Lousiana Science Books with both Evolution and creationism (1 Viewer)

[shader]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people.

Yes, but those reasons tend to be faith-based, not evidence-based.

I do agree that faith is obviously a requirement of a belief in God, if we are talking of God in the biblical sense.

 

[Christo]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

Perhaps you could point us to some of this "evidence".

DNAHumans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

If you're looking for the hidden webcam that was there at the moment of creation, I might not be able to help you out.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.

That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

Evidence is everywhere you look. If you can't see it, that's your right and i don't criticize you for it, I just disagree. I don't know what to tell you. We just see the world different, thats all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

I have a dictionary and am well aware of the meaning. All "evidence" that is brought to a trial is not always regarded the same way by a jury. The jurors thought that the small glove was enough evidence to acquit OJ. Maybe they were swayed by a skillful lawyer, and maybe they weren't.I see evidence all around me. Others see the exact things that I do, and disregard that evidence. That's life.

What would the world look like if it wasn't created by an intelligent designer? In other words, what specifically do you see that is evidence of a creator, that wouldn't be present in a world that evolved naturally?

 

[shader]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people. It's as evident as 1+1=2. Some evidently need videotape of God doing the creating, which is your right.

That being said, many churches don't help things with bat-crazy ideas like a 6,000 year earth, tree rings that "show age at the time of creation", etc.

Doesn't need to be a video tape. Any shred of evidence will suffice.

Evidence is everywhere you look. If you can't see it, that's your right and i don't criticize you for it, I just disagree. I don't know what to tell you. We just see the world different, thats all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

I have a dictionary and am well aware of the meaning. All "evidence" that is brought to a trial is not always regarded the same way by a jury. The jurors thought that the small glove was enough evidence to acquit OJ. Maybe they were swayed by a skillful lawyer, and maybe they weren't.I see evidence all around me. Others see the exact things that I do, and disregard that evidence. That's life.

What would the world look like if it wasn't created by an intelligent designer? In other words, what specifically do you see that is evidence of a creator, that wouldn't be present in a world that evolved naturally?

I don't personally believe it could have happened without an intelligent designer for one. The only way I could even remotely make sense of it without a creator is if the universe and life was just always here but even that would be pushing it.

 

[shader]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

Perhaps you could point us to some of this "evidence".

DNAHumans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

If you're looking for the hidden webcam that was there at the moment of creation, I might not be able to help you out.

I'd love to see your post count without that glorious icon. Would it fall by 1,000? 2,000?

 

[Christo]

It's as evident as 1+1=2.

No it's not.And I'm a believer. But lets not lie about it.

No one is lying about anything. Many of you act as if there is one particular way that we are all supposed to look at things. Maybe I'm a simplistic moron. But thats the way I see it.

You obviously overstated the "evidence as 1+1=2".If that were true, we wouldn't need churches and preachers. Obviously.

I suppose I should clarify. Evidence in a creator is that simple.

Perhaps you could point us to some of this "evidence".

DNAHumans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

If you're looking for the hidden webcam that was there at the moment of creation, I might not be able to help you out.

I'd love to see your post count without that glorious icon. Would it fall by 1,000? 2,000?

People like you just keep posting #### that is hilarious.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

DNA

Humans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

X is evidence for Y if finding out X causes us to increase our estimate of the probability that Y is true.It should be obvious that none of those things are evidence for or against God. (Well, some are evidence against some conceptions of God.)

The universe can't really be evidence for anything. The existence of the universe is consistent with all possible non-insane world views. It's a given. Same with women, food, love, the earth, and everything else that was known about before philosophy existed.

Food would be evidence for God if it ruled out more atheistic world views than theistic world views — but it doesn't rule out any world views at all. Every sane philosophy allows for the existence of food, of course, since food was known about before philosophy was.

But let's consider the solar system. Is that evidence for or against God? Right now, the solar system is like the universe: it's taken for granted. It's consistent with any non-insane philosophy, so it can't really support one sane philosophy over another.

But things weren't always that way. We didn't always know that there were such things as solar systems. We didn't always know that planets orbited stars. Before we found that out, many people figured that the earth was the center of the universe. If we went back to that time and asked: What if the earth is not the center of the universe? What if the earth goes 'round the sun?

How would people have answered? Would they have said: "Wow, you're blowing my mind, man; but now that I think about it, that would increase my estimate of the probability that God exists"?

No, probably not. For many people, it wouldn't affect their views about God one way or the other. For some, it would destroy their ideas of God because they'd been taught that God made the earth the center of the universe. Solar systems are evidence against those gods. But since pre-Copernican atheists did not link their atheism with geocentrism — certainly no more than pre-Copernican theists linked their theism with geocentrism — a confirmation of geocentrism would not be evidence against God; and a confirmation of heliocentrism (with its attendant solar systems) cannot be evidence for God. Same with DNA, the cell, etc.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people.

Yes, but those reasons tend to be faith-based, not evidence-based.

I do agree that faith is obviously a requirement of a belief in God, if we are talking of God in the biblical sense.

It is required for belief in any type of god.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Louisiana ranks 49/51 nationally in education, stuff like this is likely why.

http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/

 

[Dexter]

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." --Ferdinand Magellan

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

From CNN today:

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state."

CNN article.

TI read Louisiana is on vouchers. Seems quasi public Private and likely to end up at the Sup ct because of crap like this. Putting that the earth might be 6000 years old in a child textbook is damn near child abuse, and certainly isnt education.

