02 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseA very good article. Read it!
Here is a guide in New Scientist on how to recognize ID'ers Creationistic hidden agenda:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html
If IDers, or fundamentalistic creationists make fools out of themselves, the only ones suffer from it is normal, everyday christians with a healthy view of god. The other of us laughs.
If some fundamentalistic creationist says that there were dinosaurs (T-rex and such) onboard the Noah's ark, and expect others to belive in these foolishness only because Noah's is mentionned in the bible (and the bible must be true, because it is written there), then other people might think that every christian is that way. They are not.
Or that every american is that way, because virtually all ID propaganda comes from the US.
I've often wondered - why is it so important to deny science? We all use the fruit of science every day, including we who read this posting right now. Without science, there would be no internet, no electronics, no nothing. We would be deaf and blind about what's happening around the world, including the ID propaganda. So why deny science? Because of a multi millennia black book with thin pages? What is so frightening with science?
What is the goal to deny science? What's the meaning? Te lower the peoples education to a minimum? To educate people in bible schools? Like any other teocracy (christian or non christian)? What will come out of this? Who will gain poser? Of course, there is a hidden agenda. The teachings of ID and other fundamentalistic creationisms is a huge coverup for something, what? Is it a conspiracy in action? Or is it only pure foolishness?
02 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasPeople are very averse to admitting they are wrong about something they feel strongly about. Most of the times, I would say they do so unconsciously, not realizing that they're are looking for information that seems to confirm their opinions and ignoring that which contradicts them.
I've often wondered - why is it so important to deny science? We all use the fruit of science every day, including we who read this posting right now. Without science, there would be no internet, no electronics, no nothing. We would be deaf and blind about what's happening around the world, including the ID propaganda. So why deny science? Because of a mu ...[text shortened]... ge coverup for something, what? Is it a conspiracy in action? Or is it only pure foolishness?
In the media age, you can find vast amounts of information to agree with your opinions (even if they're wrong). The explosion of conspiracy theories is another side effect of this, in my view.
02 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou have just perfectly described the way many Creationists might think.
People are very averse to admitting they are wrong about something they feel strongly about. Most of the times, I would say they do so unconsciously, not realizing that they're are looking for information that seems to confirm their opinions and ignoring that which contradicts them.
In the media age, you can find vast amounts of information to agree with ...[text shortened]... ey're wrong). The explosion of conspiracy theories is another side effect of this, in my view.
Obviously, this generally doesn’t apply to those that generally do not deny the scientific facts such as the age of the Earth etc.
02 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseIt sounds more like a means to avoid topics of discussion by blasting
Here is a guide in New Scientist on how to recognize ID'ers Creationistic hidden agenda:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html
those that disagree with you, this type of reasoning attacks people
not the central points of the debate.
Kelly
02 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe thing is, creationists don't want to debate. In debates there is reasoned arguments and creationists have only supernatural events which is their central belief system, so its a belief system vs science, which is not debate. Creationists want to subvert actual debate and force a viewpoint that science and creationism are on equal footing which they are most decidedly not. One the one side is science, which is based on evidence and theories and the idea of falsifiability, there is no falsifiability in religion, no way to prove religion wrong so creationists think that means equality of argument. Nothing could be further from the truth. The main thing creationists argue about is evolution. Not nuclear physics, not math, not chemistry, not physiology, not engineering, not nanotechnology, just and only just evolution because it goes against Christian dogma. So in order to attack evolution, creationists have already tried legal means and lost many times in the courtrooms but the code words get sneakier all the time in a long going effort to ridicule, debase, any form of argument including ad hominem attacks like in the Ben Stein movie EXPELLED, he spends the whole movie just attacking the real scientists rather than trying to debate so I'm afraid it's the creationists who resort to name calling. Did you see Expelled? It's a travesty.
It sounds more like a means to avoid topics of discussion by blasting
those that disagree with you, this type of reasoning attacks people
not the central points of the debate.
