The problem with home education is that the tutor is only as educated as their own knowledge/what's provided by the province/state/government/schoolboard/whathaveyou. Within the context that the parents or home tutor is teaching material they believe to be true is irresponsible, whether or not THEY believe their child is being taught correctly is irrelevant when multitudes of researched information is made available and peer-reviewed. The parents/guardians are subjecting their children to believe in fantasy as fact; someone could easily teach/indoctrinate their offspring to believe that, say, everything written by R.A.Salvatore or any Forgotten Realms author to be nothing short of pure undeniable fact.

It's unfair, I know, to compare Salvatore to any bible, but the comparison is legit enough. We know we can't conjure light with a couple of words, at least none that's been discovered, raise the dead, cast lightning from a stick of wood because in a world governed within reality they're not possible. Neither is creating a man from dust and woman from a rib, having them sex it up and create the entirety of man. Chromosomes would clash and we'd have degenerated mutants running around.

Speaking about teaching fiction to children is dumb enough let alone trying to say to them the bible offers a strong base for morals. Check out Exodus 2:11+ Moses sees one of his people being 'smited' by another individual - stabs him and books-it-the-fuck-out of town. Later hides out by a well and marries some farmers daughter. In the end made famous for the Ten Commandments, the parting of the Red Sea and killing more people. Strong moral basis - blatant murder when the situation could've been resolved much more easily, at least, to incapacitation, running from the scene of the crime and trying to make things like nothing ever happened. Apparently, he was absolved of this when he trekked through the desert but how would that make anything better? Say you're sorry to the sky and all's well.

Cowardice.

Written by Dragosani Kain on 21.03.2010 at 03:49

Speaking about teaching fiction to children is dumb enough let alone trying to say to them the bible offers a strong base for morals. Check out Exodus 2:11+ Moses sees one of his people being 'smited' by another individual - stabs him and books-it-the-fuck-out of town. Later hides out by a well and marries some farmers daughter. In the end made famous for the Ten Commandments, the parting of the Red Sea and killing more people. Strong moral basis - blatant murder when the situation could've been resolved much more easily, at least, to incapacitation, running from the scene of the crime and trying to make things like nothing ever happened. Apparently, he was absolved of this when he trekked through the desert but how would that make anything better? Say you're sorry to the sky and all's well.

There is a huge difference between what is recorded in the Bible and what it actually teachers. Could you please show me where it says that Moses murdering is a good thing?

Written by akatana on 21.03.2010 at 11:29

There is a difference in believing things that are not supported by any evidence (religion) and believing in things that are supported by a mountain of evidence (science). Science can be wrong, science does not say anything is 100% true (except in mathematics), but what science says is that given the current level of knowledge and the evidence gathered so far, this is the most probable explanation for it. Telling your kids that the earth is flat, is pure belief, telling your kids the scientific view is not.

Of course I agree but I was trying to make a point that the parents who do teach their kids their truth believe it is true. That's why they teach it, I believe.

Written by Dane Train on 21.03.2010 at 15:08
There is a huge difference between what is recorded in the Bible and what it actually teachers. Could you please show me where it says that Moses murdering is a good thing?

I never stated that the murder was described as a good thing, but that it was Moses who presented the Commandments (foundation of christian morality) presumably issued by god himself; a man who is guilty of murder becoming the icon of the controversial divine laws. It was an ironic example. Hands stained with blood holding up the tablets describing divine law which decrees "Ye shall commit no murder", but, of course, semantics and 'religious truths' are far too ambiguous and will lead to run-around arguments;-- It's kind of like having a pedophile teach children sex-ed.

My point being: it could have easily be some water fetcher in Bangledesh that brought forth the tenets that all the faithful should follow and not from the hands of vengeance. From a 'purer' source, an upstanding chap that never hurt a fly, very altruistic

Written by Clintagräm on 21.03.2010 at 21:20

Written by akatana on 21.03.2010 at 11:29

There is a difference in believing things that are not supported by any evidence (religion) and believing in things that are supported by a mountain of evidence (science). Science can be wrong, science does not say anything is 100% true (except in mathematics), but what science says is that given the current level of knowledge and the evidence gathered so far, this is the most probable explanation for it. Telling your kids that the earth is flat, is pure belief, telling your kids the scientific view is not.

Of course I agree but I was trying to make a point that the parents who do teach their kids their truth believe it is true. That's why they teach it, I believe.

