Should the BSA promote creationism?

[packsaddle]

Science can't answer what was there before the big bang. Or whether anything was there. I can live with that.

 

I do like Hunt's tongue-in-cheek system (whether solopsism or not) because it demonstrates how a person can concoct a personal system (religion?) that is equally valid to any other system or religion, no matter how many persons may claim otherwise. But if Hunt wants his head to remain attached to his body, he probably shouldn't advertise his heresy. Just lookin' after ya, Hunt

 

And I think Hunt is too nice regarding ID with his idea about 'esthetics'. ID derives its strength from the inability to explain, or a lack of information, knowledge, and understanding about something. Those who argue for ID are fond of saying things such as, 'Because we have no conceivable explanation for (blank, you fill in the complex structure or process), or how the (blank) could have arisen through random chance, it must have been the product of an intelligent designer'.

 

There is a better term for such lack of knowledge or understanding. That term is 'ignorance'.

 

In essence, the strength of ID is diminished as we acquire information, knowledge, and understanding about complexity. And its strength is deceptively proportional to our ignorance. This is one reason that while you can easily find in reputable scientific journals, articles that critically examine various aspects of evolutionary theory, you will never find an article in support of ID in those same journals.

 

One last note, for those who are interested in genetic variation in human populations, I recommend the following link:

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm

This is a discussion about a three-part series entitled, 'RACE - the Power of an Illusion'. If any of you get a chance to view it, the first part alone is a wonderful study of how we view each other, absent objectivity. The second two parts demonstrate the result to society. Enjoy.

 

Edited part: sorry, typos.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[stlscouter]

"Your statements are somewhat difficult to parse and I'm not certain what it is you are really trying to say. So please forgive me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that you are convinced that there is some kind of inherent conflict between religion and science. I'm sorry you feel that way, because I see no conflict at all. If that is your worldview, then I (and/or others) will never be able to convince you otherwise."

 

Forgive me if my postings here seem to be difficult to parse. Maybe this is better. I find very little conflict between religion and science. I was trying to address those here who find that science can be devoid of the context of religious influence. That is, ethics, morals and the "chicken/egg" discussion. If, yes if, (the largest word in the English vocabulary) we start and stay with one simple point in the creationism/evolution debate, -"What existed before the big bang and if anything where did it come from?". Perhaps the answers to these questions will the help answer Merlyn's original post for itself. Nothing about dinosaurs, humans, fruit flies or anything else-let step one be step one. I find absolute randomness contains the idea that something has to be "doing" the random. What is it and where did it come from to be random?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The use of randomization in statistics is a powerful method to achieve limited knowledge. Probability/statistics is not a method to achieve Truth as some might believe. Science is concerned with finding limited answers to physical problems. Science is not concerned with a spiritual analysis where there are few if any variables to experiment with in a lab, nor with saving souls.

 

Religion is concerned with analyzing spiritual matters and their method(s) of finding truth is very weak, as compared to statistical/probability standards. When a person begins to combine the two methods, it begins to look like Weird Duck. Historically, this has happened time and again with people getting their panties in a wad and then burning somebody at the stake for heresy and then gathering all of the faithful together for a New Creed in a resort, usually on a mountaintop.

 

The problem between the two methods is arrogance. Both camps would like to promote their method and results as a world-view when both are really trying to achieve different goals. ID and Creationism are valiant attempts at merging the two worlds but will serve little more than being a gadfly in the ointment of science. It won't do any good to tell these poor souls that they should stay at home in the kitchen either because they probably feel that the modern day crusade is to defeat the godless scientists. This cannot possibly be a struggle for Truth but a struggle for accepting the limits of one's truth and living with each other peacefully.

 

 

IMHO,

FB

 

[packsaddle]

Fuzzy, I was ok with your post until your application of the term, 'valiant'. I think many creationists (at least the ones trying to turn me from the dark side ) would disagree that they are trying to merge the two sides. Rather, they are convinced of their infallible truth - young earth, six days, the whole schmere. Anything that differs is simply wrong. As for those who promote ID, it seems to me that their motives are very mixed. Some may think they're helping the creationism side (many creationists are nervous about this) and some sincerely want to find alternative explanations, they simply have left the world of science. However, I fear that a few others are knowingly engaging in a deception in order to try to persuade public policy. Hardly a way to bring the two together and, I think, hardly intended to.

[firstpusk]

"if, (the largest word in the English vocabulary) we start and stay with one simple point in the creationism/evolution debate, -"What existed before the big bang and if anything where did it come from?". Perhaps the answers to these questions will the help answer Merlyn's original post for itself. Nothing about dinosaurs, humans, fruit flies or anything else-let step one be step one. I find absolute randomness contains the idea that something has to be "doing" the random. What is it and where did it come from to be random?"

 

First, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution is the only accepted scientific theory of the development and diversity of life. It does not address the origin of life nor does it address the origin of the universe. Evolution is true regardless of how life originated or what existed the instant before the Big Bang.

 

Second, the scientific concept of a theory has a very specific meaning. It is what hypotheses become when they are thoroughly tested and become the best explanation for the data and observations that have been gathered. The Big Bang is accepted because the data and observations conform to this theory. Quite literally, these observations point back to one specific time and one specific place. What existed just before this explosion? We need more data to answer that question. If you want to personally believe that God packed it all in one small point, feel free. There are certainly ideas, but there is no theory.

 

Third, the Theory of Evolution is not simply random. Yes, there is a random element the genetic variation within a population. However, natural selection is anything but random. The non-random quality of natural selection on populations has been observed in the lab and in nature.

 

[packsaddle]

Again, firstpusk, I agree. I add to the your last thought that 'randomness' is exceedingly difficult to prove even for some situations where it seems intuitively obvious and great care must be taken when employing the concept (perhaps care that is lacking in ID). But use of the concept of 'randomness' IS a facile way to erect an ad hoc hypothesis that is easily rejected. It is a tactic that is rarely successful against critical examination but constitutes a deception nevertheless.

[Kudu]

Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" is featuring a four-day in-depth analysis of the Evolution/Creationist controversy. If you don't subscribe to cable TV, clips from the series are available at the following URL. Others will become available as the week progresses.

 

"History of Evolution" is a fair and balanced introduction to this controversial subject, with useful graphics that help the viewer grasp some of the more complex scientific principles involved.

 

http://tinyurl.com/8c6ga

 

History of Evolution

Evolution Facts: The 8th Day

Evolution Tour: Scopes Trial

"Evolution Heritage Tour" at a Creationist gift shop.

 

Kudu