Kelly
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseCreationist debating creation? Exactly how would one do that? You
The thing is, creationists don't want to debate. In debates there is reasoned arguments and creationists have only supernatural events which is their central belief system, so its a belief system vs science, which is not debate. Creationists want to subvert actual debate and force a viewpoint that science and creationism are on equal footing which they are ...[text shortened]... aid it's the creationists who resort to name calling. Did you see Expelled? It's a travesty.
can prove an act of God? It is hard enough proving acts of some
men! The supernatural isn't up for debate, it either is or it isn't, and
being able to prove it by conversation would be impossible. We can
talk about things we find in the natural world as best we understand
them, but even there our knowledge is limited and we do tend to fill
in the blanks with fuzzy "facts" that we think we have by how we
present our evidence from time to time. I have admitted over and
over that creation isn't a matter for science, science is limited, it is
ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. It must
always be ready to change to correct its positon on all topics, if new
improved information forces it to.
Kelly
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you tell me why creationists continually attack the school systems attempting to force creation to be taught in science classes along side evolution? Why can't they just be satisfied with teaching it in classes devoted to religion?
Creationist debating creation? Exactly how would one do that? You
can prove an act of God? It is hard enough proving acts of some
men! The supernatural isn't up for debate, it either is or it isn't, and
being able to prove it by conversation would be impossible. We can
talk about things we find in the natural world as best we understand
them, but even ...[text shortened]... nge to correct its positon on all topics, if new
improved information forces it to.
Kelly
03 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIf we take a scientific matter - the existence of the Higgs particle... (This is the Science Forum, and not some Religious Forum where anti-science creationists are ranting.)
People are very averse to admitting they are wrong about something they feel strongly about. Most of the times, I would say they do so unconsciously, not realizing that they're are looking for information that seems to confirm their opinions and ignoring that which contradicts them.
In the media age, you can find vast amounts of information to agree with ...[text shortened]... ey're wrong). The explosion of conspiracy theories is another side effect of this, in my view.
This is how I think: The Higgs particle exists, period. It is the logical consequence of the Standard Model. So there is only a matter of time until the particle is detected and confirmed. Then we can go from there and explore it further, creating new scientific theory based of Higgs. Right? Boring.
If they cannot find the Higgs particle where they should, by the Standard Model, then the fun part starts. Where in the Standard Model is the fault to find? How much of the Standard Model have we to revise? Is it wrong altogether, or it is only tiny parts of it? Perhaps we have to disregard it all, and start from the beginning, again.
So is there a Higgs Particle, or isn't it? Or perhaps it exists, but beyond our technology to find it? Exciting times for particle scientists, isn't it?
Once there was a great debate between Steady Staters, and BigBangers. Because of the very debate we scrutinized the evidence for the one theory, or the other. BigBangers won, but still there are SteadyStaters around. To debate the issue new ideas come into being and this is very important to bring science forward.
There are many established theories that have been abandoned, like the Steady State theory: the Phlogiston theory, the Greek four element atomic theory, the Geocentric theory, to mention a few. It is in the nature of science to abandon obsolete theories, when the nature, and Universe, can be described in a better way. There are no dogmas involved, like in religion.
We are about to discover new things with new theories - string theory and the quantum loop gravitation theory, things that we not far ago thought that we cannot ever know. We are at the brink of amazing new discoveries!
My pet theory that I don't believe in, is dark energy. I just don't believe in it. False premises has brought up the idea, and the result is - dark energy. I wait to see the day when people give me the proper evidence or observation that there is such a phenomenon as dark energy. When that day arrives I'm happy to abandon my old thinking and reconstruct my views from bottom up, where necessary. It will not be the first time I do that.
But people who think me stubborn for not embracing the idea of Intelligent Design have to wait a long time. Why? Because it's not science, it's religion. And because it is religion it cannot ever be proven. Because if it could be proven, it would not be religion anymore, but science, and then I would like to see the evidence. Note: the bible is not evidence in any way.
IDers wanting me to see outside the box are themselves unable to see outside their box. IDers are often ill-educated in science, but think it really is about science, therefore think it's scientifically true, or for short the Truth. It isn't.
