tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post6558316496529705966..comments2023-09-05T04:09:28.653-04:00Comments on Sacred Space: Does science make faith obsolete?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-59361726278973343962008-06-17T21:26:00.000-04:002008-06-17T21:26:00.000-04:00Story of a Christian teaching reasonhttp://www.gua...Story of a Christian teaching reason<BR/><BR/>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/15/religion.ukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-30814609409504718652008-06-17T21:14:00.000-04:002008-06-17T21:14:00.000-04:00Story of a Christian finding reason:http://richard...Story of a Christian finding reason:<BR/><BR/>http://richarddawkins.net/article,2732,n,n<BR/><BR/>"– How did you react personally to the loss of faith?<BR/><BR/>– It was no sad experience. Absolutely not. It felt liberating. Suddenly I was free to use my energy on better things than defending self-contradictory religious dogmas and justify that I still called myself "Christian". It was a relief to let go of this, he says "Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-23289353866588623332008-06-03T19:30:00.000-04:002008-06-03T19:30:00.000-04:00Here is good example on how evolution can be obser...Here is good example on how evolution can be observed in lab:<BR/><BR/>http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.phpIztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-57299454667751504292008-06-03T07:22:00.000-04:002008-06-03T07:22:00.000-04:00Oh Gawd, there goes Dimwit D'Sewer again. You Jee...Oh Gawd, there goes Dimwit D'Sewer again. You Jeezus Bleebers really need to back away from that guy.<BR/><BR/>So Dimwit thinks he has confounded the world of science by proclaiming that "science cannot prove science".<BR/><BR/>BFD (and what a moron). <BR/><BR/>What did Dimwit do, read about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems and unleash a bombshell that the scientific world has known about for at least 80 years?<BR/><BR/>Wow, are these the kind of deep philosophical breakthroughs we can expect from the creationists, <BR/>er, IDers?<BR/><BR/>And, of course, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems did absolutely nothing to stop the use and advancement of mathematics.<BR/><BR/>But I guess mathematics doesn't offend the religious as much as biology, so they apparently aren't the least bit interested in "creation mathematics.<BR/><BR/>I wonder why?<BR/><BR/>Really, it's not that your brilliant "ID"eas haven't been heard. They have been heard and found to be irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>You guys have billions of dollars and thousands of pleasure palaces, and even a few schools. <BR/><BR/>You even have lackeys of various religious "leaders" running the country.<BR/><BR/>Both leading Presidential candidates have had to turn their backs to wacko religious nuts because everyone found out what those nuts really thought.<BR/><BR/>Why not use your own resources to teach whatever you wish. <BR/><BR/>Wow the world with your creativity and insight. Maybe make a few real discoveries. Then the scientific world won't have much choice but to let you in.<BR/><BR/>Trying to get in through politics has been a failure, even with damned near all the political cards stacked in your favor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-49537453395667937732008-06-02T20:36:00.000-04:002008-06-02T20:36:00.000-04:00Oh, yeah, I almost forgot UFOlogy as another "fait...Oh, yeah, I almost forgot UFOlogy as another "faith based" challenge to science. <BR/><BR/>Gotta put aside some extra cash for that, too.<BR/><BR/>Is Erich Von Daniken still alive? <BR/><BR/>If so, he's done all the research we should need on the topic for a while. At least enough to hold the attention of the average high schooler for a few years. <BR/><BR/>Put that in the schools and let the kids vote on which theory they like best, creation, evolution, or ancient astronauts.<BR/><BR/>After all, we have to prepare the voters of the future, and what better time than as they are learning the basics. <BR/><BR/>Let them learn that THEY control the FACTS through the power of the vote, and don't have to rely on pointy-headed intellectuals.<BR/><BR/>I'm putting my bet on the ancient astronauts to win by a landslide.<BR/><BR/>They're just so cool...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-2965106117579623692008-06-02T17:16:00.000-04:002008-06-02T17:16:00.000-04:00It was for me. In high school.It was for me. In high school.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-43372811772084058142008-06-02T17:03:00.000-04:002008-06-02T17:03:00.000-04:00"According to Stein [Creationism promoter and co-w..."According to Stein [Creationism promoter and co-writer and star of <I>Expelled</I>], science leads you to 'killing people.' Not to cures and vaccines, not to a deeper understanding of nature, not to wonders like computers and cellphones, and certainly not to a better life. Nope. Science is murder." - Biology professor at Brown University, <A HREF="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/" REL="nofollow">Kenneth R. Miller</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-79705637939278340212008-06-02T14:52:00.000-04:002008-06-02T14:52:00.000-04:00cock: "Darwinism/Evolution claims life evolved fro...cock: "Darwinism/Evolution claims life evolved from a single cell (some say aliens, but not God, could have seeded Earth). The single cell theory is not falsifiable."<BR/><BR/>You need to separate evolution (fact) vs. theory of evolution with natural selection (theory).