More fodder for the ID-Evolution debate

[OGTEleven]

Okay, lest assume you are correct that some schools somewhere could teach evolution better than they are now.  Did those schools unleash squads of pimpled atheists who were choirboys and girls before they were exposed to this terrible class?

 

I don't think the belief in God is at all imperiled by science class.

404500[/snapback]

Did you read my post from earlier?

[finknottle]

Please explain the difference between agnostic and atheist.  Perhaps I have misunderstood them.

404506[/snapback]

 

It is as likely that I have misunderstood, as I have never been entirely sure.

 

In practical terms, and independent of their actual meanings, I always thought of them as essentially the same, the difference being that agnostic is the less-controversial label you choose when you don't want to be shunned for your non-beliefs.

[OGTEleven]

It is as likely that I have misunderstood, as I have never been entirely sure.

 

In practical terms, and independent of their actual meanings, I always thought of them as essentially the same, the difference being that agnostic is the less-controversial label you choose when you don't want to be shunned for your non-beliefs.

404515[/snapback]

It was/is my understanding that an agnostic is not sure whether God exists but an atheist is sure God does not. I could be wrong about that.

[Typical TBD Guy]

It was/is my understanding that an agnostic is not sure whether God exists but an atheist is sure God does not.  I could be wrong about that.

404520[/snapback]

 

Sounds pretty good, though I'd clarify this a bit by saying that an atheist is one who believes that God doesn't exist, while an agnostic is one who believes that God is inherently unknowable.

[Ghost of BiB]

I took him to be making a sarcastic joke with a buddy who happens to be a scientist.  Maybe I was wrong.

 

If I said birds can fly I would be right.  If I said all birds can fly, I would be wrong.

 

You quoted him in your post and added a word in quotation marks and you're now lecturing me on proper use and meaning.  Classic.

404503[/snapback]

 

 

Thank you. Maybe I should have said ex-chef scientists who work in the pharmaceutical industry. I do however realize that Mick is lawyer, and it's natural and instinctive for him to split hairs and alter context.

[Ghost of BiB]

You need some therapy; the stevestojan you're posting today is toxic. Not just this post, stating that humans have never done anything good, but this whole thread and others. WTF?

404480[/snapback]

 

Maybe we only feel that so much is good because we are the inventors. When you come right down to it, who cares where we came from? We're here now. Some upright ape 2 million years ago didn't invent the polio vaccine, nor the hydrogen bomb. It's irrelevant, except for that "monkey curiosity" we seem to have. What does it matter? Does proving we are an offshoot of some simian tree (or not) actually change anything in our lives?

 

Toxic? What are the ramifications of erradicating all disease, and extending human life? The world can't feed what it has now? more people, more damage to the ecosystem. And through it all, everyone wants to have it all ways. Crap doesn't work that way. If you are going to have more people, you're going to have more deforestation to make space for them. You will also have this thing called wars, which no one seems very fond of. People can say war is about religion all they want, and to an extant that is true - but most often war is about either gaining or defending space. And just how much science and technology has been developed to support war - or to help mitigate or prevent it, vs the amount developed to support peace? Or am I toxic simply because I don't agree with someone? I actually don't agree with anyone here, either side.

[Mickey]

Thank you. Maybe I should have said ex-chef scientists who work in the pharmaceutical industry. I do however realize that Mick is lawyer, and it's natural and instinctive for him to split hairs and alter context.

404581[/snapback]

I can't read your mind, just your words bib and those words were:

 

"Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should."

 

Gee, don't know how I could possibly have read that exactly as it was written in the context of a running discussion of science, religion and faith. A running discussion during which you said things like:

 

"So, I take it as accepted, proven scientific fact that we have descended from a lightning strike in the primordial soup. I guess that's settled. Boy, aren't we an arrogant species."

 

"Just because we have a lot of technology, and a lot of people have graduated from man made schools and done man made experiments and gotten man made results does not mean we know everything."

 

"Have those that are firm die hard believers in evolution taken into account that their manipulation of life skewers the process? Yes, we have the technology and the medicine to keep people alive long past the point they shouldn't be."