Thats A WHOLE nother' ballgame, fellar'. You're moving on to philosophy here, man. Their truth? This is the same thing that Bill O'Reilly tried to smear in Richard Dawkins face. Of course, he failed horribly. Either something is true or it isn't.

I believe in fairies, but that doesn't mean we should teach that in school, does it?

Now I'm going outside to water the garden and check on my invisible fairies.

By the way, I was so proud walking in this little Elementary School the other day. There were little posters on the wall, that the kids coloured, describing the evolution of life. That made my day.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 23.03.2010 at 17:21

...

Go ahead and try and convince one of the faithful their truth is wrong. It's like trying to get your dirty undies back from a bunch of nihilists. Pretty impossible. I'd reckon it's the same with us. But their kids are their kids and they'll teach them the truth that they want. And yes, to them, it is truth.

Written by Clintagräm on 23.03.2010 at 17:24

Written by TheBigRossowski on 23.03.2010 at 17:21

...

Go ahead and try and convince one of the faithful their truth is wrong. It's like trying to get your dirty undies back from a bunch of nihilists. Pretty impossible. But I'd reckon it's the same with us. But their kids are their kids and they'll teach them the truth what they want. And yes, to them, it is truth.

Oh believe me, I will. I have some plans when I go back home. We're actually going to New Mexico though and I plan to visit a few churches, do some personal surveys, etc.

We'll see what happens!

Written by TheBigRossowski on 23.03.2010 at 17:21

By the way, I was so proud walking in this little Elementary School the other day. There were little posters on the wall, that the kids coloured, describing the evolution of life. That made my day.

yeah, it's a good thing kids are being taught from an early age things that make sense and aren't fed fairy tales as "the absolute truth".

also i was pretty surprised when i first heard about the creationism vs. evolutionism debate. to be totally honest i grew up thinking that everyone was of the same opinion. until i was 16 or so i've never heard ANYONE contradict evolution, not even from my elementary school religious education teacher. both her and my religious education teacher in 10th grade(who was a great guy), told us that the 6 day creation was a metaphor for the geological ages. while that wouldn't make sense to me as i was an atheist(i still am an atheist of sorts), i do appreciate their understanding of the scientific facts and not clinging to, in every sense of the word, outdated beliefs.

i hate to bring up religion in here again, but it's an extremely good thing they taught us that, because in a sense i guess they realized the fact that the God or Gods that people worship(and in which they put their faith), do not want you to remain stupid, miserable, ridden with disease and illiterate. science can help us in that, and if there is/was a creating force that magically caused our universe to come into being, science is simply the study of its creation.

(in this following paragraph the "you" is used in general terms, i'm certainly not referring to you personally, but to people who disregard the basic science of evolution)

in the end if you reject the results of observed scientific progress and the means that brought us to this level of scientific advancement, you reject the laws which were created by a creating force, and consequently (since the laws which we have discovered to be true through the scientific method are observable and repeatable), it means that you reject the actual existence of a creating force, however you might call it, God, Allah, Krishna etc. and so you are in fact a little antichrist in your own twisted way.

i simply cannot see how a person with normal intelligence capacity and without a shallow motive such as personal profit not be able to understand that, and, given that the person isn't still malevolent deep inside, take action.

Written by Valentin B on 24.03.2010 at 21:36

...

I think you put it really well and in user friendly terms, if you know what I mean. The right way to connect with people is not to call them stupid, but to make them understand it in their own way and belief system. Luckily I think a lot of people do that, but I'm sure a lot of people don't.

However, an anecdote about when I was in elementary/primary school. I was in the fourth grade (so I was about nine years old I think) and we had a substitute teacher. Somehow we got on about dinosaurs and the age of the Earth. Our substitute went on a long winded spiel about how she believed the earth was only four to six thousand years old and dinosaurs were engineered by the government. Even when I was in fourth grade I knew she was wrong. Luckily I never saw her again and that was the only instance of that sort for me in school.

Written by Clintagräm on 25.03.2010 at 00:05

Written by Valentin B on 24.03.2010 at 21:36

...

I think you put it really well and in user friendly terms, if you know what I mean. The right way to connect with people is not to call them stupid, but to make them understand it in their own way and belief system. Luckily I think a lot of people do that, but I'm sure a lot of people don't.

