Fighting the fight

[Nevyn]

Now that you have joined us what do you think should be done?

I think we should be out building weather machines so cloud cover is a daytime activity only . I got my first look at Saturn (ever) the other night and haven't been able to show my wife since because of cloudy nights!!

Back on track, teach evolution by all means. But teach it warts and all!!!
I find the level of dogmatism when it comes to evolution hypocritical and dare I say it, evolution by the very definition of religion is a "religion". It is every bit as faith based as my beliefs. I could dig up a lot of logical arguements for Creation where observational evidence will and does back it up! But my entire point is lets call a spade a spade. I'll leave off with a saying I read somewhere........"My cat has four legs, my dog has four legs. My cat is my dog!"

Cheers Brad

[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Um, Hitler....master race, experiments on Jews...........eugenics etc. etc.
YCheers Brad

Hitler and the fascists were political and opportunistic Idealist/utopians, a military/political movement, and not so much a christian group to my understanding, it was more about destroying the godless-communists and power/economics, world domination, the usual stuff, or so i thought.
Those atrocities werent carried by a scientific/medical ppl 'movement' per se - they were individuals just following orders apparently,
Thats a reaaaaalllyyyy long bow to pull mate!

[xelasnave]

Brad said..........
By dismissing and not even entertaining or experimenting with the notion of 'irreducible complexity', the main point of ID, would be unscientific don't you think? If you still think it has no merit then take out 'both'* of your kidneys *how exactly did we end up with two?? Why two???

I have been wondering why two kidneys... clever really as one can opperate on one and give/sell the other.. that makes sence to me.
I cant wait for the "next" design of humans to appear as I have the silent expectation that vital organs like the heart can be duplicated. Haveing a spare kidney is indeed an inteligent design so given the role of the heart in our system carring this concept over to areas of the heart would indeed be intelligent.
Two brains would be good but given many dont use the one they have probably means no real need is seen in that department, but two hearts makes for a very intelligent design.

By asking what you suggest can be done I was hoping for your input as to how we can arrive at a situation where all can be happy with the final result and all in our happy community agree to disagree and put something in place that all can live with..
I still encourage your suggestions.
I sence that the main objection that creationists have to the concept of evolution is not that it contridicts the Bible but that they may be related to apes.. certainly there is plenty of evidence of such an objection as being one of the stumbling blocks to acceptance of evolution... this is an ego thing on their part.. and certainly understandable. For myself I see humans as animals first so I have no objection to think great great great grandfather was an ape... after all I do "monkey" around a fair bit ..so why not.. Given the very real similarities between us and chimps do intelligent design folk see the chimp as a proto type of the human or the human as a proto type of the chimp.
Now there I go cant resist a little jab.. but take it in good humour and focus on a solution to finding a way we can bring everyone to a happy solution of solving the current problem. AND it is a problem for those Mums and Dads who feel left out, one if no solution is forthcoming can only get worse and fundamentalists on all sides simply burn energy in the "is is not game". Lets design an intelligent plan to arrive at a solution.
I ask all rather than looking for holes in the other sides armour lets seek a common ground and a system that respects the various views.
In addition I bet everyone who has had their say herein feel better having the opportunity to state their case... Poor Andrew and other moderators do you have any finger nails left, and those poor folk who cant tolerate me talking nonsence probably have given themselves manual mohawks by now...
AND to those who question why discuss this at all I say this...because we can ..simply because we can.
Peace to all men, all people of the world and all animals be they great or small.
alex

[Doug]

Alex wrote :

my impression of you is you are no fool with excellent powers of comprehension and deduction.

Flattery will get you everywhere
Well contrary to what you said, I always thought Tortes were laws about money. Q.E.D.
Ok so let us not spam this thread.
I don't want an "it is... no it isn't" type debate either; that is why I ask for evidence. By evidence I mean irrefutable evidence that can be placed before the judge for his evaluation and ruling, not 'oh yeah well there is evidence but lets skip that.' No evidence = faith stance. Evidence that proves the case = real knowledge.

I have not made a close study of ID, I thought it was a sort of compromise to try and re establish a level playing field.

As I see the situation, the ideas embodied in evolution (lets confine this to biological evolution) are demeaning and destructive of self esteem.

I believe that what follows is germane to this thread.

Any religion that teaches accountability is probably not all that bad, from a sociological point of view. By way of example:
Here in NSW, the NRMA are currently advocating zero tolerance for 'P' plate drivers because of the statistical assumption that they, as a target group have a noticeably high road death rate. Next when this fails perhaps they will want any 'P' platers jailed if they sneeze between certain hours of the day.

