7 in 10 U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution by SignyM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

A nation of believers is a nation of sheep.

I believe you're right.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe you're right.

LOL. Pot, meet kettle.

We are all believers. We just believe different things.

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:28 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe you're right.
LOL. Pot, meet kettle.

We are all believers. We just believe different things.

I love, therefore I am.

OK,Shepherd Book

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:00 AM

Time dilation is at 1 s :1.0001 s.

Humans live 30 seconds longer on Earth then they would if they were stationary relative to a fixed point in the universe, and approximately 12 seconds longer than they would on Mercury.

This does not factor into consideration the absence of oxygen or ambient temperature, and assumes an 84 year lifespan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nothing new there. The current slate of Republican candidates reflects the push to reject evoluntion on the right, with only Huntsman, again, showing the sanity of rejecting creationism, or "intelligent design" as they've so politically chosen to call it:

Quote:
The candidates on evolution:

Rick Perry has described himself as “a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect” and has called evolution “a theory” with “some gaps in it.”

Mitt Romney appears to be taking a nuanced position. “I believe God is intelligent, and I believe he designed the creation,” he said. “And I believe He used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

Michele Bachmann has claimed that “hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes,” believe in intelligent design, as she does. But she said government shouldn’t take sides in scientific debates “when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

Ron Paul said he does not accept the theory of evolution. “The creator that I know created us, each and every one of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner.”

Newt Gingrich has said, “I believe that creation as an act of faith is true, and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true. … Both can be true.” He says both should be taught in schools.

Jon Huntsman is the only candidate in the GOP ranks who has taken a strong position in support of evolution.

Rick Santorum, who calls himself a fierce believer in creationism, jabbed back at Huntsman, saying, “I believe in Genesis 1:1 – God created the heavens and the earth. I don’t know exactly how God did it or exactly how long it took him, but I do know that he did it.” http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/climate-evolution-thorny-issue
s-for-gop-hopefuls/

Sad day in America...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:31 AM

STORYMARK

I really try to respect the religious beliefs of others, though I am not religious by any means myself. But sometimes, it is so damned hard not to think of people who believe this stuff as just utterly deficient, mentally speaking.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

It used to make me shake my head, too...well, still does. But I THINK it's the same resistance to change we've seen throughout history. Change is scary, and changing beliefs wrapped in the mysticism of religion has to be doubly scary. Evolution calls into question the very idea of a god, it asks if there was ever the NEED for an omniscient being controlling all. For those who are cemented to their faith, that must be hell, and if others reject it, surely that gives the comfort of knowing one isn't alone. Just my theory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:18 AM

It's been 153 Earth years /636.5 Mercury years since Charles Darwin, and 3 million Earth years / 12.5 million Mercury years since Lucy lived.

I suppose if the faithful don't believe in evolution by now, they never will.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:34 AM

I don't see why evolution is such a controversy in the US. I had a religious upbringing and was still taught evolution. Is it not possible to believe in a God and understand and accept the theory of evolution?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:34 AM

Yeah

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Is it not possible to believe in a God and understand and accept the theory of evolution?

I do. So it is possible.

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:38 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe you're right.
LOL. Pot, meet kettle.

We are all believers. We just believe different things.

I don't think you're being quite fair, CTS. Perhaps to Raptor, but not in principle.

We are not all believers. Some of us are too much in the habit of mindfullness to believe anything too strongly or for too long without solid proof (anecdotal as it may be), and even then we drink deep of self-scrutiny on a semi-anual basis to weed out the nonsense. If you're saying that we all hold irrational beliefs even in spite of such introspection, then what you're saying is unkind (and it would also be a belief of yours in want of proof).

Throwing one's self whole-heartedly behind some notion or other, without self-examination or in acknowledgement of ambivolence is at best childish. When a whole nation takes hold of something as profoundly hostile to reason as Biblical infalability, then, yeah, "sheep" is prolly the nicest characterization I can think of.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:17 PM

America loves a winner!

I was unaware that the role of the President was to promote current and cutting edge views on science.

Where is that in the Constitution again ?