However, an anecdote about when I was in elementary/primary school. I was in the fourth grade (so I was about nine years old I think) and we had a substitute teacher. Somehow we got on about dinosaurs and the age of the Earth. Our substitute when on a long winded spiel about how she believed the earth was only four to six thousand years old and dinosaurs were engineered by the government. Even when I was in fourth grade I knew she was wrong. Luckily I never saw her again and that was the only instance of that sort for me in school.

yeah, i forgot to mention my religious education teacher in the second half of the 10th grade. she said that the theory of evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin denied it to his death, and all sorts of other crap. man, i wish i could go back and barge in that class and show her how simple the evolution concept is.

i guess, like with the Flat Earth society, there will always exist people like that, no matter how conclusive and tangible the evidence is.

And what about the seventh day when god said ''whooaaa, I am pooped guys, I'm just gonna go take a nap''?

And then they don't think about cosmology and what we know of the Universe. The church will always search ways to connect the bible to science. Ah, god said ''let there be light!''... of course, that was right after the Big Bang.

Here is the Joseph Smith translation of the creation. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/1 things are a little more in order, and the story is also quite interesting, especially with Cain and Satan.

I've always thought that religion and science were synonymous. Obviously much of scripture is symbolic, and a lot of it is just falsely translated. There are plenty of scientific laws that have not been discovered by us, and I think the belief that these laws do exist allow one to combine everything he knows about the two topics without any contradictions. For example, if God is talking to people 5000 years ago, he's not going to tell them "And I saw that eventually men evolved into what they are now..." etc. If one does believe in God, it is incumbent upon him to learn as much about science as he possibly can...starting with the formation of protostars...and so forth. In turn, he will receive a greater understanding of what/who God is.

Of all the theories of how we and this earth came to be, the scientific ones are the most important and the most relevant. But the belief that there are higher laws that govern the ones we currently understand is essential for future learning. To not believe this, means that we already know all there is to know. That's no more ignorant than believing the earth was really created in 6 earthly days.

Written by Konrad on 26.03.2010 at 19:31

..Of all the theories of how we and this earth came to be, the scientific ones are the most important and the most relevant. But the belief that there are higher laws that govern the ones we currently understand is essential for future learning. To not believe this, means that we already know all there is to know. That's no more ignorant than believing the earth was really created in 6 earthly days.

Essential for future learning is definitely an overstatement. Today we can really begin to pin a date on the origins of religion. It is at least somewhere between 30,000-50,000 years old if not older. As humans had an understanding of the ''self'', they could then begin to question the things they could not see or couldn't begin to comprehend. Hence, polytheism and then eventually the modern monotheistic religions.

Science (I'm generalizing here) doesn't say, we know everything, but we certainly do know a lot more than people knew 5000 years ago. We know that quantum fluctuations alone could have been powerful enough to create a universe...or multiverses. People can view this as genesis from a supernatural being if they want to, that's fine with me. However, they cannot tie these beliefs to Jesus and the Bible or Muhammad and the Koran. And that is the part I define as ignorance.

I like your statements, however I do think that evolution (especially evolution of the mind) takes place at certain, direct times. Meaning...mutations happen over broad periods of time but there is definitely a first time for everything. I don't want to say that Jesus and Muhammad or Ghandi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are mutations per se, but I do think they started a very new and revolutionary way of thinking for people. If people understand this, and want to connect it to the broad spectrum of nature, God, or how we came to be I don't necessarily see that as ignorance. I mean...if worshiping the sun or moon or a pair of tennis shoes makes one a better person and gives them true happiness...I can't bash it. Forcing beliefs on others, or judging people is where I see a lot of ignorance, because prejudice and fear come from not only lack of understanding, but refusal to understand. Forcing people not to believe something is just as ignorant as forcing them to believe it. People should do whatever the hell they want, believe whatever the hell they want, and worship whatever the hell they want...as long as it doesn't have any type of force on anyone else they encounter they are okay with me.

Written by Konrad on 28.03.2010 at 04:55

Forcing people not to believe something is just as ignorant as forcing them to believe it.

agreed on that

the problem imo is...your opinions are formed a lot in childhood according to what you are taught by parents, in school, etc...so if your parents are fanatic believers, it is more probable you will be too as in atheist family (although of course it is possible, that atheists' ascendant will become strong believer, it isnt common)...it will be good, if man could be "empty page" till 18 (or by you until 21) and then we can tell him "you are now free to think what you want and choose the path you want to follow", but it simply isnt possible

Actually Evolution is very very strong as a fact,
but the details are most less known.
Let's say Neo-Lamraksism versus Neo-Darwinsim...
SOme believe the body actually does react and change at levels according to the environment.

