News: Religion vs. science.
Ye Old One
http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
of Species" was published.
Even though there are still some Americans arguing about its contents,
there is little debate that Darwin’s book helped launch a revolution
of scientific inquiry that continues to this day.
Darwin’s theory of the evolution of organisms was not entirely new.
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle offered glimpses of it
and more modern philosophers, from Bacon on, added to the
understanding that plants and animals did not just magically appear
fully formed on the Earth, but changed and developed over eons.
However, it was Darwin who seized upon the idea, inspired by Thomas
Robert Malthus’ theories on overpopulation, that "favorable variations
would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones would be destroyed.
The result of this would be the formation of a new species."
According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, those organisms
that were better able to adapt to their environments were more likely
to survive and reproduce than those that had trouble or could not
adapt. These favorable variations are then transmitted to successive
generations. Variables such as food, predators, disease and climate
change makes the numbers of a species go up or down. And, ultimately,
every species’ fate is interconnected with that of every other
species.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection held that the origin and
diversification of species results from the gradual accumulation of
these individual modifications. This is the key element of his theory
of evolution.
This idea has never been accepted by fundamentalist Christians, who
believe that god created the world in seven days and everything was
ready to go from the beginning. Science proves that this is clearly
untrue, yet creationism (or intelligent design, as its supporters now
call it) is still treated seriously in the United States as a
competing idea of how the world was made.
"Evolution is not an idea. It’s a fact," said James McCarthy,
president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
earlier this year. Citing the recent emergence of drug-resistant
microbes and pesticide-resistant insects, McCarthy said that "it’s
impossible to deny evolution."
Yet, according to a Gallup poll taken this year, just 40 percent of
Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution. Other surveys
done in recent years find that about 30 percent of Americans believe
in the literal truth of the Bible and about 45 percent believe god
created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or
so.
It would be easy to blame the religious beliefs of Americans for this
widespread skepticism, since no other country in the developed world
thinks this way. But it’s safer to say the bigger problem is the
American public’s low level of scientific literacy. More than
two-thirds of Americans are unable to identify DNA as the key to
inherited traits. Nine out of 10 Americans do not understand what
radiation is or its effects on the human body. One in five Americans
thinks the sun revolves around the Earth.
We cannot compete in a modern global economy if we, as a nation, are
still arguing about evolutionary theory -- something that is
considered settled science by the rest of the developed world. One
wonders how a nation which thinks of itself as a world leader in
education, science and technology could have this many people ignorant
of basic scientific concepts.
Unfortunately, the reason why goes right back to the lack of national
curriculum standards in our schools and the unwillingness of too many
school boards around the country to stand up for the right of students
to be well-educated by modern scientific, secular standards. When we
allow religious dogma to trump science, we do our students a
disservice and risk putting our nation even further behind our global
peers.
--
Bob.
Kleuskes & Moos
> Religion vs. science
>
> http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
>
> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
> One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
> of Species" was published.
Hmmmm....
Not wanting to belittle C. Darwins achievements, making out his work
as the beginning of modern science seems a bit over the top.
Sure, it's one of science's finest moments, but modern science (that
is empirical science) did precede him. Darwin, too stood on someone
elses (biological and geological) shoulders.
> Even though there are still some Americans arguing about its contents,
> there is little debate that Darwin’s book helped launch a revolution
> of scientific inquiry that continues to this day.
<sarcasm>
Sure, the LHC largely depends on his work. The Standard Model, Quantum
Mechanics and Special and General Relativity would be utterly
unthinkable without Darwin.
</sarcasm>
<snip more halleluia's>
> Yet, according to a Gallup poll taken this year, just 40 percent of
> Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution.
Seems like the US educational system has it';s work cut out for it.
However, i would reccomend taking down the halleluJa-level a notch or
two.
<snip>
> But it’s safer to say the bigger problem is the
> American public’s low level of scientific literacy.
Not just a US-problem, i'm afraid.
> We cannot compete in a modern global economy if we, as a nation, are
> still arguing about evolutionary theory -- something that is
> considered settled science by the rest of the developed world.
Depends on what you're competing for. Knowledge of DNA is not required
for (say) a welder, a software-engineer or an architect. Wide sweeping
statements seldomly improve credibility.