When I, like many of us started out driving, there were no 'P' plates, no speed restrictions other than those in general use. No zero Alcohol restrictions, no abnormally high incidence of young road deaths.
Question to be answered here I think is Why?
Is it because our roads are less serviceable than 50 years ago?
Are our young in some way less competent that we were at their age?
Are our laws somehow inadequate.....still?

I believe the answer is to be found in attitude not aptitude.
Attitude comes from perception and training.
Evolution does not teach mutual respect, it does not teach the concept of absolutes, it does not teach or encourage human dignity.
Instead it teaches survival of the fittest, the uncertainty and instability of today's values, the lack of any need for accountability.

Probably the only remedy for this and many other social woes is to go back and start with the preschools and teach self esteem, mutual respect, respect for the law, accountability to a higher authority and a more dignified approach to life,(self and others). that is on one bottom end of things, and at the other end we need to fix up our legal system so that it is worthy of the respect we ask people to give it. I have witnessed a person threaten a Railway employee will legal action if they restrained him for riding on a train without a ticket.........the 'law' would have upheld the fare evader.
As a 'P' plate driver I must have zero blood alcohol when driving...the very next day when I progress to an unrestricted licence I can have a Blood alcohol reading of 0.049 (as a private motorist)and be within the law. How can we ask young people to respect the law when it is so obviously flawed.
I suppose some might be tempted to accuse me of wanting to go back to the horse and cart era, but that is rubbish. If we can't move forward yet carry our goods and chattels with us then we are like a people fleeing in panic from the voice of a harmless dove.

So in summary, I'd be happy if we taught some morality in schools, and in society in general.
I believe we need to provide a level playing field for morality by either teaching creation/Id alongside of evolution, or refrain from teaching evolution as a science with no actual evidence to support its claims, after all, I don't need to be told that a gum tree has the same ancestor as the great white shark in order to learn what makes the two biologically different from each other. So what then is the real undisclosed agenda of the evolutionist??

Doug

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dawes

Lester,

I see you have pulled out the 'because the bible tells me so' card.

Based on this I could say the creatures from the legends of the Greek and Norse Gods were real as well because they were written down thousands of years ago by what I consider to be a reliable source.

In your and my case Science would quite correctly ask for independent evidence to back up our claims. And we don't have any.

Glenn

On the other hand when we read of Leviathan and Behemoth, and we read of St. Geoge and his dragons, the Chinese and their dragons etc.etc, maybe we could be a little less dismissive and concede that though we don't have autographed birth certificates for these things there might be some basis for truth, even if it has been embellished over the years. Same goes for the flood. There is the Bible account, the Babylonian account, even the Chinese, I have read, had their Nu-Wah.
Surely when there are accounts of odd things that span many cultures we need to be open to allowing for the fact that there might be some basis of fact. Lester's reference to Job and Behemoth and Leviathan for example; We do not knowingly have any of these critters roaming around these days so we have no real way of identifying with it or with Job on this point. Is it not reasonable to accept that Job and his contemporaries knew what this Leviathan and Behemoth were?
Why would the writer of the book of Job, when trying to illustrate a point, refer to things unknown and unknowable to his readership? that doesn't make any kind of sense.
It seems to me that commonsense itself is falling victim to evolutionary thinking. Mankind thousands of years ago was a not a group of dumb dim witted apes with scarcely enough sense to get in out of the rain, they were capable thinkers, for example, capable of identifying metallic ores and smelting/ forging metals for tools.....how many of us today could do that from scratch, and with no prior knowledge or experience of these things?
I believe we need to be a bit more open minded in seeking to understand what is what from earlier records.

Doug

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dawes

We know one of the major criticisms levelled at evolution has been the lack of transitional fossils (even this isn’t true but I’ll leave it at that).

lets not glenn
I want to see hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.

theres a call for those with faith in creation to prove there theory thru science by the Evolutionists yet the said Evo guys cant come up with substantial evidence to prove without a doubt thier own theories (that i am aware of)... maybe we should have neither?

oh hang on i found one... when aquatic life first took to the air no doubt.
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/203...3653NSVr_w.jpg

look, maybe faith cant be proven with science. maybe thats what faith is all about. i dont know, I am not a christian. I think theres room for both in out schools, evolution as a science and ID as part of religion. I dont see how this would hurt anyone... maybe we should as a modern society teach more religions than just christianity, but i dont really know tha other religions enough to comment on them... or maybe thats the problem?

