popular acceptance of evolution in America
urthogie
majority of America to accept evolution.
I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
support of evangelicism.
A deeper question is this, though:
Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
don't know.
A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
Tachyglossus
news:1177456647....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I can't answer the specific questions you raise; but I can say that when
I've tried to explain evolution to people who've somehow managed not to hear
much about it, I've often been stunned to find how bad they are at keeping
in mind all the separate concepts that have to be thought of simultaneously
in order for the whole idea to make sense. It's almost as if the idea of
'random genetic variation allied to fundamentally non-random cumulative
selection' is somehow beyond the reach of millions of people because they've
always forgotten the beginning of the explanation by the time you've got to
the end....
I suppose it's a bit like that study from a few years back which discovered
that if someone can't handle ambiguity; isn't able to tolerate lack of
closure; and gets distressed when they can't indulge in moralistic blame,
then *they'll vote Republican*. If you can't hold six concepts in your mind
simultaneously *you'll be a creationist*...
T.
Paul Ciszek
In article <1177456647....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
urthogie <urth...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
>majority of America to accept evolution.
>
>I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
>tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
>support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
>support of evangelicism.
Actually, I think it *was* widely accepted. Back in the post WWII
period, there was a lot of respect for science. Sputnik scared America
into trying to improve the science education, with some success.
Mainstream Christian denominations didn't have much of a problem with
evolution or the moon landing--they weren't dead-set on biblical
literalism. Everything began to go to shit starting in the seventies.
The "mainstream" denominations aren't the mainstream anymore.
>Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
>eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
>don't know.
I would say that truth and human fashion are completely unrelated.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
A.Carlson
<Tachyg...@ecom.net> wrote:
>"urthogie" <urth...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1177456647....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
>> majority of America to accept evolution.
>>
>> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
>> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
>> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
>> support of evangelicism.
>>
>> A deeper question is this, though:
>>
>> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
>> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
>> don't know.
>>
>> A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
>> surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
>> people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
>> have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
On the plus side, I've personally come across a number of people who
were thoroughly indoctrinated, including being home schooled in order
to 'keep them safe', but who later rebelled and ultimately rejected
their parent's and church's teachings. The process also seems to
produce a lot of screwed up individuals whose personal lives are in
shambles.
One can only go so far when trying to shut out the outside world in a
pluralistic society such as ours. Anti-intellectualism also has its
limitations as well particularly when paired with an educational
process. What may sell well in certain segments of the general public
may not be so easily transferable to the educational process (thank
god!). It does make for particularly good political theater though -
and even occasionally produces a bit of backlash against religious
dogmatists.
>I can't answer the specific questions you raise; but I can say that when
>I've tried to explain evolution to people who've somehow managed not to hear
>much about it, I've often been stunned to find how bad they are at keeping
>in mind all the separate concepts that have to be thought of simultaneously
>in order for the whole idea to make sense. It's almost as if the idea of
>'random genetic variation allied to fundamentally non-random cumulative
>selection' is somehow beyond the reach of millions of people because they've
>always forgotten the beginning of the explanation by the time you've got to
>the end....
>
>I suppose it's a bit like that study from a few years back which discovered
>that if someone can't handle ambiguity; isn't able to tolerate lack of
>closure; and gets distressed when they can't indulge in moralistic blame,
>then *they'll vote Republican*. If you can't hold six concepts in your mind
>simultaneously *you'll be a creationist*...
I don't think that it is as much a lack of ability as it is a lack of
trying. The hallmark of your garden variety Creationist is their
ability to rationalize in order to selectively fit or distort whatever
scientific concepts necessary to fit their pre-ordained points of
view. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism for them to reject anything
on its face that they see as threatening to their religious dogma
which might explain why at least some creationists might not 'hold'
various concepts by the end of a conversation.
I just recently finished listening to a podcast interview of Francis
Collins on NPR's Fresh Air (29 March, 2007 - Richard Dawkins was
interviewed the day before on generally the same subject matter), the
geneticist who led up the human genome project at the National Human
Genome Research Institute. Although he is a theistic evolutionist who
has no problem with the concept of evolution or an ancient earth, I
was still struck by the mental gymnastics necessary for him to
reconcile both a scientific and religious viewpoint and present the
resulting concepts as scientifically sound.
The common denominator seems to be an unwillingness to reject
religious dogma for *seemingly* less definitive science to one degree
or another.
Dale Kelly
> A deeper question is--
the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
become popular
evolution itself is popular enough to be the standard in our education
systems, what more do you want?
the fact is that evolutionists do not want to stay in the realm of
education, they want to enter the realm of politics with their belief
systems
this said, they face a battle of morals, an atheist believes morality is
a choice, a theists believes morality is a requirement
laws are based on morality, face it, you are not going to supplant law
with choice, easily, and this thought comes from a hedonistic anarchist
who just happens to believe in God and think that my beliefs add value
and most atheists have not taken their beliefs to the logical end of
their conclusions
why do evolutionists want to proselytize anyways? do they really believe
there is enough philosophical importance to their conclusions? can they
make a battle of philosophical conclusions? if so, they would have made
it, and won
in reality, more people believe morality is a requirement and not a
choice, evolutionists will have to deal with this issue since the
philosophical end of their inference is choice
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Ernest Major
<dale....@comcast.net> writes
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
>
>
>> A deeper question is--
>
>the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
>become popular
Apparently the majority of Americans who accept the factuality of common
descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and
other processes are not atheists. The same may well be true for
Americans working in the field of evolutionary biology.
>
>evolution itself is popular enough to be the standard in our education
>systems, what more do you want?
>
>the fact is that evolutionists do not want to stay in the realm of
>education, they want to enter the realm of politics with their belief
>systems
>
>this said, they face a battle of morals, an atheist believes morality is
>a choice, a theists believes morality is a requirement
>
>laws are based on morality, face it, you are not going to supplant law
>with choice, easily, and this thought comes from a hedonistic anarchist
>who just happens to believe in God and think that my beliefs add value
>
>and most atheists have not taken their beliefs to the logical end of
>their conclusions
>
>why do evolutionists want to proselytize anyways? do they really believe
>there is enough philosophical importance to their conclusions? can they
>make a battle of philosophical conclusions? if so, they would have made
>it, and won
>
>in reality, more people believe morality is a requirement and not a
>choice, evolutionists will have to deal with this issue since the
>philosophical end of their inference is choice
>
As you incorrectly equate acceptance of the factuality of common descent
with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes (or working in the field of evolutionary biology) with atheism
all the above is moot. However you also misrepresent the position of
atheists.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
>
>
>> A deeper question is--
>
>the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
>become popular
Atheism is already the default and, as time goes by, less people are
falling for the lies of religion.
[snip more of his usual crap]
--
Bob.
A.Carlson
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
>
>
>> A deeper question is--
>
>the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
>become popular
At least in America, most evolutionists are probably not atheists even
though the better educated among them are more likely so.
>evolution itself is popular enough to be the standard in our education
>systems, what more do you want?
Rational discourse that is not so strongly wedded to religious
dogmatism that the facts get lost in the shuffle/
>the fact is that evolutionists do not want to stay in the realm of
>education, they want to enter the realm of politics with their belief
>systems
Imagine that, wanting rational discourse free of religious bias to
rule the day.
>this said, they face a battle of morals, an atheist believes morality is
>a choice, a theists believes morality is a requirement
WRONG! An atheist is not so wedded to the mythologies of nomadic
shepherds from thousands of years ago to the point where their own
morals reflect the misogyny, racism, and intolerance of others and
declared as absolute dogma.
>laws are based on morality, face it, you are not going to supplant law
>with choice, easily, and this thought comes from a hedonistic anarchist
>who just happens to believe in God and think that my beliefs add value
Are you honestly of the position that *all* non-Christian cultures are
immoral simply because they don't share your own religious beliefs?
Religion itself not only is not necessary for morality, it is often a
basis for very immoral actions.
Do you think the Crusades were moral?
Do you think slavery is moral or using the bible to justify it?
Do you think it is immoral to eat shrimp or pork?
Do you think it is immoral to work on Sundays (or Saturdays or any
other arbitrarily declared 'religious' day)?
>and most atheists have not taken their beliefs to the logical end of
>their conclusions
What conclusions and what ends would that be?
>why do evolutionists want to proselytize anyways? do they really believe
>there is enough philosophical importance to their conclusions? can they
>make a battle of philosophical conclusions? if so, they would have made
>it, and won
It isn't as much about 'evolutionists want[ing] to proselytize' as
much as it is about rational people demanding rational discourse.
Truth is truth whether or not you realize it or want to honestly deal
with it or not and the scientific process has proven to be quite
useful in getting down to the bottom of things even when it goes
against you quaint religious mythologies, as it so often does.
>in reality, more people believe morality is a requirement and not a
>choice, evolutionists will have to deal with this issue since the
>philosophical end of their inference is choice
It isn't an either/or question. What proof do you have that
evolutionists are any less moral than you seem to think you are? Is
it because they eat pork? Because they work on *your* Sabbath?
