Wicker Man
Trooper
I think that The Simposons said it right with an episode about creationism vs. science in school. The episode wasn't funny, but the conclusion had truth to it, creationism being taught in schools is like evolution being taught in a church.Albie said:
JackKnife
A Vivid example of masculine pulchritude
I read several papers during the last few months that delt with the intelligent design problem. We can call it a problem. Some months ago there was a scientific program on the French/German channel (ARTE) dealing with "the human evolution". 2 weeks before the program broadcast, some colleagues from my institution and myself were informed that this program was 100% dedicated to a film about intelligent design which was shown as one of the newest scientific development in the understanding of human evolution. As scientists we had to do something and we sent tons (literaly) of e-mails to protest and claimed for a fair debate. The creationists versus the scientists. Obviously Arte finally understood to which extent their program was biased and organized a debate. No creationist accepted to come in and go for a honest debate. Instead 2 scientists (very famous ones) came in, dismantled the film and made clear to everyone it is nothing but a stupid hoax. Temporary happy ending.
There are 2 things that come out in the end: First the obscurantism is everywhere including the most "advanced" countries in terms of scientific culture, second it is our duty to fight creationism and more generally religion "precolation" within society and education.
...It's a matter of life and death...
There are 2 things that come out in the end: First the obscurantism is everywhere including the most "advanced" countries in terms of scientific culture, second it is our duty to fight creationism and more generally religion "precolation" within society and education.
...It's a matter of life and death...
Anyone who thinks Creationism or Intelligent Design and Evulution are equally plausible explanations for the origins of life is equivocating the terms used to define these ideas. I think the crux of the misunderstanding is that scientists call evolution a "theory" in the scientific sense - that is, an "analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another." (Merriam-Webster English Dictionary)
For most lay persons, "theory" has much different connotations. It is equated with guesswork or speculation which has yet to be proven.
Faith is a good thing, and the most religious of people can also be the best scientists. They know that they must keep their spiritual beliefs seperate from the physical world they are attempting to understand. Faith requires belief in something without knowing for sure if it's tru or not. Intelligent Design or the Creation Stories of any religion cannot be proven; if people knew for sure, they would cease to be issues of faith and the whole thing would fall apart.
My real concern is this: Why was the guy in question applying to the SSHRC for this grant? Grant money for a study such as this would usually be given by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC. Funding this kind of research seems to me to be outside of the SSHRC's mandate. (They are both arm's length government-funded bodies, but cover different areas of research as their names suggest)
For most lay persons, "theory" has much different connotations. It is equated with guesswork or speculation which has yet to be proven.
Faith is a good thing, and the most religious of people can also be the best scientists. They know that they must keep their spiritual beliefs seperate from the physical world they are attempting to understand. Faith requires belief in something without knowing for sure if it's tru or not. Intelligent Design or the Creation Stories of any religion cannot be proven; if people knew for sure, they would cease to be issues of faith and the whole thing would fall apart.
My real concern is this: Why was the guy in question applying to the SSHRC for this grant? Grant money for a study such as this would usually be given by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC. Funding this kind of research seems to me to be outside of the SSHRC's mandate. (They are both arm's length government-funded bodies, but cover different areas of research as their names suggest)
Raven
Ancient Mariner
The whole ID debate has gone completely mad, in my opinion. ID is simply a weak alternative to scientifically justified theories of Evolution and natural selection, which, although coming under increasing scrutiny by the scientific community, are still the most plausible of analyses as to the origins of life on our planet. ID is a view held by literalists and fundamentalists who are unable or unwilling to think outside the box and attempt to combine scientific fact with their faith. While I am a Christian and accept all forms of religion, including those who choose to believe ID, it cannot be presented in High Schools as an alternative to evolution; there is simply no evidence for it, nor will there be any, by virtue of the fact that it requires faith to believe. While faith is the foundation of any religion, it is insulting to any deity you choose to believe in to ignore the proof of your hands, your eyes and your mind in favour of (often) misinterpereted and flawed religious texts. Combining faith with science is really not very difficult, as long as you are prepared to think long and hard about deep, philosophical subjects (A starry night in the middle of a French gorge with no noise is perfect for stimulating these discussions... 
)
Whoever remarked that ID being taught in schools is like Evolution being preached in churches was right. Anyone who wishes to fins out more about ID can do so in a church, and choose whatever they believe after looking at both theories.
I would not agree with the latter of your claims. While religion replacing any strong theory in a subject demanding rational thought over faith is ludicrous, religions has its place in education, for its historical and moral virtues, if nothing else. Religion in schools is a valuable resource to believers and non-believers alike, but it should stay that way. Look at past examples of the Church interfering where it, by the very laws that created it, it should not go (politics, warfare etc.)..
)Whoever remarked that ID being taught in schools is like Evolution being preached in churches was right. Anyone who wishes to fins out more about ID can do so in a church, and choose whatever they believe after looking at both theories.
JackKnife said:
I would not agree with the latter of your claims. While religion replacing any strong theory in a subject demanding rational thought over faith is ludicrous, religions has its place in education, for its historical and moral virtues, if nothing else. Religion in schools is a valuable resource to believers and non-believers alike, but it should stay that way. Look at past examples of the Church interfering where it, by the very laws that created it, it should not go (politics, warfare etc.)..
It reminds me of a paragraph from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The "babel fish" is suppose to be a little creature which feeds of brain waves and can tanslate any language into English:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Silky said:Look at past examples of the Church interfering where it, by the very laws that created it, it should not go (politics, warfare etc.)..
