Browncoats Engine of Choice

[djolds1]

Dont even get me started on the creationists...

Which is the problem. They're NOT a threat, yet people like you see the red cape and charge madly.

[IntLibber]

Dont even get me started on the creationists...

Which is the problem. They're NOT a threat, yet people like you see the red cape and charge madly.

Actually, they are cause they are putting their votes where their lack of brains are. Texas' state board of education split on a 50/50 vote on whether to mandate teaching creationism recently. This means not just that half of the board was on the creationist bandwagon, but the other half thought the topic actually merited discussion.

One problem the darwinists have is they conflate two types of ID opinion:

a) those who think god had an influence on every step of evolution (strong creationism), and
b) those who think god created the universe to be the way it is, where life evolved as darwinists say it has done, because god wanted it that way, to result in the evolution of humans (weak creationism, which isn't that much different from the anthropic principle)

darwinists should, if they were smart, embrace the (b) types as fellow evolutionists who happen to believe that god exists where it is impossible for science to tread (i.e. before the creation of the universe, and outside of it now). instead they viciously attack would-be allies as believing in a fallacious 'god of the gaps', and they drive such moderates to sympathize with biblical literalist fundamentalist types who are supporters of strong creationism.

[djolds1]

One problem the darwinists have is they conflate two types of ID opinion:

a) those who think god had an influence on every step of evolution (strong creationism), and
b) those who think god created the universe to be the way it is, where life evolved as darwinists say it has done, because god wanted it that way, to result in the evolution of humans (weak creationism, which isn't that much different from the anthropic principle)

darwinists should, if they were smart, embrace the (b) types as fellow evolutionists who happen to believe that god exists where it is impossible for science to tread (i.e. before the creation of the universe, and outside of it now). instead they viciously attack would-be allies as believing in a fallacious 'god of the gaps', and they drive such moderates to sympathize with biblical literalist fundamentalist types who are supporters of strong creationism.

Strong creationists remind me of some Protestants who insist that every word of the Bible is literally correct. Of course, for that to be so, God would have to override the free will of the writers, which sort of makes his promises to humanity deceitful lies.

Weak creationism seems to be Deism, which has a long and vibrant history in Western scientific thought.

NeoDarwinians also handicap themselves with the conceit that they accurately KNOW the only mechanism of variation - slow molecular mutation over nearly geologic time scales. But complex emergent processes show that claim to be inaccurate, and make the NeoDarwinians look like pompous asses (which many of them are). Emergent processes also (re)introduce a teleological (purpose) component into biology, an opening for the return of God that absolutely freaks out the Darwinian Atheists like Dawkins.

Duane

[93143]

Weak creationism seems to be Deism, which has a long and vibrant history in Western scientific thought.

I wouldn't go that far. Weak creationism, as described, works fine without resorting to Deism (if I've understood the usage correctly).

Deism seems to require that God inhabit time, in order to have created (past tense) the universe and then ceased to influence it. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me; I think it would be more accurate to say God creates the universe. Considering that time is God's invention and all...

Another trouble with the "cosmic watchmaker" idea is that it requires that the universe be able to exist and operate independent of God, and there is no reason this should be true. There is no 'infrastructure', so to speak, besides God that could be tasked with the existence of other things. To put it another way - when an engineer designs and builds a machine, he trusts that it will continue to exist and operate without him - because the physical laws of the universe guarantee this. What does God have to rely on besides himself?

The concept of God intervening or not takes on a bit of a different shape if you understand things this way. The physical laws are just the rules God generally enforces; miracles (if they happen) are special exceptions to those rules, made for specific good reasons, but otherwise in no way different from the ordinary run of things.

The question then becomes: is God such a lousy designer that his universe requires extensive bending of the rules just to get life to arise and evolve?

...I'm in the "General" forum, right? Right. Good...

Back on topic: Yeah, Firefly sure was a great show...

[Skipjack]

My problem with creationism and intelligent design is, that they are constantly trying to interfere with science.
They are not a science. They dont abide to any rules of science. They are merely religious. Science and religion should be strictly separated.
Therefore they should not be tought in science classes. Period.
Otherwise, it would be fair to request that the weaknesses of the creationism theory be discussed in sunday schools and that the alternatives such as (gggg) evolution are shown.
Right?

[KitemanSA]

Browncoats vs Alliance; Darwinians vs Creationists; is this a topic shift or not?

[ravingdave]

I guess i'll put my two cents in.


I have pointed out in previous discussions that If religion was such a handicap to science, why was it that the most scientific progress over the last five hundred years occurring specifically in the most Christianized parts of the world ?


Isaac Newton was by today's standards a rabid Christian. The Nazis were heavily influenced by darwinism. (eugenics etc.)

I would much rather have people believing a benign fallacy than a malevolent truth.


David

[93143]

That kind of reminds me of an encounter between a saint (I think) and an old woman who believed there was literally a book in heaven with the names of the just written in it. He said something like "as far as I know this is not the case, but I see no harm in believing it."

The trouble is that in this case, there IS harm in believing it, because it creates an unnecessary conflict between science and religion (which should be impossible if they're both true), and sets up one's Christianity in opposition to the observed facts. Fundamentalist biology students have lost their faith because of this.

