Kansas moves to faith-based science

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>you might not be part of that group, but some christians will
>argue that means you really are not a christian at all......

And I should care about that . . . why?

you shouldnt, but you should be aware they lump you under their banner and count you as a card carrying member when they lobby for things like this Kanas sillyness..

i am fortunate enough to know a number of 'christians' who will accept that the bible isnt the 'be all end all' in divine words and that there is a great deal of wisdom and truth in other religions..they are the minority... if i had a nickle for every 'christian' who has told me i was "wrong, damned and going to hell" for not believing every single word of their literature as the "One True Way" i wouldnt be at work today, or any day in the last several years....

if i were you, as a rational being, i'd be looking for a 'title' other than 'christian' because the zealots and nutcases have long since coopted your religion for themselves...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

f i were you, as a rational being, i'd be looking for a 'title' other than 'christian' because the zealots and nutcases have long since coopted your religion for themselves...

well the label "christian" for people who accept Jesus as the Messiah. If there's some zealots & nutcases out there, just remember that a large part of Christ's early ministry concerned people who follow the letter of God's law, but not its spirit. ie, they follow all the ceremonies, but do so in prideful way, & the way they deal with others shows that they are actually cold-hearted bigots.

Sometimes Jesus would for example deliberately break the rules of the Sabbath just to put things in perspective for them.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[philh 0]

There seems to be a lot of discussion on how sceince and religion should be seperate and they dont necessarily conflict. But it is surely obvious that the bible gives us an account of our history that is totally at odds with reality as understood by science. For instance the bible claims the sun , the stars and the moon were created after the creation of day and night, light, the oceans, and plants. This is in complete contradiciton to the scientific evidence. You can define 1 biblical day as a literal day or an epoch. It makes no difference , one is right and the other is wrong. You can choose based on evidence or based on dogma, but you have to choose.

[nathaniel 0]

I read this article and it all of a sudden occurred to me that the idea of intelligent design could be compatible with evolution, if evolutionary tendencies led to cellular "intelligence", which in turn led to better evolution.

It's certainly not what Kansas has in mind.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[philh 0]

The question is not "is it compatible with evolution" the question is, is there evidence to support such a proposition. In case of ID the answer is a clear no.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

f i were you, as a rational being, i'd be looking for a 'title' other than 'christian' because the zealots and nutcases have long since coopted your religion for themselves...

well the label "christian" for people who accept Jesus as the Messiah. If there's some zealots & nutcases out there, just remember that a large part of Christ's early ministry concerned people who follow the letter of God's law, but not its spirit. ie, they follow all the ceremonies, but do so in prideful way, & the way they deal with others shows that they are actually cold-hearted bigots.

oh i completely agree... but would add that (IME) there are far more 'members of a christian church' than there are actual christians..

it isnt the teachings of christ that are the problem, it is what the church has done with them in the name of power, influence and control for the last 2000 years....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Channman 2]

YEA, WHAT HE SAID

You purty smart

[billvon 2,434]

>i'd be looking for a 'title' other than 'christian' because the zealots
>and nutcases have long since coopted your religion for themselves...

The only person who has to be OK with that 'title' are me and the people I know from my church. And none of them are zealots or nutcases, so it works for us.

[philh 0]

The teachings of Christ are the problem. For example in John 15,6 Jesus says that non believers shall be cast in the fire and burnt like sitcks. is it any wonder then that Christians through the ages have used violence in the name of Jesus? Such a quote was used to justify the burning of countless opponents of the church. If jesus could see the future and condemmed such acitivity then perhaps he could have made a law saying though shalt not kill in my name. Instead he encouraged the opposite. His teachings are the problem, not just his intolerant followers.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

There seems to be a lot of discussion on how sceince and religion should be seperate and they dont necessarily conflict. But it is surely obvious that the bible gives us an account of our history that is totally at odds with reality as understood by science.

Yes because the Bible is not a science text book. And it should notbe used as one.