When debating religious people, I sometimes take me the right to say 'You are wrong'. This is often taken as an attack, because religious beliefs are often interlinked with their very being. So doubting their religious beliefs is to doubt their person. They take it as a personal attack. But when they attack my scientific views, if I were to take it as a personal attack, then I wouldn't be much of a scientist, would I?
Science and religion cannot ever be mixed. He who thinks so, please, give me an indisputable proof that god exist? Or, please, pray that hydrogen nuclei would spontaneously fuse together creating H-energy. No? Because science and religion can never be intermixed.
03 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnascan I just pick you up on this:
If we take a scientific matter - the existence of the Higgs particle... (This is the Science Forum, and not some Religious Forum where anti-science creationists are ranting.)
This is how I think: The Higgs particle exists, period. It is the logical consequence of the Standard Model. So there is only a matter of time until the particle is detected and c ogether creating H-energy. No? Because science and religion can never be intermixed.
And because it is religion it cannot ever be proven.
It's not because it can't be proven that it is religion. It is because it can't be dis-proven. Even theoretically. To make an idea scientific, it does not have to be provable, it has to be (at least theoretically) disprovable if it is wrong. Essentially it has to make predictions that can be tested.
--- Penguin.
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by PenguinYou're quite right here.
can I just pick you up on this:
[b]And because it is religion it cannot ever be proven.
It's not because it can't be proven that it is religion. It is because it can't be dis-proven. Even theoretically. To make an idea scientific, it does not have to be provable, it has to be (at least theoretically) disprovable if it is wrong. Essentially it has to make predictions that can be tested.
--- Penguin.[/b]
The reason that I formulated it this way is that some fundamentalists are anti-scientific, and easily get the impression that - "If something is impossible to dis-prove, then it has to be true!" as in "The existance of god is impossible to dis-prove, then god must exist!"
To formulate in a strict scientific way to anti-scientific people can be very contra-produtive. Like calling evolution a theory, then they think it's a mere guessing and nothing more, but *they know*, because they are not gussing, they truly know with their hart, therfore they are right and scientists are guessing. Nothing could be more wrong if you know how science is done.
But of course you're right, Penguin.
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by PenguinWe thank Mr Popper for that one, eh. What I wonder is this: We take that to the bank, the falsifiability thing. But that is the Carl Popper take on things. We believe that is the latest word in scientific evidentiality, but I am wondering if some philosopher in the future will prove Old Carl wrong and find some other critical criteria for scientific theory building. I wonder what that would be if falsifiability is proven false....
can I just pick you up on this:
[b]And because it is religion it cannot ever be proven.
It's not because it can't be proven that it is religion. It is because it can't be dis-proven. Even theoretically. To make an idea scientific, it does not have to be provable, it has to be (at least theoretically) disprovable if it is wrong. Essentially it has to make predictions that can be tested.
--- Penguin.[/b]
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseIndeed, good old Popper.
We thank Mr Popper for that one, eh. What I wonder is this: We take that to the bank, the falsifiability thing. But that is the Carl Popper take on things. We believe that is the latest word in scientific evidentiality, but I am wondering if some philosopher in the future will prove Old Carl wrong and find some other critical criteria for scientific theory building. I wonder what that would be if falsifiability is proven false....
I don't see how he can be wrong. The logic seems pretty sound to me. But then people have thought that about a lot of things that have turned out to be wrong. :-)
--- Penguin.
04 Mar 09
Originally posted by sonhouseI think any theory of science will introduce paradoxes like the one you mentioned. Perhaps we just need to accept that science, at its core, is not purely rational.
We thank Mr Popper for that one, eh. What I wonder is this: We take that to the bank, the falsifiability thing. But that is the Carl Popper take on things. We believe that is the latest word in scientific evidentiality, but I am wondering if some philosopher in the future will prove Old Carl wrong and find some other critical criteria for scientific theory building. I wonder what that would be if falsifiability is proven false....