"Churches urged to back evolution "

TruthSeeker

Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey
Valued Senior Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
"US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution. "
Religion proving something? That's sort of an oxymoron....

Why can't people just accept Intelligent Design as a concept, whether then a theory which is absolutely true? If Intelligent Design is taught just as an idea, and evolution taught as a theory, then I don't really see any problem, do you?

Teaching children many perspectives is important to increase their understanding of life. If we teach Descartes even tough he was wrong, what's wrong with teaching Intelligent Design?
 
since it's about random comments at this point, this reminds me of the Scopes trial...in your face, fundies! :D
 
TruthSeeker said:
Science hasn't disproven the possibility of a God just as much as religion hasn't proven it. Therefore, agnosticism is the only logical way to go.

Science cannot prove the possibility of god and religion had plenty of chance to prove it. Hence atheism is the only logical way to go.
 
You don't have absolute proof that there is no god either.

I agree that agnosticism is the only assumption-free way. Which is convenient because I myself am an agnostic :)
 
Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Science cannot prove the possibility of god
Why not? Would you have imagined a black hole 20 years ago?

and religion had plenty of chance to prove it.
How?

Hence atheism is the only logical way to go.
Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.
 
G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
You don't have absolute proof that there is no god either.

I agree that agnosticism is the only assumption-free way. Which is convenient because I myself am an agnostic :)
That makes two of us. ;)
 
Hapsburg said:
Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.
Why do you say he is entirely illogical? What is the extent of your knowledge about him. Often, when something looks illogical, it might just not be well explored yet. ;)
 
TruthSeeker said:
Why not? Would you have imagined a black hole 20 years ago?

hmm...I'm not a physicist, but:

The concept of a body so massive that not even light could escape it was put forward by the English geologist John Michell in a 1783 paper sent to the Royal Society. At that time, the Newtonian theory of gravity and the concept of escape velocity were well known. Michell computed that a body 500 times the radius of the Sun and of the same density would have, at its surface, an escape velocity equal to the speed of light, and therefore would be invisible. In his words:

If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae (inertial mass), with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.

TruthSeeker said:
Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.

I'm not interested in disproving a silly concept. We are not ignoring it. We are well aware of it. We are just not interested in stupid pursuits.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Yes. Is that relevant?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is relevant because if many theories should be taught, why should the specific version of I.D. pushed in the US be included but polytheistic design theories (e.g. from Hinduism), Invisible Pink Unicornism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism not?

I have nothing against teaching these as part of a historical or cultural lesson but I don't think they belong in the science classroom. Intelligent Design is non-science because instead of saying, "here's a difficult question to explain, but here's the best explanation we've got so far" it says "here's a difficult question to explain ... too difficult, so we'll say He did it." It throws away the intriguing game of science in favour of a cheat - an old cheat with a lot of history but still a cheat. Teach about it in history, in literature, in art if you want - but it's not science.
 
Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.

In a court of law it is up to the prosecution to prove a fact. If religion says that god exists then the burden of proof is on the religious types.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
hmm...I'm not a physicist, but:
And religion exists since when? That's not what I meant with my comment. I meant that many ideas take time to get accepted in the mainstream.

Btw, where did you get that?

I'm not interested in disproving a silly concept. We are not ignoring it. We are well aware of it. We are just not interested in stupid pursuits.
What is silly about the concept of a god? I'm not talking particularly about the Christian God, I'm talking about a god as a "supernatural" being, with certain characteristics. My perspective is more of a logical exploration rather then a simple explanation.
 
Zephyr said:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is relevant because if many theories should be taught, why should the specific version of I.D. pushed in the US be included but polytheistic design theories (e.g. from Hinduism), Invisible Pink Unicornism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism not?
I'm not saying theories should be taught. The purpose is to make them aware of different perspectives, and to teach them to be logically explorative.

I have nothing against teaching these as part of a historical or cultural lesson but I don't think they belong in the science classroom. Intelligent Design is non-science because instead of saying, "here's a difficult question to explain, but here's the best explanation we've got so far" it says "here's a difficult question to explain ... too difficult, so we'll say He did it." It throws away the intriguing game of science in favour of a cheat - an old cheat with a lot of history but still a cheat. Teach about it in history, in literature, in art if you want - but it's not science.
Well, I suppose you can teach it at philosophy. But, yes, it is not really science. At least at this point ;)
 
Thor said:
In a court of law it is up to the prosecution to prove a fact. If religion says that god exists then the burden of proof is on the religious types.
That does not imply that atheism is correct. If they want to be correct, they need to find a way to disprove the possibility. They can't, because that's simply logically impossible. Even if the burden of proof lies on the theist, the idea cannot be said to be untrue just because the theist cannot come up with a proof. It would be like saying that an integration does not have a solution just because nobody has been able to find yet! ;)
 
Back
Top