Dan – thanks for the laugh. I needed it this morning. What Darth Robo said.

If in the mood, I would normally ask someone “What constitutes a ‘proof’ in your mind.? What constitutes a ‘reasonably good theory’?” I find that most people either have a dramatically different idea than I do – or they just really don’t know. It seems to come down to “I believe it, therefore it is true.”

That just doesn’t cut it in the world of Science. Heck – the world of general Knowledge is much more rigorous. A teensie bit of research will show you where Scientists with data fought for their positions – and won against the current “mainstream thought”. We could start almost anywhere, but the easiest is, of course, Galileo.

Dan – if you want to believe in ID and Creationism and all that – you go right ahead. If you want to TEACH it – as a LEGITIMATE science, you had better have more to show for yourself than “blatant censorship” and “brainwashing”. That tends to go nowhere fast.

Have at it all you want in Sunday School – but not in my school.

There is also that nice old phrase regarding not having your mind so open that your brains fall out.

Believe me. If you – or ANYONE – possessed the merest SHRED of evidence that anything regarding ID, etc. was REMOTELY reasonable, even possible, it would be examined and, if it had merit, it would eventually become mainstream.

However, sadly, it does not. Or maybe happily. I personally move for Happily – because ID is – as BA has said over and over – just simply too small and weak and unimpressive when compared to all the grandeur that is our Universe.

JC

Then all the creationists have to do then, is come up with some, ya know, actual SCIENCE. Who is censoring them? They are still free to preach, pray, build churches, hire a hall, write and sell books full of pseudoscientific nonsense, build websites, heck, you can’t get fundies to keep quiet! :p

So perhaps instead of whining and playing the martyr card, the creationist/IDers could actually do some scientific research? THEN maybe they would be able to have a scientific debate.

“Mainstream science automatically excludes all research that might suggest a designer.”

WRONG. It simply hasn’t found any evidence of it yet. Unless uh, YOU could show us some? NOTHING in science says whether or not a creator “didit”. There is nothing wrong with believing in God AND accepting evolution. But the reason why creationism is ruled out specifically, is that it is scientifically flawed and not only conflicts with the science of evolution, but many other sciences as well. Creationists have been using the same old “scientific” arguments for over forty years and have yet to offer something new. So they resort to appealing to peoples emotions and sense of “fair play”, and make out that those “mean old Darwinists” are um, mean. While at the same time, they offer NO useful science themselves and are quite happy to violate the separation of church and state and teach creationism in schools, teach poor scientific arguments against science they don’t like, even trying to push religion into schools by taking it to court on numerous occasions. It seems that the rules of “fair play” don’t apply to them.

Oh, and Dan, nice try at getting the last word in on what looks like a thread everyone else seems to have left, thereby any ‘googlers’ happening on this thread months later will see your pained pleas of suffering against the “evil Darwinist agenda to suppress religion”. A common tactic with fundies around here, it seems.

But hey, if you do have any scientific “revelations” to share that give credence to creationism, I’m all ears.

Even if you believe in Evolution, you should be for allowing scientific debate on the subject of origins instead of blatant censorship.

Mainstream science automatically excludes all research that might suggest a designer. Science is supposed to allow for all the possibilities, not artificially protect a theory by not allowing anyone to question it.

Science posits that not only do you not know what happened before the Big Bang, you CANNOT know what happened before the big bang. It is like division by zero – you can think about it all you want, but if you try to actually DO it, all poker hands are equal and no one wins. Or looses, I guess. Events prior to the Big Bang are, mostly by definition, undefined.

If you choose to call this “god” – then happy Sunday. The thing is, it is not REQUIRED. And don’t go to war over it.

I find personally that when people use this kind of idea to “define” the beginning, it is because they are having an ever-increasingly difficult tijme wrapping their head around the physics required for the understanding of the events in question. I know I have that kind of problem. I am just not as quick to jump into the “I don’t understand it, therefore God Exists” mindset.

You probably will find quite a bit of dissent amount the more orthodox as well. Of course, it is that dissent that is the real problem.

JC

Unfortunately, creationism cunningly interweaves both lies and myths.