<BR/><BR/>What you are describing is theory of evolution not evolution itself. So I will answer it.<BR/><BR/>Of course theory of evolution with natural selection is falsifiable.<BR/><BR/>First lets write down 3 points of what theory really claims:<BR/><BR/>1) Organisms resemble their parents (i.e. characters are inherited).<BR/>2) All organisms vary (even in asexual reproduction, offspring are often slightly different to their parents).<BR/>3) As there is variation, some offspring will (on average) survive better than others and pass on those beneficial traits to their offspring.<BR/><BR/>In order to shoot down evolution therefore, you would have to find a fatal flaw in one of those arguments, and after 150 years we have a colossal amount of evidence to back them up. We have never found anything that disputes this model. Organisms vary, when they reproduce, some of those characters will be inherited, others will change a little, some of those changes might be beneficial and these individuals will survive better in the long run. (source: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1129)<BR/><BR/>So all you need to do is show how any of these 3 points is wrong and you have successfully falsified the theory of evolution.<BR/><BR/>Your "single cell" thing is simply not what evolution theory asserts. However even if it were some creationists claim that since one can't test the "single cell theory" it is not scientific. This is similar to claiming one drank 3 cups of water 5 months ago. If no one was there then according to criterion set by creationists this assertion is not scientific.Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-13820498600023153092008-06-02T14:31:00.000-04:002008-06-02T14:31:00.000-04:00I'm receiving a lot of complaints about the name "...I'm receiving a lot of complaints about the name "bigcock." I've tried to be tolerant of sophomoric names, but I agree that this one crosses the line -- especially in a blog about faith. It and the name-calling it has inspired have lowered the discourse of this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Fair warning: Any future posts by anyone calling himself "bigcock" (or any other name that I find unacceptable) will be deleted. Find yourself a new nickname and rejoin the debate.<BR/><BR/>And for those who are wondering if there is a double standard, "gamecock" is the name of the sports team at the University of South Carolina, not a crude reference to body parts.Jane Popehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08843356888639266946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-89539794296077297452008-06-02T13:58:00.000-04:002008-06-02T13:58:00.000-04:00Aw, man! I just got everyone in my prayer group t...Aw, man! I just got everyone in my prayer group to start wearing the "Darwin Was Monkey" t-shirts I had printed up. And now it turns out we believe in evolution? I hope somebody talks to the Pope about abolishing Purgatory, too, because this does not look good for me at all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-36009102080114236272008-06-02T13:29:00.000-04:002008-06-02T13:29:00.000-04:00The Episcopal Church Accepts Evolution:"All living...<B>The Episcopal Church Accepts Evolution:</B><BR/><BR/>"All living things—bacteria, archaebacteria, protists, fungi, plants and animals, including human beings—are descendants of other life forms, most of which are extinct. The evidence for evolution shows that all life on earth is related and interconnected, and is often depicted as a great "Tree of Life." Evolution happens gradually, sometimes at a rapid rate and sometimes slowly, but never with discontinuities. Evolution happens because of natural selection; in the face of environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at higher rates than others. Charles Darwin was the first to bring together all these ideas." - <A HREF="http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm" REL="nofollow">episcopalchurch.org/</A><BR/><BR/><B>The Catholic Church Accepts Evolution:</B><BR/><BR/>"Before offering a few more specific reflections on the theme of the origin of life and evolution, I would remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made some pronouncements on these matters ... In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith ...Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - <A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM" REL="nofollow">Pope John Paul II</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-73460771795540337082008-06-02T12:28:00.000-04:002008-06-02T12:28:00.000-04:00Evolution is Falsifiable"Some Creationists/IDers s...Evolution is Falsifiable<BR/><BR/>"Some Creationists/IDers say evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable and that it makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. <BR/><BR/>This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. <BR/><BR/>These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal?pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. <BR/><BR/>The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. <BR/><BR/>Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. <BR/><BR/>It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor."- <A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist" REL="nofollow">Scientific American</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-58589216203866652642008-06-02T10:35:00.000-04:002008-06-02T10:35:00.000-04:00Darwinism/Evolution claims life evolved from a sin...Darwinism/Evolution claims life evolved from a single cell (some say aliens, but not God, could have seeded Earth). The single cell theory is not falsifiable.