LOL.
Quite entertaining. I found this from Ray Comfort's blog and I must say some serious face palming in places as they say! and regarding BOTH parties. The interview is about the benefits and deficits of evolution on people.
The interview was fascinating, both brought good points but Wendy kept dodging some answers by Dawkins and Dawkins kept on claiming evidence for evolution as if it were proof.
Commonality may be evidence for evolution if someone is in the mind set to believe it, but commonality is certainly not proof... good point Wendy.
In my opinion Dawkins was right and Wendy wrong that there is evidence for evolution, it is whether it should be considered as gospel is the question.
I also loved the point that Wendy brought that controversy should be taught and encouraged when it comes to evolution or design. Scientists aren't the only ones that should have opinion, even they are subject to their pre-conceived world views.
DP
I'm not sure what my favourite part of the blog was.
ReplyDeleteRay pretending this was a debate.
Ray implying that Wendy 'won' the 'debate'
Ray blaming us for not knowing it ~4 years old. As if he wasn't aware of one of his obsessions (Dakwins) participating in a Documentary on another of his obsessions (Darwin).
His addendum that apparently this British film documentary film crew just decided to fly to America to ambush Wendy Wright. As if you never ever need to arrange permission before hand to film on private property.
Commonality is testable evidence for evolution. Creation isn't proved by poking a stick at Darwin. You need to present first a theory of creation, then repeatable testable means of verifying it.
Evolution isn't a scientific controversy, only a political/religious one. When you say 'teach the controversy' I would bet money you mean 'teach my religious creation story' and you wouldn't expect any time spent on the countless other religious creation myths.
That's not to say there aren't 'controversies' within the science. Scientists don't claim to be infalliable (as much a many creationists present Darwin as infalliable deity). So there is often heated discussion on the finer details.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCommonality is testable evidence for evolution.
ReplyDeleteYeah, commonality is evidence for evolution... I mean if things weren't common then evolution would be in trouble. But the fallacy is to argue that it is conclusive evidence or proof that evolution did happen. We all know that intelligent designers also design common creatures or contraptions.
Creation isn't proved by poking a stick at Darwin
Also you are correct that creation isn't proved by pointing a stick at Darwin. It is the evolution of today that needs to be discussed, though Darwin may be able to help discern the motivations behind a belief in evolution... etc.
You need to present first a theory of creation, then repeatable testable means of verifying it.
I am not sure if I agree with you on the repeatable testable means of verifying it. I mean, today we can create tests where intelligent beings create objects but it does not mean I can step back umpteen years and watch the Designer design the universe just as I cannot watch a builder build house a hundred years ago. But I also cannot observe evolution happening thousands of years ago let alone millions or billions.
That is where evidence and inference take over... which inference is more convincing? design or un-designed evolution.
Evolution isn't a scientific controversy, only a political/religious one
Yes and no. Yes evolution happens today to a point, but speculation on evolution happening millions of years ago is a controversy and based much upon opinion which needs to be challenged.
Speculation on the extent of evolution can move into political or even in some cases religious opinions.
I would bet money you mean 'teach my religious creation story' and you wouldn't expect any time spent on the countless other religious creation myths.
No not really. Christians don't spend all their time debating evolution. Islam is more of a threat these days to atheism and christianity than they are to each other, I have heard of Christians debating Islamists before. If someone brings an idea forward it needs be questioned to see whether it holds water.
Then what 'creation' do you think should be taught in schools, be specific.
ReplyDeleteDo you not think forensic science is valid? Something is only evidence if you see it first hand?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThen what 'creation' do you think should be taught in schools, be specific.
ReplyDeleteI am biased and I think that Christianity should be taught simply because I believe it just as you want Godless evolution to be taught (assume). But I think that other ideas of creation should be taught or at least acknowledged. Let there hearer decide.
Do you not think forensic science is valid? Something is only evidence if you see it first hand?
Of course I think forensic science is valid but only in regard to evidence and not proof. Yet I admit you can develop really good inferences from forensic science.
I am drawing a clear line between PROOF and EVIDENCE
Sorry about all the deleted messages, I keep seeing grammatical mistakes after I post lol.
ReplyDeleteWhat a complete and utter dodge.
ReplyDeleteI don't want 'Godless Evolution' taught any more than I want Godless Physics, or Godless Chemistry, or Godless Maths taught. That's poisoning the well Dan. That's a nonsense assertion.
I said be specific for a reason.
You can't give a theory of Creation, or how it would be tested, but you want it taught? Don't most schools have Religious Instruction still, oh wait that's Christian Instruction, Why aren't they teaching the controversy and covering all religions ;)
I think you've been around long enough to know that nothing in science is proved to 100% certainty, everything is tentative. Proof is more apt for maths and logic (and alcohol). Evidence is a better term (and why I used it earlier) because of the connotations.