I keep saying that faith should be questioned. I think the problem with many of the discussions here recently is that they have got bogged down with creationism.

And so, if anyone is still reading this thread then let’s have a discussion. You can get me at selina.morse@virgin.net”
—————————

Personally, I would prefer to continue on an open forum so that others can join in. Would Phil object if it carried on here? It may be a little off topic, but I think the whole questioning of faith thing is very relevant to creationist beliefs.

—————————
Selina Morse wrote:
“Oh, and by the way, I am so glad to read someone else use “prallocks”. Because I invented it. ”
————————–

I suspected as much, and a fine word it is too. I meant to congratulate you on it when I used it back

I don’t know if this thread is still active but there are a lot of points I would sincerely like to discuss with a number of you.

I keep saying that faith should be questioned. I think the problem with many of the discussions here recently is that they have got bogged down with creationism.

And so, if anyone is still reading this thread then let’s have a discussion. You can get me at selina.morse@virgin.net

Oh, and by the way, I am so glad to read someone else use “prallocks”. Because I invented it.

We cannot take any of these people by the hand and correct their thinking. We must do it by appeal to reason and demonstration, just as you did. Those of us here that do that as regularly as we can are, as I said before, linking arms with Phil and standing against the tide of non-reason.

Once, I was a computer service technician – and I had occasion to have a service call at “Guideposts” in Carmel NY – yep – the printing firm begun by Norman himself. I can’t easily express how nervous I was entering that building!

I was asked to check out a printing error, and we were looking at a long list of books put out by the organisation. The person I was working with pulls out the printout, reads a few titles – one of which was “Children are Wet Cement” – to which he says “Can you BELIEVE that people READ this S…!”

I knew I was among friends.

JC

Selina M: As it happens, I am QUITE aware of the Haynes series and its superiority to almost all other manuals of the type. Chilton, for instance, cannot hold a candle to it, however, for the Volkswagen, there is none better than the Bentley manuals.

Now – to bring this back around to faith….

Haynes is quite good – but they don’t cover all vehicles. You cannot find one (or – at least, not a few years back when I needed it!) for a Subaru Impreza. It just isn’t there. For the Golf in the year I was interested, it was there, but insufficient. It lacked detail.

The bible is – to my manner of thinking – the same. Pick one, by the way – I don’t care to express a preference, however note that “versions differ” – as with auto manuals. Some are “more detailed” than others, some have more “pictures” than others. Some are just written in some other language.

All to me, though, are more closely related to a Chiltons guide – it seems as if the descriptions contained within were created without benefit of the vehicle being at hand!! The bible experiences the very same characteristic.

However, for any of the GOOD manuals, you can find a reference directly to something you can touch. With a Bentley, you can actually do some pretty serious work – however, there remain exclusions (such as where to precisely find the knock control computer on an 86 Golf GTI…) – so you are left to your devices – and a screwdriver – from there.

Does one REQUIRE a manual to do this work? No – sometimes, experience is even better. Such it is with works as the bible.

To my mind, the bible no more portrays any “truth” than a Chilton – and much less than a Haynes. It no more extends any truth to any existance of ANY non-physical, transcendental being than the Haynes for a Subaru Impreza. It is singularly like using something that is “relatively close” to what you are working on to resolve all issues – sometimes, it just is not appropriate. You can, however, “infer” the existence of an automobile from a Chilton’s, as you can a “god” from the bible.

There is a stage a mechanic may go through where they no longer need a manual at all – for most things. For those things they DO need a manual for, they need specifics. If the specifics are not sufficiently offered, they go on discovery and, perhaps, write an addendum that IS specific – if the rest of us are lucky. Otherwise, the rest of us find we need to do that discovery ourselves.

And it is that discovery that is valuable to us. We can now KNOW where the issue lies, regardless of whether this book or that tells us something different. This, in essence, is Science, as I know you are aware.

It is when we have a less-certain, but more insistent mechanic come along and inform us, with all certainty, that we are most definately WRONG that we find conflict. It only remains to address whether our particular atitude is up to the task of maintaining our certainty in the face of uninformed competition.