To Niki's point, I really don't see the need that a President holds my exact same view on matters of evolution. The odds that Newt's view, for example, that both magical bible creation and the mechanics of evolution can both be true, will have any meaningful effect on how he runs the country, is negligible. Many old Earth, evolution understanding ( evolution isn't a 'belief', btw ) scientist also believe in God™.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
If you're saying that we all hold irrational beliefs even in spite of such introspection,....

No, not irrational beliefs. We all have values we believe in, despite evidence to the contrary. People marry, despite statistical evidence that they are likely to divorce later. People vote, despite evidence that politicians don't carry out their promises. It is not irrationality. It is hope.

Evolution is a theory. Nobody has ever witnessed evolution occurring. Like, all theories in science, evolution is simply a model that best explains the evidence we have. But evolution has become more than a scientific theory that connects the dots amongst fossils.

Evolution has become a philosophy of the intentions of the Universe, a blueprint for what is natural and unnatural, a map for where humankind ought to be headed. It is, if you will, the closest thing to a "god" that atheists have.

There are plenty of intelligent, articulate, and highly educated fundies. At heart, it is not a matter of choosing a literal interpretation of the Bible over scientific theory.

It is a matter of rejecting Evolution, the "god."

That is what I meant by we all are believers. We all believe in some value, some hope, some unifying explanation that guides our morals and purpose. For them, it is the God of Abraham. For others, it is Evolution.

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:22 PM

It seems inevitable that any potential US president must be seen as being Christian to the core, hence the discussion of evolution, especially when you have a big swag of voters who see evolution as being a threat to their religious beliefs.

Can you imagine a time when there might be an atheist president? Or no discussion of religion at all. I don't believe that the religious views of leaders are discussed in other parts of the world to the same degree, if at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
If you're saying that we all hold irrational beliefs even in spite of such introspection,....
No, not irrational beliefs. We all have values we believe in, despite evidence to the contrary. People marry, despite statistical evidence that they are likely to divorce later. People vote, despite evidence that politicians don't carry out their promises. It is not irrationality. It is hope.

Evolution is a theory. Nobody has ever witnessed evolution occurring. Like, all theories in science, evolution is simply a model that best explains the evidence we have. But evolution has become more than a scientific theory that connects the dots amongst fossils.

Evolution has become a philosophy of the intentions of the Universe, a blueprint for what is natural and unnatural, a map for where humankind ought to be headed. It is, if you will, the closest thing to a "god" that atheists have.

There are plenty of intelligent, articulate, and highly educated fundies. At heart, it is not a matter of choosing a literal interpretation of the Bible over scientific theory.

It is a matter of rejecting Evolution, the "god."

That is what I meant by we all are believers. We all believe in some value, some hope, some unifying explanation that guides our morals and purpose. For them, it is the God of Abraham. For others, it is Evolution.

There is a flaw in your argument. Evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific theory based upon evidence. There is no longer any controversy around the issue that around this fundamental theory in scientific communities, the idea that all life forms have evolved.

Religion is belief based upon faith, and is not able to be countered by evidence. There is no evidence that a god exists, yet people continue to believe in god because of their faith. Faith, by its very nature, requires one to believe the impossible.

The two things are very different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:33 PM

Quote:
It is, if you will, the closest thing to a "god" that atheists have.

I'm atheist, and last time I checked I don't pray to natural selection or monkey.

Chthulu, on the other hand...

Quote:
We all believe in some value, some hope, some unifying explanation that guides our morals and purpose.

Eh. Hope and values and morals and purpose... The only fundamental thing I've seen all life has in common, the only end destination I can observe, is that all life dies. It only matters to the still living just how that happens, and sometimes not even then.

The impacts made in the course of that journey sometimes are statistically measurable though, at least relative to this world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:39 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
It is, if you will, the closest thing to a "god" that atheists have.

Sorry CTS. For me, that position is already filled.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:55 PM

Remember the thread on whether or not universal and innate morality exists?

What did most of us use to justify and explain our positions on existence or non-existence of such morality?

Evolution.