Because they choose to be more tolerant of other people's lifestyles?
Lee Oswald Ving
@comcast.net:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
>
>
>> A deeper question is--
>
> the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
> become popular
Yes, well, America's Roman Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans and many other
theists are surely greatful for you calling them "atheists."
<snip a whole long line of idiotic projection>
bi...@juno.com
> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> majority of America to accept evolution.
There would have to be some actual observations of speciation, that
undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
>
> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
> support of evangelicism.
Evangelicalism is not anti-intellectual. You are confusing it with
Fundamentalism.
>
> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> don't know.
Europe is currently inclined toward the delusional hypothesis that
everything "just happened by chance" for "no reason." They call this
"evolution." This combined with sexual selfishness means they are not
reproducing at even a replacement rate. Because of this, the
demographics of the Muslim immigrants will conquer Europe for Islam in
the near future.
>
> A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
> surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
> people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
> have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.
On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
Communism were based on it.
Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com writes
>On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
>> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
>There would have to be some actual observations of speciation, that
>undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
>censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
>
thinks he has a point please refer to the UseNet archives.
--
Alias Ernest Major
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
>
>
> > A deeper question is--
>
> the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
> become popular
now THERE'S a non sequitur.
any proof scientists are atheists? why none...none at all...
yet to creationists, anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition,
an atheist....including other believers in god.
> >
> the fact is that evolutionists do not want to stay in the realm of
> education, they want to enter the realm of politics with their belief
> systems
?? since most members of congress, until recently, were rather rabid
xtian fundies, you have no proof of THAT assertion either.
>
> this said, they face a battle of morals, an atheist believes morality is
> a choice, a theists believes morality is a requirement
meaningless stereotyping. since there is no set of atheist beliefs,
there is no standard definition of atheist morality. and religious
morality? it changes like the weather.
>
> laws are based on morality,
really? gravity is a moral law?
>
> and most atheists have not taken their beliefs to the logical end of
> their conclusions
and fundies dont even START with logic so can reach no end whatsoever.
> >
> in reality, more people believe morality is a requirement and not a
> choice, evolutionists will have to deal with this issue since the
> philosophical end of their inference is choice
>
there is no connection between morality and science in general, nor
science and evolution in particular....
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>):
> the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
> become popular
This particular lie is something which only the fundie nutcases on _both_
ends of the spectrum (overly religious _and_ militant atheist) push.
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:f0mpg8$59$1...@reader2.panix.com...
[...]
> Mainstream Christian denominations didn't have much of a problem with
> evolution or the moon landing--they weren't dead-set on biblical
> literalism. Everything began to go to shit starting in the seventies.
> The "mainstream" denominations aren't the mainstream anymore.
The "mainstream" denominations don't have a great interest in evolution, the
arguments are long settled, I've been a Catholic for over 50 years and I've
never heard a sermon yet about evolution.
Nowadays, they have far more serious things (in their terms) to worry about
than stupid arguments about things that are as close to proven as science
can get..
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:v2hv235im6vllp4j1...@4ax.com...
If you're saying that less people are accepting traditional religious
teachings, you are probably right. If you are claiming an increase in
atheism, then available figures suggest that you are wrong.
The BBC commissioned a survey of Belief in God across 10 countries in 2004.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm
Overall, 82% of people expressed a belief in God; the USA was slightly
higher than average at 86%, the UK was the lowest at 56%.
Interestingly, almost 30% of those claiming to be atheist said that they
still prayed sometimes.
There isn't even any evidence of increasing atheism among scientists. When
James Leuba carried out his survey of 1000 scientists in 1916, 40% of
scientists responded that they believed in God*. Leuba predicted that this
figure would decrease in the future in line with the spread of education.
When Edward Larson, however, repeated the same survey in 1996 using the
exact same questions and methodology, he found that the figure had remained
static at 40%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* It's worth pointing out that the different figures between scientists and
the general population may be at least partly due to terminology. As the NYT
points out:
"The figure of unqualified believers is considerably lower than that usually
cited for Americans as a whole. Gallup polls, for example, have found that
about 93 percent of people surveyed profess a belief in God. But those
familiar with the survey said that, given the questionnaire's exceedingly
restrictive definition of God -- narrower than the standard Gallup
question -- and given scientists' training to say exactly what they mean and
nothing more, the 40 percent figure in fact is impressively high."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4DB143DF930A35757C0A961958260
It's also worth noting that there had been changes within the various
scientific disciplines -
"In 1916, biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief or doubt (69.5
percent). Today, physicists and astronomers hold that distinction (77.9
percent), while mathematicians are most inclined to believe in God (44.6
percent).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n5_v21/ai_20121068
alwaysaskingquestions
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59bkguF...@mid.individual.net...
> the UK was the lowest at 56%.
Should have been "one of the lowest"
Bloopen...@juno.com
[snipped]
> Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
> science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
> which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
> very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.
>
> On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
> research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
> Communism were based on it.
They are too very interested in metaphysical research programs with no
precise mathematical predictions, else they wouldn't be so religious.
Anyway, you keep insisting that in order for something to be "hard
science," precise mathematical predictions have to be made. Can you
cite a respectable philosopher of science who believes this? Or is it
just your own opinion?
coaster
No time to answer all of this but I'll comment on what I can.
Parents invariably pass on their cultural beliefs to their children.
It would be a stretch to say that these beliefs have anything to do
with the 'rate of reproduction', unless we're talking about some sort
of religious edict that specifies having lots of children (Mormon
polygamism comes to mind), but I think I know what you mean. You mean
simply that because creationists are the (slim) majority that the
ratio of creationists to evolutionists may never come to favor
evolution. To that I have to say is look to Europe where evolution
was first proposed and first disseminated. It's a matter of education
and time in overcoming popular opinion, which is what I think it boils
down to.
skyeyes
> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
> support of evangelicism.
>
> A deeper question is this, though:
>
> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> don't know.
The difference is this: heliocentric theory doesn't *really* bear on
the "recipe" for salvation that the evangelicals hold so dear; whereas
evolution does. The majority of evangelicals, even if given several
years of high-quality, intensive education in evolutionary theory,
would *still* reject it, because (as they see it) it threatens their
chance of everlasting life.
> A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
> surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
> people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
> have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
Well, there will always be people like me, who grew up Christian
fundamentalist but turned into an evolution-lovin' atheist. ;-> Some
people are just genetically disinclined to be superstitious, no matter
what kind of indoctrination they receive.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Desertphile
>
> Dale Kelly wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
> >
> >
> > > A deeper question is--
> >
> > the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
> > become popular
>
> now THERE'S a non sequitur.
>
> any proof scientists are atheists? why none...none at all...
It is also insulting to theists: Dale "LSD" Kelly would have
people believe theists cannot be educated and intelligent enough
to be scientists.
> yet to creationists, anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition,
> an atheist....including other believers in god.
>
> > >
> > the fact is that evolutionists do not want to stay in the realm of
> > education, they want to enter the realm of politics with their belief
> > systems
>
> ?? since most members of congress, until recently, were rather rabid
> xtian fundies, you have no proof of THAT assertion either.
> >
> > this said, they face a battle of morals, an atheist believes morality is
> > a choice, a theists believes morality is a requirement
>
> meaningless stereotyping. since there is no set of atheist beliefs,
> there is no standard definition of atheist morality. and religious
> morality? it changes like the weather.
>
> >
> > laws are based on morality,
>
> really? gravity is a moral law?
> >
> > and most atheists have not taken their beliefs to the logical end of
> > their conclusions
>
> and fundies dont even START with logic so can reach no end whatsoever.
> > >
> > in reality, more people believe morality is a requirement and not a
> > choice, evolutionists will have to deal with this issue since the
> > philosophical end of their inference is choice
> >
>
> there is no connection between morality and science in general, nor
> science and evolution in particular....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Hey Amy. How have you been?" -- Buffy
"Rat. And you?" -- Amy
"Dead." -- Buffy
TomS
<1177606247....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skyeyes stated..."
>
>On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
>> majority of America to accept evolution.
>>
>> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
>> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
>> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
>> support of evangelicism.
>>
>> A deeper question is this, though:
>>
>> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
>> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
>> don't know.
>
>The difference is this: heliocentric theory doesn't *really* bear on
>the "recipe" for salvation that the evangelicals hold so dear; whereas
>evolution does. The majority of evangelicals, even if given several
>years of high-quality, intensive education in evolutionary theory,
>would *still* reject it, because (as they see it) it threatens their
>chance of everlasting life.
I still can't understand that.
Is evolutionary biology any more threatening than are the
sciences of reproductive and developmental biology?
Including things like the randomness inherent in genetics,
the materialism of biochemistry, and the personal relationship
with one's Creator and Redeemer. In contrast to evolution
being *not* about individuals, but groups.
And even more so, given that so many of the creationists
insist upon their acceptance of "micro"evolution - evolution
within a "kind".
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Desertphile
> On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> > majority of America to accept evolution.
> There would have to be some actual observations of speciation, that
> undergo actual rigorous falsification testing.
