BF2S Forums Creationism Vs Science: Video

It is apparent to me that this thread will quickly drift off topic. And if the video posting was never intended to be about the idea Dawkins is exploring therein: if it is not about “unreason as the root of all evil?” then I apologize. . . my bad.

As far as magically delicious ideas go [SOS], I guess that is a matter of taste, and there is no accounting for it. I personally have a distaste for; or dislike of; *magic-type ideas (excepting when it is fictional; when in story or myth form).

*(that is magic as explanation, or that it carries with it any explanatory power). . .

Great ideas are uncommon and can often take significant amounts of personal time & effort to obtain; they are not arrived at in simple unreasoned faith form. They are hard-earned. A short cut to truth does not exist in science - there is no short cut. To suggest belief is at play here is a major error. And this is worth exploring above any other mistake in reasoning, logic or philosophy that one might make.

The linguistic-sense of meaning of what belief is does not translate logically from one linguistic-semantic sense to the other.
The forms are not semantically the same. It is utterly illogical to say “all is belief.”

It is reason vs. unreason.

On one side you have this: reasoning, reasons and massive amounts of evidence.
A well-tested scientific theory based upon massive amounts of empirical evidence (both direct and indirect) that at best will only be slightly modified and/or improved in the future (unless of course it was a pre-scientific theory that got thrown out in its entirety; or that it was pseudo-science).

And on the other side you have this: unreason (faith/belief).
It does not matter what we are talking about - if any aspect of faith has reasons, reasoning and evidence then it is not faith.

Faith is an unreasoned acceptance of an idea. It occurs in children naturally. Everything a child learns is accepted as truth early on its life. The source is venerated (our trusted parents are its source; and the source of tradition transmission). It is told to a child that is naturally inclined to believe everything and anything. This natural state can be referred to as the suspension of disbelief. The harder edges of disbelief, skeptical and critical thinking are emergent qualities that take significant amounts of time; in the education process; to bring forth from an infantile mind. Questioning everything is the activity of adults. Believing anything is the natural domain of the childlike mind.

It is this infantile & literal belief system that is at the heart of the issue (do not confuse literal-beliefs with symbolism, psychology and spirituality-in-essence. They are quite different ideas).

Does the world need this - the most common - and easily obtained type of belief  “unreason.” Unreasoned literal beliefs that have no evidence whatsoever for them - other than inertia over time - and traditional infantile acceptance.

Creationism and ID-theory are minor footnotes in comparison to this: whether or not to continue in a mad state of human affairs (globally) or accept the greater truth. The mad state of affairs being the never-ending wars of belief systems (political-ideologies and religion) vs other belief systems (political-ideologies and religion); and the greater truth being there are reasons for things “all is not belief.”

SonofASniper wrote:

ComradeWho wrote:

calling hypothesis belief is a bit of a stretch, especially when using it in a debate about how religious beliefs based on faith (or beliefs defined by a lack of evidence) are combatting scientific theory, and where the point of one side of the argument is that religious belief should be taught in school in science along side scientific theory, because they're "all beliefs." The underlying argument in your post is one that supports this position. I think that I've explained why that is absurd sufficiently.

I am trying keep the quotes short, otherwise soon they will turn into multiple pages *LOL*.

First I would like to point out that just because you gave one version of the definitions of words and then made a well written explanation does not mean that you have magically explained your point of view so that all will see the "light".  Never make that assumption in a debate of this nature. You will hardly ever win someone's belief into your side of the argument, and you will more often alienate people to your belief. 

I am engaging in this debate primarily because it is fun.  I enjoy having intelligent conversations with people in general, irregardless of their view.   I am happy to argue either side of evolution vs. creation.  In this forum it appears there are resoundingly more evolutionists then creationists, so I am leaning more towards argueing against evolution.  Now with that in mind....

Theory and a Hypothesis are actually synonems.  The primary difference is that a Theory has a little more evidence than a Hypothesis, but a Theory is still an unproven set of thoughts.     

I am assuming that you are using Wikipedia online definitions here.  One of the problems with relying on Wikipedia is that it can be very eaily edited by anyone, which in turn makes it reflects the bias of the current auther.  Another problem is that Wikipedia usually defines through word usage in an article, rather than giving an actual definition.  Wikipedia is a good resource, and I accept its use in this debate because anyone can look at it.  I would also like to submit Webster.com as a dictionary.   Webster's Dictionary has tighter controls on definitions, and give's good, broad definitions usually without bias. 

Paraphrasing parts of the Webster definiton, Theory is explained as "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" or as "an unproved assumption".  Paraphrasing the webster definiton of Belief is explained as "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing".

