quote: ATLANTA, Jan. 13 -- A federal judge on Thursday ordered the immediate removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks by school officials in suburban Cobb County that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying they were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
"Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.
Some parents of students and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the stickers in court, arguing that they violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said attorney Michael Manely, who represented the parents who brought the lawsuit. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."
School board members said in a written statement that they the stickers are an "evenhanded guide to science instruction" and encourage students to be "critical thinkers." They had not decided whether to appeal. A board spokesman said no decision had been made on when, or if, the stickers that were placed on the books in 2002 will be removed.
I'm wondering if the school board actually cares about this - I bet at least some of them voted for the stickers merely to appease some voters. Now, with a court loss, they can please their voters and not worry about it any more.
My prediction: If this is appealed to SCOTUS, and they take it, the decision will be overturned.
Dagonee
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
after seeing the text of the stickers, I don't quite understand why it was not allowed. They didn't say that evolution was not true, just that it is a theory (which every book I have read called it "the theory of evolution") and that people should think critically...which is what school should always encourage.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
The stickers singled out evolution of all scientific theories, and were rather deceptive as to what a theory was.
The sticker forgot to mention that Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, and Gravity were theories, too, and should be approached with an open mind and critically considered.
The sticker also neglected to mention that there was a Law of Evolution, too.
The sticker allowed many people to say, "Well, evolution is just a theory" and point to the sticker as evidence, without actually understanding what a theory was.
It didn't lie, perse...in the same way that Moore never actually lied.
[ January 13, 2005, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the stickers were ridiculous. Every good science book for high schoolers and below should have an introduction that defines "theory," and the content should contain frank discussions of which part of the theory is generally firm and which is still speculative. Singling out one portion of the book is silly.
But, I don't think this is a job for the courts, because it's more about bad science than religion.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm generally among the most fanatic seperation of church and state advocates, but the removal of the sticker seems to say that if you believe in religion you are wrong. I certainly don't think that creationism should be taught in schools alongside of evolution, but evolution is just a theory that happens to be supported by facts.
Posted by Jestak (Member # 5952) on :
quote: but evolution is just a theory that happens to be supported by facts.
You can say the same for creation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really, not if you're using the scientific definition of "theory."
Well, you could say it. But you'd be using the word incorrectly.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Part of what he relied on was the stickers saying evolution was a theory, but not a fact. Saying evolution is not a fact is a falsehood, there are instances of evolution that are observed, whether or not you agree with the theory as a whole (not that there is a single theory of evolution, there are several competing ones).
Also, intent does matter, particularly when determining church/state separation. The intent (and effect, as at least one science teacher testified to) was to undermine the teaching of evolution, understanding of which is laid down as part of the curriculum, in favor of a religious perspective.
edit to make clear: that is, evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact.
[ January 13, 2005, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
That evolution occurs is a fact. It has been observed in laboratory conditions. The theories involve such things as its mechanism and how it began. That's what is meant by "theory of evolution". That it happens at all is not a theory.
So the bumper sticker is stupid. But then, so are most bumper stickers. That doesn't mean the Supreme Court should have any say here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and the phrase "regarding the origin of living things" at best is misleading, and based on what I've read about the trial seems to be intended in the sense that is false.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Evolution isn't even the only non-religious theory (non-scientific definition). We think that's how humans arose, but it can't be proved and just like humans were wrong about the shape and motion of the earth we could be wrong about evolution as well. I don't think the "evolution is theory, not a fact" stickers need to be there if this sentiment is at least explained when the textbook explains what theories are. I just think its not the purpose of schools to say that religious beliefs are just plain wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, intent does matter, particularly when determining church/state separation.
I don't see why.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The likelihood of being wrong about the basics of evolution is along the lines of the likelihood of being wrong about the basics of quantum mechanics.
Unlike the flat earth "theory" (which hasn't been considered reasonably possible by the scientific community since the ancient greeks, several thousand years ago, and as science didn't really exist before then, has never really been even a vague approximation of a scientific theory), evolution has millions of data points which are in agreement with it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
mph -- because intent changes outcomes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am glad more attention is being paid to what's actually been proven, though. My biology textbooks presented the "lightning striking the primordial soup" theory of life's beginning as something that had been proven.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because religion is all in the mind! I don't mean to be insulting here, I'm saying faith is a mental or spiritual phenomenon. So stickers intended to attack a perceived competitor to religion are different from stickers intended to encourage critical thinking.