The first 5 books (the pentateuch) were written in ancient times, and the scientific knowledge at that time was very primitive. They explain creation at that level in the way they understood it at that time.

The point is not to give the reader scientific information, the point is to make the reader understand that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, regardless of the physically-describable mechanisms that occurred during that creation.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[philh 0]

But if the account of creation in the bible is shown to incorrect - and it is - then why should we consider it to be anyhting other than the myths of ancient men?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

God is responsible for the creation of the universe

You might be able to live with that (and that's O.K) but I cann't... no way

I personally couldn't even go for... a god could be responsible for the creation of the universe.
.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[blueVTsky 0]

People, People;
We should remember that most of these discussions are subject to the vagaries of semantics. Also keep in mind that there are as many realities as there are minds to perceive it. We all have a belief system to explain the information which we get through our senses, whether it be science or religion based. Each belief system has its merits. Many wars are fought over ideology both political and military.Peoples belief systems are the one thing most will die to protect- for it is the very thing which makes for a conscious being. I for one consider myself a scientist at the same time an existentialist, but I'm not gonna tell any of you to think the same way. Thats your business not mine and certainly not the governments'.

[billvon 2,434]

>Also keep in mind that there are as many realities as there are minds to perceive it.

This, in a nutshell, is phenomenology - the belief that what is real is what is perceived. Phenomenologists believe that there is no concrete truth, that if one person perceives a color as red that it really is red even if someone else thinks it's green. In other words, if you are colorblind, red and green are really the same color.

And while it's an interesting philosophical exercise, most engineers/scientists/mathemeticians/doctors (i.e. people who rely on the real world to act a certain way) find it useless. Because again, light doesn't care whether you perceive it as red or not. A beam of light with a wavelength of 650 nanometers remains at 650 nanometers whether you think it's red or green. It has the same energy per photon, same refractory characteristics etc as another beam of light at 650 nanometers.

Now, most people will perceive this beam as red light. Someone with colorblindness might perceive it to be the same as a beam of light with wavelength 510 nanometers, because they cannot distinguish the two. But if that colorblind person does experiments on that beam, he will discover that it really isn't the same as a beam of red light - that green light (i.e. light with a wavelength of 510 nm) really is different. His perception is faulty, not the beam of light.

The physical world doesn't really respect your philosophical views, or the limitations of your senses, or your perceptions of physics, biology, or even religion. It just is. If we teach engineers and doctors that the physical world is real, and that it can be observed, predicted, and tested via the mechanisms of science, then we will get good doctors and engineers. If we teach them that any belief system is valid - hey, prayer alone might cure people! - then we will get doctors who believe that chicken bones can predict the course of a disease, and engineers whose bridges fall down when God fails to intervene to prevent the failure of a poor design. This is to be avoided if possible for the good of society.

Now, if we are educating students in Medieval English Literature, it doesn't much matter what their belief system is, and indeed people with an inflexible belief system (i.e. ones that believe the earth is flat, or that womem were created from men's ribs) may be better off in such a field. But some avocations cannot afford to sacrifice an understanding of the real world to support their specific belief system, if that belief system leads them to reject parts of the real world for a supernatural one.

>I for one consider myself a scientist at the same time an existentialist,
> but I'm not gonna tell any of you to think the same way. Thats your
> business not mine and certainly not the governments'.

Well, except the government _does_ have a role in deciding what to teach in schools, since we have public education. And I believe they should teach science rather than religion in science class. Leave creation stories for religion classes.

[blueVTsky 0]

I completely agree with what you are saying about the governments role in dictating curriculum....In the sixth grade, I was in a Catholic school- the science teacher was not a nun and they forced her to put a religion question on a Biology test.....I was furious and answered the question "religion is a waste of time" man, that blew their minds!!! I was lectured to for a week, which just served to piss me off more!..so I can relate. But when you are determining that science is the definitive way of explaining reality remember that you are talking to an existentialist, reality is subjective and a slippery slope at best....Science deals with theory in many cases which is a form of faith based thought ....pending proof by scientific means. Have you checked out String Theory? That my friend is some freaky shit,talk about faith based science. The point which we agree on is ANY tyranny which controls peoples thought is dangerous. As was said in The Matrix."free your mind".