In regards to your argument.  You have a belief in a thing, evolutional theory.  A creationist has a belief in a person, a diety.    By definition it is in no way a stretch for me to say that evolution is a belief that requires a certain amount of faith.  Belief and faith are part of the human core.  Everything that each individual does is effected by the beliefs that they uphold and the faith they put into them. 

Creationism is a viable theory that, in my opinion, should be taught along side Evolutionary theory.  There is scientific evidence available that would support either side.   Teaching pure Creationism would not be teaching a specific religuous belief.  It would simply be teaching the theory that we were created by a diety. Keep in mind that prior to the Scope's Monkey Trial,  Creationism was the sole theory that was taught in schools, at that time it was taught strictly from a Christian view.  The Scope's Monkey Trial challenged that under Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State.    Today, however, we could certainly teach Creation theory alongside Evolutionary theory without teaching a religious view.  In actuality, that has started in some school districts now thanks to some inteligent and involved parents filing the correct complaints and lawsuits. 

SOS

don't give me a lecture on how to debate
and i love the little tactic of choosing the one part of my post you felt you could handle, so cute!
and another cute tactic with the whole picking of one definition of a word that suits you, regardless of whether the definition fits the usage of the word.

it's a fact: a concise and rational explaination of anything will not satisfy people with large emotional investments in an issue. it's completely possible to "sufficiently explain" a position and not convince some lamefuck who never developed their critical thinking skills. the whole problem with this as an issue is that the most staunch supporters of creationism reject critical thinking - they self-define as doing so - that's not a judgement i am making. faith is defined by a lack of reason, whether or not you see that lack of reason as good or bad depends on you.

what definitions am i using wikipedia for? what are you talking about. you posted a huge response and the only thing I get from it is that you don't know what a hypothesis is. again, a hypothesis is not a belief. scientists don't "believe" a hypothesis is true and test it. in fact most often they are trying to disprove rival possibilities when conducting experiments. there's no scientific evidence for creationism - period. it doesn't exist. creationism is a biblical myth dude, the only reason people like me have to hear about it is that our country is vastly christian and unlike in other first world countries, critical thinking and logic courses are not standard curriculum. if there was evidence for a deity my friend an invented concept like faith - which again - is defined by a lack of reason - would not be necessary. trying to rationalize your insane beliefs and put them on par with scientific theory is truly truly pathetic. "A lot of people think so" is not a good reason to learn something - you may want to learn about why they think so and study it as a social phenonenon in a religious studies, psychology, or sociology course but you do not teach it because "a lot of people think so." if you had been exposed to any type of critical thinking curriculum you'd recognize this as the logical fallacy "ad populum" or the appeal to popularity.

please no more responses full of paragraphs that have nothing to do with what i was saying. you don't know what a hypothesis is or how scientific method works and that is clear - your response was to assume i use wikipedia. what the hell is that all about? "hmm it seems like his understanding of the word hypothesis isn't what I've heard about loosely from others... he must have used wikipedia.. "

Theory is a big word buddy. Let me use the same dictionary you used to show you that. Theory is a word used commonly by layfolk in a variety of ways. Just like many words, it has many definitions depending on it's usage. Let's take a look at all of the definitions from your provided source!

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

I don't know if you've ever had a 10th grade science class.. but scientific method is the process through which unsupported theories or hypotheses undergoe testing and scientific scrutiny and are only adopted as scientific theories after all other plausible rivals are eliminated. now you know!

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

In fact Scientific laws can be based on incorrect theories... theories as soon as proven wrong are just wrong. Evolution is a proven theory which everyday explains life and how it changed over time. Evolution (again) does not explain the start of life that is the study of Abiogenesis, this is a Hypothesis as yet not proven in any way.

This is the best point of the whole debate. You can really easily tell the creationists that have never studied evolution or looked much into scientific method by the fact that they think evolution explains the origin of human life "DON'T MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF ME!"

Last edited by ComradeWho (2006-06-06 15:28:14)

SonofASniper wrote:

Comrade Who:

Very nice attack and also pathetic.  Do not for one minute think that I am trying to overanalyze and distort your arguments against you by only quoting portions of your posts.  I try to keep the quotes minimized primarly so that it does not take up an overly amount of room on the forum pages.  By doing this, I feel it keeps a discusion in a reasonably easy to read format. It is only neccesary to really do quotes so that a reader can understand what the previous post is that the author is refering to.  Evidently, you don't believe that.  You appear to take the approach of huge posts, large words, and a lot of emotion behind them. Particularly angry emotion.  I was not trying to lecture you before.  Now I will. You need to learn to be calm, be rational, be logical, and be diplomatic when you have debates of this nature.  Showing anger, ridicule, and scorn for people who do not share your world views will get you no where.  I am sure you are well educated in your views.  But the perception that you put forth in your posts make you appear no better than a misguided Christian Pastor preaching from the pulpit who is quick to judge and condemn people to eternal damnation.  You just happen to be teaching a different religion.