Written by Konrad on 28.03.2010 at 04:55

I like your statements, however I do think that evolution (especially evolution of the mind) takes place at certain, direct times. Meaning...mutations happen over broad periods of time but there is definitely a first time for everything. I don't want to say that Jesus and Muhammad or Ghandi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are mutations per se, but I do think they started a very new and revolutionary way of thinking for people. If people understand this, and want to connect it to the broad spectrum of nature, God, or how we came to be I don't necessarily see that as ignorance. I mean...if worshiping the sun or moon or a pair of tennis shoes makes one a better person and gives them true happiness...I can't bash it. Forcing beliefs on others, or judging people is where I see a lot of ignorance, because prejudice and fear come from not only lack of understanding, but refusal to understand. Forcing people not to believe something is just as ignorant as forcing them to believe it. People should do whatever the hell they want, believe whatever the hell they want, and worship whatever the hell they want...as long as it doesn't have any type of force on anyone else they encounter they are okay with me.

Very well said, man! Especially the part about forcing people not to believe in something, etc.. I'm a very tolerant person...or at least as I see things, however, there are also boundaries to be met. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude and across this line, YOU DO NOT...(cross).

22% of Americans believe that Jesus will come back at some point during there lives. Another 22% believe that he will probably come back in their time. I would like to say, hey, it's all great, believe what you want...but the truth is, people kill over this stuff.

When I look at the bigger picture though, a world absent of spirituality might be a bit scarier. People may always have reasons for this brutality regardless which ideology they're following.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 29.03.2010 at 18:18

Written by Konrad on 28.03.2010 at 04:55

I like your statements, however I do think that evolution (especially evolution of the mind) takes place at certain, direct times. Meaning...mutations happen over broad periods of time but there is definitely a first time for everything. I don't want to say that Jesus and Muhammad or Ghandi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are mutations per se, but I do think they started a very new and revolutionary way of thinking for people. If people understand this, and want to connect it to the broad spectrum of nature, God, or how we came to be I don't necessarily see that as ignorance. I mean...if worshiping the sun or moon or a pair of tennis shoes makes one a better person and gives them true happiness...I can't bash it. Forcing beliefs on others, or judging people is where I see a lot of ignorance, because prejudice and fear come from not only lack of understanding, but refusal to understand. Forcing people not to believe something is just as ignorant as forcing them to believe it. People should do whatever the hell they want, believe whatever the hell they want, and worship whatever the hell they want...as long as it doesn't have any type of force on anyone else they encounter they are okay with me.

Very well said, man! Especially the part about forcing people not to believe in something, etc.. I'm a very tolerant person...or at least as I see things, however, there are also boundaries to be met. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude and across this line, YOU DO NOT...(cross).

22% of Americans believe that Jesus will come back at some point during there lives. Another 22% believe that he will probably come back in their time. I would like to say, hey, it's all great, believe what you want...but the truth is, people kill over this stuff.

When I look at the bigger picture though, a world absent of spirituality might be a bit scarier. People may always have reasons for this brutality regardless which ideology they're following.

and dude...chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature...it's asian american. Please.

I bet if you asked people in a Christian nation 500 years ago whether Jesus would come in their lifetime, the same amount of people would have said yes. Maybe even a bit more or a bit less. I think that's normal...for people to want to feel a part of something, or to live in a special time (even though it's great to live at all).

You're right though, dude, people killing over anything or these self-fulfilled prophecies are insane. All that shit is crazy...8 year olds dude.

Everyone just needs a copy of ''Evolving God'' from Barbara King and a short lecture on evolution.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 31.03.2010 at 13:34

Everyone just needs a copy of ''Evolving God'' from Barbara King and a short lecture on evolution.

I read a short synopsis and I was wondering if you had read it? If so, how much does she rely on primatological research for the foundation of her points?

Written by Clintagräm on 31.03.2010 at 21:09

Written by TheBigRossowski on 31.03.2010 at 13:34

Everyone just needs a copy of ''Evolving God'' from Barbara King and a short lecture on evolution.

I read a short synopsis and I was wondering if you had read it? If so, how much does she rely on primatological research for the foundation of her points?