[philh 0]

Sceince is not a faith based belief system. No one ever got a phd becuase they said in ther viva that they had faith in their thesis. No scientific paper was ever published because the author or editor had faith that it was true, Phds are awarded, papers published because there is evdidence to support someone thesis.
In the case of string theory your example proves that rigour of science. String theory has very elegant logic and maths behind it. But as yet there is no experminetal verfiication of string theory and so it is not accepted as anyhting other than a possible , but not yet firm, description of nature. Scientists are searching for ways to test their theories. You do not fidn the same critical thinking in religion and that is why it is a sham.

[blueVTsky 0]

Ok, again I think we are dealing a bit with semantics. when I say "faith"in this discussion I don't mean religeous faith as in lets say... right wing conservative christian faith , um...for example,I mean that at some point even a scientist must rely on hopeful speculation leading to a theory, leading to the proof stage whether mathematical or by lab testing. Allow me to use skydiving as an example....I apply scientific principals in my everyday life including packing my parachute;each line, each fold, each seam has its place as dictated by historically successful testing and deployments- science. However when I reach for that hacky and pull....while I am waiting for line stretch I am not thinking about every kaotic atom in the air interacting properly with the fibers of my container/canopy just because I packed the thing scientifically, I have to go somewhere else in my mind...Faith -that the bugger is going to unravel the right way. *** In the case of Science V. Religion, the court finds that religion shall stay 200 ft away from science at all times.

[philh 0]

The standard definition of faith is belief without evidence. As far as a canopy goes. Well, there is evdience on two fronts. One the prinicples of the parachute are consistent with known laws of nature ie it should work. Second, the chances of a parachute not working are slim ie there is emperical evidence that it does work. without this I know I would not jump. Anyone that believes in the definition of faith outlined above I invite them to jump without a rig and see if jesus was right when he said anything is possible for those that have faith in him.

[tmontana 0]

Saw this comic strip and thought it was appropriate

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19060

___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[Deuce 1]

OK Bill, after a nice meal with flyangel1 I am back in the Corner.

What proof do we have of evolution? That said, I do not contend that Darwin was wrong, and creationism is not the reality, but what fact do we have that prove that.

I am really exited by the human genome project. I want to know what the difference is between selection and mutation.

Right now, I don't know that there is any difference, other than dogma.

Does the human or any other genome allow for mutation, evolution?

As far as I know, nobody knows right now.

Stir it up.

-People in high UV areas tend to develop cancers, not evolutions. Right? or Wrong. I'm completely open.

[billvon 2,434]

>What proof do we have of evolution?

Fossil proof. We have long lines of fossils that show the skeletal changes as we evolve. (Soft tissues usually aren't preserved.)

Living fossils. We have living intermediate stages that evolved more slowly than other, more developed species, like the coelacanth, the nautilus, the cycads.

Intermediate species. Today we see fish that can breathe air and climb trees, mammals gradually returning to the sea (hippos, manatees) animals gradually losing their "old" equipment (whales losing their pelvises) - all driven by evolution.

Evolution we have seen fairly recently (in terms of geologic time.) The cichlid 'radiation' (rapid adaptation into several niches) that has been seen in Lake Victoria over only about 100,000 years, is one of the most dramatic examples of how fast evolution can occur.

Evolution we have seen in recorded history. We have seen several plants and animals "speciate," or branch off into new species, in the past 200 years or so.

Forced evolution. We bred dogs from wolves. Without any genetic engineering, we used the same forces evolution uses to create dogs from chihuahuas to great danes - and we did it in a few thousand years.