 

[rascal]

Louisiana ranks 49/51 nationally in education, stuff like this is likely why.http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/

You have any proof to that statement?

 

[cstu]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

[i'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically:

Just for the record, when Christians say that God is eternal, they are denying that he came from nothing. They're saying he was always there, period. From a Christian point of view, God isn't time-bound the way that we and the universe are.

 

[cstu]

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." --Ferdinand Magellan

Ironic that it was his attempt to spread Christianity that got him killed.

 

[GoFishTN]

From CNN today:

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state."

CNN article.

TI read Louisiana is on vouchers. Seems quasi public Private and likely to end up at the Sup ct because of crap like this. Putting that the earth might be 6000 years old in a child textbook is damn near child abuse, and certainly isnt education.

Four pages. You guys are slipping.

 

[sporthenry]

DNA

Humans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

X is evidence for Y if finding out X causes us to increase our estimate of the probability that Y is true.It should be obvious that none of those things are evidence for or against God. (Well, some are evidence against some conceptions of God.)

The universe can't really be evidence for anything. The existence of the universe is consistent with all possible non-insane world views. It's a given. Same with women, food, love, the earth, and everything else that was known about before philosophy existed.

Food would be evidence for God if it ruled out more atheistic world views than theistic world views — but it doesn't rule out any world views at all. Every sane philosophy allows for the existence of food, of course, since food was known about before philosophy was.

But let's consider the solar system. Is that evidence for or against God? Right now, the solar system is like the universe: it's taken for granted. It's consistent with any non-insane philosophy, so it can't really support one sane philosophy over another.

But things weren't always that way. We didn't always know that there were such things as solar systems. We didn't always know that planets orbited stars. Before we found that out, many people figured that the earth was the center of the universe. If we went back to that time and asked: What if the earth is not the center of the universe? What if the earth goes 'round the sun?

How would people have answered? Would they have said: "Wow, you're blowing my mind, man; but now that I think about it, that would increase my estimate of the probability that God exists"?

No, probably not. For many people, it wouldn't affect their views about God one way or the other. For some, it would destroy their ideas of God because they'd been taught that God made the earth the center of the universe. Solar systems are evidence against those gods. But since pre-Copernican atheists did not link their atheism with geocentrism — certainly no more than pre-Copernican theists linked their theism with geocentrism — a confirmation of geocentrism would not be evidence against God; and a confirmation of heliocentrism (with its attendant solar systems) cannot be evidence for God. Same with DNA, the cell, etc.

You must not be from Louisiana. No way you'd learn that level of reasoning there.

 

[Mister CIA]

There are plenty of reasons to think God exists for millions of people.

Yes, but those reasons tend to be faith-based, not evidence-based.

I do agree that faith is obviously a requirement of a belief in God, if we are talking of God in the biblical sense.

Biblical God is not relevant to this discussion,Sincerely, Shader.

 

[zDragon]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

Very interesting question. So over a four billion year period a life-form developed that could create/manipulate (or at least artificial) life. Since no one knows what preceded the big bang isn't it possible that over billions upon billions of years a life form(s) emerged that was able to create us?

 

[Tiger Fan]

This isn't a public school textbook, is it?

From what I've read this is a textbook that is used in privates schools. However, Louisiana has a voucher system where taxpayer money can be used to pay for private school tuition. Technically the schools that use books like this are receiving public moneys.I could be wrong though.

No you're right:

Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories.

This crap is destroying our ability to compete as a nation. We turn out kids who still believe fantasies that are best suited for the 15 century not the 21st.

Look, I'm as big a non-believer as you are, but I happened to go to college with hundreds of kids who hailed from Louisiana, many to most of them coming from parochial, private schools that were HEAVY on religion/Christianity. But I'm here to tell you that these kids were every bit as competitive intellectually in a very good to great liberal arts college of higher learning than I was as a non-believer. They may be inundated with religion in Louisiana, but they aren't suffering intellectually because of it. Just my 2 cents from my experience.

Jesuit schools have a great rep for producing top students. I don't think being a religious school or going to one automatically makes you dumb. But I think where many of these schools are going is like the home schooling route. I do think they hurt students in that everything is presented as if it comes with the same kind of authority. And by treating this anti-science as if it is valid, it simply isn't. There are now schools in La teaching that dinosaurs and men co-existed less than 10k years ago. And they are getting tax money to do it. Those kids are screwed.

Look, I agree that teaching kids that dinosaurs and man roaming the earth at the same time is just beyond stupid and certainly not something our tax dollars should be supporting. But I don't think that's the only thing being taught to these kids, nor do I think religion taking an active role in education in Louisiana is a terribly new concept and one set to ruin the children. Every single kid I ever met from the city of New Orleans went to private school. If you have the means, you do NOT send yours kids to public school in New Orleans. That is the way it has always been as far as I can remember. These private schools are all affiliated with religion, mostly Catholicism. And yet these kids go into colleges and become doctors, lawyers, leaders in business, etc. I don't think religious education is setting them back.

FWIW, I'm one of these folks that GM is referring to above. I can honestly tell you that I don't remember an ounce of what was "taught" to me in religion class. It was viewed by many as a "blow off class". I think only a fraction of the kids took it seriously.That being said, we're probably not the ones to worry about...it's the rednecks in the sticks that take everything literally that will probably be stifiled by this

 

[NCCommish]

This isn't a public school textbook, is it?

From what I've read this is a textbook that is used in privates schools. However, Louisiana has a voucher system where taxpayer money can be used to pay for private school tuition. Technically the schools that use books like this are receiving public moneys.I could be wrong though.