Observed speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You're welcome. Now then, perhaps you could answer the following
question---
On 12 Apr 2007 17:13:53 -0700, bi...@juno.com wrote:
> I know if I had ever become an atheist, my parents would have probably
> become near suicidal.
Since you were born an atheist, were your parents "near suicidal"
when you were born?
urthogie
Evolutionists aren't a monolithic ideological entity. Many of them
are moral realists. Many of them are theists. I happen to be both.
I don't appreciate it when you, or anyone else for that matter, makes
giant brushstrokes and attacks straw men like this.
urthogie
> On Apr 24, 4:17 pm,urthogie<urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> > majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> There would have to be some actual observations of speciation, that
> undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
> censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
Speciation has been observed. Google is your friend.
> Evangelicalism is not anti-intellectual. You are confusing it with
> Fundamentalism.
>
No I'm not. Read Richard Hofstader's pullitzer-prize winning book
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He devotes much of the book to
the strong connections between evangelicalism and anti-
intellectualism. Fundamentalism, too of course,
>
> > Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> > eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> > don't know.
>
> Europe is currently inclined toward the delusional hypothesis that
> everything "just happened by chance" for "no reason." They call this
> "evolution." This combined with sexual selfishness means they are not
> reproducing at even a replacement rate. Because of this, the
> demographics of the Muslim immigrants will conquer Europe for Islam in
> the near future.
>
This isn't really a logical argument. How much Muslims have sex has
nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. The Europeans
are most likely more in support of evolution because they don't have a
nagging evangelical and fundamentalist influence in their country.
>
> > A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
> > surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
> > people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
> > have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
>
> Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
> science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
> which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
> very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.
>
> On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
> research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
> Communism were based on it.
Have you ever heard of slavery? It was based on misinterpretations of
Darwinism. So was the tolerance of Robber Barons in the 1800's under
the guise of "social darwinism" (a falsified doctrine).
Once again, regardless of how Darwinism is used and misinterpeted has
no reflection on its actual truth, any more than Hitler's relgious
belief in God has on the truth of theism.
Lastly, American opposition to evolution stems largely from the
evangelical tradition. Read about the Scopes Monkey Trial, will ya?
And the reactions to it.
Educate yourself.
Peace
urthogie
> Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
> science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
> which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
> very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.
Genetics and evolution have all been converted into mathematical
formulas as early as the 1960's. Just as an example, read (Tajima
1989), which explains how mathematical analysis of nucleotide base
pairs can indicate the nature, types, and extent of natural selection
that occured.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
>On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
>> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
>There would have to be some actual observations of speciation,
There has been. Lots of it.
>hat
>undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
>censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
Nope, the courts were used to stop your sort from ramming lies down
the throats of innocent children.
>> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
>> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
>> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
>> support of evangelicism.
>
>Evangelicalism is not anti-intellectual. You are confusing it with
>Fundamentalism.
All religion is anti-intellectual.
>
>
>>
>> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
>> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
>> don't know.
>
>Europe is currently inclined toward the delusional hypothesis that
>everything "just happened by chance" for "no reason." They call this
>"evolution."
No it isn't. Western Europeans have always been more intellectual than
Americans, particularly in the UK, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia.
Far from being deluded, much of Europe has emerged from under the
cloud of religion.
> This combined with sexual selfishness means they are not
>reproducing at even a replacement rate.
Our planet needs to reduce its population.
> Because of this, the
>demographics of the Muslim immigrants will conquer Europe for Islam in
>the near future.
Nope - because when muslims are exposed to Western European culture
they are more likely to turn secular themselves.
>
>>
>> A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
>> surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
>> people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
>> have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
>
>Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
>science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
>which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
>very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.
No, that would be more like the Japanese.
>
>On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
>research programmes such as evolution,
American's tend to do everything - just not as well as the rest of the
world.
> especially since Nazism and
>Communism were based on it.
Liar!
>
>
--
Bob.
skyeyes
> "On 26 Apr 2007 09:50:47 -0700, in article
> >On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> >> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> >> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
> >> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
> >> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
> >> support of evangelicism.
>
> >> A deeper question is this, though:
>
> >> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> >> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> >> don't know.
>
> >The difference is this: heliocentric theory doesn't *really* bear on
> >the "recipe" for salvation that the evangelicals hold so dear; whereas
> >evolution does. The majority of evangelicals, even if given several
> >years of high-quality, intensive education in evolutionary theory,
> >would *still* reject it, because (as they see it) it threatens their
> >chance of everlasting life.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> I still can't understand that.
>
> Is evolutionary biology any more threatening than are the
> sciences of reproductive and developmental biology?
To the fundamentalist, yes, it is. You need to understand that they
reason bass-ackwards: "I want to 'never die/live everlastingly'. I
need a means to do this. The Bible provides a recipe for "salvation"
which, if I follow it, will allow this everlasting existence. In
order for the recipe to work, the Bible *must* be true in all respects
(else how do I know the recipe for salvation is dependable?). The
Bible says that Mankind was created by an Eternal God and "fell" in
the Garden of Eden. Everlasting life was taken away in consequence.
However, my everlasting life will be restored if I follow the Biblical
recipe for salvation.
"Evolution, however, teaches that humans developed from primates and
were not specially created in the Garden of Eden. Evolution teaches
that humans are nothing but specialized apes and did not "fall" in the
Garden of Eden. Apes don't get to live everlastingly.
"Therefore, I disbelieve in evolution and believe the Bible to be
literally true because I want to live forever."
If I had $5.00 for every time I heard this sermon preached from a
Baptist pulpit, I could take all of t.o out to lunch at a fairly nice
restaurant. (And I would.)
(Of course, there's an element of ego at work as well: "My
grandfather weren't no *monkey*!" I've actually heard fundamentalist
parents say, "My kid came home from [public] school and said, 'Dad,
*please* don't tell me it's true we're descended from monkeys!' Well,
sure, if it makes the kid feel better, tell him he was specially
created.
Out of mud.)
;->
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
> Including things like the randomness inherent in genetics,
> the materialism of biochemistry, and the personal relationship
> with one's Creator and Redeemer. In contrast to evolution
> being *not* about individuals, but groups.
>
> And even more so, given that so many of the creationists
> insist upon their acceptance of "micro"evolution - evolution
> within a "kind".
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
> admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
> downplay the significance of that failing."
> BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wf3h
bi...@juno.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> > majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> There would have to be some actual observations of speciation, that
> undergo actual rigorous falsification testing.
since this is not a requirement of science, what you've just said is
that americans will never accept science
yeah, you're probably right.
Rather than just angry
> censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
no one is using the courts except people who believe in the 1st
amendment to counter the claims of religious fanatics.
>
> >
> Europe is currently inclined toward the delusional hypothesis that
> everything "just happened by chance" for "no reason."
curiously enough, so are creationists.
in creationism a duck can become a dump truck. a cat can become a
corvette. there are no natural laws which forbid this. creationism is
COMPLETELY random.
>
> Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE.
scientists do. americans dont.
>
> On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
> research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
> Communism were based on it.
neither is true. hitler was a christian/volkist mystic. stalin was a
dogmatist, as fundamental in his views as any creationist.
and it took the bloodiest war in US history to end the scourge of
creationist imposed slavery in this country.
Frank J
> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
> support of evangelicism.
Evangelicals, fundamentalists, whatever you want to call them, account
for only ~20% of adult Americans. Yet ~50% reject evolution and
another ~20% accepts it but falls for the "teach the controversy"
scam. So there must be more than that. Consider that ~50% believe in
astrology, ~90% can't describe a molecule, and ~95% can't distinguish
between evolution and a common false caricature, and there's your
problem.
>
> A deeper question is this, though:
>
> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> don't know.
Delusion sells better.
>
> A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
> surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
> people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
> have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
Yes, because people still have the ability to think for themselves. I
think that many defenders of evolution are part of the problem,
because they just obssess on the religion aspect and alienate many oof
those who could be "won over." The anti-evolution activists are far
better at PR.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2007 19:50:42 -0700, bi...@juno.com enriched this group when
> s/he wrote:
>
> >On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> >> majority of America to accept evolution.
> >
> >There would have to be some actual observations of speciation,
> There has been. Lots of it.
"Bimms" bloody well knows that fact
> >hat
> >undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
> >censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
How very odd.... that's what Christian occultists have been trying
to do. More to the point, that is what "Bimms" was ADVOCATING two
weeks ago! (And calling it "religious freedom.")
> Nope, the courts were used to stop your sort from ramming lies down
> the throats of innocent children.
It is merely victims using the court system to protect themselves.
"Bimms" cannot figure this out because he wants to be one of the
perpetrators.
> >> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
> >> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
> >> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
> >> support of evangelicism.
> >Evangelicalism is not anti-intellectual. You are confusing it with
> >Fundamentalism.
The Bible mandates ignorance and childish behavior: it even
castigates wise people.
--
Martin Kaletsch
> No it isn't. Western Europeans have always been more intellectual than
> Americans, particularly in the UK, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia.