Ok, how about...
ReplyDeleteOk Class, here we have the current best scientific theories on how the universe formed, stars and planets formed, life formed, as developed by countless numbers of scientists of all religions (and none).
And here we have the various creation stories from different tribes & cultures across the world.
What a complete and utter dodge.
ReplyDeletePardon? Sorry, I did my uttermost to be honest
I don't want 'Godless Evolution' taught any more than I want Godless Physics, or Godless Chemistry, or Godless Maths taught. That's poisoning the well Dan. That's a nonsense assertion
How did I poison the well? I didn't attack your character or motives. I just thought you would rather evolution without the idea of a designer being taught... which is true is it not?
You can't give a theory of Creation, or how it would be tested, but you want it taught?
I can observe how God did it in His Word. I can observe/test complexity in nature and how it interacts with itself and whether or not it was designed or made itself. I can critically assess whether the Bible is the Word of God. All these are part of testing the theory.
Don't most schools have Religious Instruction still, oh wait that's Christian Instruction, Why aren't they teaching the controversy and covering all religions ;)
Ask the head of schools to orchestrate such practices.
Why aren't there atheist teachers in school proclaiming their views?There probably are... It would be good to have discussion.
If schools are to be taught neutrally then all views are to be considered. If a school doesn't have all views represented then it is better for the few views that are, I guess. But Design should be taught as a scientific explanation for our universe... or else you could be scratching the test pots looking for how the tested subjects made themselves without any other explanations.
I am not proposing Godidit but I am against evolutiondidit.
I think you've been around long enough to know that nothing in science is proved to 100% certainty
Correct.
Proof is more apt for maths and logic (and alcohol)
Correct, although unsure about the alcohol : )
Ok, how about...
Ok Class, here we have the current best scientific theories on how the universe formed, stars and planets formed, life formed, as developed by countless numbers of scientists of all religions (and none).
And here we have the various creation stories from different tribes & cultures across the world.
Maybe it would be easier to suggest that "some scientists think that it is scientifically impossible that a Designer was not involved". I think that many views of God would fall under that category... or even Einstein's view of God.
I dunno, discuss it. Discuss the scientific findings of creationists.
Maybe I am saying that Philosophy/Religion of science should be acknowledged IN science classes since it is virtually impossible to separate science from Philosophy/Religion.
How do you think school should be run?
ReplyDeleteI don't see much reason to change things too much.
ReplyDeleteTeachers can go on teaching Godless Physics, Godless Geology, Godless Chemistry, Godless Biology, Godless Math, Godless Physical Education, Godless Home Economics, Godless Wood & Metal Work, Godless Computer Studies, perhaps a World Religions course in social studies.
So you don't recommend teaching more than one option, conclusion or causation when it comes to possible scientific explanations of discovery.
ReplyDeleteI think that if a kid discovers a creature of a complex nature with no apparent evolutionary explanation.
Instead of telling him/her evolutiondidit, teach them that some scientists think it is scientifically impossible to have an origin of such a creature without intelligent input. Also teach him/her that others think it could have evolved somehow.
Teach them that there are varying opinions and therefore ask them to make the best conclusion they can or find out for themselves. Encourage them to do science with it... without filling their minds with pre-suppositions like evolutiondidit or goddidit as easy ways out.
God gave us minds... use them.
I think that if someone is going to teach that undesigned (Godless) macro-evolution is the only viable option worth mentioning, then it should be labeled as a school that teaches that and not as a general public school.
For example, there are Christian schools... why not have Evolution schools or Atheist schools.
The majority of the world believe in God to some degree or another. At least a designer should be mentioned some way or another.
"So you don't recommend teaching more than one option, conclusion or causation when it comes to possible scientific explanations of discovery."
ReplyDeleteThat would be a meaningful comment if you had answered my comments before.
"oh you're leaving out godly physics!"
Well then explain your Theory of Godly Physics, and how we might test it, and show how Godly Physics is a more useful tool for learning about the world.
"Um I can't do that. I just think you should teach Godly Physics because I believe in God!"
Everyone facepalms.
Not all options are of equal value.
You are failing to show that Godly Physics has any value, let alone sufficient value that it should be taught along side just plain old Physics.
"God gave us minds... use them."
Funny, that's a line I've bought up plenty of times. Many religious scientists bring up exactly that. So you won't find me disagreeing with the sentiment.
"For example, there are Christian schools... why not have Chemistry schools or Atheist schools."
ReplyDeleteYou keep bringing up "teach Atheism".
Please tell me what you think a "teach Atheism" course would look like
First 10 seconds "I don't believe in the existence of Deities"
twiddle thumbs....
twiddle thumbs....
And then what?
