OSDev.org

@Solar, BI:
actually I wanted to avoid posting in this thread (gets my blood boiling and I'm a very calm person) but having stumbled over this article on the internet I just couldn't resist. To me creatismn always seemed to be an american-only issue but it now looks to me as if we aren't as immune to it as I always hoped we are..

regards,
gaf

Solar wrote: Again you're missing the point about scientific theories. Random stardust and quantum physics (huh?) could have been the origins of everything we see. Nothing has yet been found to falsify it, and every year scientists find new proof that it indeed could have been so. It is what is currently believed to be the most plausible explanation, it is what people get payed for to research, so it should be expected that a graduate knows about this stuff.

If it's a theory and only "could" have happened, then it should be taught that there is only probability this happened. In high school science classes, and to my knowledge in college-level science classes, the entire Random Stardust Story is taught as actual truth. Your move.

What would you say if I said "keep religion where it can be tested"? You'd be in quite a pinch - when was the last proof be found for your god of choice, and what about the "proof" that others have found for their gods of choice?

You seem to be confusing science and religion. Science is SUPPOSED to be provable, whereas religion isn't. The entire point of believing science over religion is that it is designed to be provable, whereas religion is not. Therefore, don't demand something of religion that only science is meant for. Keep science where it can be tested and religion in private.

There have been thousands of witnesses to acts of witchcraft, for which people were burned at the stake, and that was just a fraction of the time into the past. There have been thousands of witnesses of UFO landings. Your point?

My point is that everyone who denies the story of Exodus does so on one of three possible basis: 1. The story was made up after the fact, and is bullshit, 2. The story was once true and conformed to science, but got embellished along the way, and 3. The Torah is the only record, therefore it isn't necessarily reliable. The 3rd one is a valid basis to reject a story of any religion you don't believe in, however, archaeological findings (the Dead Sea Scrolls, others) have found that Torah (a WRITTEN record with carefully prescribed copying procedures to make sure no embellishing is done) stories haven't changed very much at all in several thousand years. And the 1st basis requires a malicious assumption towards the religion, and it isn't being very accurate to just assume about what somebody did, who they were and when.

I am not arguing that religion is provable to a non-believer when it isn't supposed to be, I'm arguing for Scientism to stay away from those of us who believe in religion. Freedom of Religion means BOTH the freedom to believe what you please AND the freedom to not believe anything at all, if you like.

Moses, for example, is only mentioned in the Bible. No other writings tell about him. No writings of the Egypt tell about the exodus of a whole people of slaves, or the loss of an army in the red sea.

Precisely, Scientism-types (unfortunately the term scientist is already in use) reject the story of Moses because there is no other record of it, and are perfectly entitled to do so just as long as they don't attempt to shove that rejection down the throats of people who DO believe that one record.

Please show me where anyone has said this, in this thread. Sheesh. All we're saying is that the Bible should be taught in Religion and scientific theories in Science class.

Please read the rest of the damned sentence. You demand that normal religion (religion not written in peer-reviewed journals) be taught outside of science class. I demand that Scientism be taught outside of science class. Both are religions, even though one is published in peer-reviewed journals (entirely staffed by believers, it would seem), and I wrote the quoted sentence to compare them and show how similar they are.

The moral of this post is not to assume that any religious person who opposes Scientism is an idiotic Bible-thumping Christian bigot who undoubtedly hails from a Red State. Let this be a lesson, it's possible to be religious AND intelligent, contrary to what some atheists think.

If you don't like Evolution then don't do Biology, it's that simple. I'll try to explain it as simply as possible: Science works by the development of theories to explain observed phenomena, if the theory withstands testing within the conditions it was written to explain then it is accepted as working and later made into a law if it remains without contradiction. If someone has a problem with the theory (ie. evidence to the contrary) then they can show their evidence and try to develop a better theory which will then replace the current one if it explains it better.

Evolution is no different from any other scientific theory, just religous people make a fuss over it because it contradicts their teachings (never mind contradictions with other religions). If someone develops a better theory then that will be taught instead (I think there actually is another theory to explain something evolution doesn't cover). By teaching theories, the theory may be found to be flawed and can then be updated, if no flaws are found then it obviously correct within the tested circumstances. You don't seem to realise that evolution is "proven" to a certain degree in that it explains things that you can see around you, that is why it is so widely accepted to begin with.

If you want people who are too stupid to remember what they learned in their religion class to compare Evolution and creation equally then feel free to try and create a "theory of god" and derive a "theory of creation" from it, only then will it be suitable for teaching in Science otherwise you'll just have to rely on people being smart enough to decide what they believe for themselves.