I think it's unfair to blame Nazism primarily on Darwinism. What with people like Nietzsche and his anti-God, anti-egalitarian philosophy (which takes evolution's "this is the way things work" and turns it into "this is the way we should treat one another"), combined with the tangle of events resulting in WWI and aftermath (Bismarck anyone?), combined with the roots of anti-Semitism in Germany stretching all the way back to Peter the Hermit and his ilk, it seems to me to have been something of a perfect storm...

Wait, I missed Frederick the Second. How did I do that? ...I'm out of my depth here.

[Skipjack]

Facts and science can never be amoralic. What people do with them is amoralic. To say that a scientific fact is bad, just because someone abused it for their whatever deeds is not productive.
Also nazism was an ideology (like every religion), which was to a large extent based on non facts and lies.

Also christianity has been a severe handicap for science. It was only due to a few individuals and their will to sacrifice everything for science that we ever got past renaissance.
And dont even get me started on all the sins of the (now catholic) church.
I could start with them killing Hypatia, then at least one of the destructions of the great library of Alexandria that goes on their accounts. After that Kepler, Gallilei and particularily G. Bruno and others would most loving sign of on that also. There are more instances, but I dont really feel like thinking them up right now. I just got home from work and I am tired.

[MSimon]

Facts and science can never be amoralic. What people do with them is amoralic. To say that a scientific fact is bad, just because someone abused it for their whatever deeds is not productive.
Also nazism was an ideology (like every religion), which was to a large extent based on non facts and lies.

Also christianity has been a severe handicap for science. It was only due to a few individuals and their will to sacrifice everything for science that we ever got past renaissance.
And dont even get me started on all the sins of the (now catholic) church.
I could start with them killing Hypatia, then at least one of the destructions of the great library of Alexandria that goes on their accounts. After that Kepler, Gallilei and particularily G. Bruno and others would most loving sign of on that also. There are more instances, but I dont really feel like thinking them up right now. I just got home from work and I am tired.

It seems to me that giving up on religion and focusing on spirituality (get right with God and he will teach you the secrets of the universe) is the way forward.

Science is about creating and destroying formal systems. Religion is about "eternal" formal systems. Brittle systems don't last. However, systems lacking in structure don't last either.

[ravingdave]

I think it's unfair to blame Nazism primarily on Darwinism. What with people like Nietzsche and his anti-God, anti-egalitarian philosophy (which takes evolution's "this is the way things work" and turns it into "this is the way we should treat one another"), combined with the tangle of events resulting in WWI and aftermath (Bismarck anyone?), combined with the roots of anti-Semitism in Germany stretching all the way back to Peter the Hermit and his ilk, it seems to me to have been something of a perfect storm...

So you are saying in effect that the Nazi's bastardized science to support what they did ? Would it be going to far to say that there were people in history who bastardized religion to support what they did ?


Over the last decade I have come to regard religion as a tool invented by wise old men to assist the younger generations in avoiding certain mistakes which can have catastrophic consequences on their lives. Religious doctrine covers situations which successor generations haven't learned about because they haven't lived long enough to witness such events themselves.

People can misuse tools.

David

[ravingdave]

Facts and science can never be amoralic. What people do with them is amoralic. To say that a scientific fact is bad, just because someone abused it for their whatever deeds is not productive.
Also nazism was an ideology (like every religion), which was to a large extent based on non facts and lies.

I am thinking that science and facts MUST be A-Moralic, or Anti-Moralistic.
Scientific detachment is the ability to look at things without emotion of feeling, and seems to me the very definition of A-Moralic.

There are plenty of things that if looked at with the complete detachment of science would appear to be horrifyingly immoral. Eugenics, Human Cloning, organ harvesting, etc.

When slavery was being practiced in this country, the slave owners applied the same rules of animal husbandry to slaves to produce bigger and stronger slaves. Is this immoral ? Well, not when applied to animals, but it seems very immoral when applied to people. Of course it might be plausible that some of America's gifted athletes maybe the beneficiaries of this practice. What does science say about it ? Science says "It Works."

Also christianity has been a severe handicap for science. It was only due to a few individuals and their will to sacrifice everything for science that we ever got past renaissance.
And dont even get me started on all the sins of the (now catholic) church.
I could start with them killing Hypatia, then at least one of the destructions of the great library of Alexandria that goes on their accounts. After that Kepler, Gallilei and particularily G. Bruno and others would most loving sign of on that also. There are more instances, but I dont really feel like thinking them up right now. I just got home from work and I am tired.

I know the feeling. As for myself, sometimes I feel that it's just not worth arguing about stuff sometimes. Most people have their minds made up and in spite of all claims of "reasonableness" most people won't be influenced.

In any case, you mention the case of Hypatia and Gallileo, and these are specific instances in which it appears that organized religion got it wrong by our standards, but it overlooks the broader data which seems to indicate that organized religion got it right. Organized religion created the relative peace and tranquility and tolerance that allowed science to flourish. Yes, in specific instances, contests of wills between the church and people held back science, but in teaching peaceful doctrine and a set of common morality that permitted people to coexists, the Church(s) created fertile ground for scientific advancement to occur.