 

"Than why have we never, in our history, done it?" [in retort to the notion that technology can be used to right wrongs]

 

"...so many of the intellectual, scientific folk are competing to either build on or dispute someone elses theories and precepts, that they have lost site many times of what might be new"

 

"All this scientific process has degenerated into delving into what someone else has done, taking their work and progress and running the same up another couple notches. Hard to find independant thought, anywhere."

 

Reading it all in one place you: 1) charged scientists with arrogance for believing in a certain theory for the origin of life; 2) opined that scientists aren't as smart as they think they are; 3) offered that science perverts, ie "manipulates" the "process" by which I think you were referring to natural selection; 4) charged that technology has never been used for good; 5) wondered that scientists by and large are no longer capable of independent thought and can't see anything new (such as what? creationism dressed up as "Intelligent Design" is hardly new).

 

I understand that you certainly didn't intend to attack anyone, that is not your style, and were more than likely thinking out loud. All I did initially was to point out that one statement you made was worded as a pretty broad generalization. There was no smart alek attack on you, no wise cracks or any of that. OG started that when he jumped in.

 

Apart from your intentions though, your point was pretty clear and often enough repeated that science and scientists are arrogant, not as smart as they think they are, haven't really done us much good and can't think out of the box. All in all, the idea that you were being critical of scientists as having no conscience seems to me to have been very much in context based on what you wrote:

 

"Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should."

 

Rather than debate your ability to express yourself clearly or my ability to understand you, why not get to the substantive point? What were you trying to say about science and scientists that I understood so wrongly?

[Ghost of BiB]

Why do you care?

[Mickey]

I took him to be making a sarcastic joke with a buddy who happens to be a scientist.  Maybe I was wrong.

 

If I said birds can fly I would be right.  If I said all birds can fly, I would be wrong.

 

You quoted him in your post and added a word in quotation marks and you're now lecturing me on proper use and meaning.  Classic.

404503[/snapback]

I was paraphrasing and should have made that clear rather than to have used quotes. However, I will ask you again to tell me whether you thought "Scientists" as used in the sentence meant one scientist, more than one or most? I took it to mean a reference to the majority of scientists, ie most as the observation would hardly have any relevance if it referred to just a few. At the very least, I think it can be taken as a reference to a significant number of scientists. As for context, Bib has posted many times in this thread and in this discussion has been consistently critical of science and scientists throughout, even going so far as to say that their technology has "never" righted a wrong. I respectfully disagree.

[OGTEleven]

Has anyone considered the idea at all (going back to my "arrogant" remark) that  as intelligent as we seem to think we are (after all, this is the species who gave the world Carrot Top and American Idol, not to mention Being Bobby Brown, and that's just TV) that maybe there just are some things that aren't going to get explained? Better yet, maybe don't need to be? A higher power is not necessarily a grey bearded guy sitting on a thrown surrounded by clouds. Who knows what that might be? I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and neither is anyone else.

 

How many millions of individual processes go on every single second, in perfect synergy and harmony, for any of us to type one post on this board? Look at all the posts devoted to Hunter Kelly, to the point of arguments, when one little tiny thing goes wrong in that process?

 

What ever happened to the wonder, and the faith, and maybe a little humility. There is always religion affiliated with faith - and that is the entire crux of this problem. You have the man invented science in competition with man invented religion.

 

Key point. Man invented.

 

Just because we have a lot of technology, and a lot of people have graduated from man made schools and done man made experiments and gotten man made results does not mean we know everything.

 

I don't know what that higher power is. But, to deny the idea of it's existance means I'm the pinacle of power. If that is true, and I'm the highest power available in this universe...

 

We're seriously screwed.

404314[/snapback]

I think this would have been a great post in an old thread (it's not bad here either).

 

I was pounded from all sides for saying that it is possible that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. The basic premise was that anyone thinking that it is even a possibility is wildly arrogant.

 

If I had to guess would I say we're alone? Not a chance.

 

Is it even a slim possibility? I have to say that since we can't calculate the odds based on our knowledge, we have to think it is a possibility, however slim it might be.