No you're right:

Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories.

This crap is destroying our ability to compete as a nation. We turn out kids who still believe fantasies that are best suited for the 15 century not the 21st.

Look, I'm as big a non-believer as you are, but I happened to go to college with hundreds of kids who hailed from Louisiana, many to most of them coming from parochial, private schools that were HEAVY on religion/Christianity. But I'm here to tell you that these kids were every bit as competitive intellectually in a very good to great liberal arts college of higher learning than I was as a non-believer. They may be inundated with religion in Louisiana, but they aren't suffering intellectually because of it. Just my 2 cents from my experience.

Jesuit schools have a great rep for producing top students. I don't think being a religious school or going to one automatically makes you dumb. But I think where many of these schools are going is like the home schooling route. I do think they hurt students in that everything is presented as if it comes with the same kind of authority. And by treating this anti-science as if it is valid, it simply isn't. There are now schools in La teaching that dinosaurs and men co-existed less than 10k years ago. And they are getting tax money to do it. Those kids are screwed.

Look, I agree that teaching kids that dinosaurs and man roaming the earth at the same time is just beyond stupid and certainly not something our tax dollars should be supporting. But I don't think that's the only thing being taught to these kids, nor do I think religion taking an active role in education in Louisiana is a terribly new concept and one set to ruin the children. Every single kid I ever met from the city of New Orleans went to private school. If you have the means, you do NOT send yours kids to public school in New Orleans. That is the way it has always been as far as I can remember. These private schools are all affiliated with religion, mostly Catholicism. And yet these kids go into colleges and become doctors, lawyers, leaders in business, etc. I don't think religious education is setting them back.

FWIW, I'm one of these folks that GM is referring to above. I can honestly tell you that I don't remember an ounce of what was "taught" to me in religion class. It was viewed by many as a "blow off class". I think only a fraction of the kids took it seriously.That being said, we're probably not the ones to worry about...it's the rednecks in the sticks that take everything literally that will probably be stifiled by this

Yeah see the difference here is this is being taught in science class. If we were talking comparative religion or philosophy have at it. But when we put this in elementary level science classes that is a different thing altogether. Again to be clear I understand there was a time when for many Catholic education was pretty darn good. Dated a couple Catholic school girls and other than going out with me they were pretty smart. I assume for many it still is. But this is fundamentalism and it wants to make science a vehicle to serve their version of Christianity. That battle was really won a long time ago in this country. But it seems they want to refight it. It's the children who lose first and the rest of us lose when they are unprepared to do much of anything.

 

[((Morpheus))]

wow, wtf is this ####

 

[Tiger Fan]

This isn't a public school textbook, is it?

From what I've read this is a textbook that is used in privates schools. However, Louisiana has a voucher system where taxpayer money can be used to pay for private school tuition. Technically the schools that use books like this are receiving public moneys.I could be wrong though.

No you're right:

Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories.

This crap is destroying our ability to compete as a nation. We turn out kids who still believe fantasies that are best suited for the 15 century not the 21st.

Look, I'm as big a non-believer as you are, but I happened to go to college with hundreds of kids who hailed from Louisiana, many to most of them coming from parochial, private schools that were HEAVY on religion/Christianity. But I'm here to tell you that these kids were every bit as competitive intellectually in a very good to great liberal arts college of higher learning than I was as a non-believer. They may be inundated with religion in Louisiana, but they aren't suffering intellectually because of it. Just my 2 cents from my experience.

Jesuit schools have a great rep for producing top students. I don't think being a religious school or going to one automatically makes you dumb. But I think where many of these schools are going is like the home schooling route. I do think they hurt students in that everything is presented as if it comes with the same kind of authority. And by treating this anti-science as if it is valid, it simply isn't. There are now schools in La teaching that dinosaurs and men co-existed less than 10k years ago. And they are getting tax money to do it. Those kids are screwed.

Look, I agree that teaching kids that dinosaurs and man roaming the earth at the same time is just beyond stupid and certainly not something our tax dollars should be supporting. But I don't think that's the only thing being taught to these kids, nor do I think religion taking an active role in education in Louisiana is a terribly new concept and one set to ruin the children. Every single kid I ever met from the city of New Orleans went to private school. If you have the means, you do NOT send yours kids to public school in New Orleans. That is the way it has always been as far as I can remember. These private schools are all affiliated with religion, mostly Catholicism. And yet these kids go into colleges and become doctors, lawyers, leaders in business, etc. I don't think religious education is setting them back.

FWIW, I'm one of these folks that GM is referring to above. I can honestly tell you that I don't remember an ounce of what was "taught" to me in religion class. It was viewed by many as a "blow off class". I think only a fraction of the kids took it seriously.That being said, we're probably not the ones to worry about...it's the rednecks in the sticks that take everything literally that will probably be stifiled by this

Yeah see the difference here is this is being taught in science class. If we were talking comparative religion or philosophy have at it. But when we put this in elementary level science classes that is a different thing altogether. Again to be clear I understand there was a time when for many Catholic education was pretty darn good. Dated a couple Catholic school girls and other than going out with me they were pretty smart. I assume for many it still is. But this is fundamentalism and it wants to make science a vehicle to serve their version of Christianity. That battle was really won a long time ago in this country. But it seems they want to refight it. It's the children who lose first and the rest of us lose when they are unprepared to do much of anything.