> Far from being deluded, much of Europe has emerged from under the
> cloud of religion.
Well, we are working hard on changing that! The German school system is
going down the drains, the average knowledge of the younger generations is
starting to frighten me and (tada!) ID has been making several apearences
recently!
--
Martin Kaletsch
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:v2hv235im6vllp4j1...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:05:33 -0500, Dale Kelly
>> <dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:27 -0700, urthogie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A deeper question is--
>>>
>>>the deeper question is will the atheistic stance of most evolutionists
>>>become popular
>>
>> Atheism is already the default and, as time goes by, less people are
>> falling for the lies of religion.
>
>If you're saying that less people are accepting traditional religious
>teachings, you are probably right. If you are claiming an increase in
>atheism, then available figures suggest that you are wrong.
>
>The BBC commissioned a survey of Belief in God across 10 countries in 2004.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm
>
>Overall, 82% of people expressed a belief in God; the USA was slightly
>higher than average at 86%, the UK was the lowest at 56%.
There is a big skew on that figure. It deals with people's answers to
questions. It totally ignored under 18s and only covered 10,000 people
spread over 11 countries. No split is given by age group nor is
education level documented. In short, the figures are almost worthless
- and the BBC were attacked for that at the time the programme was
shown.
>
>Interestingly, almost 30% of those claiming to be atheist said that they
>still prayed sometimes.
Which is, of course, totally ridiculous.
>
>There isn't even any evidence of increasing atheism among scientists. When
>James Leuba carried out his survey of 1000 scientists in 1916, 40% of
>scientists responded that they believed in God*. Leuba predicted that this
>figure would decrease in the future in line with the spread of education.
>When Edward Larson, however, repeated the same survey in 1996 using the
>exact same questions and methodology, he found that the figure had remained
>static at 40%.
Which is, again, ridiculous. The only "religious" scientists I've ever
come across have tended to be religious only for social status reasons
- not through real belief. Allowing for my bias towards physics and
astronomy, were I would put the religious side at less that 2%, I
would be surprised if a proper survey of all scientist got a figure
over 10%.
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>* It's worth pointing out that the different figures between scientists and
>the general population may be at least partly due to terminology. As the NYT
>points out:
>
>"The figure of unqualified believers is considerably lower than that usually
>cited for Americans as a whole. Gallup polls, for example, have found that
>about 93 percent of people surveyed profess a belief in God. But those
>familiar with the survey said that, given the questionnaire's exceedingly
>restrictive definition of God -- narrower than the standard Gallup
>question -- and given scientists' training to say exactly what they mean and
>nothing more, the 40 percent figure in fact is impressively high."
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4DB143DF930A35757C0A961958260
>
>It's also worth noting that there had been changes within the various
>scientific disciplines -
>
>"In 1916, biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief or doubt (69.5
>percent). Today, physicists and astronomers hold that distinction (77.9
>percent), while mathematicians are most inclined to believe in God (44.6
>percent).
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n5_v21/ai_20121068
I would not class a mathematician as a scientist.
>
--
Bob.
TomS
<1177621303.6...@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, skyeyes stated..."
The Bible says that Adam and Eve were created. It does not speak
of man*kind* being created.
>
>"Evolution, however, teaches that humans developed from primates and
>were not specially created in the Garden of Eden. Evolution teaches
>that humans are nothing but specialized apes and did not "fall" in the
>Garden of Eden. Apes don't get to live everlastingly.
"Intelligent Design", however, teaches that the human body was
"designed" to be similar to an ordinary ape (and, indeed, ordinary
mammal) body. We have the "designed" vertebrate eye, not an eye
that is different, in any noteworthy way, from the ordinary vertebrate
eye.
And, once again, it is other sciences which are more directly about
individuals and their origins.
>
>"Therefore, I disbelieve in evolution and believe the Bible to be
>literally true because I want to live forever."
>
>If I had $5.00 for every time I heard this sermon preached from a
>Baptist pulpit, I could take all of t.o out to lunch at a fairly nice
>restaurant. (And I would.)
>
>(Of course, there's an element of ego at work as well: "My
>grandfather weren't no *monkey*!" I've actually heard fundamentalist
>parents say, "My kid came home from [public] school and said, 'Dad,
>*please* don't tell me it's true we're descended from monkeys!' Well,
>sure, if it makes the kid feel better, tell him he was specially
>created.
>
>Out of mud.)
[...snip...]
But creationism of any sort, does *not* say that *he* was specially
created. And evolution has nothing to say about *his* origins. It
is developmental biology and related sciences which speaks of an
*individual*'s origins.
"Animals of the MONKEY class are furnished with hands instead of
paws; their ears, eyes, eye-lids, lips, and breasts, are like those of
mankind; their internal conformation also bears some distant
likeness; and the whole offers a picture that may mortify the pride
of such as make their persons the principal objects of their
admiration."
John Wesley
A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation (1823) vol. 1 p. 148
bi...@juno.com
> I'm tired of refuting this silly allegation about speciation. If anyone
> thinks he has a point please refer to the UseNet archives.
>
Well, at least you TRIED to give me examples of speciation
observations. Unfortunately, when I actually checked on the specific
speciation that you claimed, it was NOT 100 percent reproductively
isolated. You lose, although I appreciate the attempt.
At least you tried. From other posters here, all I got was baloney
such as "we don't have to conform to your rigorous standards of
falsification" and other such bogus claims.
>
> >On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
> >research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
> >Communism were based on it.
>
> And this claim is perhaps more evil than silly.
> --
It is a historical fact that both Nazism and Communism used evolution
as justification for their ideologies. Whether they were correct in
doing so is up for debate, but it is factual that they thought they
were doing so.
bi...@juno.com
> Observed speciation:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I've already addressed this FAQ. I find it particularly damning that
the FAQ tries to argue against the BSC, which is the only falsifiable
species concept. If there was plenty of evidence of falsification-
tested speciation observations, somehow I think the FAQ would not have
felt the need to argue against the BSC.
>
> Since you were born an atheist, were your parents "near suicidal"
> when you were born?
False premise. How can a baby be "born" atheist? If that were true,
then why have virtually all societies that anthropology have ever
studied, always believed in gods? You would think that if babies were
born atheist, at least one geographically isolated society would have
kept this atheist bias in their institutions, no?
bi...@juno.com
> Speciation has been observed. Google is your friend.
Nope. Speciation has been CLAIMED. But if you scratch the surface, you
recognize that reproductive isolation has not been achieved. If you
can give me an example of a 100 percent reproductive isolation for any
speciation observation, you will shock me. Because I have never seen
one yet, during all the time I have been posting here on talk.origins.
Earnest Major came closest, but when I googled the claimed speciation,
I discovered that there was still about 1 percent reproduction. In
other words, not reproductive isolation, and thus not a true
speciation according to the BSC.
>
> No I'm not. Read Richard Hofstader's pullitzer-prize winning book
> Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He devotes much of the book to
> the strong connections between evangelicalism and anti-
> intellectualism. Fundamentalism, too of course,
I'm an evangelical, and I assure, you, I am not anti-intellectual in
the least.
The category of "C. S. Lewis evangelicals" is a massively influential
strain within evangelicalism, and it is very hard-headed and demands
evidence. Lee Strobel is another good example of this strain.
Now, there may be some evangelicals who are NOT intellectual. But
evangelicalism is a massive movement, you are going to find all kinds
of people in such a huge movement.
>
> This isn't really a logical argument. How much Muslims have sex has
> nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. The Europeans
> are most likely more in support of evolution because they don't have a
> nagging evangelical and fundamentalist influence in their country.
I was not arguing about evolution's truth or falsity in that
paragraph. Rather, I was showing that high levels of evolution belief
leads to net zero population growth, which means that evolution belief
sows the seeds of its own destruction in terms of human demographics.
The empty baby wards in European hospitals make the argument loud and
clear.
When you abandon traditional family-centered morality.... when you
replace it with "free love" and "casual sex" and "abortion and birth
control" what do you get? You get net zero population growth. And the
Muslims take over in a few generations. You are correct that this does
not address either the truth of falsity of evolution. But it shows
that belief in evolution is a good way to ensure that you are not "the
fittest" who survive.
Oddly ironic, isn't it? Belief in "survival of the fittest" is
precisely what makes you unfit.
Why? Becuase it happens to be correlated with the destruction of the
old family-based morality, which means you waste your most productive
child-rearing years using birth control and having abortions, and thus
failing to reproduce. And thus your genetic line dies out.
>>
> Have you ever heard of slavery? It was based on misinterpretations of
> Darwinism. So was the tolerance of Robber Barons in the 1800's under
> the guise of "social darwinism" (a falsified doctrine).
Slavery pre-dated Darwinism.
>
> Once again, regardless of how Darwinism is used and misinterpeted has
> no reflection on its actual truth, any more than Hitler's relgious
> belief in God has on the truth of theism.
