The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

I just asked a question, I didn't make a statement, Strange.

 

NSS was right with what I was trying to ask.

 

If anyone "KNOWS" the answer to that, they're wrong, because I don't think anyone clearly knows the answer to that. I think at its basic element creationism and evolution could go back to the same point. If science "proves" something, great. However, at its base, something that bases a requirement of a hypothesis as X,Y,Z are not true, so AA must be true does require some sort of a leap of faith that something else isn't out therer that's unproven. Right?

 

(Again, I'm asking, not stating).

 

[Rex Kickass]

New facebook feed:

http://www.slate.com/id/2259938/

[lostfan]

New facebook feed:

http://www.slate.com/id/2259938/

LOL at Orly Taitz

[Balta1701]

I just asked a question, I didn't make a statement, Strange.

 

NSS was right with what I was trying to ask.

 

If anyone "KNOWS" the answer to that, they're wrong, because I don't think anyone clearly knows the answer to that. I think at its basic element creationism and evolution could go back to the same point. If science "proves" something, great. However, at its base, something that bases a requirement of a hypothesis as X,Y,Z are not true, so AA must be true does require some sort of a leap of faith that something else isn't out therer that's unproven. Right?

 

(Again, I'm asking, not stating).

In its purest form, you can still express legitimate scientific doubt that if you drop a rock from the ceiling of a building it will fall downwards. I could postulate that tomorrow the constant G will suddenly become negative G, and as such gravity throughout the universe will invert momentarily.

 

How would you argue against that? You'd argue against it with evidence. We have no theory that would lead to such behavior, we have plenty of evidence that it won't happen. Furthermore, it's testable; if a lawsuit gets filed against me by the guy who was hit in the head with the rock, I've falsified that hypothesis.

 

Alternatively...for a Creation myth...neither of those are the case. You have neither the ability to offer up a testable hypothesis, because a creator of mythic ability could do anything it wants. So therefore, falsification and hypothesis testing is fundamentally impossible, because even if you falsify someone's hypothesis, you can get around it by saying that it's just the creator's will. Furthermore, you can not make an inductive/evidence based argument in favor or against a creation hypothesis, because you can always postulate that you don't understand the creator's motivation.

[StrangeSox]

Either way you approach the question kap posed, the answer is "no".

 

For evolution and creationism as explanations for the diversity of life, no, they do not ultimately go back to the same starting point. I think that's self-evident and won't expand.

 

For the epistemology behind each viewpoint, again, the answer is no. ToE is held as provisionally true because it is the current best explanation we have for the diversity of life. This was initially based on some evidence and a lot of good reasoning when Darwin first wrote Origin of Species; since then, tens of thousands of scientists have researched the issue for over 150 years and have found more and more evidence to support, modify and expand the ToE to what we have today. Noting again that these theories and explanations are held as provisionally true, not absolutely true.

 

On the other hand, creationism arises from a literal reading of the Bible (or Koran and probably other versions of creationism I'm unfamiliar with). It holds that species were specially created and (depending on the flavor of creationism) have only undergone a small amount of evolution, but certainly not speciation or "molecules to man" evolution. These viewpoints are not arrived at through meticulous research over decades--in fact, they are held in direct contradiction of such research. Special creation is held as absolute truth based on faith in a literal reading of creation stories in scripture. The concepts of truth and knowledge are markedly different from the manner in which science is conducted.

 

I think Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong" and Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage" illustrate my point far better than I could.

 

edit: grammar fix.

Edited July 10, 2010 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

I'm not an expert by any means but I think the Koran more or less defaults to the other religious texts for anything that happened pre-Mohammed.

[kapkomet]

Either way you approach the question kap posed, the answer is "no".

 

For evolution and creationism as explanations for the diversity of life, no, they do not ultimately go back to the same starting point. I think that's self-evident and won't expand.

 

For the epistemology behind each viewpoint, again, the answer is no. ToE is held as provisionally true because it is the current best explanation we have for the diversity of life. This was initial based on some evidence and a lot of good reasoning when Darwin first wrote Origin of Species; since then, tens of thousands of scientists have researched the issue for over 150 years and has found more and more evidence to support, modify and expand the ToE to what we have today. Noting again that these theories and explanations are held as provisionally true, not absolutely true.