Yeah, don't get me wrong...I disagree completely with teaching it in any public schools...was just replying to GM's post.

 

[timschochet]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

Many of us don't view vouchers as "taxpayer money" any more than we view Social Security checks as "taxpayer money." Confiscating somebody's wealth and then handing it back to them doesn't magically transform it, or at least it shouldn't.

 

[shader]

DNA

Humans

The earth

The universe

The atom

The physical laws

The cell

The solar system

Gravity

Genetics

Music

Love

Food

Women

X is evidence for Y if finding out X causes us to increase our estimate of the probability that Y is true.It should be obvious that none of those things are evidence for or against God. (Well, some are evidence against some conceptions of God.)

The universe can't really be evidence for anything. The existence of the universe is consistent with all possible non-insane world views. It's a given. Same with women, food, love, the earth, and everything else that was known about before philosophy existed.

Food would be evidence for God if it ruled out more atheistic world views than theistic world views — but it doesn't rule out any world views at all. Every sane philosophy allows for the existence of food, of course, since food was known about before philosophy was.

But let's consider the solar system. Is that evidence for or against God? Right now, the solar system is like the universe: it's taken for granted. It's consistent with any non-insane philosophy, so it can't really support one sane philosophy over another.

But things weren't always that way. We didn't always know that there were such things as solar systems. We didn't always know that planets orbited stars. Before we found that out, many people figured that the earth was the center of the universe. If we went back to that time and asked: What if the earth is not the center of the universe? What if the earth goes 'round the sun?

How would people have answered? Would they have said: "Wow, you're blowing my mind, man; but now that I think about it, that would increase my estimate of the probability that God exists"?

No, probably not. For many people, it wouldn't affect their views about God one way or the other. For some, it would destroy their ideas of God because they'd been taught that God made the earth the center of the universe. Solar systems are evidence against those gods. But since pre-Copernican atheists did not link their atheism with geocentrism — certainly no more than pre-Copernican theists linked their theism with geocentrism — a confirmation of geocentrism would not be evidence against God; and a confirmation of heliocentrism (with its attendant solar systems) cannot be evidence for God. Same with DNA, the cell, etc.

Maurile I appreciate your thoughtful post. As far as the solar system, yes perhaps the truth of the solar system destroyed some people's views of God because they had notions about God which they probably didn't need to have. In the same way, I'm sure many adults were taught as kids that the universe was 6k years old. When they realized that it wasn't, it probably destroyed their faith in God, the bible, etc.

I should add, that those things I listed aren't in themselves proof of YHWH/Jehovah/. That belief comes from other areas.

Those things are evidence (in my opinion) of some sort of intelligence/organizer/creator. Who knows, maybe outside the physical universe there is some intelligent being of some sort that we don't understand. Maybe thats all God is. Maybe its aliens from another universe.

That being said, there is one thing about most atheists that always frustrates me. Although I find myself agreeing with you guys in a lot of areas, due to the ridiculous teachings and beliefs of most religions, there is one thing that really bothers me.

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

I happen to disagree, as do hundreds of millions of others. Now some possibly are brain-washed, some possibly are not intelligent, and some try to intentionally distort and hide facts. But not all.

Some of us see unbelievable precision and are astounded. Few things are more amazing to me than the endeavors that Nasa takes on. Sending out Voyager, and being able to precisely calculate how to get a satellite there is quite astonishing. The structure and order is so precise, and to me that screams that there had to be some intelligent force to set it in motion. Now at this point, an atheist will usually try to point out that there are many things in the universe that are NOT precise, or they'll try and show how it could have happened without intelligent life. Again, thats fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their own view on things.

But why is it that some of you will probably pick apart the above paragraph and show me where my viewpoints are wrong?

There reaches a level where we move past science and into philosophy. Obviously we can't test the solar system being created in a lab.

But we can try to create life, which has been unsuccessful. New scientific discoveries have only strengthened the views of many, due to the fact that the cell and DNA ALWAYS get MORE complex as our powers of observation increase. In the 1800's, it might have seem reasonable to assume that life would just pop out of nothing, as we didn't really understand the building blocks of life.

Now it looks like we understand the building blocks to a reasonable degree, although science continues to progress.

Perhaps your worldview is that science will eventually explain how a cell could form or possibly even replicate conditions in a way that allow it to form. I don't believe that will occur or can occur naturally. Neither of us can prove the other one wrong, and it's pointless to argue over it. But it's just as pointless to ridicule the other side (which I'm not accusing you of, but there are many here that definitely fall into that category) for being "idiots". Science doesn't tell us how or why the universe formed, how or why the cell formed, dna, etc. Science explains DNA, researches cellular functions and the results have been mind-boggling.

I'm fine with someone saying "I don't know". But I don't agree with criticism for someone saying "I do believe that some intelligent force" was behind it all.

The "default" position really hinges on whether you think the order and structure of DNA, the cell, the universe, requires some "designer" or not. The bottom line is that we are all here, cells exist, dna exists and that is inarguable. Each person has to come to their own opinion. Let's respect those, and not try to arrogantly state that the position that we personally hold is the only logical one. It might be the only logical one to you, but others disagree.

 

[rascal]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

Seriously? I'm a mechanical engineer and my thought process requires me to think logically about everything I dbviously I'm going to answer God. As I've stated before, God answers the questions that science/philosophy are unable to answer.

 

[rascal]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

I'd say it's on par with the Government taking my $$ and giving it to a woman who has decided her job in life is to produce babies and get checks from the Government or taking my $$ and giving it a dictator because our Government likes him for the moment or taking my $$ and giving it to bail out a bank.