[avandonk]

I know that Science is difficult to even start to master. What makes it more difficult for the neophytes (newbies) is the large number of well meaning but deluded people pushing their obsession of choice.
Examples ( not necessarily in order of level of delusion)
Astrologers
Palm readers
Psychics
Water deviners
Tarot Card readers
New age anything
Spiritualists

I could go on but it is a waste of time.

What I would like to know is how the fact that evolution is irrefutable can impact on any moral system including any religion or faith.


I repeat the converse is the situation. It is the Creationists under the guise of a pseudo science called ID (intelligent design) that want to infiltrate the science class rooms.

This was the original point of this thread.

If I have offended anyone I really meant it.

Bert

[Glenn Dawes]

I’ve always thought the difference between a civil discussion/ disagreement and a down and out argument is based on 2 things – a mutual respect between the parties and some common ground to fall back on. I am struggling looking for common ground in some of this (to take up Alex’s point).

Doug, teaching self-esteem, human dignity, moral values has nothing to do with the Evolution vs. ID debate. Any more than a mathematics class should attempt to address the woes of society (unless anyone would like to argue against 1+2 = 3). In fact some people might argue this is in the realm of the family and church responsibilities (whichever faith one believes in), not school. I, like MOST (religious or otherwise), had an upbringing which didn’t need ID to have socially acceptible ethics.

There is even a much more fundamental issue – Jesus Christ either was or wasn’t the Son of God (no in between). So whichever it is there are an enormous number of religious people in the world following the wrong concept of God. They might be all wrong. Instead of attacking science and picking on the holes, with purely faith based assumptions, how about the religions getting their house in order first and work out what is the true faith! Well you can’t anymore than you can prove ID.

Ving, I think there are good reasons why ID shouldn’t be taught in schools (I stress along side of Evo in Science).
1) I think the 2 side by side would be confusing and difficult for young people to grasp.
2) Part of Creationism is the young Earth assumptions. Just about every branch of science has rejected this 6-10,000 year concept. An old Earth/Universe is as fundamental as the gravitational laws mentioned by someone earlier. I know a number of teachers, with some scientific training, that are uncomfortable with presenting the ‘young’ idea.
3) ID has its roots in Christianity and why should people of other faiths have it forced on them?
4) Evolution is the best theory science has without evoking the supernatural. It promotes critical thinking, which is basic to the school system concept.

Glenn

[Doug]

I went looking for evidence of my earlier claim of dino footprints and human footprints in Wyoming. What I have found sofar is not Wyoming, but might verywell be what I was thinking of.
I invite those interested to visit http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
The above link came by way of a google search for dino fossils and human foot fossils. I had no prior knowledge of this site.

doug

[ving (David)]

hi glen, to your points..

1:its not dificult to grasp at all... i managed. as we age we form our own opinions or we dont care
3) maybe we should teach other religions too? this is my thought on the matter as stated in my previous post.
4) whos to say the supernatural doesnt exist? can you prove it doesnt? i cant. I am not saying that we should teach tarot card reading mind you but... well theres nothing wrong with religion for bring up good morally adjusted kids... science of ant type wont do that.

as i have said, teach ID but not as a science, as part of religion.

[Doug]

Here is the proof of transitional change................not.
Read an interview of a Dr. Patterson at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

These are the guys with the accademic credentials to back up their claims.
An interesting and candid confession by an evolutionist.

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dawes

Ving, I think there are good reasons why ID shouldn’t be taught in schools (I stress along side of Evo in Science).
1) I think the 2 side by side would be confusing and difficult for young people to grasp.

sorry, i am currently in a position (ona public desk) where i cant give this my full attention but i have thought longer on this point because it stuck in my mind.

YOU CANT BE FOR REAL?

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Here is the proof of transitional change................not.
Read an interview of a Dr. Patterson at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

These are the guys with the accademic credentials to back up their claims.
An interesting and candid confession by an evolutionist.

The answers in genesis people are pushing the political agenda really hard - it is a sad day if it inflitrates this country.

The evidence of biological evolution is overwhelming, irrespective of what Patterson says, covering biochemistry, genetics, geology, paleontology, and even field observations. Evolution does not have any holes. At all. Zero. Just because someone has an academic qualification does not make them right. This is not how science operates. This is not the scientific method.

Darwin was a creationist, until the evidence persuaded him otherwise, and the argument has been going on since. The evidence was not as strong in his day as it is now.

