Evolution Disclaimer - The Politics of Science (1 Viewer)

[python416]

How did science become a victim of politics?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1167793

What do you think about Evolution? I was shocked to see Gallup's numbers saying that America is almost split on the evolution issue. I guess my shocked is somewhat offset seeing those number are broken by education: they show that evolution is clearly accepted by people with post-secondary education.

What do you think this does to education?

Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in evolution. I have only met one person who didn't believe in evolution in my life, a Pentacostal Minister. But then again, I am Canadian.

 

[Deegan]

How did science become a victim of politics?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1167793

What do you think about Evolution? I was shocked to see Gallup's numbers saying that America is almost split on the evolution issue. I guess my shocked is somewhat offset seeing those number are broken by education: they show that evolution is clearly accepted by people with post-secondary education.

What do you think this does to education?

Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in evolution. I have only met one person who didn't believe in evolution in my life, a Pentacostal Minister. But then again, I am Canadian.

What does Evolution do to curb the fear of death, and the faith that there is an afterlife?

Is it so important to believe that we were all created by some organism in a pond, or should we not be allowed to believe in both, that a God created the scenario in which we have all come to be?

 

[python416]

What does Evolution do to curb the fear of death, and the faith that there is an afterlife?

Is it so important to believe that we were all created by some organism in a pond, or should we not be allowed to believe in both, that a God created the scenario in which we have all come to be?

I think the most important thing for the future of America is an education centered around the sciences. And since it is almost impossible to remove evolution from the current understanding of science as a whole, I think it is very dangerous to be teaching children to question evolution.

Science is complete independant of what who was the creator, and what happens after death. But evolution has never suggested that there is no God, so why do you need to disclaimer?

 

[Deegan]

I think the most important thing for the future of America is an education centered around the sciences. And since it is almost impossible to remove evolution from the current understanding of science as a whole, I think it is very dangerous to be teaching children to question evolution.

Science is complete independant of what who was the creator, and what happens after death. But evolution has never suggested that there is no God, so why do you need to disclaimer?

That's just not true, science, or I should say, most scientists, want to completely remove all doubt, and thus remove the notion of a God what so ever. Yet they still want federal dollars to build huge listening devices, and wait for the first word from outer space.:roll:

Religion brings peace to those who subscribe, science, and evolution, do very little to help comfort those of us that believe in a higher power, one that is not supposed to be identified, it's called faith. Should it be a science? Well let's think about that, as there was a time that most thought the world was flat, and some even lost their head for suggesting that the majority were wrong. So.......why not allow these folks the chance to prove their hypothesis?

 

[python416]

That's just not true, science, or I should say, most scientists, want to completely remove all doubt, and thus remove the notion of a God what so ever. Yet they still want federal dollars to build huge listening devices, and wait for the first word from outer space.:roll:

Religion brings peace to those who subscribe, science, and evolution, do very little to help comfort those of us that believe in a higher power, one that is not supposed to be identified, it's called faith. Should it be a science? Well let's think about that, as there was a time that most thought the world was flat, and some even lost their head for suggesting that the majority were wrong. So.......why not allow these folks the chance to prove their hypothesis?

I am a scientist and I have never heard of any scientist wanting to declare that there is no God. Maybe it is just different in Canada.

I grew up in Catholic schools, and we studied the sciences and religon as two independant subjects. I believe in a higher power, but when I want to solve some math problem I come across in my current profession (computer programming), I don't go to church for guidence.

The Catholic church has been adjusting its acceptence of science as science has progressed, and at some point I think they will have to unify evolution with their message. I just know that I don't need the Pope's OK to accept the obvious observations that clearly show evolution is a theory as valid as gravity.

And I don't see how my understanding of science means that I don't believe in God - when I certainly do believe in God.

I really feel that questioning evolution is like questioning gravity. It is great if someone wants to believe that, but if you teach that to your kids and they believe it, then don't expect them to be great scientists. And if your kids can not be great scientists, then the country will suffer in competition with the rest of the world.

 

[Deegan]

I am a scientist and I have never heard of any scientist wanting to declare that there is no God. Maybe it is just different in Canada.

I grew up in Catholic schools, and we studied the sciences and religon as two independant subjects. I believe in a higher power, but when I want to solve some math problem I come across in my current profession (computer programming), I don't go to church for guidence.

The Catholic church has been adjusting its acceptence of science as science has progressed, and at some point I think they will have to unify evolution with their message. I just know that I don't need the Pope's OK to accept the obvious observations that clearly show evolution is a theory as valid as gravity.

And I don't see how my understanding of science means that I don't believe in God - when I certainly do believe in God.

I really feel that questioning evolution is like questioning gravity. It is great if someone wants to believe that, but if you teach that to your kids and they believe it, then don't expect them to be great scientists. And if your kids can not be great scientists, then the country will suffer in competition with the rest of the world.

No one is suggesting asking the church for any guidance, or permission, but to allow the science of religion to continue. I believe in evolution, but I don't agree with the idea that an alternative could not stand toe to toe next that hypothesis. What is the danger in letting a person choose, I suspect it's an arrogance that, "I am right, you are wrong" that is at the crust of this issue. Let those people continue to do their work, and allow the same patience, and thought that so many scientists have enjoyed, and come to expect.