Evolution the "god" is not about someone we pray to. It is about a unifying explanation that guides our purpose, morals, hopes, and philosophical understanding of the universe. This is the part that is in direct competition with the God of Abraham.

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM

Quote:
Remember the thread on whether or not universal and innate morality exists?

What did most of us use to justify and explain our positions on existence or non-existence of such morality?

Evolution.

Humans are psychotic due to various circumstances, so somehow this indicates some deep quasi-mystical purpose and meaning in the world?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
If you're saying that we all hold irrational beliefs even in spite of such introspection,....
No, not irrational beliefs. We all have values we believe in, despite evidence to the contrary. People marry, despite statistical evidence that they are likely to divorce later. People vote, despite evidence that politicians don't carry out their promises. It is not irrationality. It is hope.

Hey CTS,

This is a tough disagreement to have. You, who are a self-professed believer have a lot of ancilarly reasons for that belief that have proven to be good enough for you, but are all too likely not nearly good enough for any number of self-professed non-believers you might unwittingly encounter.

F'rinstance, we do not all get married. Nor do we all vote. And fer cryin' out loud, we don't all vote as a matter of faith. (Sorry, that's a pet peeve--I think this country would be a lot better off if y'all stopped voting your beliefs and started voting for the best person for the job. I voted for Obama because he was the best applicant for the job that a majority of my fellow Americans and I could agree on and I stand by my decision as such. I would dearly love if people would take the religion out of the Presidency--out of politics in general.)

Quote:
Evolution has become a philosophy of the intentions of the Universe, a blueprint for what is natural and unnatural, a map for where humankind ought to be headed. It is, if you will, the closest thing to a "god" that atheists have.

Even you can't bring yourself to say that evolution IS a god to the atheists (although, you act as if you did a little farther down post--cheater, cheater). You say it is "the closest thing," but the closest thing to a god is still not in any way a god, is it? The leap from finite to infinite is pretty big. And thence to omnipotent? Oh boy. Sure, I've heard some atheistic thinkers and evolution fans get all poetical about it in this way, but I've heard as many if not more denounce such as dangerous hogwash.

Quote:
There are plenty of intelligent, articulate, and highly educated fundies. At heart, it is not a matter of choosing a literal interpretation of the Bible over scientific theory.

Now you've lost me. I never said there weren't any "intelligent, articulate, and highly educated fundies." You are tilting at windmills here.

In my experience with fundies it is precisely rejecting science in favor of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course it is. How could it not be? Fundie Christians in this country eternally complain about having secular humanistic values thrust upon 'em at ever turn, and what do they do in that case? Reject 'em.

Quote:
It is a matter of rejecting Evolution, the "god."

This sounds like CTS. You are not, my friend, the typical fundie.

Quote:
That is what I meant by we all are believers. We all believe in some value, some hope, some unifying explanation that guides our morals and purpose. For them, it is the God of Abraham. For others, it is Evolution.

Um. No. I can't agree to that. Include me out. You, as a believer are seeing the world through believer-colored glasses. I promise you, god has a ton more meaning in your day-to-day than evolution has to any atheist I've ever met. As beliefs, the two simply cannot compete. To the atheists I know, evolution is just a topic of conversation, an area of study, but to a believer, god is, well, the alpha and omega.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:51 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Signe, untwist your panties and have a cold drink. All those people were taught evolution in school but decided to believe in something different, they were given access to various ideas and made their choice, settle down.

I believe in micro evolution, its obvious, adapt or die, the strong survive, natural selection, if a trait is valuable it will eventually become predominant and change happens thusly. I just can't go for the macro thing, no matter how much we were taught it in school. Yup I'm a creationist, what ya goin to do about it?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:48 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:

Yup I'm a creationist, what ya goin to do about it?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Heh heh... that made me smile. Even if I take a contrary view, I do like the spunky attitude.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:19 PM

I'm picturing a bar, Riona is drinking soda, AURaptor sidles up to a chair and it's all

/flirt
/shameless flirt
/flirting flirting flirting

(just teasing, it's kinda cute)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:53 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm picturing a bar, Riona is drinking soda, AURaptor sidles up to a chair and it's all