This is partly correct. However, Darwinism still has the ugly stains
of Hitler and Communism, and it is easy to see why evolution might
lead to Nazism and Communism. The actual truth of evolution is
questioned on other grounds, however. Specifically, the lack of
reproductive isolation in claimed speciations.
>
> Lastly, American opposition to evolution stems largely from the
> evangelical tradition. Read about the Scopes Monkey Trial, will ya?
> And the reactions to it.
The Scopes Monkey Trial was based on fundamentalism, not
evangelicalism. You are trying to lump the two together. But ever
since C. S. Lewis, evangelicalism has morphed away from a
fundamentalist paradigm.
By the way, if you read the legal arguments used in the Scopes Monkey
Trial, you realize that the situation is now precisely reversed. In
the Scopes Monkey Trial, the authorities were trying to censor DARWIN.
But now the authorities are trying to censor ID. (Dover). So the
freedom lovers are now on the ID side, and the censors are on the
evolutionary side.
So the Scopes Monkey Trial is not a good thing for you evolutionists
to bring up, since it demonstrates that you are now using the exact
same arguments that the Creationists tried to use to silence Scopes
back then.
Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com writes
>>
>> I'm tired of refuting this silly allegation about speciation. If anyone
>> thinks he has a point please refer to the UseNet archives.
>>
>
>Well, at least you TRIED to give me examples of speciation
>observations. Unfortunately, when I actually checked on the specific
>speciation that you claimed, it was NOT 100 percent reproductively
>isolated. You lose, although I appreciate the attempt.
Actually it wasn't me who pointed you at the Senecio eboracensis paper.
I mentioned that someone else had pointed it out to you.
The problem is that you're attempting to redefine the concept of species
in the hope that observations of speciation go away. Neither biologists
before nor after Darwin required absolute reproductive isolation between
species, not the slightly weaker complete lack of introgression you
rarely use.
There are large groups of species within which interbreeding can occur.
Your redefinition would, for example, require us to consider nearly all
ducks, geese and swans to be a single species. Similarly it would
require us to consider wheat (all five species thereof), rye, barley,
and many related species of grass, to be a single species. Or all 50 or
so species of cotton to be a single species.
>
>At least you tried. From other posters here, all I got was baloney
>such as "we don't have to conform to your rigorous standards of
>falsification" and other such bogus claims.
>
It is quite rare that a species is absolutely reproductively isolated
from all other species. The bogus claim is your claim that you are
proferring a rigorous standard for testing for speciation.
Rather than continually repeating bogus claims why don't you come out of
the closet and admit that you accept the factuality of common descent
with modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes is supported by the evidence.
--
Alias Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com
> Genetics and evolution have all been converted into mathematical
> formulas as early as the 1960's. Just as an example, read (Tajima
> 1989), which explains how mathematical analysis of nucleotide base
> pairs can indicate the nature, types, and extent of natural selection
> that occured.
What, look at the events AFTER THE FACT? I am talking about
mathematically precise PREDICTIONS.
Anybody can try to analyze things after they have already occurred.
The hard sciences such as physics and chemistry make mathematically
precise PREDICTIONS that can be falsification-tested directly by
immediate observation and analysis. These two sciences would be
useless if they said everything happend "randomly" over "millions of
years."
Any science that claims that its phemomena happen "randomly" over
"millions of years" is automatically ruled out as either a hard
science, or as a science that can lead to fruitful technology.
There is no way around this. You evolutionists will never get this
albatross from hanging around your necks, unless you can start
predicting mutations and speciations with mathematical precision. If
this ever happens, Creationism will instantly vanish, because you will
simply set up experiments with precise specation predictions, and the
Creationists in the audience will observe the speciation, and convert
over to the evolutionary side.
But guess what? Ain't gonna happen. Not even a single speciation has
been observed that is 100 percent reproductively isolated, that has
undergone enough falsification tests.
If anyone can provide me with an example, please do so. Until someone
does this, I will continue making the claim that none have been
observed. And by the way, the FAQ does not help your side, since it
actually argues AGAINST the BSC, which is the only falsifiable
speciation concept.
CreateThis
>>
>> Speciation has been observed. Google is your friend.
>
>Nope. Speciation has been CLAIMED. But if you scratch the surface, you
>recognize that reproductive isolation has not been achieved. If you
>can give me an example of a 100 percent reproductive isolation for any
>speciation observation, you will shock me. Because I have never seen
>one yet, during all the time I have been posting here on talk.origins.
>
>Earnest Major came closest, but when I googled the claimed speciation,
>I discovered that there was still about 1 percent reproduction. In
>other words, not reproductive isolation, and thus not a true
>speciation according to the BSC.
>
>
>>
>> No I'm not. Read Richard Hofstader's pullitzer-prize winning book
>> Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He devotes much of the book to
>> the strong connections between evangelicalism and anti-
>> intellectualism. Fundamentalism, too of course,
>
>I'm an evangelical, and I assure, you, I am not anti-intellectual in
>the least.
I assure you you are.
CT
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:33:32 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[...]
>>The BBC commissioned a survey of Belief in God across 10 countries in
>>2004.
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm
>>
>>Overall, 82% of people expressed a belief in God; the USA was slightly
>>higher than average at 86%, the UK was the lowest at 56%.
>
> There is a big skew on that figure. It deals with people's answers to
> questions.
That's what surveys normally do :)
>It totally ignored under 18s
As do most surveys unless they are specifically targeted at young people.
>and only covered 10,000 people
> spread over 11 countries.
It was actually 10 countries with 1000 people in each country (slightly more
in a few countries). 1000 is generally considered a large enough sample
group for an accuracy level of +/- 5% provided that the survey group
represents the demographics of the population being surveyed. I don't see
anything untoward in the demographics used
(Full details of demographic breakdown at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf
page 10 onwards)
>No split is given by age group nor is
> education level documented. In short, the figures are almost worthless
Worthless for the sort of detail you talk about but that does not make them
worthless in terms of establishing overall belief levels which is what the
survey was designed to do.
.
> - and the BBC were attacked for that at the time the programme was
> shown.
Got a cite for that ?
>>Interestingly, almost 30% of those claiming to be atheist said that they
>>still prayed sometimes.
>
> Which is, of course, totally ridiculous.
Seems so, but that's what the respondents said.
>>There isn't even any evidence of increasing atheism among scientists. When
>>James Leuba carried out his survey of 1000 scientists in 1916, 40% of
>>scientists responded that they believed in God*. Leuba predicted that this
>>figure would decrease in the future in line with the spread of education.
>>When Edward Larson, however, repeated the same survey in 1996 using the
>>exact same questions and methodology, he found that the figure had
>>remained
>>static at 40%.
>
> Which is, again, ridiculous. The only "religious" scientists I've ever
> come across have tended to be religious only for social status reasons
> - not through real belief. Allowing for my bias towards physics and
> astronomy, were I would put the religious side at less that 2%, I
> would be surprised if a proper survey of all scientist got a figure
> over 10%.
You think scientists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins and Gerald Schroeder
are religious for social status reasons only?
With respect, I would regard a structured survey as a more reliable
indicator than your personal experience. Also, I would be wary of your
experience that they are religious for social status reasons only - if they
are telling you that they only practice religion for status reasons, how do
you know that they are not saying that to you to maintain their status with
you?
Anyway, the key point was not the *absolute* proportion of scientists who
believe in God, it was the fact that using identical methodology, there had
been no overall change since 1916.
[...]
> I would not class a mathematician as a scientist.
The publishers of American Men and Women of Science (source for the survey
group) obviously don't agree with you, nor does the AAAS who elect Fellows
to a Mathematics section.
alextangent
> > Speciation has been observed. Google is your friend.
>
> Nope. Speciation has been CLAIMED. But if you scratch the surface, you
> recognize that reproductive isolation has not been achieved. If you
> can give me an example of a 100 percent reproductive isolation for any
> speciation observation, you will shock me. Because I have never seen
> one yet, during all the time I have been posting here on talk.origins.
>
> Earnest Major came closest, but when I googled the claimed speciation,
> I discovered that there was still about 1 percent reproduction. In
> other words, not reproductive isolation, and thus not a true
> speciation according to the BSC.
>
>
>
> > No I'm not. Read Richard Hofstader's pullitzer-prize winning book
> > Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He devotes much of the book to
> > the strong connections between evangelicalism and anti-
> > intellectualism. Fundamentalism, too of course,
>
> I'm an evangelical, and I assure, you, I am not anti-intellectual in
> the least.
Really?
>
> The category of "C. S. Lewis evangelicals" is a massively influential
> strain within evangelicalism, and it is very hard-headed and demands
> evidence. Lee Strobel is another good example of this strain.
>
> Now, there may be some evangelicals who are NOT intellectual. But
> evangelicalism is a massive movement, you are going to find all kinds
> of people in such a huge movement.
>
>
>
> > This isn't really a logical argument. How much Muslims have sex has
> > nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. The Europeans
> > are most likely more in support of evolution because they don't have a
> > nagging evangelical and fundamentalist influence in their country.