 

[python416]

No one is suggesting asking the church for any guidance, or permission, but to allow the science of religion to continue. I believe in evolution, but I don't agree with the idea that an alternative could not stand toe to toe next that hypothesis. What is the danger in letting a person choose, I suspect it's an arrogance that, "I am right, you are wrong" that is at the crust of this issue. Let those people continue to do their work, and allow the same patience, and thought that so many scientists have enjoyed, and come to expect.

Creationism is no more an alternative to evolution, than religon is to science. They are two different things.

The danger is in devalidating scientific method. This will lead to reduced American competency in the sciences. Which will in turn lead to reduced scientific innovation, which will lead to a weaker economy relative to the rest of the world. Which ultimately leads to a lower quality of life in the US.

It should not be presented as a choice between evolution and creationism, but a choice between science on its own, and science with religon.

We should mandate acceptance of science. But we should not mandate the acceptance of a specific religon. And we most certainly should not say that you have to pick EITHER science OR religon.

 

[Deegan]

Creationism is no more an alternative to evolution, than religon is to science. They are two different things.

The danger is in devalidating scientific method. This will lead to reduced American competency in the sciences. Which will in turn lead to reduced scientific innovation, which will lead to a weaker economy relative to the rest of the world. Which ultimately leads to a lower quality of life in the US.

It should not be presented as a choice between evolution and creationism, but a choice between science on its own, and science with religon.

We should mandate acceptance of science. But we should not mandate the acceptance of a specific religon. And we most certainly should not say that you have to pick EITHER science OR religon.

Say you, but you don't know who started this big ball rolling, you arrogant f**ks may think you know, but you don't know ****!

 

[python416]

Say you, but you don't know who started this big ball rolling, you arrogant f**ks may think you know, but you don't know ****!

Wow! Let me type it really slow:

E V O L U T I O N - D O E S - N O T
T R Y - T O - S A Y - W H O
S T A R T E D - T H I S - T H I N G
R O L L I N G

It only tries to tell you how the ball works while it is rolling. This is why it is not mutually exclusive from religon. The domain of science does not go beyond the physical universe in either space or time.

And if you don't understand science, you don't have to call me arrogant to make up for it. Since when is being informed a bad thing? You didn't have any problem trying to make me feel inferior in the other thread when I suggested that Cheney et. al. was part of PNAC. You seemed to be at home being arrogant there.

Where do you think stars come from?
How did this planet form?
Why is their life here, but not on the moon?
How come children look like their parents?

 

[Kandahar]

That's just not true, science, or I should say, most scientists, want to completely remove all doubt, and thus remove the notion of a God what so ever.

I've never heard of any scientist doing that. There are many scientists (most?) that don't personally believe in God, and a few that will tell you exactly WHY they don't believe in God...but I've never heard of any scientist wanting to exterminate religion from America. Stop listening to Pat Robertson.

Yet they still want federal dollars to build huge listening devices, and wait for the first word from outer space.:roll:

I'm skeptical as to whether SETI will ever work, but suffice it to say that it's hardly comparable to religion.

Religion brings peace to those who subscribe, science, and evolution, do very little to help comfort those of us that believe in a higher power, one that is not supposed to be identified, it's called faith. Should it be a science? Well let's think about that, as there was a time that most thought the world was flat, and some even lost their head for suggesting that the majority were wrong. So.......why not allow these folks the chance to prove their hypothesis?

They're more than welcome to prove their hypothesis. What they are NOT welcome to do is to aggressively lobby to push their baseless claims into science classrooms. However, creationists and ID advocates are just as welcome as evolutionists to perform any scientific experiment they can think of, publish their results in a reputable science journal, and try to convince the majority of scientists that they're correct.

Doesn't the fact that they've failed to do so tell you something about their "scientific" claims? And they haven't just failed...they've failed spectacularly.

 

[Kandahar]

No one is suggesting asking the church for any guidance, or permission, but to allow the science of religion to continue. I believe in evolution, but I don't agree with the idea that an alternative could not stand toe to toe next that hypothesis. What is the danger in letting a person choose, I suspect it's an arrogance that, "I am right, you are wrong" that is at the crust of this issue. Let those people continue to do their work, and allow the same patience, and thought that so many scientists have enjoyed, and come to expect.

There's nothing wrong with letting people choose...IF the two theories had equal merit, which they most certainly do not. Evolution is NOT just an equally good hypothesis alongside creationism/ID; it is decidedly BETTER. There is NO scientific evidence for intelligent design. There is overwhelming scientific evidence AGAINST creationism.

By your logic of just "letting students choose," no matter how stupid the alternate hypothesis is, I assume you would favor teaching the equal merits of astronomy and astrology. I assume you would favor teaching alchemy alongside chemistry. I assume you would favor teaching flat-earth and geocentric hypotheses alongside geology. Are these assumptions accurate?

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

You know, the perfect solution to the debate between evolution and intelligent design is to teach both in science class. First, we teach the scientific method, and then we show, in mind-numbing detail, exactly how it resoundingly disqualifies ID as a SCIENTIFIC theory. After we’ve cleared out that ideological tripe, we follow up by presenting all the evidence affirming evolution and let students try to tear it down using nothing but the scientific method. Simple, no? If anybody manages, using the tools of scientists themselves, to debunk this theory, not only will scientists be forced to abandon the current theory of evolution, they will do so gladly. But until the day evolution is scientifically disproven, ad hominen attacks denigrating the scientific establishment will prove nothing but the fact that you are a superstitious nutbag trying to use politics to slime your way around this legitimate hurdle.