Evolution versus Creationism ... goes to trial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Evolutionists sucesfully got their anti-religious dogma declared scientific fact and taught in science classes. We all know Evolution is just an accepted theory, it's not a proven fact.

Have you ever seen anything evolve?

---

Have you ever seen Jesus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Please explain.

---

Because it's an organization that still claims to be our nation's guardian of "liberty", supporter of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties when they're only really concerned with their own narrow, anti-religious, view of the 1st Amendment. I really don't see where allowing a democratically elected school board to set it's own curriculum has anything to do with Congress making a law as to the establishment of religion. You could make the tenuous link, I suppose- but an organization that claims to support the entire Bill of Rights seem remarkably unconcerned about the 10th in this case, as well as the town's "liberty" to elect their own school board to run their school district as they see fit.

I anything, they should've just butt out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Have you ever seen Jesus?

---

Nice. I almost spit soda all over my monitor. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Because it's an organization that still claims to be our nation's guardian of "liberty", supporter of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties when they're only really concerned with their own narrow, anti-religious, view of the 1st Amendment. I really don't see where allowing a democratically elected school board to set it's own curriculum has anything to do with Congress making a law as to the establishment of religion. You could make the tenuous link, I suppose- but an organization that claims to support the entire Bill of Rights seem remarkably unconcerned about the 10th in this case, as well as the town's "liberty" to elect their own school board to run their school district as they see fit.

---

So is it your opinion then, that if 50% plus one of the members of a public school board vote to institute an Islamic fundamentalist curricilum that focused only on the teachings of Qur'an, that this would perfectly within their rights and that the families of the children who were not Muslims would just have to send their kids to school elsewhere if they didn't like it?

Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a better idea to confine all religious teachings in public schools to elective religious studies classes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Have you ever seen Jesus?

---

Have you ever seen Darwin? Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.

Also, there are witnesses to Jesus, I have never met someone who's watched an entire race of animals evolve.

Evolutionists are just scio-stalinists. It's either their way or expulsion. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, and until we, as a human race, can witness somthing "evolve," it will remain a theory. So says Kaiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Have you ever seen Darwin?

---

No I haven't. But I'd be pleased to engage in a debate where you have to try to prove that Jesus really existed and did all of the magic that Christians say he did, versus me having to prove that Darwin existed and did all of the writing and research that there is ample historical evidence of.

Who do you think would be able to prove their case, you or me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.

---

Hmmm. What sounds more like it was based on an acid trip:

"A virgin gave birth to the son of a god who then was murdered by his own people, but came back to life and loves us all anyway."

or,

"Over billions of years, creatures evolve and adapt to their environments as those who are most suited to survival naturally thrive and those who are weaker naturally die off."

Let me think about that one for a minute...

:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Have you ever seen Darwin? Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.

---

Guess what? Darwin is just a guy. The theory is the key. However, you base your hash-enduced hallucination claim on a guy like...2000 years ago. Who may as well only intended to preach what's in my sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Also, there are witnesses to Jesus, I have never met someone who's watched an entire race of animals evolve.

---

You might as well say that there are witnesses to Charles Darwin. And we do witness bacteria evolve; like, really evolve. Study some science, for God's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Evolutionists are just scio-stalinists. It's either their way or expulsion. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, and until we, as a human race, can witness somthing "evolve," it will remain a theory. So says Kaiser.

---

Evolution is a theory. Great, you got your first lesson correct. But you seems to forget that it's based on facts, and ever-changing in itself. The theory is evolving as more experiments are being done. While unintelligent design based its claim on a 2000 years old politically-washed literature. And yeah, all biologists are Stalinists...

For curious non-US people, these kind of people are those who support "unintelligent design."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

No I haven't. But I'd be pleased to engage in a debate where you have to try to prove that Jesus really existed and did all of the magic that Christians say he did, versus me having to prove that Darwin existed and did all of the writing and research that there is ample historical evidence of.

Who do you think would be able to prove their case, you or me?



Hmmm. What sounds more like it was based on an acid trip:

"A virgin gave birth to the son of a god who then was murdered by his own people, but came back to life and loves us all anyway."

or,

"Over billions of years, creatures evolve and adapt to their environments as those who are most suited to survival naturally thrive and those who are weaker naturally die off."

Let me think about that one for a minute...

:idea2:

---

1. Well, since we know both men at least existed, we can prove both. We can't prove either was right, however.

2. Obviously the 2nd one! I mean, how the HELL can you know what happened billions of years ago? Where you there? Were ANY humans there? Nope, nein, нет, no, non, não, αριθ, and nr. (I love babelfish).