Yeah, but I'm not finished with it yet. That is her field of research, but she gets sidetracked a bit with current issues and doesn't merely rely on her studies. For example, there is one chapter about America and Science and she could have done without it because it draws away from her research.

It's basically like she said she could get us a toe by three o'clock, with nail polish. She got us the toe at 3, alright...but there was no nail polish. You know what I mean, man?

Written by TheBigRossowski on 02.04.2010 at 17:49

Yeah, but I'm not finished with it yet. That is her field of research, but she gets sidetracked a bit with current issues and doesn't merely rely on her studies. For example, there is one chapter about America and Science and she could have done without it because it draws away from her research.

It's basically like she said she could get us a toe by three o'clock, with nail polish. She got us the toe at 3, alright...but there was no nail polish. You know what I mean, man?

I do. Far fucking out.

A great read on this subject is Richard Dawkins. I recommend his writings to believers and non-believers alike.

Written by SilentScream on 03.04.2010 at 18:13

A great read on this subject is Richard Dawkins. I recommend his writings to believers and non-believers alike.

Sad thing is most believers won't be able to read a book with his name on the cover with an open mind.
Partly understandable, a broad understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, especially if applied to memes will probably induce deep doubts about god's necessity.

Written by [user id=104505] on 03.04.2010 at 22:14

Written by SilentScream on 03.04.2010 at 18:13

A great read on this subject is Richard Dawkins. I recommend his writings to believers and non-believers alike.

Sad thing is most believers won't be able to read a book with his name on the cover with an open mind.
Partly understandable, a broad understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, especially if applied to memes will probably induce deep doubts about god's necessity.

well, i'd say that the laws of the universe as we know may not require a creator, but they surely don't specifically point AGAINST the idea of one. there is a big difference. i think someone with a reasonable mind shouldn't be too bothered when reading a book that explains evolution as long as it's not biased against or deliberately offensive to their faith. if the arguments aren't based on our current knowledge and go into subjectivity(as in, when the line is crossed and the author starts presenting his own opinion as a fact) that's when people should stop reading the book.

also imo, as an analogy, asking a devout Christian to read a book called "The God Delusion" would be as offensive as trying to make him listen to something along the lines of Slayer's "Disciple". you can't really expect someone who is "deluded" to begin with to follow through. Richard Dawkins might be a smart dude, but i don't think preaching Atheism to non-atheists is a good thing(objectively speaking it's exactly like preaching Christianity). in my opinion Richard Dawkins is almost certainly as "deluded"(it's his word, not mine) as the Pope or the Patriarch of Moscow. all these 3 guys propagate and are extremely strong supporters of certain beliefs about the nature or existence of a creating force outside of our physical world with nothing but assumptions and maybe some fancy old texts. THAT is a delusion if i know the right definition of the word.

when it comes to religion or spirituality, concepts which by definition do not have anything to do with this world, i think everyone should follow his own direction and not try to impose anything on others or try to profit in any way from it. that's why i think Dawkins is wrong when he goes outside of science and starts making assumptions(yeah, that's what they are) about the nature of a creator and its supposed intelligent design system.

you might say it's a normal reaction from seeing how many incredibly ignorant people still believe dinosaur bones were put there to test your faith in the old testament or that the earth is flat and 6000 years old, but it's still unjustified to impose your own religious views on other people. these kinda people need to face the facts, and if they ignore them, they're stupid and if they start causing damage to society they should be outright indoctrinated with the scientific facts. but as far as personal beliefs go, there is no-one in this world who should force you to believe anything outside our current realm of knowledge.

Written by Valentin B on 04.04.2010 at 00:53

Written by [user id=104505] on 03.04.2010 at 22:14

Sad thing is most believers won't be able to read a book with his name on the cover with an open mind.
Partly understandable, a broad understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, especially if applied to memes will probably induce deep doubts about god's necessity.

well, i'd say that the laws of the universe as we know may not require a creator, but they surely don't specifically point AGAINST the idea of one. there is a big difference. i think someone with a reasonable mind shouldn't be too bothered when reading a book that explains evolution as long as it's not biased against or deliberately offensive to their faith. if the arguments aren't based on our current knowledge and go into subjectivity(as in, when the line is crossed and the author starts presenting his own opinion as a fact) that's when people should stop reading the book.