You might make the argument that if we hadn't had the church, science would have progressed faster, but there were many thousand years of human history before Christianity came along, and there were many cultures in the world where Christianity was either unknown or comprising a minuscule component of influence, and yet it is the time in history and location in geography of lands occupied by Christianity that developed virtually all the science for the last 500 years.

If Religion is holding back science why were all the breakthroughs in Christian lands and times ?



David

[Skipjack]

Scientific detachment is the ability to look at things without emotion of feeling, and seems to me the very definition of A-Moralic.

Ok, maybe I was using the wrong words then (please forgive me, I am not a native English speaker). I meant "of bad morale" or some other word for "evil". Science can not be evil. It is literally non discriminating, but always objective. People might want to abuse scientific theories and knowledge gathered through science for their own and sometimes evil means. So evil people can do bad things with science. Of course good or bad also always depends on your personal POV.
E.g. being lawful does not automatically equal good (or otherwise every GESTAPO officer in Nazi Germany would have been a good person and I kinda doubt that).

If Religion is holding back science why were all the breakthroughs in Christian lands and times ?

I do have an explanation for that, but I cant say that in public.

Taking that aside, if you look at the period before the last 500 years, you will notice that there was very little scientific progress made in that time.

Generally I would not just limit it to the christian religion, but ideologies in general are by nature unscientific and against progress. I do not even distinguish between Christianity, Islam and Communism here.
They are all ideologies are therefore all based on some eternal values, eternal truths, dogmas, whatever you want to call it. These are the antithesis to progress and new knowledge. E.g. Suslov spoke very strongly against genetics, because they contradict the diamat, one of the collumns of soviet ideology. Some say, he even had geneticists rounded up and sent to Siberia, but I cant bring any quotations for that right now.

[Betruger]

I'd like to hear your pov. I'll keep it to myself.

I do have an explanation for that, but I cant say that in public.

[ravingdave]

Scientific detachment is the ability to look at things without emotion of feeling, and seems to me the very definition of A-Moralic.

Ok, maybe I was using the wrong words then (please forgive me, I am not a native English speaker). I meant "of bad morale" or some other word for "evil". Science can not be evil. It is literally non discriminating, but always objective. People might want to abuse scientific theories and knowledge gathered through science for their own and sometimes evil means. So evil people can do bad things with science. Of course good or bad also always depends on your personal POV.
E.g. being lawful does not automatically equal good (or otherwise every GESTAPO officer in Nazi Germany would have been a good person and I kinda doubt that).

Okay, I see your point and I agree. It's a variation of "Guns don't kill people, People kill people. "
My favorite alternate of this is "If guns kill people, then Spoons made Rosie Fat ! "

Your English is excellent and I didn't discern the slightest indication that you weren't raised with it. Of course I'm accustomed to talking to Americans who routinely butcher English in all sorts of ways.

If Religion is holding back science why were all the breakthroughs in Christian lands and times ?

I do have an explanation for that, but I cant say that in public.

I would find it very interesting. Write it up and send it to me as a personal message. I will keep it confidential.

Taking that aside, if you look at the period before the last 500 years, you will notice that there was very little scientific progress made in that time.

Yes, this is apparently true, and it's one of the reasons I keep saying "500years". In defense of the theory, I would point out that the Chinese civilization reached a plateau thousands of years ago and remained virtually unchanged till the English showed up with guns.

Perhaps it took 1500 years for stabilization to take place enough to advance science. It is something I'm going to have to think about if I want to save my theory.

Generally I would not just limit it to the christian religion, but ideologies in general are by nature unscientific and against progress. I do not even distinguish between Christianity, Islam and Communism here.
They are all ideologies are therefore all based on some eternal values, eternal truths, dogmas, whatever you want to call it. These are the antithesis to progress and new knowledge. E.g. Suslov spoke very strongly against genetics, because they contradict the diamat, one of the collumns of soviet ideology. Some say, he even had geneticists rounded up and sent to Siberia, but I cant bring any quotations for that right now.

I sometimes think that evolution decided that the old has to die of just so the new won't be contaminated by dead end ideas. Of course a lot of tradition and superstition is based on real events.

For Example, I recall seeing a documentary about a particular valley in the Rocky Mountains. During America's Pioneering days, the pioneers were warned to stay out of the valley because the local Indian tribe said it was filled with "Evil Spirits." Some people heeded the warning and others went into the valley, only to become very ill and die after a few days. This is the same thing which happened to Indian warriors when they went into the valley. They didn't know why it happened, but they knew something "Unseen" caused people to sicken and die.

In the 1940s, a scientist discovered that this particular valley was infested with a swarm of ticks which carried a particularly bad pathogen. The ticks would bite anyone who entered the valley, thereby passing on the infection. A research facility was constructed on the edge of this valley just to study this phenomenon.

The point is, Primitive people will often describe events within the context of their understanding, and in an overtly religious society, much becomes explained by use of religion.



It's not always nonsense.


David