> One
> wonders how a nation which thinks of itself as a world leader in
> education, science and technology could have this many people ignorant
> of basic scientific concepts.
I would hardly call DNA a "basic scientific concept", but that may be
a question of taste. However, you need to know absolutely NOTHING
about DNA in order to teach math, physics or electrical engineering.
> When we
> allow religious dogma to trump science, we do our students a
> disservice and risk putting our nation even further behind our global
> peers.
That particular door was last kicked in during the Renaissance, IIRC,
it's been wide-open since. It's minds and eyes that are shut and
preaching to the converted wont help open them. After all, you can
lead a horse to water but you can't force it to sing the Yankee-doodle-
dandy.
Ye Old One
<kle...@xs4all.nl> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 27 nov, 13:03, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> Religion vs. science
>>
>> http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
>>
>> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
>
>> One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
>> of Species" was published.
>
>Hmmmm....
>
>Not wanting to belittle C. Darwins achievements, making out his work
>as the beginning of modern science seems a bit over the top.
A bit, but it is a claim made of him by many. The recent episode of
the excellent Australian series Compass, the one titled "Did Darwin
Kill God" contains just such a statement.
As an aside, I must recommend that programme to everyone, it is a real
eye opener. If anyone has difficulty in downloading a copy (it is on
several binary newsgroups so it will also be on torrent feeds as well)
then email me and I'll find a way to get it to you.
>
>Sure, it's one of science's finest moments, but modern science (that
>is empirical science) did precede him. Darwin, too stood on someone
>elses (biological and geological) shoulders.
I think he was the first to offer real evidence that gods were not
involved in a very major aspect of the universe - life on Earth.
>
>> Even though there are still some Americans arguing about its contents,
>> there is little debate that Darwin’s book helped launch a revolution
>> of scientific inquiry that continues to this day.
>
><sarcasm>
>Sure, the LHC largely depends on his work. The Standard Model, Quantum
>Mechanics and Special and General Relativity would be utterly
>unthinkable without Darwin.
></sarcasm>
Yes. His lead helped many set aside the straightjacket the bible
imposed on science.
>
><snip more halleluia's>
>
>> Yet, according to a Gallup poll taken this year, just 40 percent of
>> Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution.
>
>Seems like the US educational system has it';s work cut out for it.
>However, i would reccomend taking down the halleluJa-level a notch or
>two.
I disagree.
>
><snip>
>
>> But it’s safer to say the bigger problem is the
>> American public’s low level of scientific literacy.
>
>Not just a US-problem, i'm afraid.
No, it isn't, you are 100% correct. However, the American influence is
very large and so it must be in the schools of America that the real
battle is fought for the minds of the young.
>
>> We cannot compete in a modern global economy if we, as a nation, are
>> still arguing about evolutionary theory -- something that is
>> considered settled science by the rest of the developed world.
>
>Depends on what you're competing for. Knowledge of DNA is not required
>for (say) a welder, a software-engineer or an architect. Wide sweeping
>statements seldomly improve credibility.
And yet, speaking as a Brit, and knowing there are many good
evolutionists in the USA, I still shudder at the parts of the American
education system that still sees creationism being taught.
Children have the RIGHT to a proper education. Legal steps should be
taken to ensure that no American child grows up without a reasonable
knowledge of science - and that would include evolution. The USA needs
nationally enforceable standards in education that all schools should
adhere to.
>
>> One
>> wonders how a nation which thinks of itself as a world leader in
>> education, science and technology could have this many people ignorant
>> of basic scientific concepts.
>
>I would hardly call DNA a "basic scientific concept", but that may be
>a question of taste. However, you need to know absolutely NOTHING
>about DNA in order to teach math, physics or electrical engineering.
I think they we talking of evolution, not just DNA.
>
>> When we
>> allow religious dogma to trump science, we do our students a
>> disservice and risk putting our nation even further behind our global
>> peers.
>
>That particular door was last kicked in during the Renaissance, IIRC,
>it's been wide-open since. It's minds and eyes that are shut and
>preaching to the converted wont help open them.
That is why the education system needs to do the job.