>
> I was not arguing about evolution's truth or falsity in that
> paragraph. Rather, I was showing that high levels of evolution belief
> leads to net zero population growth, which means that evolution belief
> sows the seeds of its own destruction in terms of human demographics.
Oh my word. You can't inherit a "belief".
>
> The empty baby wards in European hospitals make the argument loud and
> clear.
What argument? That belief in evolution increases the use of
prophylactics?
>
> When you abandon traditional family-centered morality.... when you
> replace it with "free love" and "casual sex" and "abortion and birth
> control" what do you get? You get net zero population growth. And the
> Muslims take over in a few generations. You are correct that this does
> not address either the truth of falsity of evolution. But it shows
> that belief in evolution is a good way to ensure that you are not "the
> fittest" who survive.
Oh my... what have the Muslims done to deserve this? I would have
thought that a co-religionist was preferable in your eyes to the truly
godless believer in evolution.
>
> Oddly ironic, isn't it? Belief in "survival of the fittest" is
> precisely what makes you unfit.
There's no genetic population of "believers in evolution" that I know
of.
>
> Why? Becuase it happens to be correlated with the destruction of the
> old family-based morality, which means you waste your most productive
> child-rearing years using birth control and having abortions, and thus
> failing to reproduce. And thus your genetic line dies out.
Do you actually read what you write? If so, do you really mean what
you write? Because this is a sad excuse for a rational argument, and
if this is Christian evangelical argumentation at its best, leave it
for the pulpit where at least the audience is as numbskulled as you
appear to be.
"Have a shag for Jesus" seems to be the sum of this argument.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Richard Harter
This is interesting. Babies are neither born atheists nor born
believers. When they are growing up they are taught to believe in the
gods (or lack thereof) of their culture. But why do cultures have
beliefs in gods, and why do people so readily believe in them?
Evidently people has a propensity to invent and believe in gods. Why is
that? I suggest the great feature of our species is the recognition
that others are also people like ourselves. We are promiscuous about
it; we do not merely think of humans as persons, we go on to think of
animals, artifacts, storms, the sun and the moon, corporations,
governments, and pretty much everything else that impacts our lives as
persons. Not entirely people of course, but we personalize them.
Life and the world are older and larger than we are. They are literally
superhuman. And what, after all, are the gods but the superhuman
personalized.
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:umb333pt23ic7mc97...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:33:32 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>The BBC commissioned a survey of Belief in God across 10 countries in
>>>2004.
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm
>>>
>>>Overall, 82% of people expressed a belief in God; the USA was slightly
>>>higher than average at 86%, the UK was the lowest at 56%.
>>
>> There is a big skew on that figure. It deals with people's answers to
>> questions.
>
>That's what surveys normally do :)
>
>>It totally ignored under 18s
>
>As do most surveys unless they are specifically targeted at young people.
Which makes the totals meaningless.
>
>>and only covered 10,000 people
>> spread over 11 countries.
>
>It was actually 10 countries with 1000 people in each country (slightly more
>in a few countries). 1000 is generally considered a large enough sample
>group for an accuracy level of +/- 5% provided that the survey group
>represents the demographics of the population being surveyed. I don't see
>anything untoward in the demographics used
>(Full details of demographic breakdown at
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf
>page 10 onwards)
>
>>No split is given by age group nor is
>> education level documented. In short, the figures are almost worthless
>
>Worthless for the sort of detail you talk about but that does not make them
>worthless in terms of establishing overall belief levels which is what the
>survey was designed to do.
Educational achievement is a rather important guide to getting the
demographics.
>.
>> - and the BBC were attacked for that at the time the programme was
>> shown.
>
>Got a cite for that ?
Only the newspapers at the time.
>
>>>Interestingly, almost 30% of those claiming to be atheist said that they
>>>still prayed sometimes.
>>
>> Which is, of course, totally ridiculous.
>
>Seems so, but that's what the respondents said.
Which is, of course, still totally ridiculous.
>
>>>There isn't even any evidence of increasing atheism among scientists. When
>>>James Leuba carried out his survey of 1000 scientists in 1916, 40% of
>>>scientists responded that they believed in God*. Leuba predicted that this
>>>figure would decrease in the future in line with the spread of education.
>>>When Edward Larson, however, repeated the same survey in 1996 using the
>>>exact same questions and methodology, he found that the figure had
>>>remained
>>>static at 40%.
>>
>> Which is, again, ridiculous. The only "religious" scientists I've ever
>> come across have tended to be religious only for social status reasons
>> - not through real belief. Allowing for my bias towards physics and
>> astronomy, were I would put the religious side at less that 2%, I
>> would be surprised if a proper survey of all scientist got a figure
>> over 10%.
>
>You think scientists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins and Gerald Schroeder
>are religious for social status reasons only?
In the USA it seems many are.
>
>With respect, I would regard a structured survey as a more reliable
>indicator than your personal experience.
When you find one please post details.
> Also, I would be wary of your
>experience that they are religious for social status reasons only - if they
>are telling you that they only practice religion for status reasons, how do
>you know that they are not saying that to you to maintain their status with
>you?
Now why would they want to do that? I don't pay them, give the jobs or
affect where they live.
>
>Anyway, the key point was not the *absolute* proportion of scientists who
>believe in God, it was the fact that using identical methodology, there had
>been no overall change since 1916.
Which proves nothing, other than that the methodology need to be
examined.
>
>[...]
>
>> I would not class a mathematician as a scientist.
>
>The publishers of American Men and Women of Science (source for the survey
>group) obviously don't agree with you, nor does the AAAS who elect Fellows
>to a Mathematics section.
I've known and worked with many over the years. There are some
scientists who are mathematicians, but the bulk of mathematicians do
not do science.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
>>
>> I'm tired of refuting this silly allegation about speciation. If anyone
>> thinks he has a point please refer to the UseNet archives.
>>
>
>Well, at least you TRIED to give me examples of speciation
>observations. Unfortunately, when I actually checked on the specific
>speciation that you claimed, it was NOT 100 percent reproductively
>isolated. You lose, although I appreciate the attempt.
>
>At least you tried. From other posters here, all I got was baloney
>such as "we don't have to conform to your rigorous standards of
>falsification" and other such bogus claims.
>
>>
>> >On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
>> >research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
>> >Communism were based on it.
>>
>> And this claim is perhaps more evil than silly.
>> --
>
>It is a historical fact that both Nazism and Communism used evolution
>as justification for their ideologies.
Wrong.
> Whether they were correct in
>doing so is up for debate, but it is factual that they thought they
>were doing so.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
>>
>> Observed speciation:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
>I've already addressed this FAQ. I find it particularly damning that
>the FAQ tries to argue against the BSC, which is the only falsifiable
>species concept. If there was plenty of evidence of falsification-
>tested speciation observations, somehow I think the FAQ would not have
>felt the need to argue against the BSC.
>
>>
>> Since you were born an atheist, were your parents "near suicidal"
>> when you were born?
>
>False premise. How can a baby be "born" atheist?
It does not believe in gods. Will not until it is at least 3 or 4
years old.
> If that were true,
>then why have virtually all societies that anthropology have ever
>studied, always believed in gods?
Because primitive people use gods to explain things.
> You would think that if babies were
>born atheist, at least one geographically isolated society would have
>kept this atheist bias in their institutions, no?
There is no such thing as a truly geographically isolated society.
--
Bob.
wf3h
b...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> >
> I'm an evangelical, and I assure, you, I am not anti-intellectual in
> the least.
sure you are. you let religious biases interfere with clear thinking.
>
> I was not arguing about evolution's truth or falsity in that
> paragraph. Rather, I was showing that high levels of evolution belief
> leads to net zero population growth, which means that evolution belief
> sows the seeds of its own destruction in terms of human demographics.
?? no one knows what this means. the studies of snow shoe hares and
associated populations of coyotes doesn't particularly care about
'belief' in evolution.
>
> The empty baby wards in European hospitals make the argument loud and
> clear.
has zip to do with evolution. has lots to do with money.
>
> When you abandon traditional family-centered morality....
and when, pray tell, did christians ever belief in this? when they
held slaves? when they had women as property? jews as 2nd class
citizens? gays as criminals?
when you
> replace it with "free love" and "casual sex" and "abortion and birth
> control" what do you get? You get net zero population growth. And the
> Muslims take over in a few generations.
how jesus h. and myron w. christ.
what a moron. if there's ANY group that has a natalist fetish it's
islam. it has EXACTLY the properties he wants the west to have....he's
like dinesh d'souza.
and he complains about islam??
>
> Why? Becuase it happens to be correlated with the destruction of the
> old family-based morality,
uh, no. family based morality is associated with car repair.
non sequitur? yep. so is your statement.
which means you waste your most productive
> child-rearing years using birth control and having abortions, and thus
> failing to reproduce. And thus your genetic line dies out.
he's arguing against BIRTH CONTROL? guess he's never read the work of
jeffery sachs which showed that the single biggest factor in creating
wealth in poor countries is widespread use of birth control
> >
> This is partly correct. However, Darwinism still has the ugly stains
> of Hitler and Communism,
not according to jewish historians. in the document 'dabru
emet' (available on the web), 200 jewish scholars said that xtian
antisemitism laid the groundwork for the murder of jews.
and communism had no relationship whatsoever to evolution...none.
and it is easy to see why evolution might
> lead to Nazism and Communism. The actual truth of evolution is
> questioned on other grounds, however. Specifically, the lack of
> reproductive isolation in claimed speciations.
and yet that's what the evidence shows
is there ANY basis for your beliefs at all? so far you've made up
assertions about nazis, communists and science...none...repeat...NONE
of which is true...