Edit : Jeesh, ninjamatic typing! This was to mph.
[ January 13, 2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Verily, these were not bumper stickers, although I still agree with you. I misread the title at first too.
HRE, Who cares about being deceptive? If I remember my high school history textbooks with reasonable accuracy, the US never committed a single immoral act outside its borders. These are only stickers. All the teacher has to do is state who made the stickers, without inserting any opinion, and explain the scientific definition of theory with perhaps a little more emphasis than before. If the kids cannot figure out the rest for themselves, they will probably just take whichever belief that feels right anyway. As far as Christianity based on the Bible (without Apocrypha) and an omnipotent God goes, I heard the thousand years/one day explanation quite early, and not too long after that figured out the "God back-dated the stars, dinosaurs, etc." on my own.
I thought biology was generally taught by itself over a year, so no reason to mention Atomic or Gravity theories. Evolutionists should be allowed to place their own stickers that say, "So is Germ Theory".
nfl, I do not think it states that, although it could easily be said to imply it, and highly suspect that played a part in why it was brought there. I am making the hopefully correct assumption that the court did not use this reasoning in its decision. Still, it is no worse than the people who put it there, just the opposite side. They should have made their own factually correct sticker that did not technically endorse a religious belief or lack thereof.
mph, neither do I. Facts, no matter how misleading, should not be suppressed in this manner, although the special interest group should have to pay for all costs related to the stickers. Nor should the teachers be required to mention them.
[ January 14, 2005, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
This decision isn't going to help the persecution complex of the people who pushed for the stickers.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
"Earth is plat", it's well known...
We cannot be from monkey !! that's the same thing.
Posted by KarIEd (Member # 7205) on :
quote: As far as Christianity based on the Bible (without Apocrypha) and an omnipotent God goes, I heard the thousand years/one day explanation quite early, and not too long after that figured out the "God back-dated the stars, dinosaurs, etc." on my own.
Are you saying that you believe that God created the Earth in a certain time period, but then for some reason made it appear that the "stars, dinosaurs, etc." were older than they actually are? If so, doesn't this belief make God a liar? Would that not mean that he created beings with intelligence and then put them in a world he specifically designed to deceive them?
Or have I misunderstood what you meant entirely?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think the removal of the stickers is an outrage that cannot be borne. Our students deserve to have these warnings to alert them that the contents of their textbooks, books they would otherwise trust as infallible sources of knowledge, may have been written with an anti-religious agenda.
Also, I had already started designing the "Yeah, but Intelligent Design is just silly" textbook stickers I was going to sell and make millions.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: But, I don't think this is a job for the courts,
I agree with that statement!
FG
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
If evolution wasn’t presented as fact the stickers wouldn’t be needed. Since evolution is a theory and can not be proven the stickers are needed. Why and how the stickers violate the separation of church and state is pure insanity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If evolution wasn’t presented as fact the stickers wouldn’t be needed. Since evolution is a theory and can not be proven the stickers are needed.
Jay, I'm afraid you're speaking from ignorance, here.
The stickers are "needed" because some Christians feel useless unless they can grandstand about persecution.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thank you for using the word "some" there, Tom.
FG
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
right ! thanks a lot.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, I'm afraid you're speaking from ignorance, here.
The stickers are "needed" because some Christians feel useless unless they can grandstand about persecution.
No Tom, you would be the ignorant one here. The idea that “Christians” want these so they can grandstand shows your bias. The religion of evolution has prevailed in the courts and has become the religion of the state. For them to be able to teach evolution as fact to undermine people of faith is horrible. I doubt many Jews, Muslims, or any other faiths (other the humanism) would like idea of facts being presented that we descended from apes. Especially since it is just a theory. So Tom, as you point your ignorant finger at me, enjoy the three others points back at you.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
I suggest to burn all this scientists who wrote many and many books on this satan idea of... berk ! "evolution" and clam have evidences. What a joke. And we may burn all this evil books !
