The E.J. Tonight Show, with special guests uncle Darwin and baby Jesus

[myk]

E.J. said:
Also back on topic, "the controversy" as they call it isn't even real. It's a fabrication created for the intent of furthering a specific political agenda.

The controversy is real. For certain social and economic reasons, some people have taken a strict approach to religion that is intolerant to the finds of science, and the clash, in debates, propaganda and legislation between these religious communities and people who are open to science does occur.

[E.J.]

myk said:

The controversy is real. For certain social and economic reasons, some people have taken a strict approach to religion that is intolerant to the finds of science, and the clash, in debates, propaganda and legislation between these religious communities and people who are open to science does occur.

The controversy as these groups put it is like saying, "Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism, teach the controversy".

No country, except those with Islamic majorities, has any appreciable amount of so-called scientists who claim Intelligent Design is legitimate. In the US alone roughly ~5%, or less, of biologists reject evolutionary theory.

Perhaps people don't realize that there are Christians that accept evolution..?

Ken Miller:
Co-authors science texts that include chapters on evolution.

Books by Miller:
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

A debate including Miller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaCZ2yeBOmQ

Clergy letter project:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm

[myk]

E.J. said:
The controversy as these groups put it is like saying, "Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism, teach the controversy".

No country, except those with Islamic majorities, has any appreciable amount of so-called scientists who claim Intelligent Design is legitimate. In the US alone roughly ~5%, or less, of biologists reject evolutionary theory.

Let me reword it, as you aren't strictly responding to what I said above nor what I relatedly said before: The controversy is philosophical, political and moral, not scientific. The controversy was also scientific in the past before evolution became understood clearly, especially through observation and computation with enhanced technology that allowed us to recognize genetics. That some groups or individuals try to apply creationist ideas to scientific debate is more of a side-effect of the cultural controversy than something that has any chance to succeed directly. This is why in Australia they are placing the controversy in history and not biology classes. The controversy matters to anyone who has a need to uphold religion, especially in ways more detached from the practice of science, and to anyone who's inclined to spread or teach current biology.

[E.J.]

The controversy is philosophical, political and moral, not scientific.

I understand what you mean by the philosophical, and political, but I don't follow on the moral. Could you elaborate?

Also as the Intelligent Design fiasco in Australia, and the US, are closely related Christian conservative movements, I have a hard time believing it isn't somehow going to be used to get their foot in the science classrooms.

The phrase "Intelligent Design" (as a movement, in the last century) began as a way to to provide an alternative, scientifically valid, explanation to the origins of life, while also casting doubt on the validity of the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution.

The Dover case comes to mind as one example where they attempted to use Creationist/ID published high-school curriculum.

[Maes]

Again on the scientific method: if you can fly on a plane today and use a computer, thank the scientific method for that. Does it have ALL the answers? NO, especially for things where it's not appliable by definition

e.g. I can't apply it to the theory that unicorns are visible only to good persons, because the initial assumptions are vague and flawed to begin with, including but not limited to the existence of unicorns and an absolute definition of "good person". I'd have trouble finding either for a controlled experiment, and I can't even put down some formulas or set up a thought experiment, which at least you can do for the most extreme cosmological theories.

But for REAL STUFF that matters, in particular applied engineering, industrial production, construction, medicine, chemistry, food, paper printing, computers, sewers etc. it works well enough and has given RESULTS, while e.g. religion is something as intangible as propaganda: it manipulates, it has a role in politics and mass control, but produces nothing and as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather do without religion than without sewers.

[Enjay]

E.J. said:

The phrase "Intelligent Design" (as a movement, in the last century) began as a way to to provide an alternative, scientifically valid, explanation to the origins of life, while also casting doubt on the validity of the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution.

The problem, of course, being that ID is not scientifically valid.

[RestlessRodent]

[Evolution and Creationism as the subject]

Who cares, neither of them may be proven as fact scientifically. If it's not all true then it's false. Don't be an idiot when someone tells you that if something is 99.9% true that it's true. If you don't believe me, learn a programming langauge, you will soon find out logically that if (a && b && c && d && e && f && g && h && i && j && k && l && m && n && o && p && q && r && s && t && u && v && w && x && y && z) where a-y are true and z is false, the entire statement is false. Parts of either case are true and proven to be true so you can't dispute those, but saying that the theory which includes everything is true is false.

[Maes]

Enjay said:

The problem, of course, being that ID is not scientifically valid.

Your problem is that you have a headful of these so-called "scientific" preconceptions and you are not a "believer".