If those who are weaker naturally die off then why do we have so many poor who do nothing but leech off of society? Why is my half brother alive? Why is the world ruled by babeling morons? They should have died off, already! Also, I'm not denying things adapt, but it's on a more case-to-case basis rather than as a whole species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Have you ever seen Darwin? Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.

Also, there are witnesses to Jesus, I have never met someone who's watched an entire race of animals evolve.

Evolutionists are just scio-stalinists. It's either their way or expulsion. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, and until we, as a human race, can witness somthing "evolve," it will remain a theory. So says Kaiser.

---

You need to be a little more careful here Kaiser selective breeding of domestic animals has been around for many thousands of years. Dogs have been selective breed to preform certain tasks or for looks. Horses likewise have been selective breed to get faster horses - better jumpers, etc..

Selective Breeding is one of the methods Darwin used to confirm his theory of evolution as being a viable explanation of the way nature works. ITs called artifical selection in evolution terms. Artifical selection supports the Evolution Theory with physical evidence.

While I support the Intelligent Design Theory in its religious context - its still a religious explanation of one way the earth, man, and animals all came about. That it attempts to use artifical selection as its basis for theory also does not discount it as a premise and a valid scientific theory - what makes it questionable is that instead of saying the answer is unkown as to the cause it requires the individual to believe in a creator. In that aspect it really does not have a place being taught next to biology in the classroom.

Take it to a Philosophy class (Which religion does fall into) or have a elective course on Religious studies in the public school system. Either way works for me - however lets not confuse the issue - about what Intelligent Design really is - verus what Darwin's Theory of evolution is.

If you remember the other thread - said things very similiar to this until someone decided it was more fun to attack religion verus having a discussion.

Now as for the ACLU presenting the arguement - is it doing so at the bequest of a citizen of the county in question? Which is prefectly within the purview of what the ACLU is organized to do. Or did the ACLU go looking for the case to make a poster case for their idealogue views in the courts? If they did this then the ACLU is violating its own charter in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Bullshit. Every word of that. Do you exist to offend, Kaiser?

"Evolutionists"? No such thing. Anyway, evolution has been witnessed. I believe there was some kind of dolphin evolution discovered awhile back. And there is always the Moth example. How do you explain Neanderthals?

Evolution is a very well-established collection of theories. Lumping them together and proclaiming it as fact is wrong. Dismissing it because it threatens your ignorant, offensive, and reactionary view of the world is likewise wrong. It's a promising theory, that is more established than alot of other things we take as fact. It merits further research, as all promising theories--and facts--do. Science is not a dogma. It's common-sense. Without it, we'd all still be dying of old age at 40, for crissakes.

---

Basically. Well, let me elaborate.

Most of the time when I present a very rediculous argument it is not because I'm an idiot or actually beleive it, it is simply to stir peoples most basic emotions and observe how they react under certain situations so I can better myself in my skills to debate and the like. It also allows me to push people further and make them think of responses, therefore expanding their experience and benefiting them as well. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Humans have characteristics that place them outside the natural order of things. Namely our ability to multiply like hell and manipulate the environment to our absolute advantage.

---

Incorrect - the abilty to multiply is a quality that almost all successful species have demonstrated. Look at the cockroach - it multiplies much faster then the human and doesn't have the long difficult growing process that we have.

Now we are the only species that has the ability to formulate and use tools of our own design. Which makes us unique in nature - however if you believe in the evolution theory then you must understand that man is also part of the natural order of things.

Quote:

---

However, Natural Selection pervades every aspect of your life. You might like the theory of Social Darwinism, although IMO that is a very simplified view of it.

---

Not so much Natural Selection for our lives right now. What is overwhelming evident in our daily lives is the effects of artifical selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

So is it your opinion then, that if 50% plus one of the members of a public school board vote to institute an Islamic fundamentalist curricilum that focused only on the teachings of Qur'an, that this would perfectly within their rights and that the families of the children who were not Muslims would just have to send their kids to school elsewhere if they didn't like it?

Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a better idea to confine all religious teachings in public schools to elective religious studies classes?

---

Interesting, I wasn't aware that the notion of Creationism and/or intelligent design were strictly limited to Christianity... in fact, I know they're not. Muslims also have a creation story and believe that God had a hand in the development of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zharakov

I beieve in Evolution.

I believe that God wanted us to evolve from Monkeys. It makes sence to me.

---

Me too :nice:

I am neither a scholar nor a scientist, but in my humble opinion, I think evolution is a part of God’s great work.

But this level of animosity is surprising, in my home the Qur'an and Scientific American sit side-by-side on my shelf and they get along well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The big difference here is that people seek to use religion as a control mechanism, and the people seeking that tend to be the worst kind of reactionary. Science opens up questions and possibilities. Reactionaries don't like that.