Crazed123 wrote: In high school science classes, and to my knowledge in college-level science classes, the entire Random Stardust Story is taught as actual truth. Your move.

Not in the classes I visited, and I visited a few of them, having gone to a science-oriented high school and having studied a science subject for several years.

Perhaps the line between "this is theory" and "this is what we currently believe as true" is a thin one, and perhaps not every teacher remembers to give the full "this is the current theory, it might be false..." disclaimer at the beginning of each class. But none of them will deny the fact that it might be proven false.

They might just deny it being proven false by you because your evidence is insufficient.

You seem to be confusing science and religion. Science is SUPPOSED to be provable, whereas religion isn't.

So keep religion out of the decission what to teach in science and what not.

My point is that everyone who denies the story of Exodus does so on one of three possible basis:

Oversimplification.

For some people (like me), the Bible is just another ancient writing, and the story of Exodus is denied just like what e.g. the Edda writes is denied. Try find a Wiccan who really thinks the world is one of nine sitting on the branches of Yggdrassil, with a dragon gnawing at the roots. Religion is about metaphors, about realizing deeper truths beyond the grasp of science. Start taking religion for a fact and you're on your way down the road towards bearded men who stone, burn at the stake and declare that it is better to give birth to children doomed to starve to death than taking prohylactics.

I'm arguing for Scientism to stay away from those of us who believe in religion.

No, you're arguing for Science to be abolished from school for all children because it's contrary to your belief. And that is where I take exception. Send your kids to some fundamental Creationist private school, but leave my kids' school alone, will you?

Freedom of Religion means BOTH the freedom to believe what you please AND the freedom to not believe anything at all, if you like.

Freedom of the individual ends where it impairs the freedom of others. I prefer to believe that my kid can make up its own mind, given the teachings from either side. I don't want anything banned from school. Let them learn about religion, let them learn about economy, sociology, biology, physics, mathematics, philosophy, art, sport, politics... and let themselves decide which should play an important part in their life, and which to leave be.

Precisely, Scientism-types (unfortunately the term scientist is already in use)...

I take offense at being pushed into some "-ism", especially when my point is exactly about not being fundamental about things.

...reject the story of Moses because there is no other record of it, and are perfectly entitled to do so just as long as they don't attempt to shove that rejection down the throats of people who DO believe that one record.

I don't attemt anything. I just deny that this one record should have any greater influence on the education my kids get than, say, the Edda or the teachings of the Great Spaghetti Monster.

I demand that Scientism be taught outside of science class. Both are religions...

This is where we violently disagree. Science is about proof and counter-proof, and as such, and by your own definition, cannot be a religion (as they don't aim for proof).

Ah. End of this thread for me. I already wasted enough time on this BS.

Crazed123 wrote:

What would you say if I said "keep religion where it can be tested"? You'd be in quite a pinch - when was the last proof be found for your god of choice, and what about the "proof" that others have found for their gods of choice?

You seem to be confusing science and religion. Science is SUPPOSED to be provable, whereas religion isn't. The entire point of believing science over religion is that it is designed to be provable, whereas religion is not. Therefore, don't demand something of religion that only science is meant for. Keep science where it can be tested and religion in private.

Please do. Keep religion private, that is. Keep it out of my education, my childrens education and all the others. Keep it in some place where it's optional.

Keeping science where it can be tested? Yes, we're trying to. Point with advancing science is however that you instill ideas that are unproven but likely in people in the hope that one of them has an idea that proves it. You're kind of trying to stop the entire progress of science.

My point is that everyone who denies the story of Exodus does so on one of three possible basis: 1. The story was made up after the fact, and is bullshit, 2. The story was once true and conformed to science, but got embellished along the way, and 3. The Torah is the only record, therefore it isn't necessarily reliable. The 3rd one is a valid basis to reject a story of any religion you don't believe in, however, archaeological findings (the Dead Sea Scrolls, others) have found that Torah (a WRITTEN record with carefully prescribed copying procedures to make sure no embellishing is done) stories haven't changed very much at all in several thousand years. And the 1st basis requires a malicious assumption towards the religion, and it isn't being very accurate to just assume about what somebody did, who they were and when.

What will people say about scientology in 1000 years? It's written in books, contains instructions on not copying or changing it etc. However, I'm kind of inclined to say it's pure bullshit.

Fact: A book can only contain what people write. If I change the content, who's to show me the fraud and the other the real?