> After all, you can
>lead a horse to water but you can't force it to sing the Yankee-doodle-
>dandy.
A child is not a horse.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
All-Seeing-I
> However, it was Darwin who seized upon the idea,
Well chuckles, It was more like he STOLE the idea.
Ye Old One
Darwin, unlike you, was a very honest person.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Steven L.
> On 27 nov, 13:03, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> Religion vs. science
>>
>> http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
>>
>> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
>
>> One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
>> of Species" was published.
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> Not wanting to belittle C. Darwins achievements, making out his work
> as the beginning of modern science seems a bit over the top.
>
> Sure, it's one of science's finest moments, but modern science (that
> is empirical science) did precede him. Darwin, too stood on someone
> elses (biological and geological) shoulders.
I would have said that modern science truly began with Copernicus and
Galileo. They came up with a model of the Solar System that such noted
religious figures as Martin Luther considered heretical. But they made
it stick eventually.
This was the first time, AFAIK, that the Church had to eventually bow to
a new scientific discovery about the Universe.
>> One
>> wonders how a nation which thinks of itself as a world leader in
>> education, science and technology could have this many people ignorant
>> of basic scientific concepts.
>
> I would hardly call DNA a "basic scientific concept", but that may be
> a question of taste. However, you need to know absolutely NOTHING
> about DNA in order to teach math, physics or electrical engineering.
I'll wager that those Americans who don't even know DNA is the carrier
of the genetic code, aren't too swift in math, physics or electrical
engineering either.
>
>> When we
>> allow religious dogma to trump science, we do our students a
>> disservice and risk putting our nation even further behind our global
>> peers.
According to the polls:
42% of Americans don't accept evolution.
But fewer than 42% are religious fundamentalists.
That means there are a lot of Americans who reject evolution for reasons
other than religious fundamentalism.
Note too that evolution is widely accepted in Israel, despite it being
an avowed Jewish state. And it's accepted by the Vatican as well. So
the problem cannot be religion per se.
I suspect it's because while not being fundamentalists, Americans do
believe in God (as do the majority of Americans). The vast majority of
Americans are Protestants of one flavor or another.
And they've heard through the popular press, the Internet, and Usenet
newsgroups like this one, that evolution and belief in God (at least the
Protestant view of God) are incompatible. And so, rather than renounce
their faith and become atheists, they've renounced evolution instead.
Endless strawmen have been thrown up about why Americans don't accept
evolution. I believe the only philosophical question that matters here
is whether evolution undercuts belief in any supernaturalism. If it
does, then a predominantly religious people like the citizens of the
U.S. will never accept evolution.
If you're going to demand that Americans renounce belief in God as a
prerequisite to accepting evolution, you're going to be waiting an
awfully long time.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
All-Seeing-I
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:36:38 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allseei...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Nov 27, 6:03 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> >> However, it was Darwin who seized upon the idea,
>
> >Well chuckles, It was more like he STOLE the idea.
>
> Darwin, unlike you, was a very honest person.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
OH! HAHAHAHAH
ROFLMAO @ U !!!
Laughs to PLUTO and back!
DAMNIT Look what you made me do. I have coffee all over my keyboard
now
Boikat
> On Nov 27, 8:47 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:36:38 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > <allseei...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > >On Nov 27, 6:03 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > >> However, it was Darwin who seized upon the idea,
>
> > >Well chuckles, It was more like he STOLE the idea.
>
> > Darwin, unlike you, was a very honest person.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
>
> OH! HAHAHAHAH
>
> ROFLMAO @ U !!!
>
> Laughs to PLUTO and back!
Projection.
>
> DAMNIT Look what you made me do. I have coffee all over my keyboard
> now
See. You just lied again.
Boikat
bpuharic
really? got proof
or is this just another in a series of lies?
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Yes, in the same sense that Stephen Hawking STOLE Democritus'
idea.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> Religion vs. science
>
> http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
I thought that happened in the late 1600s, early 1700s with the
rejection of _Novum_Organum_ (the idea that evidence is to be
defended) and the advent of falsification (the idea that evidence
is to be refuted).