 

[NCCommish]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

Many of us don't view vouchers as "taxpayer money" any more than we view Social Security checks as "taxpayer money." Confiscating somebody's wealth and then handing it back to them doesn't magically transform it, or at least it shouldn't.

I am going to guess there are a lot of people getting vouchers who don't pay thousands a year in taxes. So they are getting some of somebody else's tax money.

 

[rascal]

Excellent post shader.

 

[timschochet]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

Many of us don't view vouchers as "taxpayer money" any more than we view Social Security checks as "taxpayer money." Confiscating somebody's wealth and then handing it back to them doesn't magically transform it, or at least it shouldn't.

I want wealth confiscated to pay for public education. I don't want wealth confiscated to pay for this.

 

[timschochet]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

I'd say it's on par with the Government taking my $$ and giving it to a woman who has decided her job in life is to produce babies and get checks from the Government or taking my $$ and giving it a dictator because our Government likes him for the moment or taking my $$ and giving it to bail out a bank.

It's not on par with any of those items, IMO.

 

[NCCommish]

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.



Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because the members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November’s elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.

During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People.”

But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”

The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

Eric Rothschild, an attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling “a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district.”

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said: “What this really looks like is an ad hominem attack on scientists who happen to believe in God.”

It was the latest chapter in a debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the Scopes trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law against teaching evolution.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

President Bush also weighed in on the issue of intelligent design recently, saying schools should present the concept when teaching about the origins of life.

‘ID is not science’

In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments “may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.” Among other things, he said intelligent design “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

“The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources,” he wrote.

Jones wrote that he wasn’t saying the intelligent design concept shouldn’t be studied and discussed, saying its advocates “have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.”

But, he wrote, “our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”

The judge also said: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.

‘We were robbed’

“I’m still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there’s a separation of church and state,” he said. “We didn’t lose; we were robbed.”

The controversy divided Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg. It galvanized voters to oust eight school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. The ninth board member was not up for re-election.

The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board intends to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class.

“As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal,” she said.

The old board's actions may still have an impact, however. Jones also ruled that the school board would have to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees, which are not insignificant. Plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild said compensation would be sought despite the turnover on the board, but that the cost was still being tallied. “We’ll sort out who we might pursue for this remedy in the days ahead,” he said.

This report includes information from MSNBC's Alan Boyle.

NBC

The judge really delivered a smack down here. What a waste of time and money. I am sure the school board had no other pressing needs for that cash.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

This is disgusting. It isn't even an attempt to teach both as alternatives. It is clearly attempting to discredit science. And it even gets its science wrong! Creating dumb people will not be good for our future.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

No, the default position is that we don't know, so let's keep looking instead of believing what you are taught as a child based on fables passed on from different cultures generationally that has evolved ( ) from religion to religion and region to region based on communication, trade, travel, and power.Keep looking. Ask questions.

 

[rascal]

Doesn't this story present a good argument against school vouchers? Why should taxpayer money go toward supporting this sort of nonsense?

I'd say it's on par with the Government taking my $$ and giving it to a woman who has decided her job in life is to produce babies and get checks from the Government or taking my $$ and giving it a dictator because our Government likes him for the moment or taking my $$ and giving it to bail out a bank.

It's not on par with any of those items, IMO.

I obviously disagree, but I also think what this book has is wrong and should be taken out.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Some of us see unbelievable precision and are astounded. Few things are more amazing to me than the endeavors that Nasa takes on. Sending out Voyager, and being able to precisely calculate how to get a satellite there is quite astonishing. The structure and order is so precise, and to me that screams that there had to be some intelligent force to set it in motion. Now at this point, an atheist will usually try to point out that there are many things in the universe that are NOT precise, or they'll try and show how it could have happened without intelligent life. Again, thats fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their own view on things.But why is it that some of you will probably pick apart the above paragraph and show me where my viewpoints are wrong?

Because faith based claims should not be treated like evidence based claims. Nobody can speak for all atheists, but I don't know many of us who ever dispute a statement like "I have faith in God" or "I believe in God." If we do, we shouldn't because we all take some things on faith. I certainly can't prove that atheists are just as capable of doing good or evil as theists. It's what I believe. I can even cite some evidence for the claim. But nothing close to proof. I wouldn't even know how to prove it.But I do take objection to claims like "It's just as likely that there is a creator." Or "there is equal evidence of a creator," or the granddaddy of them all, "both positions require just as much faith." Because those statements misapprehend the nature of evidence. They rely on a form of special pleading that renders evaluation by "evidence" irrelevant. At that point in time, we're not having a rational argument. There's nothing to debate because we're not operating off of the same rules.And this becomes a pattern. If I point out all the ways that presumably "intelligently designed" organisms actually seem kind of like Rube Goldberg contraptions with bugs that no engineer would want to take credit for (the sickle cell as a malaria adaptation, our blind spot, chromosomal anamolies that produce birth defects) someone can once again rely on special pleading and simply state that the designer has a goal and purpose that I cannot possibly ascertain.If someone wants to argue that I have a foolhardy reliance on naturalism, that's fine. But naturalism has a vocabulary. And if your argument is metaphysical, don't use that vocabulary. "Evidence" is a word with absolutely no meaning in metaphysics.