 

On the other hand, creationism arises from a literal reading of the Bible (or Koran and probably other versions of creationism I'm unfamiliar with). It holds that species were specially created and (depending on the flavor of creationism) have only undergone a small amount of evolution, but certainly not speciation. These viewpoints are not arrived at through maticulous research over decades--in fact, they are held in direct contradiction of such research. Special creation is held as absolute truth based on faith in a literal reading of creation stories in scripture. The concepts of truth and knowledge is markedly different from the manner in which science is conducted.

 

I think Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong" and Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage" illustrate my point far better than I could.

 

 

Why does everything have to be scientifically proven to be true? Do you have faith in anything? Or is faith something that is groundless? I don't necessarily mean "creationism" faith, either. You have faith that a car will stop when you walk out into the street as a pedestrian, right? Or is that some science?

 

So why does creationism and ToE have to be completely dismissed as one or the other?

 

I definitely am not one that thinks the world was LITERALLY created in 6 days or whatever, but I can allow myself that creationism could be an explanation to the ToE. I don't know... I don't think anyone can know.

 

Balta, I can understand where you're coming from - so do you think that (again) "faith" is some sort of mumbo jumbo bullcrap that can't exist? You can't explain every single thing as a scientific explanation. I just don't think you can. At some point in time, whatever time is, I guess I have "faith" (weird word) that something had to happen to allow whatever this is to begin.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not an expert by any means but I think the Koran more or less defaults to the other religious texts for anything that happened pre-Mohammed.

 

I know that there are Muslim creationists and young earth creationists for sure. That makes sense because both it and Christianity both derive from the same source, though I don't think there's a lot of creationism in Judaism, ironically.

[lostfan]

Why does everything have to be scientifically proven to be true? Do you have faith in anything? Or is faith something that is groundless? I don't necessarily mean "creationism" faith, either. You have faith that a car will stop when you walk out into the street as a pedestrian, right? Or is that some science?

 

So why does creationism and ToE have to be completely dismissed as one or the other?

 

I definitely am not one that thinks the world was LITERALLY created in 6 days or whatever, but I can allow myself that creationism could be an explanation to the ToE. I don't know... I don't think anyone can know.

 

Balta, I can understand where you're coming from - so do you think that (again) "faith" is some sort of mumbo jumbo bullcrap that can't exist? You can't explain every single thing as a scientific explanation. I just don't think you can. At some point in time, whatever time is, I guess I have "faith" (weird word) that something had to happen to allow whatever this is to begin.

This is what I was getting at earlier when I made the "faith in God is weak if" comment. Science doesn't have to be a threat to someone's faith. That's why I believe in the possibility of alien life and I don't accept the idea that God made it that way being an argument against. Why would God's ability to create life be limited to just us?

[lostfan]

I know that there are Muslim creationists and young earth creationists for sure. That makes sense because both it and Christianity both derive from the same source, though I don't think there's a lot of creationism in Judaism, ironically.

Creationist Jews do exist.

[StrangeSox]

Why does everything have to be scientifically proven to be true? Do you have faith in anything? Or is faith something that is groundless? I don't necessarily mean "creationism" faith, either. You have faith that a car will stop when you walk out into the street as a pedestrian, right? Or is that some science?

 

I don't think I said that anywhere. They come from different epistemological viewpoints and have different objectives, if you want to ascribe an objective to science. Though I am agnostic myself, I don't have a problem with faith or look down on those who have faith in various religions.

 

So why does creationism and ToE have to be completely dismissed as one or the other?

 

Well, I guess it depends on exactly what you're referring to w.r.t. creationism. If you're referring to what it typically means in the "Evolution vs. Creationism" debates/ lawsuits, then they are mutually exclusive. That form of creationism actively rejects evolution and common ancestry for life on Earth. It seeks to have religious viewpoints taught as equivalent to decades of scientific research in the science classroom.

 

If you're talking of a much broader version of creationism, then they are not mutually exclusive. I think this is better described as theistic evolution, however, given the baggage that comes with the word "creationism". There are many scientists out there who are still religious but accept modern evolutionary theory. Ascribing the label of creationist to them is inappropriate and would be rejected by the likes of Ken Miller. If you're interested in the ID/creationism vs. evolution debate, I recommend his book Only a Theory.