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:52:42 -0800 (PST), "Kleuskes & Moos"
> <kleu...@xs4all.nl> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On 27 nov, 13:03, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> Religion vs. science
>
> >>http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
>
> >> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
>
> >> One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
> >> of Species" was published.
>
> >Hmmmm....
>
> >Not wanting to belittle C. Darwins achievements, making out his work
> >as the beginning of modern science seems a bit over the top.
>
> A bit, but it is a claim made of him by many. The recent episode of
> the excellent Australian series Compass, the one titled "Did Darwin
> Kill God" contains just such a statement.
Still, hmmmm... The number of people making the claim is no substitute
for actual accuracy.
> As an aside, I must recommend that programme to everyone, it is a real
> eye opener. If anyone has difficulty in downloading a copy (it is on
> several binary newsgroups so it will also be on torrent feeds as well)
> then email me and I'll find a way to get it to you.
> >Sure, it's one of science's finest moments, but modern science (that
> >is empirical science) did precede him. Darwin, too stood on someone
> >elses (biological and geological) shoulders.
>
> I think he was the first to offer real evidence that gods were not
> involved in a very major aspect of the universe - life on Earth.
Somebody else already pointed this out, but still... I seem to
remember some polish guy making remarks about the earth circling
the sun, instead of the other way around (as the Bible implies) and
one G. Gallileo getting in trouble with His Pointyhattedness the Pope
over a slightly satirical work on this subject. One I. Newton later
confirmed the Polish dude's point of viewi seem to recall. The same
fellow who wrote an utterly insignificant little booklet on the
mathematical priciple of nature.
All the above have far better claims and predate Darwin significantly.
Besides, the fact alone that an expedition was sent to catalogue and
describe previously unknown forms of life, enabling Darwin topen his
magnum opus seems to indicate a quite modern form of science.
> >> Even though there are still some Americans arguing about its contents,
> >> there is little debate that Darwin’s book helped launch a revolution
> >> of scientific inquiry that continues to this day.
>
> ><sarcasm>
> >Sure, the LHC largely depends on his work. The Standard Model, Quantum
> >Mechanics and Special and General Relativity would be utterly
> >unthinkable without Darwin.
> ></sarcasm>
>
> Yes. His lead helped many set aside the straightjacket the bible
> imposed on science.
As allready mentioned, one Keppler is a much better candidate.
> ><snip more halleluia's>
>
> >> Yet, according to a Gallup poll taken this year, just 40 percent of
> >> Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution.
>
> >Seems like the US educational system has it';s work cut out for it.
> >However, i would reccomend taking down the halleluJa-level a notch or
> >two.
>
> I disagree.
That's your prerogative. Still, i think making claims wich are easily
disputed is a surefire way of loosing any trust you might hope to
nourish.
> ><snip>
>
> >> But it’s safer to say the bigger problem is the
> >> American public’s low level of scientific literacy.
>
> >Not just a US-problem, i'm afraid.
>
> No, it isn't, you are 100% correct. However, the American influence is
> very large and so it must be in the schools of America that the real
> battle is fought for the minds of the young.
US influence isn't half as big as some would like it to be. However, i
do agree that the battle should (primarily) be fought in schools.
> >> We cannot compete in a modern global economy if we, as a nation, are
> >> still arguing about evolutionary theory -- something that is
> >> considered settled science by the rest of the developed world.
>
> >Depends on what you're competing for. Knowledge of DNA is not required
> >for (say) a welder, a software-engineer or an architect. Wide sweeping
> >statements seldomly improve credibility.
>
> And yet, speaking as a Brit, and knowing there are many good
> evolutionists in the USA, I still shudder at the parts of the American
> education system that still sees creationism being taught.
Same here. However being dutch i shudder even more at the thought that
the same garbage is tought in schools over here. And in Germany, (and
in many other countries, without a doubt) btw.
> Children have the RIGHT to a proper education. Legal steps should be
> taken to ensure that no American child grows up without a reasonable
> knowledge of science - and that would include evolution.
Strip the "American" in that sentence and i could not agree more.
> The USA needs
> nationally enforceable standards in education that all schools should
> adhere to.
Not just the US.
