evolution: 1 creationism: 0
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
people are realizing it's all a bunch of bs.
Are you talking microevolution? Then I understand what you're saying. If you're talking cross-species, I'd like to know more as to what you're referring to.
Decades of anti-religious education, television and movies. Look at the venom on most of these threads for all things religious. Here's the conclusion most of the humanist posters on these threads have come to:
1. Religion is at fault for virtually every problem known to man.
2. Religion is responsible for virtually every war.
3. Religion is anti-science.
4. Religion will crush the human spirit returning us to the Dark Ages.
After years and years of reading about the Salem Witch trials, the Crusades, Galileo, Inherit the Wind and Hollywood needling, the biases are set for life...
harrytrader wrote:
I think I'm as offended by Jaynes goofy subjectivism as I am by the creationist/ID quacks.
I think I'm as offended by Jaynes goofy subjectivism as I am by the creationist/ID quacks.
What is amazing is that some people lack logic: evolution is a scientific law as any other scientific law. And saying that such law exits is not saying that God doesn't exist - neither does it say that God exists - if you don't understand read Stephen Hawkins comment about Laplace answer's to Napoleon:
From Stephen Hawkins:
"people must have noticed certain regularities in the behaviour of nature. These regularities were most obvious, in the motion of the heavenly bodies across the sky. So astronomy was the first science to be developed. It was put on a firm mathematical basis by Newton, more than 300 years ago, and we still use his theory of gravity to predict the motion of almost all celestial bodies. Following the example of astronomy, it was found that other natural phenomena also obeyed definite scientific laws. This led to the idea of scientific determinism, which seems first to have been publicly expressed by the French scientist, Laplace. I thought I would like to quote you Laplace's actual words, so I asked a friend to track them down. They are in French of course, not that I expect that would be any problem with this audience. But the trouble is, Laplace was rather like Prewst, in that he wrote sentences of inordinate length and complexity. So I have decided to para-phrase the quotation. In effect what he said was, that if at one time, we knew the positions and speeds of all the particles in the universe, then we could calculate their behaviour at any other time, in the past or future. <FONT COLOR=RED>There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist.</FONT>"
So using the pretext of Evolution to create a war is just as in any other war was: a pretext nothing more which shouldn't engage Science itself only the stupidity of the men who use it as some ayatollahs use religion as pretext for war.
If you don't know this monumental classic of scientific litterature
by one of the greatest scientist of all time (dozens of years even before Chaos Theory he has said that even simple determinist system can be unpredictable):
Henri Poincaré's
"Science and Hypothesis"
here it is
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Poincare/Poincare_1905_toc.html
This is the beginning:
"To the superficial observer scientific truth is unassailable, the logic of science is infallible; and if scientific men sometimes make mistakes, it is because they have not understood the rules of the game. Mathematical truths are derived from a few self-evident propositions, by a chain of flawless reasonings; they are imposed not only on us, but on Nature itself. By them the Creator is fettered, as it were, and His choice is limited to a relatively small number of solutions. A few experiments, therefore, will be sufficient to enable us to determine what choice He has made. From each experiment a number of consequences will follow by a series of mathematical deductions, and in this way each of them will reveal to us a corner of the universe. This, to the minds of most people, and to students who are getting their first ideas of physics, is the origin of certainty in science. This is what they take to be the rôle of experiment and mathematics. And thus, too, it was understood a hundred years ago by many men of science who dreamed of constructing the world with the aid of the smallest possible amount of material borrowed from experiment. "
School is the product of Republic. Republic is based on Reason and not on Religion. Creationism is not based on Reason but on Faith so I don't see why creationism should be teached in Biology which is a scientific matter. That Creationism is teached in Religion can be done in a separate section for those who want of course but it must be labelled as Religion and not as Science. But Science should not be used abusively against Religion and Vice versa.
Harry:
>If some teachers are too zealous about using evolution
>theory to justify atheism is not the fault of evolution
>theory per se it is the fault of the humans who use any
>pretext to falsely justify their beliefs more founded on
>their stomach than on "reasonable hypothesis" expression
>of Henri Poincaré who reminds that Science is not absence
>of belief .
Me:
>Now THAT is an amazing sentence.
Harry:
>If you don't know this monumental classic of scientific
>litterature by one of the greatest scientist of all time
>(dozens of years even before Chaos Theory he has said
>that even simple determinist system can be unpredictable):
>Henri Poincaré's "Science and Hypothesis" here it is
Whoosh...right over his head.
JB
>If some teachers are too zealous about using evolution
>theory to justify atheism is not the fault of evolution
>theory per se it is the fault of the humans who use any
>pretext to falsely justify their beliefs more founded on
>their stomach than on "reasonable hypothesis" expression
>of Henri Poincaré who reminds that Science is not absence
>of belief .
Me:
>Now THAT is an amazing sentence.
Harry:
>If you don't know this monumental classic of scientific
>litterature by one of the greatest scientist of all time
>(dozens of years even before Chaos Theory he has said
>that even simple determinist system can be unpredictable):
>Henri Poincaré's "Science and Hypothesis" here it is
Whoosh...right over his head.
JB