[ January 14, 2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Choobak ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, didn't the "Evolutionists" lose the Scopes Monkey trial? I guess that would mean that technically the evolutionists did not prevail.
There are plenty of folks self-identifying from all those faiths that have no problem believing that evolution is a real mechanism. After all, evolution is an answer to a "How?" question, not a "Why?" question.
And certain sub-groups of Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam, and New Age/Wicca, and Buddhism, etc.) have been known to grandstand quite a bit.
-Bok
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The sticker forgot to mention that Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, and Gravity were theories, too, and should be approached with an open mind and critically considered.
I thought gravity was a law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, didn't the "Evolutionists" lose the Scopes Monkey trial? I guess that would mean that technically the evolutionists did not prevail.
Since then, they've prevailed more often than they've lost.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
If evolution has only been observed in the laboratory, that actually suggests intelligent design. Also anti-biotic resistance is the direct result of man's interference. One could even say it about those moths that are caused by industrial soot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The idea that 'Christians' want these so they can grandstand shows your bias. The religion of evolution has prevailed in the courts and has become the religion of the state."
I'm afraid that your use of lines like "the religion of evolution...has become the religion of the state" puts you firmly in the frothing grandstander category, Jay.
If you want to have a serious conversation about evolution with me, you're welcome to do it; let's start another thread on that topic, since the sticker thing is silly enough on its own.
-------
Trisha, is it your position that only man is capable of making environmental changes that force evolution? Me, I personally think that man has made a number of unusually severe environmental changes, and consequently most instances of drift and selection we've seen in the century we've been looking for them have been a consequence of those severe man-made adjustments -- but also suspect that more subtle "natural" adjustments are likely to have a similar effect, only not one that's as easy to observe over a short period of time.
[ January 14, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Are you sure everyone responded?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did anyone else read the article on Avida in this month's Discover? It's a digital life simulator that creates basic programs that randomly evolve until one can add two numbers together. The program rewards programs that can perform some of the steps necessary to add (accept numbers, store numbers, output numbers, etc.) with slightly faster reproduction rates. The types of mutations are randomly selected by the program.
The programs actually evolve and actually develop into being able to add numbers. Even more interesting is that they arrive at some wildly different algorithms to do so.
There's some hint that this method may be able to develop algorithms that are better than what we can develop for extremely complex tasks. Except, we would be the ones developing them because we would be the ones who set the parameters for success and who develped the virtual world in which they developed.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh, I didn't think you'd sent out a memo. I just wondered if it's possible someone didn't respond. Some people have reservations about sharing their opinion in situations like that. It might also be that a single person would not want to admit that they didn't believe we evolved from apes if everyone else in the work area had just claimed that they did.
But I'll believe you if you say everyone voted, I was just wondering if someone could have felt alienated by the poll.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay, cool. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That humans could cause evolution is not evidence for intelligent design at all; it would only be evidence for intelligent design if there were some good reason the human-caused processes could not occur in nature.
Of course, considering that most of our early antibiotic discoveries were natural antibiotics, and that we've observed mildly similar phenomenon to the moth changes in species living around volcanoes, that's not true at all.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Considering that humans are actually a part of nature, it makes sense to me that we could take part in causing evolution, in the same way that creatures around us affect what occurs. The only difference is that those creatures don't know they have an affect on the world around them, and we do, so we can, to some extent, control how we affect our environment.
The thing that really creeps me out is the idea that evolution could take millions of years to create a creature that can undo all of its work in a couple of decades.
Posted by KarIEd (Member # 7205) on :
The fact that a large number of people (religious or not) believe that we descended from apes only shows that large numbers of people do not know much about evolution. We did not "descend from apes". No one who studies evolution claims this. What is theorized is that apes and humans have a common ancestor that was neither "ape" nor "human". "Ape" and "human" are two separate evolutionary paths diverging from that theoretical common ancestor.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Maybe god sent the astroid that wiped out the dinosaurs knowing we would evolve? Maybe like in Xenocide/CotM by Mr. Card the whole universe was created in that one microscopic point and then the big bang happened with everything happening from those blueprints..? Also, I'm of the persuation that I can't help but laugh at the monk/bishop who decided by adding up all the ages of the people in the bible and came up with 5000 years when THAT is easily disproven by the historical writings of civilizations that already existed. Plus theres that 1 out of two books that survived the burning of Alexandria that said that there was a civilization that was about 200,000 years old.