 

Boy did I get ripped.

[OGTEleven]

I was paraphrasing and should have made that clear rather than to have used quotes.  However, I will ask you again to tell me whether you thought "Scientists" as used in the sentence meant one scientist, more than one or most?  I took it to mean a reference to the majority of scientists, ie most as the observation would hardly have any relevance if it referred to just a few.  At the very least, I think it can be taken as a reference to a significant number of scientists.  As for context, Bib has posted many times in this thread and in this discussion has been consistently critical of science and scientists throughout, even going so far as to say that their technology has "never" righted a wrong.  I respectfully disagree.

404809[/snapback]

I took it in full context of this thread and the banter between the two posters. Some banter had gone on in other threads too but this thread's should have been enough. It was for me.

 

It was a joke and I saw it for a joke. Once I saw that, it was unnecessary to determine whether he meant one, some or all.

 

If you only read one or two individual posts and then lash out at the back end of a chain, you can end up looking silly.

[Ghost of BiB]

I took it in full context of this thread and the banter between the two posters.  Some banter had gone on in other threads too but this thread's should have been enough.  It was for me.

 

It was a joke and I saw it for a joke.  Once I saw that, it was unnecessary  to determine whether he meant one, some or all.

 

If you only read one or two individual posts and then lash out at the back end of a chain, you can end up looking silly.

404876[/snapback]

 

Just drop it. Who cares what he thinks, any more than anyone cares what I think. I didn't present a black and white perspective, but questioned whether everything deemed progress is truly progress and also presented the idea that it might just be arrogant to think that we will someday have every answer to any question that can ever be asked, because we're "intelligent". The very concept of maybe not being superior to all seems disagreeable to many, so screw it.

[Mickey]

Why do you care?

404774[/snapback]

A question that could be posed to every poster here about every subject discussed. Quite clearly, both you and I are interested in current topics of the day from politics to science and everything in between. Your 2,000 posts or so under your new name and my thousands of posts seem evidence enough of that.

 

As for this particular issue, as the father of two girls, ages 4 and 6, I am very much interested in science education. When not busy with them, my job or arguing with you, I am usually reading and some of the most fascinating books I have read and often re-read, are those concerning human origins and the growing fossil record of hominids.

 

The idea that at one time there was more than one human species walking around is, to me, endlessly fascinating. We often hear the question posed, "Are we alone in the universe?" As it turns out, we might be alone now but once, right here at home, we had lots of company. As it may turn out however, we apparently killed them all, directly or indirectly. And people say that science is devoid of morality. That seems to be as powerful a moral lesson as any parable I have ever read. The real question is "Have we always been alone?"

[Mickey]

Did you read my post from earlier?

404514[/snapback]

I read some reference to a flying spaghetti monster in a discussion you had with Bluefire and, I think, Run With the Ball. Never heard of it. I'm guessing that some author was comparing belief in God to believing a flying spaghetti monster? Is this something that is found in the curriculum of a lot of school districts?

 

You have charged a number of times in this thread that the way evolution is being taught is leading children to believe that God is a myth. I have never seen any proof of such a thing myslef. I am simply trying to find out if you are basing that charge on real evidence, anecdotal evidence, your own analysis or what. Most surveys show that belief in God in this country is more than prevalent and certainly, evolution is widely taught so I don't see that the poor way in which you say evolution is being taught really is having the result you claim: children believing God is a myth.

 

Here is a link to some info on this Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing: FSM

 

I don't see how that demonstrates anything about how evolution is taught, was there some other post where you used an example of what you are talking about, even if only anecdotal, that I missed?

[Mickey]

I took it in full context of this thread and the banter between the two posters.  Some banter had gone on in other threads too but this thread's should have been enough.  It was for me.

 

It was a joke and I saw it for a joke.  Once I saw that, it was unnecessary  to determine whether he meant one, some or all.

 

If you only read one or two individual posts and then lash out at the back end of a chain, you can end up looking silly.