also imo, as an analogy, asking a devout Christian to read a book called "The God Delusion" would be as offensive as trying to make him listen to something along the lines of Slayer's "Disciple". you can't really expect someone who is "deluded" to begin with to follow through. Richard Dawkins might be a smart dude, but i don't think preaching Atheism to non-atheists is a good thing(objectively speaking it's exactly like preaching Christianity). in my opinion Richard Dawkins is almost certainly as "deluded"(it's his word, not mine) as the Pope or the Patriarch of Moscow. all these 3 guys propagate and are extremely strong supporters of certain beliefs about the nature or existence of a creating force outside of our physical world with nothing but assumptions and maybe some fancy old texts. THAT is a delusion if i know the right definition of the word.

when it comes to religion or spirituality, concepts which by definition do not have anything to do with this world, i think everyone should follow his own direction and not try to impose anything on others or try to profit in any way from it. that's why i think Dawkins is wrong when he goes outside of science and starts making assumptions(yeah, that's what they are) about the nature of a creator and its supposed intelligent design system.

you might say it's a normal reaction from seeing how many incredibly ignorant people still believe dinosaur bones were put there to test your faith in the old testament or that the earth is flat and 6000 years old, but it's still unjustified to impose your own religious views on other people. these kinda people need to face the facts, and if they ignore them, they're stupid and if they start causing damage to society they should be outright indoctrinated with the scientific facts. but as far as personal beliefs go, there is no-one in this world who should force you to believe anything outside our current realm of knowledge.

We now essentially know how the universe developed from the Planck-Era on, how the Solar System was formed, how life and we came to be and have a basic understanding of how mind and culture derived from the chemistry in our brains. And all that without the need for divine intervention, or even the possibility for it on a measurable scale.

The problem with this is mostly that any book that covers this and does not go to great lengths to avoid touching morality and conciousness related issues is either going to contradict current religious dogma and therefore hurt religious feelings, or will force believers to retreat to a more general concept of god. This does not contradict the concept of god as such, but leaves less room for his intervention and makes it harder to believe in god as a benevolent, caring and intervening being more than just the "force that started it all".

In that sense religion can no longer claim to be out of the realm describable by science. We have a fair understanding of its origins(memes) and its history, have refuted nearly any claim it made about the real world and have a good bunch of examples in which it causes harm or holds back progress in the real world. If one describes these matters with the necessary scientific rigour it cannot be considered preaching or personal opinion. If the facts do not fit believe, the scientist does not have to hold them back but the believer has to deal with them.

People try to discredit especially Richard Dawkins for it, whose book, while of course provocative does not have any major flaws and fallacies as far as factual argumentation is concerned. The "preaching" part, namely the claim that we should dump religion is a falsifyable statement backed up by a good deal of argumentation laid down earlier in the book and not comparable to a dogma which is by definition unquestionable. And also unlike songs like "Disciple" which make the statement but without mentioning the underlying reasoning.

And even on the metaphysical aspects of the debatte Dawkins position is better backed up than the religious ones I've encountered so far. Note that he never claims to know exactly that there is no god but makes an extrapolation from all the stuff we know about the real world an comes to the conclusion that everything points to it and therefore dismisses god as "very, very unlikely". Religious positions on the other hand claim to know exactly what's out there (in the by definition unknowable realm!). At best both positions are equally false, but at last Dawkins does not make the error of claiming infallibility.

One may still disagree with his reasoning, but claiming dogma to have the same value as fact based assumptions and reasoning is simply a cheap cop-out.

Written by [user id=20536] on 15.10.2009 at 06:10
The fun thing is there is no way at all to scientifically prove the specific way things began or didn't begin at all. Macro Evolution itself is just a theory, meaning there is no real scientific evidence to back it up. I think that's the thing that bothers me most when people promoting science say creation can't be taught in school because it has no scientific basis, well neither does macro evolution. The evolutionists are just pushing their own form of fiction on the masses.

You posted this in "The Religion and Spirituality Thread" but my reply is more fitting under this topic. I hope you don't mind me cross-quoting between threads.

I usually don't enter discussions like these, but I was really bored so I addressed some points:

"Macro evolution" is a buzzword that is misused to try to downplay evolutionary science. The process of these so-called "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are exactly the same, the only difference is time-span. These terms are not used by serious and honest scientists in the way you think they mean it. The processes are identical, only the scope of study is different between them. I don't mean to sound rude but if you think they are somehow separate concepts, and especially if you think micro evolution is valid but macro evolution isn't, then you have not understood what the theory of evolution states at all. You might want to look it up again (although I'm pretty sure you won't).