/flirt
/shameless flirt
/flirting flirting flirting

(just teasing, it's kinda cute)

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:08 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Oh oh oh! Can I have a daquery instead? My body doesn't like fizz, neither does my little brother's, we're in the anti fizz fan club. :)

BTW the title of this thread made me laugh out loud, what do you expect from that population?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You, as a believer are seeing the world through believer-colored glasses. I promise you, god has a ton more meaning in your day-to-day than evolution has to any atheist I've ever met. As beliefs, the two simply cannot compete. To the atheists I know, evolution is just a topic of conversation, an area of study, but to a believer, god is, well, the alpha and omega.

Correct. Also again, evolution is not a belief but a scientific theory. Nobody worships evolution, they see it as an explanation of the existence of life on this planet based upon evidence. If this theory is one day proved incorrect and that there is another theory of existence, then that would surplant evolutionary theory. Personally I think the idea that we all exist in a giant computer game and that our creator is some spotty immature alien is certainly a possibility, but aint got no evidence for that one either.

Creationism, a la Genesis, God created the world in 7 days, then Adam, then Eve....most religiously inclined people I know see this as an explanation for existence at a time when that was about all people could understand, just like creation myths from other cultures ie the stars are camp fires, the milky way being spurted out of Gaius nipple, or a stone monkey jumping out of an egg.

With better scientific understanding of our world and the universe it exists in, we know certain facts. We know that the world is not 4000 years old, that it is not flat, that it revolves around the sun and not the other way around. We know that dinosaurs existed, and many, many lifeforms that have since died out. We know that there were proto humans, and other humanoids that existed, even co existed with homo sapiens. These are all facts. You cannot teach something else without it being contrary to fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:46 AM

DREAMTROVE

/Takes a seat and buys bytemite a drink
What are you having?
I'm trying to cut back on fizzies myself
/orders self a red pinot noir
I'm just here to watch the fireworks.

Riona, that was pretty awesome.

Hk, i think you killed sky, time to grovel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I never expected so many responses. I would have thought this would all be rather academic by now. I have one general comment and some specific replies.

----------

Generally, my point wasn't about whether or not you think evolution is good theory, but how you go about accepting ANY idea: Do you evaluate it on the basis of evidence, or do you "believe"? Of all of the responses here, HK seems to be the only one to grok what I was driving at. I guess I wasn't clear.

Belief by definition requires the acceptance of ideas which run counter to available evidence, because if you can point to proof, do you really need belief? I believe in Allah makes sense as a statement, but I believe in gravity doesn't. Belief and evidentiary thinking are philosophically exclusive. That scientists "believe in god" only shows tolerance for contradictory thought, not any inherent logical consistency between the approaches. So... belief OR evaluation using evidence?

For years, the earth was thought to be essentially flat, disease was thought to be caused by bad air, and the universe consisted of four elements. These ideas were based on the evidence of the time. But they have been superseded by new questions and new evidence. And our current thinking will in turn be superseded by later thinking based on even more comprehensive evidence.

But not for believers, since they do not share in the process of questioning and progress, but are either stuck with a several-thousand-year-old-book, or simply accept the latest statements of... whoever it is they follow on radio or TV, whose ideas follow random paths unbounded by evidence.

Now, even the best scientists are limited by the assumptions and paradigms and even orthodoxy of the day. Therefore, I think that the highest service one can perform for humanity is to ASK IMPORTANT QUESTIONS... questions which reveal assumptions SO deeply held that they are invisible to nearly everyone. Since these deepest-seated assumptions are the ones that color every aspect of our thought, they are the hardest to see. But those who ask these fundamental questions (Does the sun revolve around the earth, or is it the other way around?) are the ones who contribute the most to our understanding of the universe.

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

CTS-

Quote:
Evolution has become a philosophy of the intentions of the Universe, a blueprint for what is natural and unnatural, a map for where humankind ought to be headed.

I'm puzzled by your reaction which seems to imply that science is setting some sort of moral agenda, and that evolution is "like a god" to scientists. What, exactly, do you think evolution is saying to scientists? What values do you feel are being propounded? Or do you feel that science is a system antithetical to values?