When an ill-informed mechanic comes to us for “enlightenment” and we can show her the way, not by reference to something that cannot be touched or seen, but by the laying on of hands – then she benefits and we have passed on knowledge.

If we have not actually done any discovery and quote from the Chilton’s, and that quotation is passed along without benefit of the observation that it is completely out of step with what we can touch, it may gain popularity, but it is no less incorrect.

I just love analogies to cars!

JC

___________________
It can’t be argued or reasoned with because it is an utterly unreasonable position to take in the first place.
_____________________________

Sounds like the Terminator.

Indeed, it is unreasonable to accept ONE faith’s idea of creation stories over others simple on what is appearently a popularity count.

Adam Savage’s infamous quote applies very well to the ideas of creationism and ID.

Chilling thought: if there really is a God, who says that our preferences about His/Her/Its personality make any difference whatsoever?

Selina Morse: Any God who teaches truth and then lies about His/(Her) position in the universe is hypocritical -(sorry, that probably didn’t come out right but I’ve been on the go for 19 hours)

Okay. I suppose that’s true. But how does that relate to what I said?

The fact that you can’t separate the two is YOUR flaw, not theirs.

Apologies if my reply came across as harsher than intended, I’ve never been much good at hitting the right tone in internet posts. If it’s any comfort I was challenging the ideas, not the person.

It might seem that I’m going off at a tangent as the thread and your posts have mainly been about creationists, but you have posted on a public forum stating your religious beliefs and using science and reason to attack the beliefs of the creationists (and rightly so!). It therefore seems only fair that your own beliefs should be subject to the same scrutiny. What’s sauce for the goose, etc. As you are a scientist I would expect you to welcome the chance to argue your point of view. If Phil doesn’t want the discussion to branch in this direction then I’m sure he’ll say so.

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
I believe the statement about items not recorded in the Bible where religion has played a part is referring to prayer. Now, this will get us onto a whole can of worms because, prayer has absolutely no scientific grounding and also disregards the second law of thermodynamics. But I’ve seen ill people make astounding recoveries. Whether prayer or not played a part I don’t know. Certainly there are documented accounts of healings at shrines such as Lourdes in France which medical science could not understand.
——————-

But from your scientific training you must know that’s all anecdotal, it’s not evidence. And it’s already been debunked. There have been numerous studies of the effectiveness of prayer, faith healing etc. and it’s been shown that they’re no more effective than placebo. On the other hand it’s well documented that people are very susceptible to belief in magical cures even when perpetrated by frauds and tricksters. And the placebo effect is real, thinking you are being given beneficial treatment can actually make you better. Where’s the evidence to back up your belief?

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
Your second point. If I had evidence in God then I’d make a ton of cash, churches would be full and we wouldn’t be having this dialogue. By “questioning” I am suggesting that the words of the Bible should be tested against known facts. If they don’t fit, why not. Hence the problem with creationists belief in a young earth.
——————-

Questioning the bible is a good start and you’re right to do so to attack the creationists, but that’s not questioning your own faith in the existence of a god. If your faith isn’t truly being questioned then it’s blind faith and you’re no better than the people you’re challenging.

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
Third point. I was NOT saying science is another faith! Far from it. Science is dealing with fact. I was talking about the elusive quest for the Theory of Everything; which, even noted scientist Prof. Stephen Hawking no longer believes exists. I was saying some believe it might exist (we don’t know). That is faith. When it becomes fact, we will all rejoice (apart from creationists).
——————-

Ah, I misunderstood you, although saying something might exist isn’t faith, it’s supposition.

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
Now to the brunt of your writing (sorry if I annoyed you by the way).
——————-

Not at all, there was no personal animosity intended and I admire your willingness to join the fray in such a civilised manner. However, I do get somewhat exasperated by the way so many people of religious faith seem reluctant to honestly question their own beliefs, often while claiming the moral high ground over other believers and atheists, and that probably shows through in my writing.

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
Is my faith any different to others? Yes. I believe (careful use of word) that I’m right.
——————-

But that’s no difference. I’m sure that vast numbers of people of different faiths past and present have believed just as strongly as you that they’re right. What makes you more right than them? Are you infallible? There have been societies that believed that ritually sacrificing children would end a drought, but however strongly they believed that it doesn’t make it true.

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
“As we gain more knowledge we look back and see how ridiculous those supernatural beliefs were. What allowance have you made for that?”

I believed that I was saying that. I also believe that (as history shows)more knowledge brings greater mysteries. What allowance have you made for that?
——————-

I’m not sure whether you’ve genuinely misunderstood the question or you’re avoiding answering it. My apologies if it’s the former, I’ll try to rephrase it:

As a scientist you must be aware that there could be a number of different explanations for a phenomena. It’s possible (although highly unlikely) that a god exists and your faith is indeed divinely inspired. An alternative explanation is that you are just displaying a very common human foible by assigning a supernatural cause to things we don’t yet understand. The evidence strongly supports this second option. What steps have you taken to ensure that isn’t what’s happened in your case?

I can’t answer your question as I don’t understand your point. Increased knowledge often uncovers mysteries that we weren’t previously aware of, certainly, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. Surely we just look for evidence and develop theories that will explain them in their turn, which may or may not reveal yet more mysteries. What sort of allowance should I be making?

——————-
Selina Morse wrote:
I have never disputed science. You are misreading me (other bloggers, back me up on this). I was merely saying that some scientists believe we will get to the bottom of things. Some don’t. Q.E.D.

I hope you read all of the items I posted today (and on previous days). If so you would realise that I have degrees in science, trained as an astronomer and also have a faith. I wonder what your credentials are and why you simply use the term “religious folk”.
——————-

I’ve only read the items you’ve posted in this thread, and they are what I’m replying to. Sadly, my academic credentials are limited to a handful of ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels, and that was 40 years ago. However, I was hoping I would be judged purely on the strength of my arguments. Religious belief is one of the subjects that interests me along with a general interest in science, astronomy, cosmology etc. I’ve done a fair amount of reading over the years and I indulge in discussion now and then. Something I’d particularly like to understand is how intelligent, educated people with a scientific background manage to handle the contradiction between rationality and religious faith.

I think I’m entitled to challenge your beliefs as you were quite open about them and you have been attacking the religious beliefs of others, not just their indoctrination methods. By “religious folk” I simply meant people who hold religious belief, I’ll use another term if you prefer it. I do view any kind of religious belief as a delusion (albeit a very common one) and so I see less difference between the different flavours of religion than someone who belongs to any particular sect might do. I realise that to you the creationist belief is misguided and wrong while yours is right, but to me it’s just a difference in the detail.

——————-
BUT, as I have stated before, I’m not here to try to convert you. Far from it (wouldn’t know where to begin). I was only replying to the original blog entry about creationism and how it’s all prallocks.
——————-

It is indeed prallocks, but if you’re going to say that about other people’s faith shouldn’t you also consider the possibility that the same might apply to your own? Given your science credentials I find it surprising that you aren’t more rigorous in the examination of your own beliefs. In fact people of “milder” religious faith generally seem to get a fairly easy ride, presumably because the greater enemy at the moment is the fundamentalist movement and it’s obvious political influence.

Don’t get me wrong, people should be free to believe whatever seems reasonable to them (as long as the expression of their belief doesn’t negatively impact others) but if they proclaim that belief in public then they should be prepared to defend it. For historical reasons an ethic has become established that religious beliefs should be allowed special privilege and it’s somehow wrong to point out the holes in the arguments. Due to the excesses of fundamentalist believers in several cultures there does at last seem to be a growing movement to challenge that ethic, but it shouldn’t be limited to questioning the fundamentalist beliefs when the more mainstream beliefs are just as rooted in superstition and just as insidious in their own way?

Looks like ZaphodBeeblebrox and bad Jim beat me to it.

Sorry I was late, Zim.

I was a little…

tied up.

Kisses

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s a guide, not a Hayne’s manual (sorry, my fault. Sorry, I don’t know if Haynes is known worldwide. It shows you how to take a car apart, step by step, and put it together again).

((Sorry, again. I’m so sorry. For car, read automobile.))

Creationism sponsors the kind of narrow-mindedness that I see only leading to trouble. Secularity is quite essential in all branches of governance, including education.