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you atheists will join me in damning that theory from the classrooms?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-3447475717866116442008-06-01T22:39:00.000-04:002008-06-01T22:39:00.000-04:00Nick: "If I have evidence to back my idea that the...Nick: "If I have evidence to back my idea that there is a designer behind the universe, shouldn't that be listened to?"<BR/><BR/>Sure you should!<BR/><BR/>Could you point out to us where was your evidence and theory was published in a peer reviewed scientific publication and we'll listen.Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-13378756294252049562008-06-01T22:29:00.000-04:002008-06-01T22:29:00.000-04:00"Your presupposition is that if a belief cannot be..."Your presupposition is that if a belief cannot be falsified, then that belief cannot be true."<BR/><BR/>Nick, we are not talking about belief here. You want ID in science classes. In order to do that it has to be a valid scientific theory. Every scientific theory has to be falsifiable. This is how science works. It is a fail safety. One proposes hypothesis, tests it against known facts and if it describes all the facts (not just some!) good then it becomes a valid theory. Once valid theory then it is still subject to testing and possible falsification based on existing and new facts that emerge. It is a constant process.<BR/><BR/>Now tell us what predictions does ID "theory" have? How do you test it?<BR/><BR/>Also, please explain what makes ID a theory vs. just failed hypothesis?<BR/><BR/>Here is what we expect from scientific theory:<BR/><BR/> * Consistent<BR/> * Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)<BR/> * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)<BR/> * Empirically testable and falsifiable<BR/> * Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments<BR/> * Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)<BR/> * Progressive (refines previous theories)<BR/> * Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)<BR/><BR/>ID lacks consistency, violates principle of parsimony, it is not useful, it is not falsifiable, not emirically testabke, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.<BR/><BR/>So please do tell us how ID demonstrates any above qualities in order to be considered topic in <B>science</B> class?<BR/><BR/>Even if I would give you that Evolution Theory through Natural Selection is false (which I am not) you would still need to find out better theory that fits the criteria above and better describes what we observe around us. For discussion about ID the whole Evolution Theory is not important at all so stop saying what issues it has or doesn't have your ID "theory" has to stand on its own merit in order to be considered a valid theory.<BR/><BR/>So bring forth the answers, not excuses. Show us how ID explains evolution better then current Evolution Theory. (Mind you that Evolution Theory doesn't deal with origin of life but merely with evolution so let's focus on this first.)Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-36083181375272432222008-06-01T21:45:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:45:00.000-04:00If I have evidence to back my idea that there is a...If I have evidence to back my idea that there is a designer behind the universe, shouldn't that be listened to? If someone thinks they have evidence that astrology is true, I'll have no problem sitting down and listening to their case. I just hope they'll answer some questions and I do have them. The same for alchemy. I'd like to know their stance on the idea of primary matter for instance.<BR/><BR/>If someone wants to question ID, GREAT! I have no problem with that. If I'm wrong, I'd want it pointed out to me and the way to do that is to open the floor up to questions. The same applies for naturalistic evolution.<BR/><BR/>And what is meant by faith-based? Faith in the biblical sense is not blind. It is trust based on evidence that has shown itself to be reliable. I do not take a blind leap and say "Maybe Christianity is true." I believe it's true because I think there's sufficient evidence to warrant that claim.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you want no opinions heard than your own, that tells me plenty about you and your worldview.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-67958382117732034092008-06-01T21:41:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:41:00.000-04:00Glad to see that I'm re-kindling some interest in ...Glad to see that I'm re-kindling some interest in the "neglected" sciences. <BR/><BR/>Of course funding may get tight, but if we get creative, we can always find room for more.<BR/><BR/>If we really need to get funding for these projects, I suggest that we seriously re-consider Alchemy.<BR/><BR/>Just as the rising price of oil will fuel research into energy alternatives, the rising price of gold should make Alchemy a much more profitable pursuit.<BR/><BR/>In fact, if we were to have just a single breakthrough in Alchemy we could take all the lead in that paint those Chinese have been putting on our children's toys to really help America get back on her feet again.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, let's add Alchemy to our list of "faith-based" initiatives in education.