RAPPY

Quote:
I was unaware that the role of the President was to promote current and cutting edge views on science. ... The odds that Newt's view, for example, that both magical bible creation and the mechanics of evolution can both be true, will have any meaningful effect on how he runs the country, is negligible.

Actually, it is. I prefer a President who has both feet on the ground and both eyes on reality. A President who is not well-grounded is likely to engage in futile wars on flimsy evidence of threat and even flimsier evidence for success. And, since when is evolution "cutting edge?" When were you born? 1880?

RIONA

Quote:
Signe, untwist your panties and have a cold drink.

Wow, did YOUR panties bunch up, or what???

Quote:
All those people were taught evolution in school but decided to believe in something different, they were given access to various ideas and made their choice, settle down....Yup I'm a creationist, what ya goin to do about it?

Then you have nothing to say to me, nor I to you. We are here to talk, yes??? But on what basis does one discuss a "belief"? Certainly not on the basis of evidence. So .. what YOU gonna say about it? Nothing, apparently. You can reiterate your belief, but beyond that..???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:57 AM

Magons: Also, it's damn hell to create a working clay golem, let alone a living human from scratch outside of the traditional method. I suspect occultists had access to advanced robotics from long dead civilizations or space.

But to be truly fair, most of the old estimates of the age of the universe and ideas about the shape and size of the Earth technically didn't come from religion, Western civilization pretty much stole that from the Greeks. I suspect also that there was a bit of cross over between the early Semites/Canaanites, some of which would later become Jews, and ancient Greece, as both religions had a story about mankind being sculpted from clay by the gods (yes, gods, the Jews weren't always monotheistic). They also both had a story about a big flood, and the only two decent humans left in the world repopulated the world with animals and other humans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:50 AM

DREAMTROVE

Some folks think that just because their manifestation of divinity (evolution, big bang, etc) is preached in a different part of their church (err university) than the strict moral religious code (socialism, political correctness, etc.) that somehow they aren't members of a religion.

Intellectuals didn't vote for Obama because of his skills, which everyone knew were very sadly lacking in economics and foreign policy, they voted for him because he was a high priest of the academy and held all of those views that the faithful aspire to.

The heretics don't need the flock to tell us what to think, we have our own brains.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:20 AM

Sig said: "Belief by definition requires the acceptance of ideas which run counter to available evidence, because if you can point to proof, do you really need belief?"

Sig, I believe you are mistaken in your definition of the word "belief".

The definition for "belief" on m-w.com includes, "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". This is in direct contrast to your own definition of "belief". Just sayin'...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:51 AM

Not the definition we're using.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

Quote:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:30 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

RAPPY
Quote:
I was unaware that the role of the President was to promote current and cutting edge views on science. ... The odds that Newt's view, for example, that both magical bible creation and the mechanics of evolution can both be true, will have any meaningful effect on how he runs the country, is negligible.

Actually, it is. I prefer a President who has both feet on the ground and both eyes on reality. A President who is not well-grounded is likely to engage in futile wars on flimsy evidence of threat and even flimsier evidence for success. And, since when is evolution "cutting edge?" When were you born? 1880?

"Actually, it is..." - what, your OPINION that a President needs to be in concordance with your personal views on all matters, including science ? Fine, but that's not what I asked.

Per the issue of 'wars', I'm assuming you mean Iraq. A quick survey of quotes from the Clinton era and then the Bush era politicians will show that first Dems, and then Republicans both said nearly EXACTLY the same things, w/ regard to evidence of Saddam's WMD program. Funny thing is, it was the Dems who were rattling the sabres when their guy was office, and even after, only to eventually flip on the matter.

And read what I said again. I never said that evolution was 'cutting edge'. In fact, I specifically said CURRENT and cutting edge, to distinguish between more established topics ( like evolution )and other matters, say like string theory . Perhaps I could have made the distinction more clear, but the point I was trying to make is, the realm of science isn't, nor should be, a role for the President to concern himself with all that much. Policy, say like putting a man on the moon, sure, but that doesn't mean HE /SHE has to actually be a rocket scientist to take the oath of office.