> >> One
> >> wonders how a nation which thinks of itself as a world leader in
> >> education, science and technology could have this many people ignorant
> >> of basic scientific concepts.
>
> >I would hardly call DNA a "basic scientific concept", but that may be
> >a question of taste. However, you need to know absolutely NOTHING
> >about DNA in order to teach math, physics or electrical engineering.
>
> I think they we talking of evolution, not just DNA.
Ok. However evolution isn't a "basic scientific concept" either, IMHO.
I would vote for "empirical testing" and the ideas of Popper et al.
ToE, Relativity (both flavours), Quantum Mechanics and all the rest
flow from those concepts, after all.
Once the public at large understands the basic workings of science,
the acceptance of it's produce may be less problematic. Focussing on
shoving some particular theory down the publics throat might meet with
some opposition.
> >> When we
> >> allow religious dogma to trump science, we do our students a
> >> disservice and risk putting our nation even further behind our global
> >> peers.
>
> >That particular door was last kicked in during the Renaissance, IIRC,
> >it's been wide-open since. It's minds and eyes that are shut and
> >preaching to the converted wont help open them.
>
> That is why the education system needs to do the job.
>
> > After all, you can
> >lead a horse to water but you can't force it to sing the Yankee-doodle-
> >dandy.
>
> A child is not a horse.
But they have a common ancestor.
> --
> Bob.
>
> Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
> population?
Yup. And a whopping 50% is less intelligent than average...
Burkhard
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:36:38 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 27, 6:03 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>> However, it was Darwin who seized upon the idea,
>
>> Well chuckles, It was more like he STOLE the idea.
>
> Yes, in the same sense that Stephen Hawking STOLE Democritus'
> idea.
>
>
heekster
If he ever admits to having shat himself, he probably isn't lying.
Ye Old One
<kle...@xs4all.nl> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 27 nov, 15:32, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:52:42 -0800 (PST), "Kleuskes & Moos"
>> <kleu...@xs4all.nl> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On 27 nov, 13:03, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> Religion vs. science
>>
>> >>http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
>>
>> >> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
>>
>> >> One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
>> >> of Species" was published.
>>
>> >Hmmmm....
>>
>> >Not wanting to belittle C. Darwins achievements, making out his work
>> >as the beginning of modern science seems a bit over the top.
>>
>> A bit, but it is a claim made of him by many. The recent episode of
>> the excellent Australian series Compass, the one titled "Did Darwin
>> Kill God" contains just such a statement.
>
>Still, hmmmm... The number of people making the claim is no substitute
>for actual accuracy.
Very true, however I do think it is in part justified.
>
>> As an aside, I must recommend that programme to everyone, it is a real
>> eye opener. If anyone has difficulty in downloading a copy (it is on
>> several binary newsgroups so it will also be on torrent feeds as well)
>> then email me and I'll find a way to get it to you.
>
>
>> >Sure, it's one of science's finest moments, but modern science (that
>> >is empirical science) did precede him. Darwin, too stood on someone
>> >elses (biological and geological) shoulders.
>>
>> I think he was the first to offer real evidence that gods were not
>> involved in a very major aspect of the universe - life on Earth.
>
>Somebody else already pointed this out, but still... I seem to
>remember some polish guy making remarks about the earth circling
>the sun, instead of the other way around (as the Bible implies) and
>one G. Gallileo getting in trouble with His Pointyhattedness the Pope
>over a slightly satirical work on this subject. One I. Newton later
>confirmed the Polish dude's point of viewi seem to recall. The same
>fellow who wrote an utterly insignificant little booklet on the
>mathematical priciple of nature.
All very true.
>
>All the above have far better claims and predate Darwin significantly.
But I don't think any of those had quite the effect Darwin did. Maybe
the scientific community had grown large enough that the change in
thinking Darwin caused spread far wider than any change before him.
>
>Besides, the fact alone that an expedition was sent to catalogue and
>describe previously unknown forms of life, enabling Darwin topen his
>magnum opus seems to indicate a quite modern form of science.
Again, true. But the change in thinking was new.
>
>> >> Even though there are still some Americans arguing about its contents,
>> >> there is little debate that Darwin’s book helped launch a revolution
>> >> of scientific inquiry that continues to this day.