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-54377264152616068772008-06-01T21:33:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:33:00.000-04:00If an astrologer wants to come forward and make hi...If an astrologer wants to come forward and make his case, let him. I have no problem with it. That's the great thing when you're sure you have truth. You can let the other side speak.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-46955111198428758752008-06-01T21:21:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:21:00.000-04:00"Teachers' organizations such as the National Scie..."Teachers' organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Science Education Leadership Association, and many others also have rejected the science and pedagogy of creation science and have strongly discouraged its presentation in the public schools.<BR/><BR/>"Some argue that 'fairness' demands the teaching of creationism along with evolution. But a science curriculum should cover science, not the religious views of particular groups or individuals.<BR/><BR/>"Some religious groups deny that microorganisms cause disease, but the science curriculum should not therefore be altered to reflect this belief. Most people agree that students should be exposed to the best possible scholarship in each field. That scholarship is evaluated by professionals and educators in those fields. Scientists as well as educators have concluded that evolution--and only evolution--should be taught in science classes because it is the only scientific explanation for why the universe is the way it is today." - <A HREF="http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html" REL="nofollow">National Academy of Sciences</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-5549836923134225082008-06-01T21:20:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:20:00.000-04:00Now that I think about it, Astrology could be comb...Now that I think about it, Astrology could be combined with Intelligent Design to give us a better understanding of the "purpose" of the Universe.<BR/><BR/>After all, if the universe was created, then Astrology is just another tool for understanding the "purpose" behind the heavenly bodies.<BR/><BR/>Surely they weren't put there for us to just look at, were they?<BR/><BR/>How stupid would that be? So if we are to assume "Intelligent Design", there must be SOMETHING more to the planets and stars than just random clumps of matter floating in space.<BR/><BR/>Surely an Intelligent Designer must have had a reason for creating all those extra planets and stars.<BR/><BR/>We should seriously investigate this "purpose" and Astrology provides a logical and cohesive framework for doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-45686866600584534992008-06-01T21:13:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:13:00.000-04:00"Scientists have considered the hypotheses propose..."Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses." - <A HREF="http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/" REL="nofollow">National Academy of Sciences</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-71599708318532648602008-06-01T21:06:00.000-04:002008-06-01T21:06:00.000-04:00Would the people who welcome the teaching of "ID" ...Would the people who welcome the teaching of "ID" into the classroom also welcome the teaching of Astrology in the classroom?<BR/><BR/>After all, a lot of people apparently "believe" in astrology, too.<BR/><BR/>So as long as we're equating all kinds of "leaps of faith" whether in science or religion, shouldn't Astrology get a fair shot?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-72032524231519532522008-06-01T20:56:00.000-04:002008-06-01T20:56:00.000-04:00"This anti-evolution movement claims that it is on..."This anti-evolution movement claims that it is only 'fair' to teach alternatives to evolution. But a science classroom is not a place where all ideas are given equal weight. Science is a process in which ideas are ultimately accepted or discarded based on rigorous observation and testing. While discussions of intelligent design and creationism may have a role in other parts of the curriculum, they do not have a place in the science classroom." - <A HREF="http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/statement-on-id.html" REL="nofollow">UCS</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-75210464487299539692008-06-01T20:52:00.000-04:002008-06-01T20:52:00.000-04:00"Despite the claims of the movement, intelligent d..."Despite the claims of the movement, intelligent design is not a scientific theory because the influence of an “intelligent” agent in the origin and evolution of life can neither be tested nor falsified." - <A HREF="http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/statement-on-id.html" REL="nofollow">UCS</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-21976678257313819622008-06-01T20:46:00.000-04:002008-06-01T20:46:00.000-04:00"Teach the Controversy is the name of a Discovery ..."Teach the Controversy is the name of a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign to promote intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while discrediting evolution in United States public high school science courses. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is 'a theory in crisis' due to it being the subject of purported wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. McGill University Professor Brian Alters, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that '99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution' whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community." - <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com