> >
> By the way, if you read the legal arguments used in the Scopes Monkey
> Trial, you realize that the situation is now precisely reversed. In
> the Scopes Monkey Trial, the authorities were trying to censor DARWIN.
> But now the authorities are trying to censor ID. (Dover).
that's correct. it's because of thomas jefferson. he and madison said
the govt couldn't establish religion. ID is religion. so it's outlawed
in public schools
your argument is with the US constitution.
So the
> freedom lovers are now on the ID side, and the censors are on the
> evolutionary side.
when has a religious govt EVER been a FREE one? please cite a SINGLE
example.
>
> So the Scopes Monkey Trial is not a good thing for you evolutionists
> to bring up, since it demonstrates that you are now using the exact
> same arguments that the Creationists tried to use to silence Scopes
> back then.
tell it to jefferson.
Cemtech
bi...@juno.com says...
> On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> > majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> undergo actual rigorous falsification testing.
Like http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> Rather than just angry
> censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.
No courts in the link above, and there are lots more out there.
--
Creationists support genocide.
"God is like Shakespeare, he can do whatever he wishes with his
characters upon the stage of planet Earth, including sending evil,
plague, famine, pestilence, and anything else. Such things improve the
story in both Shakespeare and God's dramatic creations."
- bi...@juno.com
Cemtech
bi...@juno.com says...
> > >On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
> > >research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
> > >Communism were based on it.
> >
> > And this claim is perhaps more evil than silly.
> > --
>
> It is a historical fact that both Nazism and Communism used evolution
> as justification for their ideologies. Whether they were correct in
> doing so is up for debate, but it is factual that they thought they
> were doing so.
It's you and your religion that endorse genocide, remember?
wf3h
b...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > Genetics and evolution have all been converted into mathematical
> > formulas as early as the 1960's. Just as an example, read (Tajima
> > 1989), which explains how mathematical analysis of nucleotide base
> > pairs can indicate the nature, types, and extent of natural selection
> > that occured.
>
> What, look at the events AFTER THE FACT? I am talking about
> mathematically precise PREDICTIONS.
i KNOW he's gonna ignore this but, here goes:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf
Homosexuality is a common occurrence in humans and other species, yet
its genetic and evolutionary basis
is poorly understood. Here, we formulate and study a series of simple
mathematical models for the purpose
of predicting empirical patterns that can be used to determine the
form of selection that leads to
polymorphism of genes influencing homosexuality. Specifically, we
develop theory to make contrasting
predictions about the genetic characteristics of genes influencing
homosexuality including: (i)
chromosomal location, (ii) dominance among segregating alleles and
(iii) effect sizes that distinguish
between the two major models for their polymorphism: the overdominance
and sexual antagonism models.
We conclude that the measurement of the genetic characteristics of
quantitative trait loci (QTLs) found in
genomic screens for genes influencing homosexuality can be highly
informative in resolving the form of
natural selection maintaining their polymorphism.
Keywords: homosexuality; genetics; maintenance; evolution;
mathematical models; testable predictions
and he's gonna HATE this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact
order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a
chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96
percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more
than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.
But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just
refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let
them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.
If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to
perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from
evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of
harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations
in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.
"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at
the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a
leader in the chimp project.
Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful
mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range
that evolutionary theory had predicted.
>
> Anybody can try to analyze things after they have already occurred.
> The hard sciences such as physics and chemistry make mathematically
> precise PREDICTIONS that can be falsification-tested directly by
> immediate observation and analysis. These two sciences would be
> useless if they said everything happend "randomly" over "millions of
> years."
well, he's just been proven wrong
and you know what? he's gonna ignore this...completely...he will say
tomorrow EXACTLY what he's saying today, even though i've included
citations and references to prove him wrong.
>
> Any science that claims that its phemomena happen "randomly" over
> "millions of years" is automatically ruled out as either a hard
> science, or as a science that can lead to fruitful technology.
gee...atoms decay randomly yet physics is a science. and what does
TIMEFRAME have to do with it?
>
> There is no way around this. You evolutionists will never get this
> albatross from hanging around your necks, unless you can start
> predicting mutations and speciations with mathematical precision.
done. i gave the citations.
If
> this ever happens, Creationism will instantly vanish
no, it won't because it's a religious belief, not science.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:23:18 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>>news:umb333pt23ic7mc97...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:33:32 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>The BBC commissioned a survey of Belief in God across 10 countries in
>>>>2004.
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm
>>>>
>>>>Overall, 82% of people expressed a belief in God; the USA was slightly
>>>>higher than average at 86%, the UK was the lowest at 56%.
>>>
>>> There is a big skew on that figure. It deals with people's answers to
>>> questions.
>>
>>That's what surveys normally do :)
>>
>>>It totally ignored under 18s
>>
>>As do most surveys unless they are specifically targeted at young people.
>
> Which makes the totals meaningless.
Ok, so it should have said 86% of *adults* in the USA expressed a belief in
God, rather than 86% of *people*. <shrug>
BTW, I have no particular desire to defend this survey or the Larson survey,
simply pointing out that when you say "Atheism is already the default and,
as time goes by, less people are falling for the lies of religion", you may
be guilty of wishful thinking - I would be interested in any real evidence
you have for this.
In the Western world, there is certainly a big reaction against traditional
religious formats as shown, for example, in the substantial decline in
Church attendances, and people are making their own minds up about moral
issues rather than conforming to centralised authority e.g. Catholics and
contraception.
This, however, does not necessarily mean a swing towards atheism, what
evidence there is seems to suggest that people still want to hang onto a
basic belief in God, the big difference nowadays is that want to do it on
their own terms.
Frank J
> > I'm tired of refuting this silly allegation about speciation. If anyone
> > thinks he has a point please refer to the UseNet archives.
>
> Well, at least you TRIED to give me examples of speciation
> observations. Unfortunately, when I actually checked on the specific
> speciation that you claimed, it was NOT 100 percent reproductively
> isolated. You lose, although I appreciate the attempt.
>
> At least you tried. From other posters here, all I got was baloney
> such as "we don't have to conform to your rigorous standards of
> falsification" and other such bogus claims.
While other posters are entertaining you on what you would accept as
evidence for speciation, I am interested in "the rest of the story."
That is, what exactly do you think happens instead? And what evidence
do you have for it that does not collapse into your personal
incredulity about speciation and/or the usual pseudoscientific
misrepresentations of evolution?
(snip)
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:7m35339n21gctlrjk...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:23:18 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>>>news:umb333pt23ic7mc97...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:33:32 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>The BBC commissioned a survey of Belief in God across 10 countries in
>>>>>2004.
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Overall, 82% of people expressed a belief in God; the USA was slightly
>>>>>higher than average at 86%, the UK was the lowest at 56%.
>>>>
>>>> There is a big skew on that figure. It deals with people's answers to
>>>> questions.
>>>
>>>That's what surveys normally do :)
>>>
>>>>It totally ignored under 18s
>>>
>>>As do most surveys unless they are specifically targeted at young people.
>>
>> Which makes the totals meaningless.
>
>Ok, so it should have said 86% of *adults* in the USA expressed a belief in
>God, rather than 86% of *people*. <shrug>
Better, but still not correct.
I've taken part in enough surveys in the past to know few are really
worth the effort put into them.
>
>BTW, I have no particular desire to defend this survey or the Larson survey,
>simply pointing out that when you say "Atheism is already the default
It is. When you are born you have no religious affiliations or even
the concept of gods.
> and,
>as time goes by, less people are falling for the lies of religion", you may
>be guilty of wishful thinking - I would be interested in any real evidence
>you have for this.
Falling church attendance + aging church attendance = good evidence
for my claim.
>
>In the Western world, there is certainly a big reaction against traditional
>religious formats as shown, for example, in the substantial decline in
>Church attendances, and people are making their own minds up about moral
>issues rather than conforming to centralised authority e.g. Catholics and
>contraception.
>
>This, however, does not necessarily mean a swing towards atheism, what
>evidence there is seems to suggest that people still want to hang onto a
>basic belief in God, the big difference nowadays is that want to do it on
>their own terms.
I disagree.
--
Bob.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:05:33 -0500, Dale Kelly wrote:
> the fact is that evolutionists do not want to stay in the realm of
> education, they want to enter the realm of politics with their belief
> systems
I'm quite certain I qualify as "an evolutionist" as you use the term, thus
I would, presumably, be one with the aforementioned belief systems.