Now, if a sitting President declares that all ships must stay with in sight of US shores, for fear they may venture too far out and fall off the edge of the Earth, then yeah, we've got a big problem there.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:37 AM

Byte --

If your definition of belief is the case, then CTS is even more justified in saying that we all operate with a system of "beliefs". For example, the claim that life can spontaneously arise from non-life also qualifies as a "belief" then. It is not, as you say, "immediately suseptible to rigourous proof"... (as in, the best we can get from experiments trying to simulate prebiotic conditions is some amino acids and possibly a few nucleotide bases -- hardly the kind of rigourous proof that would get us beyond the word "belief")

Besides, the definition you mention is still contrary to Sig's made up definition in which belief is "the acceptance of ideas that run counter to available evidence"...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't see why evolution is such a controversy in the US. I had a religious upbringing and was still taught evolution. Is it not possible to believe in a God and understand and accept the theory of evolution?

I think it is possible. The word "evolution" can raise hackles, though, because it gets used by atheists in an attempt to debunk religion -- that's how I sometimes hear it and used to use it. Something like, "Life can generate itself without external, divine intervention, therefore there is no Creator." It appears to raise hackles the same way the word "belief" can raise an atheist's hackles... :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:35 AM

...

....?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t/

Ultimately, however, I care very little about questions about why we're here and how because, really, what difference does it make?

Quote:

Besides, the definition you mention is still contrary to Sig's made up definition in which belief is "the acceptance of ideas that run counter to available evidence"...

Oh? It sounded rather synonymous to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:10 PM

STORYMARK

Hmmm...

It may all be belief - but I think there are several magnitudes of difference between belief based upon evidence, and belief based upon a storybook - no matter how old it is.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:11 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I just thought it was funny that Signe was so shocked, given the sample population given in the title. I suppose I can see how she was surprised about the country wide stats, but really of course pastors believe in intelligent design, no shocker there. It just made me laugh.

Mal, great point about life arising from nothing, that would take some belief.

I feel DT makes a really good point, for some people party line fills a spot in their life that religeon and belief play in others lives. Our family friend Lisa and her husband to be were having lunch one day, he asked her what she believed in, as in did she have a religeon. She said "democrat of course", he said "no I don't mean how do you vote I mean what religeon, if any, would you consider yourself" and she said "I already told you, democrat." He's a Republican, but they got married and have been happily so for the last six years. It was a funny story that related to DT's statement above.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...

....?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t/

Ultimately, however, I care very little about questions about why we're here and how because, really, what difference does it make?

Quote:

Besides, the definition you mention is still contrary to Sig's made up definition in which belief is "the acceptance of ideas that run counter to available evidence"...

Oh? It sounded rather synonymous to me.

Huh... I don't know what to say to that. If you were someone else, I would think you were toying with me... Really? To me, a belief in something that "runs counter to available evidence" sounds a lot more irrational than a belief in something that merely "is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". In the first instance, we actually have evidence to the contrary. In the second instance, we don't. We just don't have rigorous proof of the belief -- though there may be some supporting evidence.

ETA: I looked at your link. Even if they are successful in that endeavor, the main implication will be that non life required a creator (in this case, the intervention of scientists deliberately putting together the proper organic molecules in the proper space without other external interference) to get the ball rolling. That is all fascinating, but it doesn't imply that non life could have spontaneously generated life without external (and very intelligent, specific, sentient and directive) intervention. To do that, you need to simulate prebiotic conditions and let nature (not scientists) do its work -- sort of like the Miller experiment.

Oddly enough, the experiment would seem to be more an argument for the need for Intelligent Design...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:36 PM

Quote:
"is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". In the first instance, we actually have evidence to the contrary. In the second instance, we don't. We just don't have rigorous proof of the belief -- though there may be some supporting evidence.

I suppose it's a matter of what you put the most emphasis on when you read the definitions. I think your interpretation is viable, but when I read both of them, what it sounds like to me is the suggestion that both "lack" immediate proof. Now that I think about it, I was assuming that in the lack of immediate proof, then the opposite position might have confirming evidence, but I suppose that might not also be true.