And the fact that you mentioned the common "it's just a theory" fallacy demonstrates that you don't even know what a scientific theory is. It is baffling how many people are completely oblivious about the difference between the lay-man's theory and a scientific theory. Theory alone in the common language usually means something like an educated guess at best but that is NOT what scientific theories are. In science a theory is a collection or rather a model of concepts about how things are demonstrably operating in reality. Scientific theories are the goals of the scientific process and once something becomes a theory it cannot be "promoted" any higher. Calling scientific theories "just theories" is meaningless and misleading, since it's the highest state. A scientific theory is something that is demonstrably true, supported by all related tangible evidence and the statements/models included within it are repeatable by anyone.

Creationism/ID on the other hand has no basis in scientific process nor solid logic. It operates mostly on assumptions, shallow and reverse logic and offers no tangible evidence so it cannot be called scientific in any sense of the word, it is a religious view. The "facts" that creationism claims have not gone through testing or verification, simply because the evidence is intangible/untestable and thus disposable as nothing but a "cool" idea. To me it is completely absurd and repulsive that people are trying to get it taught in schools as some kind of science. Education and science are not about learning things that require "faith" (belief without evidence), that's what churches are for. I'm all for teaching about what the different kinds of religious views are around the world, I think people should know about things like that. However, when unscientific thought-masturbation like creationism is being pushed to science classes, then it is simply fucked up (although I'm very glad it's being systematically destroyed by court cases). Might as well teach solipsism as a science on the side if your standards of what constitutes as proof are that extreme. Creationism is also not an alternative to evolution, nor is it an alternative to any science. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, it says nothing about anything else.

I'd also want to note that "evolutionism" is a nonsensical word used almost exclusively by creationists to make it seem like an ideology. The term makes as much sense as "gravityist". Evolution has nothing to do with any "isms" because it's not an ideology, a doctrine, nor a world view (which you probably think it is). Nobody "believes" or has "faith" in evolution nor does anyone live by any sorts of "evolutionary tenets" (well I guess there possibly can be people like that, but they'd be very retarded). It's simply a model that all rational people accept because it has been demonstrated to work and continues to be backed by evidence. The point is that science works, and if a part of it is found to be incomplete or flawed, scientific models will openly change to more accurately reflect reality and what has been demonstrated. Science requires actual results, not faith.

Equating science to religious views is either a result of a very flawed/prejudiced understanding of the scientific process or a deliberate attempt at promoting a religious agenda. And if someone thinks evolution has not been proven, I view that person in the same light as someone who thinks gravity has not been proven. The stances are equal, and equally ridiculous.

Wow this turned out to be a bit more lengthy than I expected...

Written by Valentin B on 04.04.2010 at 00:53

also imo, as an analogy, asking a devout Christian to read a book called "The God Delusion" would be as offensive as trying to make him listen to something along the lines of Slayer's "Disciple". you can't really expect someone who is "deluded" to begin with to follow through.

Hmm...interesting statement. I own a copy of "The God Delusion" and have read it twice. I also own every album by Slayer. Just thought I would toss that out there.

Written by Valentin B on 04.04.2010 at 00:53

also imo, as an analogy, asking a devout Christian to read a book called "The God Delusion" would be as offensive as trying to make him listen to something along the lines of Slayer's "Disciple". you can't really expect someone who is "deluded" to begin with to follow through.

I think it might be more possible how making a devout atheist read the New Testament... or listen to something like liturgical choral music...

Written by Ernis on 21.06.2010 at 20:42

Written by Valentin B on 04.04.2010 at 00:53

also imo, as an analogy, asking a devout Christian to read a book called "The God Delusion" would be as offensive as trying to make him listen to something along the lines of Slayer's "Disciple". you can't really expect someone who is "deluded" to begin with to follow through.

I think it might be more possible how making a devout atheist read the New Testament... or listen to something like liturgical choral music...

that might be true, atheists usually become so by choice. and when you have already made your choice as opposed to many christians who just "go with the flow" nowadays, as in they go with whatever they were taught when they were little, atheists are more stubborn. it does depend on the individual, if i wanted to read the NT it would almost certainly be only as a sci-fi book and i don't mind choir music(i actually have the gregorian chant cover album, great great music). on the other hand there's also the typical 16 year-old "modern metalhead norse-loving atheist"

i think this is quite offtopic though