One slight problem: I am, currently, unaware of anything I would consider
a "belief system". Since you apparently know "evolutionists" so well that
you can, without ever having met them or talked to them seriously,
nevertheless managed to determine that they in fact have specific belief
systems, even though they're unaware of them, could you perhaps do me two
small favours? First, explain exactly what these belief systems I have
are, and second, explain how exactly you determine that I have them?
I'm sure your mind reading skills are well above the norm, so I ask, just
as a small favor. Thank you.
> this said, they face a battle of morals, an atheist believes morality is
> a choice, a theists believes morality is a requirement
I believe morality is a choice? Hmm. Only in the most limited sense, and
depending what one means by "morality". I'd say it was more correct to
say, at least in my case, that I believe an ethical code must be developed
in order for a society to function; that much would, in my view at least,
be a necessity rather than a choice. There is of course _some_ choice
involved; one chooses to adhere to that code or accept the consequences,
whether they be banishment, imprisonment or otherwise.
> laws are based on morality
Again, this depends on how one defines morality. One could argue, for
example, that the very fact we have laws argues against notions of
morality; if we were moral - i.e. we followed a given moral code - we
wouldn't need laws. Why write down "Do not commit murder" if we are
inherently moral and this is the sort of thing we consider a moral?
One could argue that such laws exist precisely to encode those things
which are not actually morals, or which go beyond basic morals, or simply
to say "We know we're not moral, but we can agree to a code which allows
us to live and work together - here it is."
Or one could argue the other side, that - as you suggest - many laws are
in fact little more than morals put to paper, thus cementing them for that
society. Of course then we get into the problem of different societies -
what is acceptable to one may be intolerable to another; which is "moral",
which is based on morals? Are they both, even if they conflict? If not,
which one uses the "proper" morals? How do you tell?
No, I rather think that most laws are based, ultimately, on pragmatism.
Oh, to be sure, some coincide with other codes, codes held up as standards
of moralism, yet if that's all it were, I don't think most would last.
Consider laws against murder as an example. Some folks argue for the
notion that all killing is immoral; such a notion obviously has its
issues. For one, it is virtually impossible to exist without killing -
bacteria for example. One might restrict it to killing one's own species
- that it is immoral to kill people. Of course, that brings up everything
from wars to self defense and defense of family, property and the like; is
there no justification for killing, ever?
Of course there is - yet this muddies the waters of the originally
pristine moral against killing; now it becomes no killing unless a or b or
c - suggesting that killing is in fact moral in the right conditions.
Hmm, haven't we just rendered the entire concept into a set of situational
rules, situational ethics? It's not okay to kill, unless the situation
requires it?
Morality has a tendency towards the absolute; law, on the other hand, must
cope with all the grey areas and exceptions and special circumstances. It
may incorporate, at some distant and dilute level some principles of some
moral codes, but by themselves they are woefully insufficient.
Then, too, there still remains the problem of society; if your society
deems something illegal - or worse, immoral - and the other guy's society
doesn't, do you make allowances? Do you impose your views on him? Does
he impose his views on you? What is the moral foundation for either
position - or for doing nothing?
One may develop pragmatic solutions to such questions, but I rather think
that assuming morality is at the basis, or even can be at the basis of
such laws leaves a little to be desired.
We're also still left with one other little problem: change. Is morality,
once defined, correct for all time, or can it be adapted? As a simple
example, take the issue of homosexuality. In some cultures it was an
accepted practice. In others, or in more recent times, it often wasn't.
Now we're moving in the direction of government-sanctioned gay marriages
and the like, suggesting that it is, once again, accepted practice.
So, did the morals - if any - surrounding the issue change? Did we change
away from - or towards - moral behaviour, moral codes? Are such changes a
benefit or a detriment - or completely neutral? What does the
suggested moral foundation of our law say, and whatever it says, is there
compelling reason to listen to it? Would not a pragmatic approach be more
useful, one which simply weighs the costs and benefits of allowing or
rejecting the behaviour, then using that to guide the laws? Would not
that in fact be far more effective in determining useful, applicable laws
than adhering to any given morality, even more so if it is one that
significant portions of the population might question, even actively
oppose?
>, face it, you are not going to supplant law
> with choice, easily, and this thought comes from a hedonistic anarchist
> who just happens to believe in God and think that my beliefs add value
No, but it isn't about law versus choice; it's about deriving laws from a
particular moral code or even the concept of morals, versus deriving them
from pragmatic decisions - choices - intended to maximally benefit all
members of the society.
> why do evolutionists want to proselytize anyways?
Do they? Proselytize what? The term can mean simply trying to change
others' minds, but it generally applies to religious views, as in "Adopt
my religion, it's better."
Since evolutionists, as a class, don't have a set religion - indeed, many
have none at all - this would seem a poor term to use.
Of course, if one limits the term to the scope of simply changing peoples'
minds - as in getting them to accept evolution where before they didn't-
that's another matter entirely.
Why would they do this? One could simply argue long tradition, going back
to at least Galileo and Copernicus. A tradition of standing up against
those who wish to, for generally religious reasons, prevent distasteful
truths coming out. Science, and learning in general, is for the benefit
of all of us, the betterment of all of us. Anything which stands in the
way of it _should_ be challenged, fought, knocked down. Knowledge
_should_ be spread.
In the 1600's, the Church tried to prohibit Copernicus' work, the
heliocentric theory. Today, there's a similar attempt to block the
teaching of evolution. Both are science, are knowledge, are to the
benefit of us all and as such resistance to them must be fought.
One might ask why evolution in particular, rather than, say, gravity - why
do we argue so strenuously for evolution, why do we promote it so
actively? The only real answer to that is that gravity isn't being fought
against. There is no serious, ongoing, organized attempt to remove the
teaching of gravity, no movement to discredit it; gravity does not need
this sort of support.
Evolution is no less valid, no less a science than gravity and should stand
on an equal footing with it; taught as widely and as well, understood at
least in its basics by most, left unfettered and unencumbered to be
studied and practiced by those skilled and versed in it.
Yet this is not the case; it is, instead, regularly fought against,
hampered, encumbered. Like all science, all learning, it is to the
benefit of us all and to fail to support it, to let it simply fade away
because it challenges the beliefs of some diminishes us as people, as a
society, as a species.
> do they really believe
> there is enough philosophical importance to their conclusions? can they
> make a battle of philosophical conclusions? if so, they would have made
> it, and won
On the contrary; the fight, often, is against entrenched ignorance.
Worse, in some cases it is actually against entrenched knowledge, but
knowledge perverted to a goal other than the pursuit and dissemination of
knowledge.
If one's opponent adopts a stance that their view is correct regardless of
any argument or evidence against it, then there is no convincing them, no
changing their mind, regardless of the weight of support one's own view
may have. Such a mind is not actually open, it is made up before the
discussion is begun.
While one would hope that such a view is not common - and it doesn't seem
to be a _general_ phenomenon - evolution runs smack up against some very
strongly held religious beliefs; challenging such is not simply a matter
of saying "Here's the evidence, it supports our claim and refutes yours".
While this would be enough for an actually open mind, many in the
camp of the opposing view do not enter the discussion with an open mind;
they "know" that their view is "right", period, and nothing that you can
say, do or show will ever convince someone with this mindset.
It's not a matter of whether there is importance or support; it is much
more a matter of whether the opposition will allow themselves to be
convinced with even the most compelling argument - and often, at least on
this one topic, they will not.
> in reality, more people believe morality is a requirement and not a
> choice
Of course morality is a choice. Even if we accept the idea that one
_must_ adopt _some_ moral code, there is always the matter of _which_
moral code - and that is most definitely a choice.
Take polygamy as an example. In at least one country it is widely
practiced; apparently it is perfectly moral to them. In other societies
it is forbidden - it is immoral there.
Which moral is correct? Is there any way to objectively determine this?
I don't believe there is; worse, most attempts to define such do so by
assuming the validity of their own moral code and judging the others based
on that: "My moral code says polygamy is wrong, therefore their moral code
is faulty." Of course, *their* moral code says polygamy is acceptable,
therefore *your* moral code must be faulty.
So which is it? The truth is there is no objective basis for asserting
one to be better or correct, asserting the other to be inferior or
incorrect. All one can assert is that they are different.
This, of course, means the individual must choose. They must choose first
whether to adopt *any* such code. They must choose which code to adopt.
They must even choose which parts of the code to adopt: they may agree
with the majority of a given code, but reject other parts of it entirely.
Then there is the more basic choice, not to adopt any such system at all,
but to instead work towards a personal or even society-wide system of
beliefs, ethics, agreements which are based on entirely different
principles, such as those of cooperation and cohabitation, rather than
adopting a particular religious code and all its attendant baggage.
It is all choice, in the end; what matters is what works for the society,
both internally and in dealing with other societies. We - as a society -
choose what works for us, and we choose to modify it as conditions
warrant. We - as individuals - choose to follow our society's code, or
move to a different society, or create a subsociety, or simply adopt our
own code and try to make it sufficiently compatible with that of the
society around us that we can function in and with that society.
It's all choice.