 

[shader]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

If I see a watch, all I can tell you is that someone made it. I may not be able to tell you a single thing about the watchmaker, except that they existed. "Well who made the watch?" Does it matter? It was made. In the same way an atom, or a cell, or dna, or something that is of far more complexity than a watch causes many to feel the same way. It was made or designed, end of story. Can I explain scientifically how that designer or creator was created. Obviously not. If that is the question you need answered and if you feel that adds a level of complexity that you aren't comfortable with, than that is your right. Many disagree with you. Many agree with you. Then when you throw in an insulting question like, "why believe in the creator of the god, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster", it just shows you have no real interest in discussing it rationally. There are millions of people that have seen great results from their beliefs in the God of the bible. Obviously we are moving into theology here, but the flying spaghetti monster is an internet meme. To compare the two is insulting, so we don't have to go any further along these lines, because obviously you aren't interested in understanding why people believe.

I will note that from a biblical perspective, most Christians don't believe that God was created himself. He just existed. Doesn't seem any crazier to me than multiverse theories, theories that the universes are born, destroyed and that this is a endless cycle. Physicists have all sorts of theories, and none of them are any more than theories. Why is some sort of intelligence existing outside of the universe so contrary to you? Either way, none of us can prove any of this. If you feel my beliefs add an extra layer of complexity, that's your right.

 

[shader]

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

No, the default position is that we don't know, so let's keep looking instead of believing what you are taught as a child based on fables passed on from different cultures generationally that has evolved ( ) from religion to religion and region to region based on communication, trade, travel, and power.Keep looking. Ask questions.

So...keep looking, but don't look in any religions because they are all fables. Sounds open-minded to me!

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

I think you and Shader should have a dedicated, live debate. I'd watch.

 

[sporthenry]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

Seriously? I'm a mechanical engineer and my thought process requires me to think logically about everything I dbviously I'm going to answer God. As I've stated before, God answers the questions that science/philosophy are unable to answer.

Well most scientists don't believe in God so I'll extend that to most engineers so you are probably in the minority and I'm an engineer to so I guess I have that same thought process. That said, you use the spandrel theory for belief in God. However, thousands of years ago, you would have believed in things such as a geocentric theory, that the earth was flat, and only thousands of years old. Now that we have evidence of these things being wrong, whose side are you going to believe? The side who has consistently been wrong or the side that continues to be right but needs more time? To me, it isn't a question of God answering the questions that science can't explain, it is just science is unable to explain these things at the moment. You need an explanation for these things while I have faith that I may never know but 100's of years from now, we'll know where the eye came from. And you don't think it is a sign that the scientists keep encroaching further on religious beliefs and after constant fighting, they eventually give in and start the fight on something else?

As someone said, the easiest explanation is usually the right one.

 

[shader]

Some of us see unbelievable precision and are astounded. Few things are more amazing to me than the endeavors that Nasa takes on. Sending out Voyager, and being able to precisely calculate how to get a satellite there is quite astonishing. The structure and order is so precise, and to me that screams that there had to be some intelligent force to set it in motion. Now at this point, an atheist will usually try to point out that there are many things in the universe that are NOT precise, or they'll try and show how it could have happened without intelligent life. Again, thats fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their own view on things.

But why is it that some of you will probably pick apart the above paragraph and show me where my viewpoints are wrong?

Because faith based claims should not be treated like evidence based claims. Nobody can speak for all atheists, but I don't know many of us who ever dispute a statement like "I have faith in God" or "I believe in God." If we do, we shouldn't because we all take some things on faith. I certainly can't prove that atheists are just as capable of doing good or evil as theists. It's what I believe. I can even cite some evidence for the claim. But nothing close to proof. I wouldn't even know how to prove it.But I do take objection to claims like "It's just as likely that there is a creator." Or "there is equal evidence of a creator," or the granddaddy of them all, "both positions require just as much faith." Because those statements misapprehend the nature of evidence. They rely on a form of special pleading that renders evaluation by "evidence" irrelevant. At that point in time, we're not having a rational argument. There's nothing to debate because we're not operating off of the same rules.

And this becomes a pattern. If I point out all the ways that presumably "intelligently designed" organisms actually seem kind of like Rube Goldberg contraptions with bugs that no engineer would want to take credit for (the sickle cell as a malaria adaptation, our blind spot, chromosomal anamolies that produce birth defects) someone can once again rely on special pleading and simply state that the designer has a goal and purpose that I cannot possibly ascertain.

If someone wants to argue that I have a foolhardy reliance on naturalism, that's fine. But naturalism has a vocabulary. And if your argument is metaphysical, don't use that vocabulary. "Evidence" is a word with absolutely no meaning in metaphysics.

There are plenty who mock either of those statements.Look, again the point is being missed. I'll keep it real simple. DNA is evidence of design. That is my opinion based on what I know of DNA. Not all DNA was specifically designed, I'm not claiming that God designed every mutated strand of DNA that has ever been around. But DNA itself is evidence of design. If you can demonstrate how it could easily arise without design in a natural way, I'll investigate. Obviously many are attempting to do that. I'm not going to mock them or say they are throwing their money away as many creationists do, but it is what it is. But at this point, I see no reason why DNA or the cell are any different from a watch found on the side of the road.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

No, the default position is that we don't know, so let's keep looking instead of believing what you are taught as a child based on fables passed on from different cultures generationally that has evolved ( ) from religion to religion and region to region based on communication, trade, travel, and power.Keep looking. Ask questions.

So...keep looking, but don't look in any religions because they are all fables. Sounds open-minded to me!