And one more peace of evidence is that they found a cave in south america that easily predates 5000 years that intestingly enough has certain materials/plants that were at that time period only available in Japan, china and europe.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So, then, the "missing link" is not a creature between ape and man, but rather the common ancestor?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I don't want to sound picky about this, but I think that some people DO know we don't actually descend from apes and use the term instead of "common ancestor" just to be shorter. And while that's certainly not something to be taught or said in a scientific document, it has become so usual in current speech that it can be considered acceptable. Posted by KarIEd (Member # 7205) on :
PSI - Yes. That would be the "missing link".
Corwin - I understand your point. However, in a debate such as this precision of language should really be paramount. While it might be acceptable to some in common speech, I think it does a disservice to intelligent conversation to perpetuate a misrepresentation of what, exactly, is being asserted.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of apes : Granted, we are not descended from the modern species of chimpanzee or gorilla. Still, if you grabbed our ancestors from, say, five million years ago (that's the split with the chimpanzees) and put them on today's savannah, the guy who discovered them would go "Hey, a new species of ape!" And going back twenty-five million years and putting them in the jungle, it would be "Cool, a new species of monkey!" Just because they're not modern apes doesn't mean they're not pretty ape-like.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, many instances of evolution have been noted in the wild (Darwin's Finches, many others). It may not prove macroevolution to everyone, but it proves it is certainly a mechanism of organism change, at some level.
I also remember 2 types of the same bird that no longer breed, because they were separated by a mountain range so long that the mating song had changed, and they don't recognize each other.
-Bok
Posted by KarIEd (Member # 7205) on :
Well, you could say that humans themselves are "pretty ape like". You could also go back even farther and find a common ancestor that looks a lot like a shrew. That doesn't mean that it is a shrew and saying that "man descended from the shrew" would be just as incorrect as saying he descended from the ape.
Your arguement smacks of "well, by 'ape' I mean that thing humans descended from." If we're going to play semantic "mad-libs" we could just as correctly say "humans descended from dinosaurs". Or you could say "humans descended from their ancestors" which, while correct, adds nothing useful to the conversation.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
*serious*
I would like to notice you that "Apes" is a generic term for a part of species. So, i think we can use it to speak about our common ancestor with the "current apes".
*joking*
But all of that are the Devil !! Nobody must trust this bad talks on our ancestors. Adam and Eve aren't monkeys !! Burn this thread ! Fire this communauty of Païens !!!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Maybe Adam and Eve were the first humans that came forth from monkeys. : D
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
KarlEd, you're absolutely right. What I should have said was "No, we're not descended from apes, we are apes." I'm with Pratchett on this one : If it weren't for vanity, our species would be named Pan narrans. Sapiens, bah, humbug.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Choobak, this is one of those topics where that type of over-the-top joking isn’t helpful. It’s too close to directly belittling other members of the forum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if the shoe fits...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wit?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It wouldn't leave blisters.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Maybe this will rerail the thread back to the stickers:
Evolution Theory is no more controversial to biologists than Music Theory is to musicians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The "scientists rejected supernatural explanations for life" one may be true, but it's an example of scientists overreaching. They cannot comment meaningfully from within science about anything supernatural.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Can I assume that those stickers were a joke? Mainly?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
dkw, look, he said he was joking, and we all know that even people who don't agree entirely with the theory of evolution wouldn't do that. I think that if he could have said that with a certain voice it could make quite a few people laugh, whereas in writing you'd have to imagine that voice yourself, and you might not want to. I did, I laughed about what he said, I'm over it and back to the discussion. Really, don't make a big thing out of it. (as I'm doing a good enough job myself )
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I mean, getting back to the stickers, is that guy really blaming the suit on the Creationists?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sure they can, insofar as they can use inductive thought to presume that most (99.9999999%) of phenomena in the material world can be understood solely within the context of the material world, they can certainly posit that all things can be described as such, that metaphysics is an illusion.
It won't be particularly fruitful, but it isn't overreaching, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Corwin, this is a touchy issue, and we’re had major blow-ups over it. I’d rather not see it happen again. I’m sure it could make more than a few people laugh. That isn’t the point.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
quote: It’s too close to directly belittling other members of the forum.