Quote:
That is all fascinating, but it doesn't imply that non life could have spontaneously generated life without external intervention. To do that, you need to simulate prebiotic conditions and let nature (not scientists) do its work -- sort of like the Miller experiment.

You're getting to the crux of the matter. There is such a field of study, producing results at a steady rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Everything here is steps in a process towards understanding.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons: Also, it's damn hell to create a working clay golem, let alone a living human from scratch outside of the traditional method. I suspect occultists had access to advanced robotics from long dead civilizations or space.

But to be truly fair, most of the old estimates of the age of the universe and ideas about the shape and size of the Earth technically didn't come from religion, Western civilization pretty much stole that from the Greeks. I suspect also that there was a bit of cross over between the early Semites/Canaanites, some of which would later become Jews, and ancient Greece, as both religions had a story about mankind being sculpted from clay by the gods (yes, gods, the Jews weren't always monotheistic). They also both had a story about a big flood, and the only two decent humans left in the world repopulated the world with animals and other humans.

I agree with sig, people based their ideas on the evidence that was available at the time. As different evidence emerged, and ideas evolved, the old ways of thinking became superceded. Not that I don't think that there isn't value in mythology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't see why evolution is such a controversy in the US. I had a religious upbringing and was still taught evolution. Is it not possible to believe in a God and understand and accept the theory of evolution?

I think it is possible. The word "evolution" can raise hackles, though, because it gets used by atheists in an attempt to debunk religion -- that's how I sometimes hear it and used to use it. Something like, "Life can generate itself without external, divine intervention, therefore there is no Creator." It appears to raise hackles the same way the word "belief" can raise an atheist's hackles... :)

That explains a lot then, because for the life of me I can't even begin to wonder why this is even a topic of discussion, why there is even a controversy. I mean we are living in the 21st century, not the 19th right?

I don't think this controversy exists much outside of the US. I could be wrong, I hope I am not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I just thought it was funny that Signe was so shocked, given the sample population given in the title. I suppose I can see how she was surprised about the country wide stats, but really of course pastors believe in intelligent design, no shocker there. It just made me laugh.

Why do spiritual leaders need to weigh in on matters of science anyway? Is that their area of expertise?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Hmmm...

It may all be belief - but I think there are several magnitudes of difference between belief based upon evidence, and belief based upon a storybook - no matter how old it is.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Or as I said earlier - belief based upon evidence vs belief based upon faith (and in the matter of creationism, directly opposed to evidence).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

Malachite is definitely on to something here. Evolution wouldn't be seen as a threat if it were not being used to bludgeon religion. I don't find the two ideas mutually exclusive. I think that the evidence I've seen of evolution, which is a lot, leads me to believe that genes are existing in a large pre-existing sequence and being unlocked slowly through the ages. That doesn't depict a purely darwinian world, and a thinking religious person could certainly use it to argue their case. The problem is that people react emotionally rather than logically, and so churches panic, and academics do a dance and sing god is dead. All of which gets us nowhere.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:06 PM

Mimivirus, am I right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Malachite is definitely on to something here. Evolution wouldn't be seen as a threat if it were not being used to bludgeon religion. I don't find the two ideas mutually exclusive. I think that the evidence I've seen of evolution, which is a lot, leads me to believe that genes are existing in a large pre-existing sequence and being unlocked slowly through the ages. That doesn't depict a purely darwinian world, and a thinking religious person could certainly use it to argue their case. The problem is that people react emotionally rather than logically, and so churches panic, and academics do a dance and sing god is dead. All of which gets us nowhere.

Not all academics are atheists, nor are all people who do not wish creationism to be taught along side evolution.

Many people react badly when religious belief starts to intrude on other areas of life where it really has no business in being, ie science and politics. In my mind, religion should be about individuals following their own individual spiritual path, and should not be about policy, scientific or otherwise.

If religion is about a person trying to live the best life they can, then I have no problem with it. I have a problem when it becomes about forcing beliefs based on faith on public policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:19 PM