dawkins ftw

[barman]

Because my argument was that creationism is true and should be forced upon everyone?

Can you just quote me on that one.

Because creationism isn't real or true? It's a fucking story.

I went to Catholic school for a good number of years during grade school and some high school. Even as a child I understood that these stories in the Bible were just that ... stories. Stories to teach lessons but stories nontheless (Old Testament specifically ) It's like Aesop's Fables on steroids.

I don't see how you can justify spending taxpayer money teaching something that isn't real. Should we be teaching kids about bloodletting or witch hunting, or how to use typewriters? No. Because science progresses and now we know better.

 

[Rusky]

We need the government to control what parents teach their kids. Maybe even send them to prison for being so stupid and closed minded.
I welcome my slightly more intelligent overlords; who figured out the universe before us mere mortals.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Even if your views are proven to be 100% right by science that doesn't give you the right to enforce them on someone else.

But it does give us that right. That's the point. You can't go around saying the sky is neon pink, just because you believe it, because it's just not true. Same as can't go around believing the world is only 7000 years old, or some guy lived in a fishes mouth for 30 days, or the reason we have multiple languages is because some people were building a tower to heaven, and got so close God got worried and scrambles everyone's tongues.

How can we ever evolve as a species if there's people who believe shit like this? World peace, living in space, etc... we're going to have to come together for this, or we're going extinct, and religion is a huge barrier to doing this.

 

[Rusky]

+1 for what lukep said.
Most importantly he got it out of science class. I've honestly never heard an ID lecture but I cant imagine it has any actual science in it. At least nothing that belongs in a textbook or in a state funded program. It's nothing more than a political vice pushing an agenda.

Basically they look at DNA and how complex the code is. Then they compare to how we get complex structure and code today.

Example. If we find a rosetta stone in the desert

From what we know. Do you assume wind and sand made the inscriptions by accident or was this intended for a function by an intelligent body.
Its a question and there's nothing wrong with proposing a question. Classroom or not.

But in my opinion. Schools should focus on math, different trades, reading, writing, social development, history, non theory science/physics. They can choose to go deeper into theories in college by choice.

 

[mimoza3]

I think its rather sad that anyone who believes something and expresses his/her belief should face any level of anger and contempt, everyone is free to believe whatever they want (as long as they do not harm any one in the process and keep it to themselves).

The real danger begins when people are afraid to voice their beliefs, when one voice is taking over the entire conversation is it already too late, and its called totalitarianism, try and understand the importance of different views - and appreciate it always.

 

[mikeshinobi]

Basically they look at DNA and how complex the code is. Then they compare to how we get complex structure and code today.

Example. If we find a rosetta stone in the desert

From what we know. Do you assume wind and sand made the inscriptions by accident or was this intended for a function by an intelligent body.
Its a question and there's nothing wrong with proposing a question. Classroom or not.

The fallacy with the analogies made by ID is that living organisms are capable of evolution. Rocks, watches, and other inanimate objects are not.

 

[Kryt3n]

I think its rather sad that anyone who believes something and expresses his/her belief should face any level of anger and contempt, everyone is free to believe whatever they want (as long as they do not harm any one in the process and keep it to themselves).

In the case of evolution/creationism it's got nothing to do with "belief", but rather facts based on evidence that is available (of which there is a huge amount). People's opinions are NOT equally valid as many people either lack the intellect to even understand evolution, or more commonly it seems have been indoctrinated or are simply ignorant.

 

[Moxie]

, non theory science/physics. They can choose to go deeper into theories in college by choice.

There are few absolute proofs in science, so you are basically saying that they should only be taught pure math. Our understanding of how the planets move, of how germs develop, of how earthquakes happen - it is all theories.

Dinosaurs are a theory, for example. Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed. It's also technically possible that they did exist but that they all had fur. You can have a hypothesis that they all had fur, but there is no scientific theory saying that. In order for that to become a theory in science there first would have to be enough evidence pointing in that direction.

 

[Ar Scion]

The way I see it, the point of a school is to develop a well rounded adult that integrates well into society. Being taught lies doesn't work towards that goal. I think creationism should be discussed in RS lessons, but not taught as fact. Children need to be able to think rationally to do well in the modern world, so they should be able to logically discuss different ideas.

Who says?

If a society is built on lies, teaching said lies will create well-integrated students while truth will create rebels.

Evolution is a work in progress. It's entirely possible that the entire theory could be overturned a few decades down the road. Science, when allowed free rein, tends to do that kind of thing.