Geologic dating. We have good methods to date rock strata, and can place earlier fossils in the right chronological order. They show the sort of progress you'd expect through competitive pressures and gradual evolutionary development.

Molecular clocks. Through gradual changes in DNA, we can determine how far back our most recent common ancestor was at dozens of branch points (like the human/chimp split, the human/great ape split, the lemur split etc.)

Common genetic construction. The HOX gene complex, for example, shows up (and drives body segment development) in animals from starfish to humans. We use the same basic developmental tools that fruit flys and starlings do.

Alternative genetic codings to give the same basic phenotypical result, driven by the same evolutionary pressures. Different animals have evolved "eyes" (light sensors) separately some 40 times by some biologist's count. Some make more sense than others. Ours eyes aren't actually designed that well; they're backwards. The light sensitive cells are on the back of the retina and the nerves/processors are on the front, so light has to shine through them to reach the light sensors. That leads to blind spots and easily detached retinas. The nautilus, on the other hand, evolved an eye the "right" way - the sensors are on the front side of the retina and the nerves are on the back. Since random chance is at the basis of evolution, such things can happen. Things don't have to work perfectly to be preserved, they just have to work well enough.

>-People in high UV areas tend to develop cancers, not evolutions.
>Right? or Wrong. I'm completely open.

Groups of people who spend a long time (tens of thousands of years) in high UV areas evolve resistance to high UV levels, primarily by increasing the levels of melanin in their skin. That's why African natives look different than Alaskan natives.

How does this happen? Simple developmental pressure. Fair skinned people get skin cancer and die when there's a lot of UV. Dark skinned people don't, so they have more kids. After 10,000 years, everyone has dark skin.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

-People in high UV areas tend to develop cancers, not evolutions. Right? or Wrong. I'm completely open

People in high UV areas tend to be black.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Mutations are random changes. Selection is what happens as those changes are allowed to either survive or not. In neither case is there any kind of willful intent.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

I don't see that the new definition necessarily sponsors or advocates the supernatural as a way to explain anything. It appears to me that all they've done is expound on "seeking natural explanations" by substituting "systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building."

Science and religion are only at odds with each other when fanatics at either end of the spectrum overstep the boundaries that are well understood by most people. Science does not tell people how to live spiritually, and religion does not try to solve the mysteries of the physical world. The Vatican does not deny that Evolution is a fact, and Science does not try to disprove the existence of anyone's chosen diety.

Having Faith and being Logical are not mutually exclusive character traits. People who think so are usually acting out of either ignorance of the distinction between the two or fear that their personal agenda is being threatened.

For the record, I am a hard-core atheist, AND very spiritual. Religion is a group phenomena, spiritualality is individualistic in nature. I do not believe anything like a diety exists, but know better than to say I know that for certain. I respect others who believe otherwise as long as they do not trample on knowledge that is certain.

Aplologies for the longwindedness. Such a complicated topic to make clear how one feels in anything less than a short essay.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,434]

> I don't see that the new definition necessarily sponsors or advocates
>the supernatural as a way to explain anything.

It removes the requirement that natural events have natural causes. "God did it" is now acceptable, provided someone (say, a priest) can provide a valid hypothesis. When you see the other arguments going on during the Kansas State Board of Education meetings it becomes clear why this change is being made:

--------------------
TOPEKA, Kan., May 5 -- Debating a question that the scientific establishment considers settled, Kansas education authorities put evolutionary theory on trial Thursday in a hearing marked by sharp exchanges over Earth's origins and what students should be taught in science class.

Scientists who support the idea of intelligent design, a set of assumptions that challenges established scientific thinking, told an approving Kansas State Board of Education subcommittee that modern Darwinian theory relies too much on unproven reasoning. Gaps in the science, they argued, leave open the possibility that a creator, or an unidentified "designing mind," is responsible for earthly development.

It would not be far-fetched, said William S. Harris, a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design, to conclude that DNA itself is the work of an intelligent being. Students, he said, should be told that.
---------------------