I don't want that (if i understand correctly what you write). But I'm sinic that all evidence of evolution can be put into the carpet so easily. When i read that some states of USA "forget" to teach that at school, i am affraid. Sorry to joke. You are right : it's a serious thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When I was in my Orthodox Jewish high school, the rabbis taught us that during creation, God put a system into place. It's up to us to use our minds to figure out what that system is. Right now, we think that system is evolution.
That's pretty much what I believe, although I think there was a separate, Creative event when some animal was given spirit (or a soul). That is, a particular animal at a particular time was used as a building block, and at that point in time God created a human being.
To me, if the "lighning in the soup" theory is true, then in some sense God did fashion Adam out of the mud.
Dagonee
[ January 14, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think that the word "theory" plays a serious part in how people perceive the "theory of evolution." In a generic conversation people use the word "theory" to mean "hypothesis" and I find that confusing.
In other words, people have a guess as to why something happened, but no actual evidence, but they will use the word theory to explain their idea. This gives people the feeling that a theory is nothing more than an educated guess, and that to teach it in the classrooms as truth is like teaching a religion in class as truth.
[ January 14, 2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
*sighed*
There are evidences. But somebodies have something between it and their eyes to look at. For religion, only the faith is here. No evidence, just we trust on it.
And I had religious lessons in schoolclass (about all religions).
[Added] You are right about theory and hypothesis : many people make the confusion.
[ January 14, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Choobak ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: The "scientists rejected supernatural explanations for life" one may be true, but it's an example of scientists overreaching. They cannot comment meaningfully from within science about anything supernatural.
Exactly. Which is why intelligent design isn't science.
And yes, I'm sure they are intended to be a joke. But not without a message.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Also, even an educated guess isn't a hypothesis unless it's testable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For religion, only the faith is here. No evidence, just we trust on it.
This isn't quite true. There's lots of evidence. It's just not scientific evidence.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The thing that really tends to bother me about stuff like this is how it exposes the ignorance of the people who are opposing the ignorant christians. The problem that this sticker issue highlights is that these kids are not getting a proper education in science. If we could be confident that the kids would leave high school with an actual understanding of what science is and what is meant by something being a theory, there would be no actual problem with these stickers (aside for wasting time and money on the demands of people who don't now what they're talking about).
If this is a threat, then it means that we have system where kids aren't getting a basic understanding of the fundamentals of science.
The same is true for many cases where Christians try to do innapropriate stuff on a political level. They're wrong and ignorant, but the people who oppose them often work in wrong and ignorant ways as well. Fights between people trying to do things with the justification that this is a "Christian nation" so they should be able to force whatever they think the Bible says on other people and the people who want to stop them should focus on the Christian versus "I don't like Christians" angle, it should be about people who don't understand the basis of our country versus people who do. In this case, it should be about people who don't understand science and have only their stubborn ignorance to reccomend them versus the people that don't, but because there's plenty of ignorance and immaturity on both sides, it's mostly on the Christian/non-Christian angle.
These types of Christians aren't going to change. If they could get away with it, they'd try to go back to believing that the sun orbits the earth. I think we should be focused on the often appalling ignorance of the people who are opposing them. In this case, I think our focus should be on improving the quality of the science education that we provide. If we did that, we could, without ever directly opposing them, turn the ignorant objections of these people into the barely significant sidenote they deserve to be. But that's not going to happen as long as people are more concerned in fighting with Christians than they are with making sure kids get a good education.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: These types of Christians aren't going to change.
That's a defeatist attitude. And it's not true. I know quite a few people who used to be fundamentalists who have softened their viewpoint considerably, and some who now reject religion altogether.
I'm not saying that rejecting belief is something to aspire to. In fact, I think that a person's state of belief is less important than a person's willingness to work with others cooperatively. Essentially, (from my perspective) we need a bridge that allows theists and atheists to work together, instead of polarizing. That would allow theists to feel less threatened by atheist (and associated scientific belief), and would lessen the "cornered animal" behavior that gives fundamentalists such a bad reputation.
Oddly enough, I think Jesus gave us some of the tools to build that bridge.