Question the religion. Research their history outside of the religious texts of how they came to be and where their stories may have originated. Don't blindly accept it. People use religion as an easy cheat to explain things that they do not understand or perhaps we as humans simply are unable to comprehend. Believing in an afterlife that rewards you for believing in a certain religion and reunites you with lost loved ones is our civilizations means of coping just as more primitive humans worshiped the sun and moon and stars because they couldn't understand them.

 

[shader]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

Seriously? I'm a mechanical engineer and my thought process requires me to think logically about everything I dbviously I'm going to answer God. As I've stated before, God answers the questions that science/philosophy are unable to answer.

Well most scientists don't believe in God so I'll extend that to most engineers so you are probably in the minority and I'm an engineer to so I guess I have that same thought process. That said, you use the spandrel theory for belief in God. However, thousands of years ago, you would have believed in things such as a geocentric theory, that the earth was flat, and only thousands of years old. Now that we have evidence of these things being wrong, whose side are you going to believe? The side who has consistently been wrong or the side that continues to be right but needs more time? To me, it isn't a question of God answering the questions that science can't explain, it is just science is unable to explain these things at the moment. You need an explanation for these things while I have faith that I may never know but 100's of years from now, we'll know where the eye came from. And you don't think it is a sign that the scientists keep encroaching further on religious beliefs and after constant fighting, they eventually give in and start the fight on something else?

As someone said, the easiest explanation is usually the right one.

Your opinion.Also, thousands of years ago, scientists pretty much all thought that the earth was flat and that the sun moved around the earth. I don't think the bible was the cause of that. There are no statements in the bible that contradict that. If the church acted reprehensibly in the middle ages, than that is of no concern to me. The churches in the middle ages burned people for owning the bible, killed people left and right, and pretty much made a mockery of the bible and God.

 

[shader]

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

No, the default position is that we don't know, so let's keep looking instead of believing what you are taught as a child based on fables passed on from different cultures generationally that has evolved ( ) from religion to religion and region to region based on communication, trade, travel, and power.Keep looking. Ask questions.

So...keep looking, but don't look in any religions because they are all fables. Sounds open-minded to me!

Question the religion. Research their history outside of the religious texts of how they came to be and where their stories may have originated. Don't blindly accept it. People use religion as an easy cheat to explain things that they do not understand or perhaps we as humans simply are unable to comprehend. Believing in an afterlife that rewards you for believing in a certain religion and reunites you with lost loved ones is our civilizations means of coping just as more primitive humans worshiped the sun and moon and stars because they couldn't understand them.

I'm totally fine with that

 

[sporthenry]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

If I see a watch, all I can tell you is that someone made it. I may not be able to tell you a single thing about the watchmaker, except that they existed. "Well who made the watch?" Does it matter? It was made. In the same way an atom, or a cell, or dna, or something that is of far more complexity than a watch causes many to feel the same way. It was made or designed, end of story. Can I explain scientifically how that designer or creator was created. Obviously not. If that is the question you need answered and if you feel that adds a level of complexity that you aren't comfortable with, than that is your right. Many disagree with you. Many agree with you. Then when you throw in an insulting question like, "why believe in the creator of the god, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster", it just shows you have no real interest in discussing it rationally. There are millions of people that have seen great results from their beliefs in the God of the bible. Obviously we are moving into theology here, but the flying spaghetti monster is an internet meme. To compare the two is insulting, so we don't have to go any further along these lines, because obviously you aren't interested in understanding why people believe.

I will note that from a biblical perspective, most Christians don't believe that God was created himself. He just existed. Doesn't seem any crazier to me than multiverse theories, theories that the universes are born, destroyed and that this is a endless cycle. Physicists have all sorts of theories, and none of them are any more than theories. Why is some sort of intelligence existing outside of the universe so contrary to you? Either way, none of us can prove any of this. If you feel my beliefs add an extra layer of complexity, that's your right.

You do realize that scientific theories are different from other theories. The theory of evolution will never become law, not b/c it is wrong but b/c that type of scientific discovery doesn't qualify as a law. In this case, a theory is just about as strong as a law. A theory is "a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science." Perhaps the scientific community should change its theories to another word so society doesn't include it in such things as the "Theory of Creationism" which has no scientific backing. But as smart as scientists are, the worst thing they can do is propose a thought which is accepted and then eventually proved wrong so they don't mind the general public remaining oblivious to it all. Heck, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was thought to be proven wrong so theories aren't immune from being wrong but all evidence points to them being right and in the existence of the theory, no evidence has ever substantiated them being wrong.

So again, do you believe people actively looking for evidence on both sides that have come to the conclusion of things such as evolution or do you believe someone who just holds their belief in a book thousands of years old and refuses to look at evidence or even bring their own evidence to the table?

 

[Glass Joe]

This isn't a public school textbook, is it?

From what I've read this is a textbook that is used in privates schools. However, Louisiana has a voucher system where taxpayer money can be used to pay for private school tuition. Technically the schools that use books like this are receiving public moneys.I could be wrong though.

No you're right:

Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories.

This crap is destroying our ability to compete as a nation. We turn out kids who still believe fantasies that are best suited for the 15 century not the 21st.

Look, I'm as big a non-believer as you are, but I happened to go to college with hundreds of kids who hailed from Louisiana, many to most of them coming from parochial, private schools that were HEAVY on religion/Christianity. But I'm here to tell you that these kids were every bit as competitive intellectually in a very good to great liberal arts college of higher learning than I was as a non-believer. They may be inundated with religion in Louisiana, but they aren't suffering intellectually because of it. Just my 2 cents from my experience.