---

Oh, I meant ‘locally’. I didn’t know it was such a touchy subject here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The big difference here is that people seek to use religion as a control mechanism, and the people seeking that tend to be the worst kind of reactionary. Science opens up questions and possibilities. Reactionaries don't like that.

---

Where do you live, and what's that world like? ~D

I don't even understand why christians are trying to legitimize their religion with science...as the bible is quite clear IMO that faith does not require earthly observances, on the contrary.

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I think that says about all actually.

Strijder loves it when he gets to use peoples' own books against them ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Where do you live, and what's that world like? ~D

---

Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Because it's an organization that still claims to be our nation's guardian of "liberty", supporter of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties when they're only really concerned with their own narrow, anti-religious, view of the 1st Amendment. I really don't see where allowing a democratically elected school board to set it's own curriculum has anything to do with Congress making a law as to the establishment of religion. You could make the tenuous link, I suppose- but an organization that claims to support the entire Bill of Rights seem remarkably unconcerned about the 10th in this case, as well as the town's "liberty" to elect their own school board to run their school district as they see fit.

---

So is it your opinion then, that if 50% plus one of the members of a public school board vote to institute an Islamic fundamentalist curricilum that focused only on the teachings of Qur'an, that this would perfectly within their rights and that the families of the children who were not Muslims would just have to send their kids to school elsewhere if they didn't like it?

Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a better idea to confine all religious teachings in public schools to elective religious studies classes?

---

Interesting, I wasn't aware that the notion of Creationism and/or intelligent design were strictly limited to Christianity... in fact, I know they're not. Muslims also have a creation story and believe that God had a hand in the development of the world.

---

As I expected, you dodged the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Artificial Selection? Not quite sure that works. I'm a big beleiver in the idea that Humans, having thrown themselves outside of the Natural Selection loop, have created their own environment with it's own rules of natural selection. This is especially evident in capitalist societies. Instead of people fighting for survival, it's ideas, companies, nations, ect. fighting for survival.

But that's more of a philosophy than a science.

---

If you study Darwain's Theory you will find that he studied selective breeding of domestic animals to develop and provide the basic proof of his Theory. Selective Breeding is also know as Artifical Selection because man is on purpose attempting to bring about traits or remove traits from animals.

Hybrid Plants is another form of artifical selection, especially those that can create seeds.

You have created one of the fallacies that many find wrong with Natural Selection because you are determining it to be something outside of evolution of animals, into a philosophy of human development. That is a whole different discussion then the science behind the Theory of Evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Artificial Selection? Not quite sure that works. I'm a big beleiver in the idea that Humans, having thrown themselves outside of the Natural Selection loop, have created their own environment with it's own rules of natural selection. This is especially evident in capitalist societies. Instead of people fighting for survival, it's ideas, companies, nations, ect. fighting for survival.

But that's more of a philosophy than a science.

---

you are drawing an unnecessary dichotomy. while it's important to appreciate the complexity of modern human interactions, the difference between the socio-politics/-economics of modern human societies and those of earliest human societies is one of degree, not of kind. would you argue that small hunter-gatherer groups operate outside of natural selection?

maybe you are trying to say that fitness is a relative function, which is certainly true. fitness is a function of environment. that humans can, to a degree, define their environment does not in anyway diminish the connection between the environment and fitness.

i don't understand your attempt to anthropomorphize "ideas". how can an idea 'fight for survival'? companies and nations are analogous to population groupings found in any social species (bee hives, wolf packs, whale pods, etc), so there is nothing about them that should suggest that humans are subject to unique rules of selection and fitness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Maybe I am trying to draw comparison where they don't exist, but when you look at it abstractly it does make sense. As far as ideas go, well, let's take a look at different economic models. There are countless ones out there, that people will fight tooth and nail over (Socialism, Communism, Capitalism), and just in the last 50 or so years there has been an incredible amount of "evolution" and "natural selection" in those ideas alone.

---

in that case, you can treat the idea as a characteristic of a population group (e.g. 'communism' is the shared ideology of a group of people.. communists). in as much as power is a motivation in ideology, the propagation of ideas (by their proponents) is simply a socio-political phenomenon. so if there is an 'ideological' conflict between capitalism and communism, for example, from sociobiological perspective it is a power struggle between two populations. the environment would determine the "ideological fitness" of the each group. that fitness would, in turn, control the "selection" of the ideas via power distribution.

clearly a simplistic model, but imo one doesn't need to invent a new type of environment or selection to account for the propagation and 'evolution' of ideas, nor other social aspects.