 

I definitely am not one that thinks the world was LITERALLY created in 6 days or whatever, but I can allow myself that creationism could be an explanation to the ToE.

Well, I believe your question has been taken the wrong way because of the baggage of the word "creationism". If you go back through the Dover trial, the trial in the 80's that banned creationism from the classrooms and even back to the Scopes trial, I think you'll see what sort of connotation that word carries.

 

 

I don't know... I don't think anyone can know.

 

Me too! But there's still a big difference between why evolution is accepted by biologists as a fantastic theory explaining the origins of life and why people have faith in religion. It's a different approach to truths of the world. Many people get the two to coincide very nicely.

 

Balta, I can understand where you're coming from - so do you think that (again) "faith" is some sort of mumbo jumbo bullcrap that can't exist? You can't explain every single thing as a scientific explanation. I just don't think you can. At some point in time, whatever time is, I guess I have "faith" (weird word) that something had to happen to allow whatever this is to begin.

 

Two things:

 

I was just today reading an article in Scientific American on what "time" really is or isn't. Interesting ideas but that level of physics is beyond my comprehension.

 

Second, I know you asked Balta, but I thought I'd provide an answer as well. I wouldn't try to argue against your point here. I flip back and forth to it sometimes myself. But, in the end, I chose to believe things based on scientific skepticism. I want evidence or some other logical reason to believe something to be true (there's a loaded word). I don't rule out the possibility of some explanation far beyond our current understanding, but I don't hold faith (anymore) that there is something like that. I'm agnostic because, as you said earlier "I don't know" and so I don't think there's anything wrong or inferior or anything like that with having faith in something like you just described.

 

Where my problem with "faith" comes from is when you get into 6-day-creation Biblical literalism stuff that requires active rejection of known reality, but that isn't anything like what you mean.

[StrangeSox]

This is what I was getting at earlier when I made the "faith in God is weak if" comment. Science doesn't have to be a threat to someone's faith. That's why I believe in the possibility of alien life and I don't accept the idea that God made it that way being an argument against. Why would God's ability to create life be limited to just us?

 

When you get to Biblical literalism, god-made-the-world-in-six-days stuff, then science is a threat because that sort of reading of the Bible doesn't stand up to what we know about the way the world works within pretty damn reasonable approximations.

 

Glenn Morton's "Morton's Demon" gives a view inside the mind of a young-earth creationist's mind and how they handle challenges to their faith.

 

Sorry, this stuff is a hobby-horse of mine!

[lostfan]

I've read Morton's Demon before. It's just a story but... yeah.

[kapkomet]

I've always thought and allowed myself to not take things so literally, because there's no way that anyone who wants to go out and say "creationism means 6 days or NOTHING" is just ignorant, and I only say that because of the whole time thing I just said. Our understanding of time is limited by our human experience. To tie "time" to "creationism" doesn't allow for anything else that takes place as we know it. I think that's sort fo what you're getting at when you're talking about science to be a threat to literal creationists.

 

No one KNOWS anything - which is why I say that you can prove something "scientifically" and yet, at some point you have to have faith in science... as weird as that sounds. Could it (six day creationism) be literal? My belief is sure, but I also believe in God, but I also am not ignorant to allow myself to create such a narrow scope. ToE certainly can be "six days" over some sort of time continuum that we as humans do not understand and therefore can be scientifically proven to some extent.

 

 

[bigklita]

I have to agree with StrangeSox on Ken Miller. He is a great scientist and writer. Both of his books are great reads on this subject,"Only a Theory" and "Finding Darwin's God." In fact, I think it was Strange that recommended him to me when I took my "Evolution and Creationism" class out at NIU.

[kapkomet]

I have to agree with StrangeSox on Ken Miller. He is a great scientist and writer. Both of his books are great reads on this subject,"Only a Theory" and "Finding Darwin's God." In fact, I think it was Strange that recommended him to me when I took my "Evolution and Creationism" class out at NIU.

 

So you took that and think (or to say, believe in) more on the side of evolution?

 

I bet that was an interesting class.