>>
>> ><sarcasm>
>> >Sure, the LHC largely depends on his work. The Standard Model, Quantum
>> >Mechanics and Special and General Relativity would be utterly
>> >unthinkable without Darwin.
>> ></sarcasm>
>>
>> Yes. His lead helped many set aside the straightjacket the bible
>> imposed on science.
>
>As allready mentioned, one Keppler is a much better candidate.
No, I don't think so. Even today most people would not have heard of
him.
>
>> ><snip more halleluia's>
>>
>> >> Yet, according to a Gallup poll taken this year, just 40 percent of
>> >> Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution.
>>
>> >Seems like the US educational system has it';s work cut out for it.
>> >However, i would reccomend taking down the halleluJa-level a notch or
>> >two.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>That's your prerogative. Still, i think making claims wich are easily
>disputed is a surefire way of loosing any trust you might hope to
>nourish.
Ah! The lifeblood of TO - disputes :)
>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> But it’s safer to say the bigger problem is the
>> >> American public’s low level of scientific literacy.
>>
>> >Not just a US-problem, i'm afraid.
>>
>> No, it isn't, you are 100% correct. However, the American influence is
>> very large and so it must be in the schools of America that the real
>> battle is fought for the minds of the young.
>
>US influence isn't half as big as some would like it to be. However, i
>do agree that the battle should (primarily) be fought in schools.
The main US influence today is not political but entertainment. Its
TV/cinema productions spread all over the world.
>
>> >> We cannot compete in a modern global economy if we, as a nation, are
>> >> still arguing about evolutionary theory -- something that is
>> >> considered settled science by the rest of the developed world.
>>
>> >Depends on what you're competing for. Knowledge of DNA is not required
>> >for (say) a welder, a software-engineer or an architect. Wide sweeping
>> >statements seldomly improve credibility.
>>
>> And yet, speaking as a Brit, and knowing there are many good
>> evolutionists in the USA, I still shudder at the parts of the American
>> education system that still sees creationism being taught.
>
>Same here. However being dutch i shudder even more at the thought that
>the same garbage is tought in schools over here. And in Germany, (and
>in many other countries, without a doubt) btw.
It is, but in general it is nowhere near as widespread or deep rooted
than in the USA.
>
>> Children have the RIGHT to a proper education. Legal steps should be
>> taken to ensure that no American child grows up without a reasonable
>> knowledge of science - and that would include evolution.
>
>Strip the "American" in that sentence and i could not agree more.
>
>> The USA needs
>> nationally enforceable standards in education that all schools should
>> adhere to.
>
>Not just the US.
The UK is part way there. I hope that within the next few years we
will have a real national curriculum.
>
>> >> One
>> >> wonders how a nation which thinks of itself as a world leader in
>> >> education, science and technology could have this many people ignorant
>> >> of basic scientific concepts.
>>
>> >I would hardly call DNA a "basic scientific concept", but that may be
>> >a question of taste. However, you need to know absolutely NOTHING
>> >about DNA in order to teach math, physics or electrical engineering.
>>
>> I think they we talking of evolution, not just DNA.
>
>Ok. However evolution isn't a "basic scientific concept" either, IMHO.
>I would vote for "empirical testing" and the ideas of Popper et al.
>ToE, Relativity (both flavours), Quantum Mechanics and all the rest
>flow from those concepts, after all.
No, you misunderstand. The really big change that the ToE brought
about was the removal of the dominance of the bible over science. Post
Darwin only an idiot requires thing fit with the bible.
>
>Once the public at large understands the basic workings of science,
>the acceptance of it's produce may be less problematic. Focussing on
>shoving some particular theory down the publics throat might meet with
>some opposition.
I agree that all science needs to be taught. But the ToE provides one
of the best refutations of creationism there is.
>
>> >> When we
>> >> allow religious dogma to trump science, we do our students a
>> >> disservice and risk putting our nation even further behind our global
>> >> peers.
>>
>> >That particular door was last kicked in during the Renaissance, IIRC,
>> >it's been wide-open since. It's minds and eyes that are shut and
>> >preaching to the converted wont help open them.
>>
>> That is why the education system needs to do the job.