What Dawkins and anti-intelligent design advocates are doing is the exact opposite. They hurt science and they hurt society by trying to quash any possible opposition. They end up looking committed to evolution like it were a religion.

That's why Dawkins' ideology is the dictionary definition of irony, and Dawkins is an idiot.

Fuck, what should a teacher do if a student has a legitimate, genuine question about what creationism/intelligent design is? Are they allowed to answer that question, or will they be censored by Dawkinism?

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

What Dawkins and anti-intelligent design advocates are doing is the exact opposite. They hurt science and they hurt society by trying to quash any possible opposition. They end up looking committed to evolution like it were a religion.

That's actually wrong. If you ask Dawkins or any of his buddies how the universe started, they simply say, "we don't know, but we're working on it, and learn more every year". That's fine, that's what science is.

Ask a creationist how the universe started, they'll say, "God! That's it, final answer. Case closed, no need to investigate further.". Ask for evidence to backup their claim, and it's, "well, something had to create the universe!".

 

[Kryt3n]

Who says?

If a society is built on lies, teaching said lies will create well-integrated students while truth will create rebels.

Evolution is a work in progress. It's entirely possible that the entire theory could be overturned a few decades down the road. Science, when allowed free rein, tends to do that kind of thing.

What Dawkins and anti-intelligent design advocates are doing is the exact opposite. They hurt science and they hurt society by trying to quash any possible opposition. They end up looking committed to evolution like it were a religion.

That's why Dawkins' ideology is the dictionary definition of irony, and Dawkins is an idiot.

Fuck, what should a teacher do if a student has a legitimate, genuine question about what creationism/intelligent design is? Are they allowed to answer that question, or will they be censored by Dawkinism?

You should read Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth", which goes through most of the evidence for evolution in an easy to understand manner (amazon link [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787]Amazon.com: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (9781416594789): Richard Dawkins: Books[/ame]).

 

[Ar Scion]

That's actually wrong. If you ask Dawkins or any of his buddies how the universe started, they simply say, "we don't know, but we're working on it, and learn more every year". That's fine, that's what science is.

Ask a creationist how the universe started, they'll say, "God! That's it, final answer. Case closed, no need to investigate further.". Ask for evidence to backup their claim, and it's, "well, something had to create the universe!".

"We're working on it. But we won't let anyone else work on it."

If you've actually read anything in ID, you'll find that they don't resort to God to explain anything.

There are enough unanswered questions that ID raises about non-intelligent evolution that convince me that they deserve a place at the table, even if it's still in its infancy.

 

[greenleaves]

@d_diggler
If you are too lazy to read the article, you should at least click the link to read the full headline:
"Free schools that teach 'intelligent design' as science will lose funding"
(highlighting by me)

You can teach kids 'intelligent design' as non-science (religion?), or even as science in your own home school, just not teach it as science on the public's dime.

Don't argue based on ignorance, it only makes you look like a jack-ass. The only one's arguing against this type of progress are religious zealots, and that is why you are being made fun of as one. If you actually read the article, you know the topic at hand, you'd realize this.

As a side note, I know people who do what you do; it has happened to me too. It is generally pure arrogance. The error in your situation (and I have been in it), is that we get to thinking that are thoughts are so awesome, that we don't even have to fully understand the topic at hand to give brilliant insights.

Whenever I catch myself doing something like this, I realize how much of a jackass I am being and I try to improve. The truth is that every event carries so many variables, speaking confidently without a thorough understanding of any given topic goes against the purpose of communication and exposes our egos as the shitty things they are.

 

[Moxie]

Evolution is a work in progress. It's entirely possible that the entire theory could be overturned a few decades down the road.

I suppose it is possible that the slower zebras will stop being more likely to be killed by lions, or that different races will stop breeding with each other, or that humans will start to choose their mates totally at random - but it's highly unlikely.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Science, when allowed free rein, tends to do that kind of thing.

What Dawkins and anti-intelligent design advocates are doing is the exact opposite. They hurt science and they hurt society by trying to quash any possible opposition. They end up looking committed to evolution like it were a religion.

I assume they are open to people on their own coming up with hypotheses and looking for the necessary evidence to make them a theory. What they are not open to is hypotheses being treated and taught as if they are theories.

A teacher, for whatever reason, may personally believe that all dinosaurs had fur, but at the same time the teacher could recognize why that shouldn't be taught in school as if that was scientific theory.