I am not arguing that religion is provable to a non-believer when it isn't supposed to be, I'm arguing for Scientism to stay away from those of us who believe in religion. Freedom of Religion means BOTH the freedom to believe what you please AND the freedom to not believe anything at all, if you like.

You don't want science because you want religion? Try the Amish. Oh, and please do stop using your scientifically-designed computer, if you're so opposed to science.

Please show me where anyone has said this, in this thread. Sheesh. All we're saying is that the Bible should be taught in Religion and scientific theories in Science class.

Please read the rest of the damned sentence. You demand that normal religion (religion not written in peer-reviewed journals) be taught outside of science class. I demand that Scientism be taught outside of science class. Both are religions, even though one is published in peer-reviewed journals (entirely staffed by believers, it would seem), and I wrote the quoted sentence to compare them and show how similar they are.

There is no religion such as scientism. There are only a bunch of unproven theories. The entire base of SCIENCE is on unproven theories and proving them. You cannot take unproven ideas out of science classes, they're required. Oh, and yes, people are being told this isn't proven, this isn't visible to the naked eye, but they do also explain other ways of checking most of the ideas, and then go on to prove them.

Religion says: it's like that, no discussion. It says so in the bible.

Keep your "scientism" in the classroom, it fits there. Keep religion to religion classes.

The moral of this post is not to assume that any religious person who opposes Scientism is an idiotic Bible-thumping Christian bigot who undoubtedly hails from a Red State. Let this be a lesson, it's possible to be religious AND intelligent, contrary to what some atheists think.

How are you intelligent if you won't consider unproven theories?

[quote user=crazed123]
3. The Torah is the only record, therefore it isn't necessarily reliable. The 3rd one is a valid basis to reject a story of any religion you don't believe in, however, archaeological findings (the Dead Sea Scrolls, others) have found that Torah (a WRITTEN record with carefully prescribed copying procedures to make sure no embellishing is done) stories haven't changed very much at all in several thousand years. And the 1st basis requires a malicious assumption towards the religion, and it isn't being very accurate to just assume about what somebody did, who they were and when.
[quote][/quote]

You still don't get the point, do you?

I reckon, you *really* brush up your knowledge about how these things work. I suppose you get a knack on psychology and analysis prior to discussing a matter like this. You happen to fall into polemics too easily.

I accuse you of intending to force thinking inspired by religion down the throats of other people. You will cease doing this.

I will not deprive you of yor beliefs.

You will not attempt to convince me, that what stands in the torah is *a literal and unmeddled report* of happenings of long past eras.

Because what is described in the torah has happened centuries ere several men even tought of holding it with the written word.

Oh, and I will not say, Moses has never lived. Each of the things which are written in thorah and bible do have some kernel of truth after all, isn't it? I happen not to believe literally to what the priests and lore keepers have put around these truths.

Cease telling me that evolution can't be proven for events in the past - because by empiric verification you'll find enough facts which heavily hint at the proof. I then stop chastising you for acting like a child throwing a tantrum and stomping "I don't want I don't want".

Religion isn't a replacement for Thinking. Believing in something isn't a replacement for prooving or falsifying a hypothesis.

This is my final word to this.

Thanks very much.

beyond infinity wrote:
Each of the things which are written in thorah and bible do have some kernel of truth after all, isn't it?

Ah, but is it a microkernel or a monolithic one? Or an exokernel, and that's because it's called "Exodus"?



Someone please close this thread. We don't get anywhere, and it has not yet degraded into an all-out flamewar...

Exokernel. definitely. *rofl*

re Closing: agree.

I agree with all of you that want to close the thread. It was good at first to read everyone's ideas, but now it's turned into some kind of wierd tennis with the ball going back and forwards. We don't get anywhere at all. As soon as one side says something good to smack the other side down, the other side just serves up a really good counter-argument.... It's become pointless...

So, for the sake of Mega-Tokyo's unity, for the love of... well.... ya know...

Just close the thread

If you start a "Creation vs. Evolution" thread on a programmer's board, what did you expect? For us to all fall happily on the side of Evolution and thus make the entire thread unnecessary?

I have one question before the thread is locked: Where does everyone get the impression that I want religion taught in schools?

I shall also define Scientism for you:

Scientism - The assumption that scientific law applies just as much when you're not looking (or when there was nobody around to look) as when it is experimentally verified. Its fundamental tenet is the belief that discovered scientific "laws", insofar as they are experimentally verified to be true, are universal in nature.