404876[/snapback]

I didn't read anyother thread on this and, again, the words he used were pretty plain, to attack me for taking them at face value is just silly. Many times on this board someone says somthing meant as a joke, forgets to put in a and the response is to simply say, "sorry, just joking". If that was the case, that there was an inside joke I wasn't getting, that is all you had to say rather than going into nasy mode.

 

As for "lashing out", all I said in that entire post was:

 

"I think that is a really broad generalization"

 

Is that what you consider lashing out??? I see what you mean by looking silly.

[OGTEleven]

I read some reference to a flying spaghetti monster in a discussion you had with Bluefire and, I think, Run With the Ball.  Never heard of it.  I'm guessing that some author was comparing belief in God to believing a flying spaghetti monster?  Is this something that is found in the curriculum of a lot of school districts?

 

You have charged a number of times in this thread that the way evolution is being taught is leading children to believe that God is a myth.  I have never seen any proof of such a thing myslef.  I am simply trying to find out if you are basing that charge on real evidence, anecdotal evidence, your own analysis or what.  Most surveys show that belief in God in this country is more than prevalent and certainly, evolution is widely taught so I don't see that the poor way in which you say evolution is being taught really is having the result you claim: children believing God is a myth. 

 

Here is a link to some info on this Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing: FSM

 

I don't see how that demonstrates anything about how evolution is taught, was there some other post where you used an example of what you are talking about, even if only anecdotal, that I missed?

404961[/snapback]

The post I made in this thread cited my own anecdotal evidence. It is anecdotal, but I have personally seen it about 1000 times (not inflated) in my small travels. If you care to read it fine. Feel free to rip it apart. If not, fine. Don't call it stupid without reading it.

[Mickey]

Just drop it. Who cares what he thinks, any more than anyone cares what I think. I didn't present a black and white perspective, but questioned whether everything deemed progress is truly progress and also presented the idea that it might just be arrogant to think that we will someday have every answer to any question that can ever be asked, because we're "intelligent". The very concept of maybe not being superior to all seems disagreeable to many, so screw it.

404889[/snapback]

I don't think that science is the answer to all questions, just that it is the answer to science questions. I don't think it offers superior ideas on all things, just superior ideas relating to scienctific problems. I have no problem at all with the idea that we, as a species, are not so superior. In fact, I don't think God holds us in any more favor than he does an oak tree.

 

I wasn't trying to tick you off but if you are going to say something like technology never righted a wrong, can't I disagree? I assume you want to discuss these ideas or you wouldn't be posting them.

[Mickey]

The post I made in this thread cited my own anecdotal evidence.  It is anecdotal, but I have personally seen it about 1000 times (not inflated) in my small travels.  If you care to read it fine.  Feel free to rip it apart.  If not, fine.  Don't call it stupid without reading it.

404971[/snapback]

I can't find it, if you know where it is, please cut it and paste it, we are talking 8 pages I think by now. All I could find was the spaghetti monster discussion.

 

I saw where you said this:

 

"Deny it all you want, but the teaching of evolution in schools has led many to believe there is no God."

 

Is that the reference you mean???

 

Maybe you could name me three schools whose curriculum teaches evolution in a way that leads many to believe there is no God? I am not trying to tear anything apart here, if there is proof of this, great, if not and this is just your general impression without any specific examples, fine. I just want to know if this is objective or subjective.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't think that science is the answer to all questions, just that it is the answer to science questions.  I don't think it offers superior ideas on all things, just superior ideas relating to scienctific problems.  I have no problem at all with the idea that we, as a species, are not so superior.  In fact, I don't think God holds us in any more favor than he does an oak tree. 

 

I wasn't trying to tick you off but if you are going to say something like technology never righted a wrong, can't I disagree?  I assume you want to discuss these ideas or you wouldn't be posting them.

404975[/snapback]

 

That might detract from the "what is right and wrong" debate. Also, though I have drive by time, I don't have any debate time this afternoon.

[OGTEleven]

I can't find it, if you know where it is, please cut it and paste it, we are talking 8 pages I think by now.  All I could find was the spaghetti monster discussion.

404978[/snapback]

Page 5 of this thread. Replying to Coli. 7:15 PM.