Posted by KarIEd (Member # 7205) on :
Nice post, Glenn. And I largely agree with you. I'd be interested to know, though, what tools you believe would be useful that were given to us by Jesus (as opposed to tools that were simply used by Jesus himself, but were also available before his time.)
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
In my experience, pretty much every single person who has ever approached this argument from any position has done it the wrong way.
There are evidences for both sides. Example 1) There were seashells found in the Himalayas. Creationists: they washed up there during the flood. Evolutionists: the Himalayas were pushed up out of the ocean during geological formation of the earth. Example 2) The Grand Canyon. Creationists: the flood created it, along with many other outrageous formations. Evolutionists: Again, natural geological formation.
It's actually pretty insane when you start getting into evidenciary debate. I've gone back and forth between websites and documents supporting both sides so much, and it's all been incredibly circular. For every Creationist argument, an Evolutionist counter-argument. For every Evolutionist counter-argument, a Creationist counter-argument. And so on.
It's like there's some divine being who decided to give full evidence to both sides so we would have to decide by faith...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I should have been clearer on that. Those types of Christians aren't going to change because you fought with them. It is possible for them to change, but that shouldn't be the focus. If you're in a disagreement with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, the way to win is to make knowing what you're talking about important, not engaging in a personal battle. If the disagreement between Galileo and the Church were to be settled by scientific merits instead of raw force, Galileo would have won hands down. The same is pretty much true here, although we thankfully live in a country where might (even as expressed in the democratic way by number of votes or the capitalistic way by amount of money) doesn't necessarily trump right.
And I want to emphasize, I'm only talking about some Christians. One of the foundational precepts of our country and the philosphical movement it was a product of is the idea of limiting things to their proper place. In a scientific context, it doesn't matter if you're theistic, atheistic, polytheistic, or anything else, because believs about God don't enter into science. The problem with thse things only comes about when people inappropriately inject them into this realm.
Likewise, it's only when people try to use the government to force other people to live by their beliefs that there is a problem with having people of different beliefs under a government.
I've no problem "living with" people of most any type of religious belief if they are responsible about this.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The idea that evolution happens because of God is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. So is the idea that gravity happens because of God perfectly consistent with gravitational theory.
However, neither idea is scientific.
The "scientific theory" of ID asserts that there is scientific evidence evolution happens because of God (they use higher intelligence, but its a remarkably similar entity to the judeo-christian god, being advocated by christians (for the most part), I wonder who they could be talking about). This, however, is not a scientific theory, because it lacks a large body (or any body, actually) of evidence to back it up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sausageman -- the thing is, just was with most things (take a look at the "evidence" the moon landing was a hoax sometime), some of the evidence is better than other evidence.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I just took an office poll. My office consists almost entirely of religious people; several Jews, two Catholics, and a Sikh. The unanimous consensus is that we were descended from apes.
Adam, you totally rock. Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
AMERICA IS A DEMOCRACY
A theory, not a fact
AMERICAN JUSTICE IS JUSTICE
A theory, not a fact
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE
A total lie.
Where are my book bumper stickers?????
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I'd be interested to know, though, what tools you believe would be useful that were given to us by Jesus (as opposed to tools that were simply used by Jesus himself, but were also available before his time.)
Doesn't matter. Maybe I'm just assuming that most people on this fourm know I'm an atheist, so the statement was ironic, coming from me.
I was talking about building bridges between theists and atheists, and making a concession of that nature is an example of what I meant. I could also discuss aspects of Pascal's wager that I find useful, which is also pretty ironic.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Just to respond :
An evidence is Always scientific ! Build on fact, on materials, and actions in explicit time. That's why I cannot trust there is other evidence than scientific evidence. That are a conviction and not evidence. That why i wrote religions can be explain only by faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Choobak, there are many types of evidence. Not all is scientific evidence.
For example, temperature readings taken throughout the world is evidence that the world is warming. This is scientific evidence used to support a scientific conclusion. Note that such readings do not conclusively prove that the earth is getting warmer. They make it very likely that the earth is getting warmer. The reliability of the evidence is based on the reliability of the instruments used to measure the temperature, the truthfulness and accuracy of the people reporting those measurements, and the number of inferential steps between the premise "Temperatures in 1000 spots across the globe measured daily for 20 years have changed in this manner" and the conclusion "Therefore the earth is getting warmer."