This is a real threat to people who base their faith on what some old religious texts say. This is understandable, as the existence of physical and biological evolution means that maybe there isn't a supreme being, and maybe, just maybe, we are all merely the products of natural processes. This is a potential faith buster, which is why there is this movement to promote creationism and its offshoot, ID. These people are fearful and frightened, which is why they assert their beliefs with religious fervour.

It also goes against "common" sense, as aren't we as humans very special? Haven't we been given domination over all the birds and animals of the fields?

Problem is we share the same biochemistry and genetics to a frightening degree. The only remotely plausible scenario is for a supernatural being to breath a soul into a hominoid. There is no evidence for this.

Glen is correct, you can't win a full frontal argument with zeolots. It will be sad if the intellectual integrity of our education system suffers as a result.

[mickoking]

Put both evolution and ID in the school system and let it be taught and debated. As an Evolutionist I have no problems with that

RESPECT

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Here is the proof of transitional change................not.
Read an interview of a Dr. Patterson at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

These are the guys with the accademic credentials to back up their claims.
An interesting and candid confession by an evolutionist.

This link asserts that:

"Are there any transitional fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms."

This is complete nonsense.

refer to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Again - the answers in genesis people are pushing a political agenda because the US Supreme Court disallowed the teaching of ID in schools as it was held to be a religion. And curricula in the USA is influenced by local school boards which makes it a highly political situation.

Science has been stymed enough by religion. Enough is enough. Evolutionary medicine is merely a research topic at the moment, but has real potential.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by mickoking

Put both evolution and ID in the school system and let it be taught and debated. As an Evolutionist I have no problems with that

RESPECT

There is nothing to debate except facts vs a belief system.

What other belief systems would you like to put in schools?

The Universe was created 6000 years ago but it just looks 13 billion years old?

witchcraft?

The problem is the creationists are winning if they can persuade people that their beliefs are as good as science and it is just a matter of choice.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by ving

3) maybe we should teach other religions too? this is my thought on the matter as stated in my previous post.

Maybe there is some merit in teaching comparative religion in schools so people can appreciate others belief systems. This may be useful in a multicultural society. Problem is, schools ar teaching all sorts of other stuff and the curriculum is very full.

Originally Posted by ving

4) whos to say the supernatural doesnt exist? can you prove it doesnt? i cant. I am not saying that we should teach tarot card reading mind you but... well theres nothing wrong with religion for bring up good morally adjusted kids... science of ant type wont do that.

as i have said, teach ID but not as a science, as part of religion.

if you assert a supernatural being exists, isn't the onus of proof on you?

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

There is nothing to debate except facts vs a belief system.

Then why worry?

What other belief systems would you like to put in schools?

That'll do, until someone comes up with another theory

The Universe was created 6000 years ago but it just looks 13 billion years old?

Then science should be able to stand on its own two feet.

witchcraft?

perhaps

The problem is the creationists are winning if they can persuade people that their beliefs are as good as science and it is just a matter of choice.

Where are they winning? Maybe It is up to to us evolutionists to explain our selves better? By showing humility on our part maybe more ID adherents will be more responsive to well presented scientific argument.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by mickoking

Where are they winning? Maybe It is up to to us evolutionists to explain our selves better? By showing humility on our part maybe more ID adherents will be more responsive to well presented scientific argument.

A very large pecentage of the US population appears to accept creationist thinking. This in the most "advanced" country in the world.

There is already sufficient well presented scientific arguments available in the public arena:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...re1/index.html

many books too. They just do not reach much of the population who gets their information from more "popular" sources.

What is the worry? The rise of religious fundamentalism and a new dark age. Likely? I hope not.

[iceman (Mike)]

I think this has been a very interesting discussion, with some well-thought out posts. People have revealed a lot about themselves and their beliefs, with the understanding that they won't be personally attacked.

I'm glad it's kept that way, but we're treading on ground now where most people have said what they wanted to say. What normally happens in these situations is people start to repeat themselves, stating the same arguments or asserting the same facts - sometimes in a hope to convince the other side.

As I said in the beginning of this thread, it's extremely unlikely that people will change what they believe - so people will keep debating and arguing until someone steps over the line and ends up getting nasty.. that's when it degenerates into name calling or personal attacks.

So please, (not directing this at anyone), remember to think before you press the submit button and if there's nothing new to add, then let the thread age naturally and go the way of all other threads when they reach their logical conclusion.

It's been a very interesting discussion! Thanks to all who contributed.