Jesuit schools have a great rep for producing top students. I don't think being a religious school or going to one automatically makes you dumb. But I think where many of these schools are going is like the home schooling route. I do think they hurt students in that everything is presented as if it comes with the same kind of authority. And by treating this anti-science as if it is valid, it simply isn't. There are now schools in La teaching that dinosaurs and men co-existed less than 10k years ago. And they are getting tax money to do it. Those kids are screwed.

Look, I agree that teaching kids that dinosaurs and man roaming the earth at the same time is just beyond stupid and certainly not something our tax dollars should be supporting. But I don't think that's the only thing being taught to these kids, nor do I think religion taking an active role in education in Louisiana is a terribly new concept and one set to ruin the children. Every single kid I ever met from the city of New Orleans went to private school. If you have the means, you do NOT send yours kids to public school in New Orleans. That is the way it has always been as far as I can remember. These private schools are all affiliated with religion, mostly Catholicism. And yet these kids go into colleges and become doctors, lawyers, leaders in business, etc. I don't think religious education is setting them back.

Echoing (I think) your statement - no one should conflate Catholic and Christian education. Catholic schools embrace science, from the top down. The issue here is with the born agains....not Catholics when it comes to education.We have our own problems.

 

[jomar]

I will never understand the idea that someone looks at the universe, sees all the order and complexity, and says, "There's no way this could have just arisen naturally. It's just too incredible. Therefore, I believe it was created by a higher intelligence."

Which is more complex, the watch or the watchmaker?

If you don't think it's possible for something as sophisticated as the universe to arise naturally, why do you think it's possible for some creator-god that's even more sophisticated than the universe to arise naturally? Again, that doesn't give you a problem at all? If you think it's impossible for a watch to simply assemble itself on a beach, imagine how much harder it would be for a watchmaker to assemble itself! It makes little sense to argue that the creation is too incredible to exist without the existence of a creator, when the existence of the creator is a far more incredible occurrence in the first place. It calls to mind something like the base rate fallacy, where you're only looking at the conditional probability of the creation and not at all considering the prior probability of the creator.

It's possible that everything had a beginning (i.e. at some point there was literally nothing, and then a moment later, there was something). That "something" that suddenly winked into existence could be matter. Or energy. Or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. We'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

It's also possible that something has simply existed forever. Maybe matter, or energy, or an all-powerful creator with limitless knowledge and the ability to make other things out of nothing. Again, we'll likely never know the answer, so take your pick. I know which one of those sounds a lot less likely than the others to me.

Of course, that's only part one of the question I have for Christians. The second part is, if you've convinced yourself that the universe must have had a creator, what makes you believe that creator was the god of the Christian bible? Why not Brahma, or Mbombo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? For argument's sake, let's say that I agree with you that there is overwhelming evidence that there had to be a creator. What evidence would I find to believe the creator of the universe is the one written about in the bible, and not some other creator?

I think you and Shader should have a dedicated, live debate. I'd watch.

it really wouldn't be much of a debate. Shader is incapable of seeing how his belief in his God and somebody else's belief in FSM are equal. to him its insulting. why? isn't it equally possible that FSM created the universe as it is his Christian God? of course it is, yet his blind spot for his religion distorts his view.

 

[sporthenry]

Then what was the initial condition that started it? Where did the original particles come from? Exactly what existed prior to the Big bang?

None of us knows this. The issue here is that creationist believe that God came from nothing but refuse to accept that it's just as plausible that the universe came from nothing.

I'm not going to say there's a 0% chance of an eternal God who came from nothing, but think about this logically: What's more likely - that a highly advanced all-powerful being came from nothing with nothing preceding it or that random matter that came from nowhere formed something over billions of years.

Seriously? I'm a mechanical engineer and my thought process requires me to think logically about everything I dbviously I'm going to answer God. As I've stated before, God answers the questions that science/philosophy are unable to answer.

Well most scientists don't believe in God so I'll extend that to most engineers so you are probably in the minority and I'm an engineer to so I guess I have that same thought process. That said, you use the spandrel theory for belief in God. However, thousands of years ago, you would have believed in things such as a geocentric theory, that the earth was flat, and only thousands of years old. Now that we have evidence of these things being wrong, whose side are you going to believe? The side who has consistently been wrong or the side that continues to be right but needs more time? To me, it isn't a question of God answering the questions that science can't explain, it is just science is unable to explain these things at the moment. You need an explanation for these things while I have faith that I may never know but 100's of years from now, we'll know where the eye came from. And you don't think it is a sign that the scientists keep encroaching further on religious beliefs and after constant fighting, they eventually give in and start the fight on something else?

As someone said, the easiest explanation is usually the right one.

Your opinion.Also, thousands of years ago, scientists pretty much all thought that the earth was flat and that the sun moved around the earth. I don't think the bible was the cause of that. There are no statements in the bible that contradict that. If the church acted reprehensibly in the middle ages, than that is of no concern to me. The churches in the middle ages burned people for owning the bible, killed people left and right, and pretty much made a mockery of the bible and God.

What is my opinion? That scientists don't believe in God? Fact. That engineers are scientists? That if you had to pick a field closest to engineering, you'd come up with science. Religion might not have thought the Earth was flat but the Earth being the center of the universe was tantamount to their argument b/c it showed God created the Earth and we were so important he made everything revolve around us. But alas, that tricky God created us and made us so important but threw us a curve ball by having us revolve around a dying star.