Similarly, thousands of Israelites fleeing from Egypt stop in the desert. Their leader goes up to the mountain. The Israelites see (if I remember correctly) a cloud, hear thunder. When they come down, their leader tells them that God has given these instructions.
His testimony is evidence of what God said. It's not direct proof, but his reliability to the Israelites was high based on recent events.
Similarly, the continuity in the oral tradition and in the various manuscripts, linguistic analysis, dating of ancient scrolls, etc. are all evidence that these events happened as described. To some, they are not convincing evidence. But they are evidence.
If a scientist comes back from an expedition and reports finding a plateau with living dinosaurs, his testimony is evidence. It may not support full belief in the conclusion (that such a plateau, in fact, exists), but it is evidence that such a plateau exists. The reliability will depend in part on the reputation of the scientist, and in part on any other evidence, such as the alleged location of the plateau being in a spot not formerly visited and documented by scientists.
All evidence is simply not scientific.
Dagonee
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Oh !! Maybe i make a confusion. Actually, French translate evidence as "preuve" (as in justice). And you mean it is a difference between "proof" and "evidence", don't you ?
So, if it's that, I understand what you wrote before. But All my posts are based on the term "proof".
About what you wrote, Dagonee, on the reliability of mesure instruments. It is an old and interesting debat begin with Socrate and his Cave. And more recently, the idea of Eisenberg : "To mesure is to deform". But Currently the precision of instrument is so performed, that we have a good approximation of what we mesure.
Moreover, You are right in a sence : I forgot Math proof.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag, I think you are being unrealistically broad in what is considered 'evidence' in common usage. For example, I could state 'All religious people are homophobes' and that would be evidence that my statement is true, by your definition. But very few people would consider it evidence, because they would find it unconvincing. In common usage, 'evidence' means something a lot closer to the scientific or legal standards than mere assertion - perhaps because those are the two contexts in which the word usually appears.
On a side note, what is the standard you apply to, let's say, the crucifixion and resurrection? You've agreed it's not the scientific standard, hard as that is to define. I think it's not the legal standard; wouldn't the Gospels all be chucked out as hearsay? They were all written down by people other than the actual apostles whose names they bear, I believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:wouldn't the Gospels all be chucked out as hearsay?
Nope - ancient writing exception.
quote:I could state 'All religious people are homophobes' and that would be evidence that my statement is true, by your definition.
Not really. Moses was reporting events - it was testimony based on personal knowledge. "I witnessed X." Your statement is a conclusion. We may trust conclusions based on the reliability of their source, but generally they're considered weaker forms of evidence at best.
Edit: In fact, I was largely thinking of the legal definition of evidence when I gave the Moses and plateau examples.
Dagonee
[ January 17, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Nope - ancient writing exception.
Really? Has the situation ever come up in court? Now I'm interested.
On the other subject, suppose I went to the other extreme, and said "God has told me all homosexuals should be punished." Now, I realise I haven't been the recipient of miracles, as you believe Moses was. Nevertheless, aren't you defining that as evidence? And I think that goes against the common usage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Your description of that example may represent the most common understanding of evidence, although I'm not sure of that.
But, your statement is evidence - oral or written testimony based on personal sensual perception of an event is the most common form of evidence in the legal system. So while you may be right that people would consider that not to be evidence, in the legal sense it's the prototypical evidence.
Evidence does not equal proof, which was the root of the mutual confusion between Choobak and me.
I think the most accurate thing to say about your statement is that it's insufficient evidence to cause me to modify my beliefs or actions, and that most would agree with that characterization.
Edit:
quote:Really? Has the situation ever come up in court? Now I'm interested.
Not that I'm aware of with the Bible, but there was interesting case about the bell of a confederate privateer that was decided based on ancient (well, 100-year old) written accounts.
Dagonee
[ January 17, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
quote: Evidence does not equal proof, which was the root of the mutual confusion between Choobak and me.
Well, I understand better and better english with you !
So, like lot of French, i have a cartesian spirit and I need proof unless for religion, where faith is the way. That why my position about this stickers is this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
"evolution" and clam have evidences. What a joke. And we may burn all this evil books !![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)