And of course your comparison doesn't make sense since Evolution is not anti-Christian any more than Physics is. You know this, why do you keep playing that game?
The only situation that makes sense is a tertiary education focused on the subject of Physics, Chemistry, etc.
Physics is a little different to macro-evolution... a lot less speculation.
ReplyDeleteWe may be able to study the laws of physics but it would help to understand them or have more confidence in them should we understand that some people have an explanation of where they come from, other than "they just are".
As you have heard many apologists say, because we believe in a designer we can then assume relatively safely an ordered universe.
Please tell me what you think a "teach Atheism" course would look like
Something like "We do not believe in a deity. Here is why... Here is how it affects our view of science... history... ethics... and philosophies..."
Your whole worldview changes. I know mine would. I would see science differently, history, ethics and philosophies.
And of course your comparison doesn't make sense since Evolution is not anti-Christian any more than Physics is. You know this, why do you keep playing that game?
I am not playing that game. I KNOW there are Christians that accept evolution, I am even open to much of the idea, but I, as well as many others, stand unconvinced to the extent that schools teach it. Macro-evolution can move hugely into speculation, especially events millions of years ago... and can develop in our children the presupposition that evolutiondidit and with no consideration of potential design in nature. This worries me.
Thanks for the convos... lots of fun, but I am going to spend the evening with wifey.
ReplyDeleteCya around some other day.
cheers
lol. If you seriously think that about Physics then you might want to read a bit more about Physics.
ReplyDeleteOne of the points I have been repeatedly trying to make is for some reason you are isolating one subsection of science as 'ungodly' and demanding that the 'godly' version of it be taught along side it (without providing any positive reason to do so) ignoring that 'ungodly' is essentially part of all science. Even science that comes from Godly people (like the Big Bang).
Something like "We do not believe in a deity. Here is why... Here is how it affects our view of science... history... ethics... and philosophies..."
But there is no We. Atheism describes what I am not, not what I am.
You can grab 2 Atheists, and they might disagree on absolutely everything else, heck they could even disagree on the defintion of Atheism.
Do you think I am the same as a Buddhist? Or a Raelian? Or a Right Wing Conservative?
There isn't Atheist Science, any more than there is Jewish Science, or Hindu Science.
Perhaps you are getting Atheism confused with Humanism or something? That's the only thing I can think of.
Apple dictionary meaning for atheism: "the theory or belief that God does not exist."
ReplyDeleteNot a disbelief but a belief.
But I suppose anyone can make up their own meanings for words contrary to common meanings.
Getting back to the topic of Godless-evolution in schools; One thing MOST atheists will agree upon and that is a the presupposition that nature made itself.
Can I ask you something regarding your "only disbelief" situation?
If I would disbelieve in government as the explanation for a good society then I would also disbelieve that anarchy is too?
Or would I by default accept anarchy since I disbelieve in government.
It seems this disbelief thing is a cop-out, BT. I'm sorry but this view seems to commit intellectual ignoranticide. (My new word :D)
cheers.
Thanks for another round of 'let me tell you what you think', care to actually respond to what I wrote?
ReplyDelete??? Dodge.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have learnt about you is:
That you don't have a belief and that you only disbelieve in God... Of which I think is ridiculous and am demonstrating to you.
Taken from here: "But there is no We. Atheism describes what I am not, not what I am. "
There isn't Atheist Science, any more than there is Jewish Science, or Hindu Science.
Wrong. You are ignoring the impact of a persons worldview upon their practicing science... It is evolutionists with presuppositions in evolution that draw pictures "about" millions of years ago. Jews would have a different view of biological history/science.
Obviously most of science is agreed upon by most people. Some sciences are not treated the same way as I have already pointed out. Some are more based on perspective and others are just plain. 2+2 =4, and the concept of a designer doesn't influence the outcome, whereas it does influence biology and origins of universes.
One of the points I have been repeatedly trying to make is for some reason you are isolating one subsection of science as 'ungodly' and demanding that the 'godly' version of it be taught along side it (without providing any positive reason to do so) ignoring that 'ungodly' is essentially part of all science.
Without providing any positive reason to do so? Really? The positive reason is to give children the understanding that there are many questions out there in science and they should not all be answered with evolutiondidit. Teach them to decipher between whether a birds nest is made with intelligence or made by nature. Don't just tell them "intelligence doesn't exist, therefore it must have been unintelligent nature." Teach them the controversy, not dogmatism.
Is that not positive enough?
Now, care to answer my previous post.
DP
There was no dodge simply because you ignored everything I actually said and then played the belief/disbelief word game. Which only exists because many religious people, knowing they can't provide a positive case for their beliefs attempt to shift the burden of evidence on us.
ReplyDeleteYou present 'Atheism' as some mono-culture hive mind. I responded with giving you 3 examples (4 if you count me) of Atheists who would all have very different views of the world. And you completely ignored that, to once again pretend that 'Atheism'.