I have seen you write good posts, and I respect you for your abilities and knowledge.  Don't ruin that with crap.

In regards to the definitions, I was really trying to find out where you got your references and definitions, or if they were simply your own personal thoughts.  You happened to match Wikipedia definitions, so I made mention of it.   If that was offensive to you, I am sorry. I do not know why you would take offense, but you appear to have done so. 

In regards to the definition of theory, you have not changed the definition that I put forth.  Yes you posted the whole definition.  Still, theory is basically an unproven belief.  No matter how you try and present it, theory still starts with a belief. 

There have been articles and debates within the science community in regards to the whole scientific process.   It has been questioned because of the human bias factor.  Scientists, whether they are athiest, humanists, pagan, christian, catholic, etc., tend to put forth there own bias when trying to prove their theories.  Consequently, this is why so many scientists are able to use the same evidences to support both sides of the arguments between Creation vs. Evolution. 

To date there is still no absolute, conclusive universal evidence which supports the Cross-Species Evolution theories nor is there any for the Creation theory.   I will point out however, that there is overwhelming obvservable evidences for evolution within a species.  That is, the ability of a species to develop and adapt to its environment.  However, this is not conclusive proof of the Cross-Species Evolution theory even though it is used by some Evolutionists as evidence.  Bear in mind, Christian scientists use that same phenomenon as evidence of an inteligent design.

Until there is conclusive evidence for either theory, they are still just theories and they should be taught side by side.  Creation theory can be taught in a science classroom without teaching a specific religion. 

Some day, one of those theories will be proven or disproven.  Even Creation will eventually be proven or disproven to every person on this planet.

SOS

i'm going to read your posts starting with the last paragraph from now on so when i get to the parts where what you say is totally irrelevant to my interest i can prevent myself from wasting my own time.

theory has multiple definitions depending on usage i put the definition of theory that is appropriate based on the usage here in bold. if you missed that re-read it. it's pretty conclusive. calling a theory an unproven belief is a totally unsupported claim, in science there is no proof only evidence and probability - absolutes are for people who deal in irrational belief. if you have a problem with evidence and probability then there's it's no suprise you find evolution and creationism on par with one another. i don't know what you're talking about with "cross-species evolution." nobody talks about that, you lamer, that's part of the christian misconception of evolutionary theory.. it sounds like it has something to do with the "humans didn't come from monkeys" thing that the christians always say because when they hear the word "primate" they think monkey, rather than a group of organisms with a distinct set of biological characteristics (this probably requires thinking skills that have not been developed in these people). that whole "WE DIDNT COME FROM MONKEYS, do you see any half human half monkeys?" B.S. is just a distraction from the theory used by and against stupid people. there are a very small amount of scientific texts trying to validate intelligent design, they're generally funded by christian think tanks and they're generally ripped apart. their existence is a desperate attempt for people of faith to rationalize their beliefs so they can enter the realm of reason and academia - hope i never see that happen. why? because again, faith is defined by a lack of reason. creationism as a popular belief is rooted in having faith in "magical" (or divine, same thing) books that are thousand of years old which provide NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for their claims. the magical books in fact tell us that the right thing to do is to not look for justication but to simply accept, again, using "faith" (which again is defined by a lack of reason). you have said there's no conclusive evidence - well guess what dude - there's no such thing as conclusive evidence - there are probabilities and plausabilities, there are near certainties - this is the premise that science is based on this is what makes science different from the western religious tradition - this is why science has been a threat to the western religious tradition since the time of Socrates. This is where another logical flaw occurs from people on the "creationist" side.. that because we can't know "for sure" all beliefs and opinions are on equal footing. no - they're not. creationism has fucking never been part of the realm of reason. religious creationism is an archaic explaination of our origins that was our best shot at a time before we had developed science and philosophy. saying "well it doesn't have to be religious creationism" makes no difference because there's still no evidence for it and give me a break.. spend five minutes with anybody spouting off about a secular creationism and you will see that it does not take long for them to provide theological justification for their view. but you were right about one thing.. creationism meets the definition of a theory that you used - unfortunately the definition of a theory that evolution fits in is radically different. don't try to compare apples and oranges. i think you genuinely do not understand why it's totally inappropriate to teach creationism in a science course - it belongs in a mythology course.

Last edited by ComradeWho (2006-06-06 22:19:11)