>>
>> > After all, you can
>> >lead a horse to water but you can't force it to sing the Yankee-doodle-
>> >dandy.
>>
>> A child is not a horse.
>
>But they have a common ancestor.
Oh very true :)
>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
>> population?
>
>Yup. And a whopping 50% is less intelligent than average...
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ye Old One
As long as it prevents you from typing that would be a very good
thing.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:36:56 -0800 (PST), "Kleuskes & Moos"
>
>
>
> >On 27 nov, 15:32, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:52:42 -0800 (PST), "Kleuskes & Moos"
> >> <kleu...@xs4all.nl> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On 27 nov, 13:03, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> Religion vs. science
>
> >> >>http://www.reformer.com/ci_13854532?source=most_viewed
>
> >> >> On this day in 1859, the age of modern science began.
>
> >> >> One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin’s "On the Origin
> >> >> of Species" was published.
>
> >> >Hmmmm....
>
> >> >Not wanting to belittle C. Darwins achievements, making out his work
> >> >as the beginning of modern science seems a bit over the top.
>
> >> A bit, but it is a claim made of him by many. The recent episode of
> >> the excellent Australian series Compass, the one titled "Did Darwin
> >> Kill God" contains just such a statement.
>
> >Still, hmmmm... The number of people making the claim is no substitute
> >for actual accuracy.
>
> Very true, however I do think it is in part justified.
<snip agreements (boooorinnngg)>
> >That's your prerogative. Still, i think making claims wich are easily
> >disputed is a surefire way of loosing any trust you might hope to
> >nourish.
>
> Ah! The lifeblood of TO - disputes :)
What else... You did not have the idea that i come here to agree with
everyone, did you?
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> >> But it’s safer to say the bigger problem is the
> >> >> American public’s low level of scientific literacy.
>
> >> >Not just a US-problem, i'm afraid.
>
> >> No, it isn't, you are 100% correct. However, the American influence is
> >> very large and so it must be in the schools of America that the real
> >> battle is fought for the minds of the young.
>
> >US influence isn't half as big as some would like it to be. However, i
> >do agree that the battle should (primarily) be fought in schools.
>
> The main US influence today is not political but entertainment. Its
> TV/cinema productions spread all over the world.
Perhaps. But i would not overestimate the influence of Lady Gaga, 50
Cents, Michael Jackson and Quentin Tarantino on global scientific
understanding if I were you.
Maybe Star Trek... That REALLY had some impact.
> >> >> We cannot compete in a modern global economy if we, as a nation, are
> >> >> still arguing about evolutionary theory -- something that is
> >> >> considered settled science by the rest of the developed world.
>
> >> >Depends on what you're competing for. Knowledge of DNA is not required
> >> >for (say) a welder, a software-engineer or an architect. Wide sweeping
> >> >statements seldomly improve credibility.
>
> >> And yet, speaking as a Brit, and knowing there are many good
> >> evolutionists in the USA, I still shudder at the parts of the American
> >> education system that still sees creationism being taught.
>
> >Same here. However being dutch i shudder even more at the thought that
> >the same garbage is tought in schools over here. And in Germany, (and
> >in many other countries, without a doubt) btw.
>
> It is, but in general it is nowhere near as widespread or deep rooted
> than in the USA.
Deep enough to get the germans worried, according to the NDR.
So basically, your argument is that ToE finally made the
biblethumping, hymn chanting, incense burning communities sit straight
and pay attention.
Rather a weak argument to name something, anything, as the starting
point of modern science. You attribute far too much weight to the
opinions of theologians, priest, preachers and
popes. After all, it's not the theology which decides wether or not
something is scientifically sound or not.
Scientists do.
> >Once the public at large understands the basic workings of science,
> >the acceptance of it's produce may be less problematic. Focussing on
> >shoving some particular theory down the publics throat might meet with
> >some opposition.
>
> I agree that all science needs to be taught. But the ToE provides one
> of the best refutations of creationism there is.
Ummm... Aren't you mistaking cause and effect, here? I was under the
distinct impression the mission of "creationism" is to (vainly) try to
refute (or at least undermine) ToE, not the other way around.
<snip>