See to what disastrous consequences this can lead to:

[Quast]

GhostlyDeath said:

[Evolution and Creationism as the subject]

Who cares, neither of them may be proven as fact scientifically. If it's not all true then it's false. Don't be an idiot when someone tells you that if something is 99.9% true that it's true.

Ok, so we should not believe that we understand biological evolution, gravitation, germ theory, genetics, cosmology, electromagnetism and basically every single thing we think we know because we cannot understand something 100%? Or, what the hell are you trying to say?

The funny thing is, biological evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories we have.

[Maes]

Quast said:

The funny thing is, biological evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories we have.

And it's also verifiable in vitro with quickly-breeding organism such as flies and bacteria. E.g. take a bunch of flies and throw some toxins at them. Those that for some reason resist it survive and pass the resistance on. Force them to swim, and those with hairier legs will float better and so on.

It's very simple really: Evolution is a science, Creationism is a matter of faith, just like no-touch "chi" knockouts. And a worthless one, at that.

[GreyGhost]

GhostlyDeath said:

Don't be an idiot when someone tells you that if something is 99.9% true that it's true. If you don't believe me, learn a programming langauge, you will soon find out logically that if (a && b && c && d && e && f && g && h && i && j && k && l && m && n && o && p && q && r && s && t && u && v && w && x && y && z) where a-y are true and z is false, the entire statement is false.

The answer is 42.
99.9% is close enough for most people to regard something as true unless a very compelling argument is made in favour of the remaining 0.1%.

[Qaatar]

At the end of the day, I would much prefer that the philosophy of religion be taught more prominently. I mean, if people care about their religion so much, it is only natural that they want to understand it better as well.

Going back to the original point, I believe this whole issue centers on the fact that people don't understand what exactly underpins creationism, or ID, or any other permutation of these ideas. These ideas will inevitably manifest themselves in the future as long as the philosophical premises aren't debunked or disproved. Of course, this is only the philosophical aspect of the problem. The political and social forces are beyond my scope of understanding.

More and more analytic philosophers and mathematicians seem to be willing to do mental gymnastics these days, and that to me is indicative of this problem: not enough attention has been paid to this area, which results in otherwise brilliant minds becoming poisoned with these ideas.

[myk]

E.J. said:
I understand what you mean by the philosophical, and political, but I don't follow on the moral. Could you elaborate?

Scientific discoveries and elaborations make an impact to established human behavior. We discover processes and details, and then need to determine how to act in relation to them. The theory of evolution itself, or one or another interpretation of it, is often cited in political arguments, used as a groundwork to establish or reject moral behavior, whether wisely or not.

Also as the Intelligent Design fiasco in Australia, and the US, are closely related Christian conservative movements, I have a hard time believing it isn't somehow going to be used to get their foot in the science classrooms.

It will be used that way. The issue is ignoring the underlying conflicts out of a fear of attempts to insert Intelligent Design. Keeping the controversy of creationism versus evolution out of social studies classes is not the same as keeping Intelligent Design out of biology class. A preemptive and general exclusion of such topics from education will just force people to find different channels to voice or debate their dilemmas, and that can adversely affect public education.

[Maes]

ID is just another form of revisionism, but this time vs established science, in a domain that has -apparently- no direct ties with applied industry, and thus "easier" to contest (although many microbiologists and developers of pesticides and chemical/biological weapons would disagree). It would be harder to claim e.g. that electricity is NOT generated by the interaction of variable magnetic fields and conductors, but is divinely created out of thin air, because you wouldn't be able to do jack with it.

And then again, in Europe there are revisionist movements about everything everywhere e.g. advocating that both those that fought against the Nazi invaders and those that fought for the Nazis (collaborators etc.) are equally worth of respect and remembrance, since they both fought for something they believed in. Sounds noble and bipartisan in principle, yet it can't be stated without controversy (and historical bullshitting).

[E.J.]

I figured I'd post this here, because you all love talking about Creation "Science".

-Article-

The Institution for Creation Research was a California-based school that moved to the Dallas area three years ago.

They applied to Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board for certification to give master's degrees in science; the HECB reviewed their curriculum and turned them down. They sued.

A federal judge in Austin has ruled against the group and in favor of the HECB, in a ruling that stings pretty hard.

"It appears that although the court has twice required [ICR] to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information," Judge Sam Sparks wrote.

And then he got to the meat of the case.

This happened in Texas of all places...

[Maes]

They'll probably just keep pushing it, and so will others like them.

[E.J.]

LOL woot...? Two subjects too closely related?

Also this would be to ego-centric of me to put my user-name in a thread title...

I'm not that entertaining of a personality. :-/