[StrangeSox]

Just keep in mind that it was almost certainly creationism of the anti-evolution type.

 

edit: this maybe?

 

BIOS 442 - Evolution and the Creationist Challenge

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionary theory and tenets of present-day anti-evolutionists with emphasis on providing students with the skills to articulate the theory of evolution as it applies to the biological sciences. Not a substitute for a formal course in evolutionary theory. Recommended for students pursuing careers in secondary science education.

 

Credits: 3

Edited July 11, 2010 by StrangeSox

[bigklita]

I think something that might be messing some people up in this discussion is the word "creationism." The way I have always used the word or heard the word used is in context to the people that believe that the world was created in 6 literal days, with each living species or "kind" being specially created by a creator in those 6 days and only microevolutionary changes from that point some 6-10 thousand years ago. The way I think Kap is trying to use it (sorry if I'm misinterpreting) is that at some point, something was created, like the first living cell and then evolved from there, but could still be within the "6 days" with regard to the relative nature of time. The word creationism normally isn't used that way in discussions. Evolution doesn't involve the start of life, just what happens after life was here on earth. The theory of abiogenesis is best hypothesis put out by the scientific community.

 

Science probably will never have a good grasp of how life started, but we have lots of good evidence of how it has evolved once it was here. I, personally, am of the same belief of Ken Miller, that the creator started that process out by putting the first living cell/being on Earth and letting it evolve for billions of years until eventually you get to you and me having this conversation.

 

Do I consider myself a creationist? No, not is the sense of how the word is normally used. In the sense that I believe Kap is trying to use it? Yes, I do believe that at least something originally was created by a creator. Is that a scientific thought? No, because there is no way to verify that scientifically and I can see that very clearly. That is a part of my personal faith and has nothing to do with my scientific knowledge that I have learned, read or been taught. Evolution, however, is the fundamental unifying theory in biology that is base on over 150 years of testing, tweaking, retesting, and evidence gathering. The beauty of science though is that we never know everything. Everything is always constantly scrutinized and reworked based on whatever evidence is gathered.

 

That was the class Strange and it was a very interesting one. Sadly though, the teacher who taught it is retiring and he said that he didn't think any on he colleagues would pick it up to keep teaching it. It was based more so for helping someone to try and defend evolution against various challenges that one might face on a school board or in a classroom. Sort of like a buffer for teachers if there were to be a legal battle like there was at Dover.

[Balta1701]

"Handy map demonstrates where you can marry your cat but not your girlfriend"

[Balta1701]

Dovetailing with the other thread a little bit where the old "you're poor, you shouldn't have a cell phone" mantra has come out, I'm somewhat impressed with how in the last month, as the Republicans have successfully blocked unemployment benefit extensions, "You're only unemployed because you're lazy" has become an official talking point.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Dovetailing with the other thread a little bit where the old "you're poor, you shouldn't have a cell phone" mantra has come out, I'm somewhat impressed with how in the last month, as the Republicans have successfully blocked unemployment benefit extensions, "You're only unemployed because you're lazy" has become an official talking point.

I've thought for a while that if you want to collect unemployment or welfare, you should be required to "volunteer" a certain amount of hours at a non-profit or community organization.

[Balta1701]

I've thought for a while that if you want to collect unemployment or welfare, you should be required to "volunteer" a certain amount of hours at a non-profit or community organization.

There's an old saying that goes "Finding a job is a full time job".

 

The idea that we're going to have a single mother on TANF volunteer for a non-profit and have it be a good thing doesn't make much sense to me.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

There's an old saying that goes "Finding a job is a full time job".

 

The idea that we're going to have a single mother on TANF volunteer for a non-profit and have it be a good thing doesn't make much sense to me.

 

For those who care and try it is for sure.

 

For some people, like a friend of mine, it's seasonal income in the 'insert season' so he can do nothing.

[bmags]

There's an old saying that goes "Finding a job is a full time job".

and it's f***ing true.

[Balta1701]

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) on Wednesday praised New York Yankee owner George Steinbrenner for passing away in 2010 when there is no estate tax.

 

“Because he was smart enough to die in 2010, there is zero tax liability on the estate tax,” he said.

Wow.