And for my last post I say that my New York State Biology textbook has one very sensible chapter about evolution, Darwin's theory, beyond Darwin's theory, and then another chapter called "The History of Life" that goes into the beliefs of Scientism on the origins of life and its development in prehistoric times before peer-reviewed journals, when there was nobody around to watch evolution happen or record its progress. If they could just remove "The History of Life" and leave the evolution chapter in, it'd be a fine textbook.

I have one question before the thread is locked: Where does everyone get the impression that I want religion taught in schools?

Not that I have a problem with that or anything but that can refer to "sunday school" if you prefer. (I'm sure most religions have something similar, or you can use going to church itself)

Scientism - The assumption that scientific law applies just as much when you're not looking (or when there was nobody around to look) as when it is experimentally verified. Its fundamental tenet is the belief that discovered scientific "laws", insofar as they are experimentally verified to be true, are universal in nature.

Well... It's sort of simple common sense that something that is believed to accurately predict something infinitely into the future (or at least until the universe collapses if that happens) then it should also work backwards... We have recorded history by humans as well as the recorded history of the land itself (fossils, rock strata, ice core samples) that also show that the rules work for quite some time back. I won't argue this point though since this is usually where people get desperate and start claiming god built it to look that way or something.

Also, with your "Scientism" statement you're essentially saying that we've destroyed god since god could only act and change things before we were able to measure stuff so it can no longer change things since we have algorithms that are always right. This is essentially the same statement rephrased.

You don't destroy God by being scientific, or even with Scientism. Plenty of miracles and things happened in front of people (hence why they're in stories, if we at least admit that somebody thought they saw them). However, God hasn't done much lately because he apparently thinks that most of us are on the right track. Even the militant atheists.

Religion should be taught in Sunday school, yes, but not in regular school, mostly because kids can't opt out of science classes. Personally, I think it would be very easy to, in the places that want them, have two seperate science classes. One teaches evolution without History of Life, and the other teaches them both. Students (possibly in combination with their parents) make the choice. They can opt into the course that include History of Life, or they can take the other class that won't force them to sit through lessons on a belief they've already made up there mind about.

Or even just give the History of Life objecting students (where there are no alternate classes) extra homework or lab work that they can complete while not attending class for that unit. This extra work will make up for the lost grades, and nobody is taught any religion who doesn't want it.

Choice is good. By adding that choice, you also take away any chance that somebody will have any view crammed down their throats by openly and explicitly saying "SoAndSo isn't here for this unit because he/she doesn't believe in the scientific version of the history of life." after already giving the student an open and explicit choice in whether to be there themselves. This makes sure that even if a person sits through History of Life and doesn't like it they know there are people to talk to who aren't pastors or others who would most definitely try to force a religious viewpoint down your throat.

To summarize, choice is good, and for some reason this thread hasn't been padlocked.

Not only have I wasted another 30 minutes answering this BS again, I also again lost that answer because it was too long and the "Back" link of the forum doesn't preserve it.

This is ridiculous. Mail to admin has been sent. If you need this thread locked, that can be helped.

(Did it occur to you that it hasn't been locked because we might be right?)

Solar wrote: Not only have I wasted another 30 minutes answering this BS again, I also again lost that answer because it was too long and the "Back" link of the forum doesn't preserve it.

This is ridiculous. Mail to admin has been sent. If you need this thread locked, that can be helped.

(Did it occur to you that it hasn't been locked because we might be right?)

I think it hasn't been locked since none of the everything-else moderators has come by.

On the topic of the back-link: that's 99% certain just your browser. IE doesn't think you'd want to save such a long bit of text, would only eat memory. Firefox almost never loses it for me.
(yes, if you check the server stats, this is posted using IE).

On the topic of size of messages: please please do enlarge it. All you do with denying posting of large messages is force us to split it into multiple messages. We'll post the content anyway, if necessary in a gzipped textfile attachment. Same goes with extensions of attachments. It's pointless to forbid if you don't enforce the filetype checking, and you can't since they don't have a strict start (well, at least pas cpp txt c and h don't).

One wrote :

In the interest of starting a flame war, I would like to submit to you the following statement which I bet you can't disprove: I believe in creation. Go ahead, try to disprove it. Bet you can't

Heh, easy. As long as one really believes in something it can't disproven, no matter how others would try. And why would others have to disprove one's beliefs? Everyone got their own opinion and in the end, so what?

But to the topic, I believe in combination of creation AND evolution. Think about it, it makes sense.

The winner is the thread starter! Cheers