But such a thing is hardly "natural" selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

in that case, you can treat the idea as a characteristic of a population group (e.g. 'communism' is the shared ideology of a group of people.. communists). in as much as power is a motivation in ideology, the propagation of ideas (by their proponents) is simply a socio-political phenomenon. so if there is an 'ideological' conflict between capitalism and communism, for example, from sociobiological perspective it is a power struggle between two populations. the environment would determine the "ideological fitness" of the each group. that fitness would, in turn, control the "selection" of the ideas via power distribution.

---

I'll not use positive science to proove ideal models on social science, it has been prooven to be insufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

But such a thing is hardly "natural" selection.

---

why? it's just a social struggle between two competing populations. how is it qualitatively distinct from one pride of lions competing with another?

one could argue that the complexity of the human mind, and consequently the ideas it can produce, are the factor of distinction between us and other animals. however, i don't see the clash between competing ideologies as a competition exclusively between cognitive structures without regard to the physical world.

in other words, if we were talking about philosophers arguing about the elegance of two proofs or something.. that would seem to be fairly well removed from a discussion of natural selection. however, economic models and the power struggles between their proponents is, as much as wars between nations, an attempt by one group to dominate another group. such competition is the very essence of fitness and selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I suppose. It's always just so boggling to me how many dimensions of existence humans have compared to the run-of-the-mill animal.

---

"dimensions of existence"? :stunned:

i don't deny that we are very complex animals, and obviously our minds would seem to be something rather special in the history of life on earth. but i don't think anything we have talked about, yet, is that different from natural selection seen elsewhere in nature.

there are some definitional problems and philosophical questions in this, though. should one draw an arbitrary line between a "natural" environment and a "social" environment? how do you distinguish between the two? if one does draw such a line, can "natural" and "social" selection really be treated as independent entities (think about concepts of sexual attractiveness, for example)? does the fact that we humans can be aware of evolutionary 'forces' somehow remove us from them? generally, it's at questions like those that i stop worrying about it. :coffeenews:


that's right adrian, i stole your smiley!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I'll not use positive science to proove ideal models on social science, it has been prooven to be insufficient.

---

feel free to elaborate. :book:

Human brains are to memes what amino acids are to genes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

why? it's just a social struggle between two competing populations. how is it qualitatively distinct from one pride of lions competing with another?

one could argue that the complexity of the human mind, and consequently the ideas it can produce, are the factor of distinction between us and other animals. however, i don't see the clash between competing ideologies as a competition exclusively between cognitive structures without regard to the physical world.

in other words, if we were talking about philosophers arguing about the elegance of two proofs or something.. that would seem to be fairly well removed from a discussion of natural selection. however, economic models and the power struggles between their proponents is, as much as wars between nations, an attempt by one group to dominate another group. such competition is the very essence of fitness and selection.

---

Such a thing would fit more into an "artificial selection" category. It is still selection, after all, but it is simply not one of natural...nature.

Take, for instance, traits like fashion sense. If a man who dresses well is more liked than a man who doesn't, he may breed and the socially awkward one may not. Simplistic, yes, but I think it illustrates a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Such a thing would fit more into an "artificial selection" category. It is still selection, after all, but it is simply not one of natural...nature.

Take, for instance, traits like fashion sense. If a man who dresses well is more liked than a man who doesn't, he may breed and the socially awkward one may not. Simplistic, yes, but I think it illustrates a point.

---

i'm missing your point, i think. i don't understand the distinction you are drawing between natural and artificial. taking your example, how is "fashion sense" different from other fitness displays in nature (e.g. the colorful plumage of many male birds)?

i don't think being socially awkward is exclusive to humanity; any population of social animals should have individuals that are better at the group politics than others. the character of that behavior range is probably heavily controlled by intelligence, however. so "social awkwardness" is probably more recognizable and tangible in chimpanzees than ants, for example, but i doubt it's uniquely human.


pape, could you explain your question to me, it was too terse (i.e. over my head :embarassed:).

Richard Dawkins coined the word meme.

Quote:

---

<philosophy> /meem/ [By analogy with "gene"] Richard Dawkins's
term for an idea considered as a replicator, especially with
the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating
them much as viruses do.

Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution. Ideas
can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some
ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through,
for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to
produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea.

The term is used especially in the phrase "meme complex"
denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an
organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme"
is often misused to mean "meme complex".

Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans
(and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts)
cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has become
more important than biological evolution by selection of
hereditary traits. Hackers find this idea congenial for
tolerably obvious reasons.

---

So for instance we have one meme complex (religous fundamentalism) trying to compete for the same niche as another meme complex (science). While science really isn't changing to fight religous fundamentalism (RF). RF is changing its ways to try and partake more in the cultural evolution by inserting itself into the science syllabus. RF is acting like a virus to the science host.

Science has an advantage in that it is constantly testing its memes and selecting the best. However it may still fail if other memes get inserted in it that are basically no more then viruses and cuckoos.