself to such endeavours. Higher beings and their existence are not a topic for science.......
One can still objectively, rationally and with respect for evidence/reality (i.e. scientifically) say that evolution is superior to creationism (and/or ID); that torture is wrong; that the Holocaust did happen; that homeopathy doesn’t work; and that atheism is superior to theism/agnosticism. These are exceptionally important issues that should be dealt with scientifically and imho do not represent a “lowering to their level” - as you put it.No, it is perfectly scientific to say that there is no evidence of god, flying spaghetti monster, magical orbiting teapot or toothfairy. However, without a set of conditions to test a hypothesis, science cannot apply itself to tackling the question.
The scientific chances of my phone turning into a cabbage can be regarded as very low. Would you agree? Or would you feel that you could only go as far as saying that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that my phone will turn into a cabbage? If so, is this equivalent to there being no evidence that my phone will be stolen on my way home? Can we not scientifically differentiate between these two possibilities and identify one as more probable than the other even though there is no direct evidence and both are untestable?
Atheists and in particular atheist scientists rarely only restrict their beliefs to "no god exists", what you tend to find is that these people (me include) have a worldview, which atheism is part of; but, because theism is such a popular and widespread delusion are forced to be labelled by that one issue. In reality they also don’t believe that sugar-bowls have souls, or in mother earth or ghosts or tarot card readings, etc. It is way too narrow to restrict it to just the god question or some such, when it is really about differing worldviews..........the attempts of scientists to belittle theologies through science, is a simple knee-jerk reaction to the action of evangelical opposition to science. Whats the point in that, its sinking to their level.
The point is about trying to convince people of that worldview rather than just winning them over on a case-by-case basis. Your idealised view of pure science cannot support itself without the justification from the worldview provided by science's "rational enquiry" underpinnings.
We’re way off topic with all this stuff so back to “creationism in Ireland”.
Anecdotally, I'm finding creationism (or at least radical doubt about evolution) to be more and more common. The last argument I had with a creationist was with a nice young chap on the nitelink from town. He sat down beside me and took out his little Gideon’s bible and things kicked-off from there.
If they're on the dublin bus "vomit-comic" at 3 in the morning then they are everywhere!:eek:0 -
You don't need to be overly eloquant, you just need to know the right terms and so to speak, know your enemy.Yossie wrote:I’m sceptical of the use of “scientific dissection” as a linguistic analytical tool. In fact I’m of the opinion that linguistic deconstruction doesn’t bring much to a debate about issues, where it is the substance of points made that are of import. Naturally a minimum level of coherence and clarity are required. (Which is my big problem, since words don’t come easy to me. Unfortunately, there are also a few around the ISS board for whom language is a big part of it.)
Simple subtle differences between a belief, the believer, the moderates, the extremists and the organisations is a good start. They're not all one item to deal with, they're a complex social structure of differing views, like any organisation, even ISS.Hence, I thought it was pedantic of you to labour over the words samb used and completely ignore the points he/she raised; which were
1. Why not take a softer line with those who are only moderately religious (in general) which would allow the highlighting/isolation of the loonier ones who are creationist, etc.
2. Taking a hard-line, (as in the case of terrorists etc), can be counterproductive by turning moderates off your opinion and hence drive them into the arms of the more extreme.
Ok, my issue with samb was that the points he/she made took some huge assumptions which simply make a big difference to the points. But on the specific points:
1: Tyring to "convert" creationists, moderates or not, is just as bad as extremists in religion. That aside, the post was highly condescending to those it seeks to embrace.
2: is a good point, but again, I think that the differences between moderates and extremists in any given religion has little to do with the stance on evolution. In fact, in my experience, the people who see the creationist-evolution issue as a high agenda are the "loony" religious extremists and the just as loony evolution extremists. Most reputable scientists couldn't be arsed getting involved in the debate and most religious moderates could care less.
I'd disagree with you here.Both points were valid, clear and coherent. (Although I really don’t agree with either - sorry samb ) These are what your reply should have addressed.
Well take the post in context and you might notice there was a hint of irony in there. Perhaps directly attributable to the last line in the quote I was responding to. I still made a general comment, I didn't actually attack the poster, more the lack of logic in the post.As regards you getting the ball and not the man, a.k.a. attacking the belief and not the believer. I would consider………
……..to be on the rude side with not much subtlety about it.
The only personal attack on this thread is from you at me.
So you can hardly judge.One can still objectively, rationally and with respect for evidence/reality (i.e. scientifically) say that evolution is superior to creationism (and/or ID);
Fair enough.
I'm not convinced that you can scientifically conclude torture is wrong. Its a theological debate imho.that torture is wrong; that the Holocaust did happen;
You'd need to define what you mean by work in this instance.that homeopathy doesn’t work;
By what measurement would you put forward this?and that atheism is superior to theism/agnosticism.
Ok, exactly how do you scientifically establish grounds for measurment of theological ideas?These are exceptionally important issues that should be dealt with scientifically and imho do not represent a “lowering to their level” - as you put it.
Under the laws we observe yes.The scientific chances of my phone turning into a cabbage can be regarded as very low.
Its an entirely different scenario. Mainly because we understand the physics required for such and incident to occur. We understand the atomical arrangements and the structures and understand entropy and such, all of which would govern such an occurance. Based on our vast knowledge of the permutations involved, we can scientifically conclude the probability of such an occurance is low.Would you agree? Or would you feel that you could only go as far as saying that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that my phone will turn into a cabbage?
Now apply the same procedure to any of the scenarios you put forward above that I have questions.
Again, you can conclude the probability based on the relative circumstances of your walk home. How far, how bad the area, the time you walk home. The crime statistics in the area. Your size, your age, your height. And someone could give you odds. The know variables are FAR less complete than your previous phone to cabbage scenario, so the "odds" put forward in terms of probability, would reflect this.If so, is this equivalent to there being no evidence that my phone will be stolen on my way home? Can we not scientifically differentiate between these two possibilities and identify one as more probable than the other even though there is no direct evidence and both are untestable?
You seem to have a mis-conception of what science is, what it can do and how you apply it.
Science replies in emperical evidence, a knowledge of the area it is applied to. This is where ID and creationism fails in the science arena. Neither can provide these things. That shouldbe the end of it, but then you get people following ID and creationism out of the science arena, into a theological one, and trying to win their case there. It makes no sense to do this.
In the same way, you can only apply the scienific rigour, to systems you can understand. We have evidence of evolution and how it works, We can apply it there. How the hell do you apply it to whether athiesm is better than theism? What basis do you measure?
You have just entered into a theological/philosophical debate.Atheists and in particular atheist scientists rarely only restrict their beliefs to "no god exists", what you tend to find is that these people (me include) have a worldview, which atheism is part of; but, because theism is such a popular and widespread delusion are forced to be labelled by that one issue. In reality they also don’t believe that sugar-bowls have souls, or in mother earth or ghosts or tarot card readings, etc. It is way too narrow to restrict it to just the god question or some such, when it is really about differing worldviews.The point is about trying to convince people of that worldview rather than just winning them over on a case-by-case basis.
whats that got to do with any of the stuff you put out above.Your idealised view of pure science cannot support itself without the justification from the worldview provided by science's "rational enquiry" underpinnings.
This is your biggest problem here. You are just like they are in approach, in dedication, you just have opposite views of the same "theology".If they're on the dublin bus "vomit-comic" at 3 in the morning then they are everywhere!:eek:0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement