#36173 - 03/09/10 08:09 AM
Christian oppression and back lash . . .
|
Axis_Sanctuary
stranger
Registered: 09/28/09
Posts: 5
Loc: Tampabay FLORIDA
|
I find it funny how many of us have felt the oppression of Christianity in our lives (for those who felt oppressed ). Many people form groups as if in retaliation to this.
Look at the debate of intellectual design. Darwinist community feels it opens the gates of creationism. Not true. If anything it makes to me the ufo and bible theory come to life. Though I am not a big UFO buff it certainly makes more sense to include it in the bible than not. LOL But that is my sense of humor on things . And those who do believe in a celestial interference will also agree in the modern theory of intellectual design for many ancient societies have mentioned being visited and educated by those "critters" from out of space in astrology and math.
But yet intellectual design is being fought tooth and nail like a good Darwin should. But if the reason is that is gives way to Creationism than I feel the Darwinist is simply fighting Creationism out of reaction while the third party Intellectual Design waits for the Darwinist to evolve.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36179 - 03/09/10 01:14 PM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
The Zebu
active member
Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1127
Loc: Orlando, FL
|
You said it perfectly.
Intelligent Design, at face value, is a more or less plausible metaphysical speculation. But the key word is "speculation." There is absolutely zero scientific data to support it, nor could there ever be, because the entire "theory" fails to evolve beyond a flimsy feeling that "everything must have come from somewhere." It's a shot in the dark. A blind guess. A little feeling in your gut that there's some kind of a "higher purpose" to the universe. And the moment something like that passes as a legitimate science, our educational system is pretty much- for lack of a more refined word- fucked.
Although, did make a slight mistake-- since ID does not explicitly make any strong biblical references... which is part of the danger. It claims to not be a religious idea, that the idea of a divine architect is palatable to all religions. (Ironically, it makes no room for those with no religion). However, even a superficial glance shows that ID reeks of Christian doctrine, more specifically, creationism. Periodically their PR people may flash a Jew or Muslim who buys their ideas, but heretofore I have not met an ID proponent that wasn't a bible-thumping Fundamentalist convinced that the world was created by Jehovah seven thousand years ago over the space of six days.
I remember a while ago there were some Raelians who tried to support Intelligent Design alongside Christians, who, naturally, freaked out and tried to distance themselves as far as possible, lest they be associated with "weird" ideas like the concept that mankind was created by aliens, or that sex isn't the most abominable thing on the planet.
How amusing it is, this little theater we call "life".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36183 - 03/09/10 07:33 PM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
|
Jake999
senior member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2174
|
If people want their children to "learn" about ID then they can either teach it to them or pay to send them to a private religious school.
AMEN TO THAT! Religious schools are an option. The general population should not have to opt out of learning religious programming in publicly funded schools.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36189 - 03/10/10 04:18 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
Jake999
senior member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2174
|
I don't know how this works in the US, but I know that as late as 1929 the state of Tennessee passed a law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools in favour of creationism.
It was later overturned, of course, but the impulses are still there.
That's true. The famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" was a show trial to determine whether Evolution or Creationism would be taught in Tennessee schools... happened at Dayton, Tennessee at the Rhea County Court House. Two of America's greatest orators of the day (Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant) squared off to debate the point and is probably one of the best depictions of what happens when politics and religion are considered in curriculum.
I'll recommend the 1960 movie "Inherit The Wind," which is based on that trial. It's short... bout 120 minutes long, and in black and white. For "atmosphere" of what it was like to hold the trial in pre-air conditioning Tennessee back then, turn your heater up to 110° F. (Actually, Maw, if your kids can understand enough of the English in the film it could be an excellent teaching aid.)
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36213 - 03/11/10 03:57 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
As has been debated on this topic both here and elsewhere, evolution is *not* a fact. Evolution is a theory for which overwhelming evidence exists.
Evolution is both, actually.
A theory explains a set of known facts in terms of what causes them. Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity between organisms and the complexity of individual organisms.
A fact is an objective, measurable observation. Both speciation AND microevolution have been observed and documented. These can be objectively measured as well, in terms of the ability to produce fertile offspring (divergent speciation) and gene frequency within a population (microevolution.) There's no question of what's been observed.
If we wanted to talk theories there, the theory to explain the fact of evolution would be natural selection.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36215 - 03/11/10 05:18 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
Jake999
senior member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2174
|
I briefly considered going back and editing my own post for veracity, but what the hell: I'd better come clean and state the original trial took place in 1925 and not 1929. My memory is sketchy at times. Not that anyone would begrudge me those four years, but we'd better get our facts straight.
Yes, it was 1925, but here in the south, you also have to deduct 25 years from the rest of society. because we're usually about that far behind.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36227 - 03/11/10 11:48 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
Dimitri
veteran member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 1355
|
A theory explains a set of known facts in terms of what causes them. Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity between organisms and the complexity of individual organisms.
A theory actually indicates or hypotheses a connection between different facts/measurments/actions/...
The theory explaining diversity and complexity is not evolution alone. Evolution is a theorized mechanism, it is part of a bigger machine in nature.
And indeed, evolution is but a theory with overwhelming evidence, yet vital pieces to let it pass off as a fact are missing. These vital pieces in paleontology are called the "missing links".
If we wanted to talk theories there, the theory to explain the fact of evolution would be natural selection.
It is the theorized mechanism of evolution and the theorized mechanism of natural selection.
The mechanism of evolution plays a part in natural selection, and it also works the other way round.
Edited by Dimitri (03/11/10 11:48 AM)
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36230 - 03/11/10 12:23 PM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
6Satan6Archist6
senior member
Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2226
Loc: Oregon
|
While Intelligent (Intellectual?) Design doesn't necessarily entail Creationism, that's certainly the motivation behind it.
ID does, in fact, necessarily entail Creationism. For it to be "Intelligent Design" it needs two things: An intelligence behind the design and a designer. This implies God even though it is not explicitly stated. How you think you can separate the two is beyond me.
_________________________
Ultimate Satanic Bad Ass of Ultimate Satanic Bad Assery PhD Esq. LLC Inc.^∞ DCLXVI°
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36453 - 03/15/10 06:10 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
ID does, in fact, necessarily entail Creationism. For it to be "Intelligent Design" it needs two things: An intelligence behind the design and a designer. This implies God even though it is not explicitly stated. How you think you can separate the two is beyond me.
The most common answer given to, "If not Creationism, what is ID?" is usually panspermia, the idea that we were deliberately designed by an intelligent alien species and seeded here on earth. Not that anyone is actually arguing that this be taught in schools, but when cornered, that is the alternate possible design scenario most "cdesign proponentsists" will usually give.
Again, this is not what I personally advocate, but I've been through this so many times I've been familiarized with more details than I ever wanted to know. Ben Stein's Expelled led many Creationists to falsely conclude that Richard Dawkins is an advocate of panspermia (a quote of his was taken out of context).
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36455 - 03/15/10 07:12 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
While I would also like to think of evolution as fact, the simple reason I don't is that claiming it was would render it unfalsifiable.
While I don't discredit your definition of "fact" as something which is unfalsifiable, I must clarify that this is not what I meant when I used the term. Nor is it a definition of the term I am familiar with.
Speaking of Richard Dawkins's book, he cites, on page 14, the definition of fact from the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation (emphasis added) or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred..."
As I defined the term fact, and as is the widely accepted definition (this is OED after all), a fact is something which can be observed. Can the entire process of prehistoric macroevolution be observed? No. But particular instances of speciation and macroevolution can, and they are therefore fact. It depends on how one defines evolution: as the history of the process or the process itself. The process can be observed. As such, I feel comfortable referring to it as fact.
As for "falsifiable," I think that facts can be falsified. Take, for example, the proposition that pure water, in an environment with pressure of 1 atm, will boil at exactly 100 degrees Celsius. This is observable and not contested, and I think most would be comfortable stating that this is a fact. However, it could conceivably be falsified were water to boil at a drastically different temperature under the stated conditions. Therefore, it is both falsifiable and a fact, and thus, a fact is not necessarily unfalsifiable.
Not saying this falsifies the theory, only that we need to remain willing to return to the original theory and re-examine it when the need dictates.
Naturally, we should be willing to do so and to adapt our understanding as new data emerges. I'm not denying that or stating that our current understanding is set in stone. I'm only saying that, while our concept of how evolution occurs will change, the fact that it does occur is confirmed.
It's madness, plain and simple. Absolute truth or not is less important. What can be proven and what can be falsified matter a whole lot. Calling evolution truth means we reject its being falsifiable.
Here you use the term "truth" instead, a term I did not use. I agree that the common use of the term "truth" usually denotes something unfalsifiable. It is a loaded, often fideistic term. But it's not what I meant.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36457 - 03/15/10 07:28 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: Dimitri]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
A theory explains a set of known facts in terms of what causes them. Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity between organisms and the complexity of individual organisms. A theory actually indicates or hypotheses a connection between different facts/measurements/actions/...
I don't see how your definition is intended to differ from mine, altough, again citing Dawkins (Greatest Show on Earth, p.9), a theory goes beyond hypothesizing in that it is "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment."
The theory explaining diversity and complexity is not evolution alone. Evolution is a theorized mechanism, it is part of a bigger machine in nature.
There are any number of cogs in nature's machine, but any that have contributed to life's current diversity and complexity fall under the field of evolution so far as I know. If there are any that are not considered a part of that field, I am unaware of them.
And indeed, evolution is but a theory with overwhelming evidence, yet vital pieces to let it pass off as a fact are missing. These vital pieces in paleontology are called the "missing links".
Refer to my post above; when I stated that evolution was a fact (i.e. an observable phenomonen), I was referring to the process of evolution, not the history of the process. The so-called "missing links" in paleontology refer to gaps in the history of the process, which was not what I was referring to as a "fact."
As for missing links, even a lack of fossils can be filled in with other data, such as imprints in the genome from past adaptations. Besides, the whole concept of "missing links" or transitional forms is based on the presumption of phyletic gradualism. If the punctuated equilibria hypothesis is correct (and much research confirms it), then there may be no transitional forms at all.
The mechanism of evolution plays a part in natural selection, and it also works the other way round.
How so?
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36459 - 03/15/10 07:41 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
The reason I'm being such a nit-picker on this is that by being critical of our own assertions and never claiming absolute, perfect knowledge of everything we retain our open-mindedness. I consider it to be important.
I certainly can't fault you for that. Someone who claims to have everything all figured out loses their capacity to learn, which to me is what makes life fascinating. The best part about evolutionary theory is that there are new discoveries being made every day that clarify our understanding and raise new questions.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