If someone tells you they are an atheist...
It tells you they don't have a belief in a deity, or if you want to play the game disbelieve in God, or believe God doesn't exist, but that's all that is, a word game.
It does not tell you what they think about...
Politics...
Art...
Science...
Religion...
Yes you can draw some correlations, but then you fall into the correlation is not causation game.
Atheism describes what I am not, not what I am.
There isn't Atheist Science, any more than there is Jewish Science, or Hindu Science.
ReplyDeleteWrong. You are ignoring the impact of a persons worldview upon their practicing science... It is evolutionists with presuppositions in evolution that draw pictures "about" millions of years ago. Jews would have a different view of biological history/science.
Urgh, what on earth do you think you are saying there?
Can you please give us some examples of Jewish Biology and Jewish Science. I'm sure all the Jews working would be interested to know that they aren't doing Science, they are doing Jew Science.
What's the best Jew Science University?
/facepalm
Same with all the Muslims I studied with. I didn't realise I was attending Muslim Engineering, or where they studying Atheist Engineering and were in the wrong class?
Without providing any positive reason to do so? Really? The positive reason is to give children the understanding that there are many questions out there in science and they should not all be answered with evolutiondidit. Teach them to decipher between whether a birds nest is made with intelligence or made by nature. Don't just tell them "intelligence doesn't exist, therefore it must have been unintelligent nature." Teach them the controversy, not dogmatism.
ReplyDeleteIs that not positive enough?
No, because that's not what a positive case is about. It isn't 'because it makes you feel good'.
We already discussed it above. You need to show what the Theory of Creation is, and how to test it. That's the positive case.
You are making 2 straw men here.
That science knows everything, and pretends it knows everything. That's only a position creationists take.
The second that science says 'intelligence doesn't exist', because again it doesn't. The most it says is that 'to the best of our knowledge, it's irrelevant'.
And this is where you come along with you better useful, productive Theory of Creation, and show everyone how much better it is.
It's not about what makes people feel good. It's about results. If you come along with a more useful Godly Physics, that built better rockets, do you think people wouldn't use it to build better rockets? Money sure as heck doesn't care what religion are are or aren't.
If you presented a Godly Biology, that was more useful for curing the Flu, or Cancer, or Aids, do you think Medical Corporations wouldn't be on it in a flash?
An actual example for you.
ReplyDeleteIf Flood Geology was more useful that 'Godless' Geology. Mining Corporations would be all over it.
An excellent case study for this is Dr Andrew Snelling. Now it's possible you've heard of him, he's a bigwig in Creationism, he now works for Answers in Genesis full time.
But for years before that he was almost literally selling Geology to the Corporations (Uranium Mining) Monday to Friday, then selling 'Flood Geology' to the church on Sunday.
There is an article on it called "Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?"
Hey again BT,
ReplyDeleteMan, this would have to be one of the longest convos I've had with one person lol.
Which only exists because many religious people, knowing they can't provide a positive case for their beliefs attempt to shift the burden of evidence on us.
It exists because atheists in general seem to have a problem with accepting the phrase "I believe that God does not exist" and get angry (Or want to correct) when christians claim that they "disbelieve in the absence of God".
This is strong evidence that it is MORE than word game. It is evidence that points to atheists attempting to avoid any burden of proof for their assertions.
Which only exists because many religious people, knowing they can't provide a positive case for their beliefs attempt to shift the burden of evidence on us.
Christians know they can provide a positive case for their beliefs and only get annoyed when atheists commit intellectual ignoranticide and then assault christians for having an opinion.
It does not tell you what they think about...
Politics...
Art...
Science...
Religion...
It DOES influence what they think ABOUT each of these subjects.
If you can have a christian school with different christian views in it, it will still be a christian school. Teach the controversy.
You can have an atheist school that has different opinions but would be teaching in general with more the humanism approach. Like schools today. (From my understanding)
Can you please give us some examples of Jewish Biology and Jewish Science. I'm sure all the Jews working would be interested to know that they aren't doing Science,
Jews believe in a creation story similar to Christians... though there are varying opinions among Jews. Teach the controversy.
No, because that's not what a positive case is about. It isn't 'because it makes you feel good'.
Where on earth did I speak about feeling good?
I do not think that science knows everything. I do think that it is A way to know everything.
Correct, science doesn't say intelligence doesn't exist. I don't think that it says that it is irrelevant. If it was irrelevant then you wouldn't get scientists doubting the possibility of abiogenesis being able to happen without intelligence involved. Very relevant.
It's not about what makes people feel good. It's about results.
Science isn't about results. Some areas may be, but MUCH of science is about evidential TRUTH not "results" or "feeling good".
I am not familiar with Dr Snelling.