 

[Ar Scion]

I suppose it is possible that the slower zebras will stop being more likely to be killed by lions, or that different races will stop breeding with each other, or that humans will start to choose their mates totally at random - but it's highly unlikely.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


I assume they are open to people on their own coming up with hypotheses and looking for the necessary evidence to make them a theory. What they are not open to is hypotheses being treated and taught as if they are theories.

A teacher, for whatever reason, may personally believe that all dinosaurs had fur, but at the same time the teacher could recognize why that shouldn't be taught in school as if that was scientific theory.

Since when did Dawkins become the arbiter of what is and what isn't a theory?

This is the sort of thing that is determined by the findings, and if they find that intelligent design isn't scientific, they ought to demonstrate the data supporting that claim.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

This is the sort of thing that is determined by the findings, and if they find that intelligent design isn't scientific, they ought to demonstrate the data supporting that claim.

But no, that's not how the scientific method works. You start with a hypothesis, gather evidence through research & testing, then it turns into a theory.

You can't start at a theory, then tell everyone to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. And as of right now, there's huge consensus throughout the worldwide scientific community that there's not enough evidence to backup intelligent design and call it a plausible theory. If you want to believe in intelligent design, then the onus is on you to come up with the evidence to backup that claim. Not the other way around.

 

[Dark Cognitive]

Since when did Dawkins become the arbiter of what is and what isn't a theory?

This is the sort of thing that is determined by the findings, and if they find that intelligent design isn't scientific, they ought to demonstrate the data supporting that claim.

It's the other way around. If they want I.D to be taken seriously by the scientific community, THEY need to have scientific data to support their claim, of which there is a lack thereof, which is the entire point of the article. How can something be taught as science when the scientific evidence for it doesnt add up?

Evolution on the other hand has amassed a HUGE amount of data to support it over the years.... and it's not Dawkins who 'decided' it was a fact and not just a theory, it was the majority of the scientific community who have studied animals and species over the years and actually seen evolution happen. We've had plenty of time to actually see animals and species evolve, even ever so slightly, but its still evolution and it's a fact that can't really be refuted.

Humans have played a huge part in un-natural selection. We've evolved breeds of dogs to suit our own needs, breeding them with other dogs to gain the best traits. It's still evolution though, selective or not... and it's testable, verifiable, and the experiment can be reproduced over and over again with the same results.

Things evolve. FACT.

Edit: Kiopa Matt got in before me , but pretty much what he said.

 

[Imhotep]

There are few absolute proofs in science, so you are basically saying that they should only be taught pure math. Our understanding of how the planets move, of how germs develop, of how earthquakes happen - it is all theories.

Dinosaurs are a theory, for example. Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed. It's also technically possible that they did exist but that they all had fur. You can have a hypothesis that they all had fur, but there is no scientific theory saying that. In order for that to become a theory in science there first would have to be enough evidence pointing in that direction.

All theories huh? How germs develop? Dinosaurs are a theory... lol this is exactly what I meant when I said some people just can't be reasoned with...

 

[Wattsy]

"We're working on it. But we won't let anyone else work on it."

If you've actually read anything in ID, you'll find that they don't resort to God to explain anything.

There are enough unanswered questions that ID raises about non-intelligent evolution that convince me that they deserve a place at the table, even if it's still in its infancy.

It only seems plausible if you're already religious, I'm yet to see someone convert because the theory of ID seems solid, have seen many go the other way though (including myself).

Poking holes in parts of evolutionary theory isn't set aside for the religious community either, specifics of a theory have been and always should be debated by experts in the field, in this case biology. Thankfully we have moved on from the days of the Church condemning Galileo.

Also, any claims of holes I've read by creationism/ I.D supporters are usually wrong, particularly the claim that there is no evidence to indicate macro-evolution.

I love religious debate, it just doesn't have a place in the science classroom.

 

[Moxie]

All theories huh? How germs develop? Dinosaurs are a theory... lol this is exactly what I meant when I said some people just can't be reasoned with...

You are apparently confusing the layman's use of the word "theory" with the scientific definition. The existence of what we call dinosaur bones is a fact. Our understanding of everything else about them is theory.

Germ Theory


It must be stressed that a hypothesis is never shown to be true. Repeated experimentation which supports a hypothesis and develops the hypothesis further leads to the hypothesis being accepted as a theory. Often a well supported theory will be referred to as a law or principle. It should be noted that in reality it is still a theory, just one that has stood the test of time fairly well.

Introduction and Brief History of Microbiology