Ah Silky, you had me smiling until I read this. People should start looking at history in context. It is not fair to judge cowboys in the 1800's as racist, masoginistic assholes (even if they were that) because given the lifestyle and the TIMES, well... they did what had to be done. In the same vein to say that Religion meddling in politics and warfare was a "mistake" is taking it out of context. Today we have SECULAR armies, politicians and police. BACK THEN the Church WAS and I might add HAD TO be all that. There was no such thing as a secular world for one, much less police, army and politicians. The Church did what had to be done at the time. That all changed with the Reformation and later the Enlightment, but while it was the supreme authority, well... I honestly don't see it as a "mistake".
Raven
Ancient Mariner
Onhell said:
I was referring more to the abuse of power within the Church, the nepotism of Popes such as Boniface VIII and the purging of 'heretics'. Remember, it was the Catholic Church that sanctioned the destruction of the Cathars. There might not have been a secular world, but the Catholic Church frequently intervened in national politics between purely political factions, something they should have kept out of. In particular, pre-Renaissance Italy was a cesspool of corruption from the church, with various factions being in turn supported and quashed by the Church. In particular, the Popes frequently meddled in the runnings of the Holy Roman Empire (while it existed), seing a threat to their iron rule over the people. I believe that the Church, corrupted from within, abused its power to expand its own political and financial aims. And that is a mistake, in my book...especially when you run a Church supposedly based around honesty, humility and servitude.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
OH, yeah, well, I still don't think 'purging' of heretics was a bad thing if seen from the medieval point of view... Remember that in that world the heretic was more dangerous than the rapist or pedophile, becuase unlike them, the heretic could damn your soul to an eternity in Hell.... That is what they genuinely thought, so I don't see it as a mistake.
Howeveer I do agree that they were corrupt, but we know how all that ended up thanks to our buddy Luther.
Howeveer I do agree that they were corrupt, but we know how all that ended up thanks to our buddy Luther.
A
Anonymous
Guest
*goes and sets her original manuscript by Aristophanes on fire* 
Anomica
Trooper
Since I'm a social scientist and not into the natural sciences I can't really say a lot about the proof of ID but I strongly believe that we should leave the preaching to the churches. There are many good arguments for teaching religion in school, but not only Christianity. Considering the world we live in, we should teach our children about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism and so on because of the impact religions have had on history and society. Many of the unspoken rules that are the basis of a functioning society come from religion and without them, society would probably not remain. On the other hand, considering ID to be the "Truth" and live accordingly would, to me, be like enforcing Old Testament laws on 21st century societies - anyone for a stoning, perhaps? I've got a neighbor that always works on Sundays 
In my opinion, religion is a great tool in order to understand how modern societies came to be the way they are but to me that's where it stops. Nature vs Nurture? Nature might set the stage, but we are the writers, the actors and the audience...
In my opinion, religion is a great tool in order to understand how modern societies came to be the way they are but to me that's where it stops. Nature vs Nurture? Nature might set the stage, but we are the writers, the actors and the audience...
Raven
Ancient Mariner
Anomica said:Since I'm a social scientist and not into the natural sciences I can't really say a lot about the proof of ID but I strongly believe that we should leave the preaching to the churches. There are many good arguments for teaching religion in school, but not only Christianity. Considering the world we live in, we should teach our children about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism and so on because of the impact religions have had on history and society. Many of the unspoken rules that are the basis of a functioning society come from religion and without them, society would probably not remain. On the other hand, considering ID to be the "Truth" and live accordingly would, to me, be like enforcing Old Testament laws on 21st century societies - anyone for a stoning, perhaps? I've got a neighbor that always works on Sundays
In my opinion, religion is a great tool in order to understand how modern societies came to be the way they are but to me that's where it stops. Nature vs Nurture? Nature might set the stage, but we are the writers, the actors and the audience...
In my school, at least, when taking religion for Sixth Year (a crappy ungraded course is obligatory; a full course is optional), you learn about Judaism and Islam, at least. I'm not sure what it's like in other schools.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
At my old high school we had an elective called, Comparative Religions and it only delt with The Big Three (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). Unfortunately to learn about Eastern religions one has to take a course on... well what else, Eastern Religions. Nice to see a social scientists in the boards! I'll ask you a lot of questions if I get stuck with my Statistics homework hehe.
Please leave statistics to the real mathematicians. If you need help, just remember: given sufficient data, every distribution is approximately normal.
Anomica
Trooper
Well, you can ask but since I'm schooled in the qualitative vein it'd probablay hurt you more than helpOnhell said:
^_^ I wish you had told my lecturers in quantitative methods that ^_^SinisterMinisterX said:Please leave statistics to the real mathematicians. If you need help, just remember: given sufficient data, every distribution is approximately normal.
JackKnife
A Vivid example of masculine pulchritude
I'm your man if you have questions with (quantitative) statistics. I'm a biologist but I'm also into stats so I can try to help...Onhell said:
The interesting part of the story is to know what's "approximately" meansSinisterMinisterX said:Please leave statistics to the real mathematicians. If you need help, just remember: given sufficient data, every distribution is approximately normal.
Stats with qualitative data are not easy. I wish I'd be better in that field... :-[Anomica said:Well, you can ask but since I'm schooled in the qualitative vein it'd probablay hurt you more than help
^_^ I wish you had told my lecturers in quantitative methods that ^_^