Faith vs. evidence

LA Times ^ | 8/6/05

[Crackingham]

Scientists who moaned when they read this week that President Bush favors teaching "intelligent design" along with the Darwinian theory of evolution should be grateful for how far the president has come. In 1999, as Texas governor and GOP presidential front-runner, George W. Bush said much the same about creationism, which tried to force natural history to match the biblical creation story. At least creationism's successor, known as ID to its adherents, makes room for paleontology and human descent from apes.

Beyond that, politicians' support for what they call "balance" still damages both science and faith.

In a broad interview Monday with Texas newspapers, Bush agreed with the idea of teaching intelligent design as well as evolution, saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." If only different schools of thought (say, capitalism versus Marxism) were involved, we'd say, sure, go for it. However, ID and evolutionary theory are not just irreconcilable; they are in realms as distant as astronomy and the polka.

ID posits (quoting from the Intelligent Design Network website) "that certain features of the universe and of living things" — the eye is often cited — "are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection." Its adherents see the "intelligent cause" as a divine one.

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to explain everything, but theorizes that from the earliest life, genetic mutations providing a survival edge were retained and amplified, leading to species diversity and specialized traits (such as Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or fluorescent deep-water fish).

Both are, to a certain point, about biology. But ID also demands belief in the untestable. There it becomes faith, not science.

[Fido969]

Funny how the science worshipers alway tout "the scientific method" and refer to "scientific truth". Then they tell us we must change our morals.

Well, fine, but have you notice how scientific "truth" changes every time a new discovery is made? That doesn't sound like "truth" at all.

You would be better off with changing science and constant morals - rather than the other way around.

[balrog666]

Funny how the science worshipers alway tout "the scientific method" and refer to "scientific truth". Then they tell us we must change our morals.

Really? I've never seen that, especially since science has nothing to say about morals.

[balrog666]

Well, fine, but have you notice how scientific "truth" changes every time a new discovery is made? That doesn't sound like "truth" at all.

That's because there is no such thing as "scientific truth" or anything like that.

Maybe you just don't understand science. Maybe you just need a refund on your education?

[Fido969]

You haven't heard that they think were should accept homosexuality and stem cell research because of "science"?

[BikerNYC]

Funny how science haters cling to their beliefs regardless of the scientific evidence. Then they tell us that scientific conclusions must change to stay in conformity with their beliefs.

We would be better off if science haters clung to their personal beliefs and let science go about doing the job it does best - creating hypotheses that best explains the evidence at hand.

[Fido969]

I KNOW there is no "scientic truth", that is WHAT I SAID.

[Coyoteman]

I KNOW there is no "scientic truth", that is WHAT I SAID.

W

Cree Creation Story

When light first came to the earth, O-ma-ma-ma the earth mother of the Cree people gave birth to the spirits of the world. The first born was Binay-sih, the thunderbird who protects the animals from the sea serpent, Genay-big. Thunderbirds shout out their unhappiness or anger with black clouds, rain and fire flashes in the sky. The second born was Ina-kaki, the lowly frog who heightens the sorcerer's powers and helps to control the insects in the world. The third born was the trickster Wee-sa-hay-jac, who can change himself into many forms or shapes to protect himself. The fourth child was Ma-heegun, Wee-sa-hay-jac's little wolf brother. They travel together with Wee-sa-hay-jac on his back. The fifth born was Amik the beaver, who is greatly respected because he is an unfortunate human from a different world. Fish, rocks, grasses, and trees all came from the womb of the great earth mother O-ma-ma-ma. The earth was inhabited a long time by only animals and spirits because Wee-sa-hay-jac had not yet made any people.

[Fido969]

I don't have any problem with that. I am just saying that science has become it's own religion, and some people put too much reliance on it.

Science doesn't explain everything.

[balrog666]

You haven't heard that they think were should accept homosexuality and stem cell research because of "science"?

That's "liberals" not "scientists", please learn the difference.

[Fido969]

Well, the Cree creation story is a truth of it's own.

It is a type of mythology. Myths are necessary, and they work they're way into our popular conscienceless. As a society, we accept them as a type of truth. And they are such.

Myths, themselves, are changeable as the need dictates.

[Fido969]

That's "liberals" not "scientists"

Have you noticed that a lot of scientists ARE liberals? And that has resulted in a boatload of junk science?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Who designed the Designer?

Her mother.

[Coyoteman]

Well, the Cree creation story is a truth of it's own.

It is a type of mythology. Myths are necessary, and they work they're way into our popular conscienceless. As a society, we accept them as a type of truth. And they are such.

Myths, themselves, are changeable as the need dictates.

That's probably the best reply to one of the "other" creation stories I have posted. Thank you!

[balrog666]

Have you noticed that a lot of scientists ARE liberals? And that has resulted in a boatload of junk science?

Baloney. Activist liberals are activist liberals even if they happen to be scientists.

[Junior]

Coming thick and fast.

[Pipeline]

Both are, to a certain point, about biology. But ID also demands belief in the untestable. There it becomes faith, not science.


Science merely observes and seeks to understand our surroundings, it can't explain the origin of it.

[Fido969]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2899dd0356.htm

[Fido969]

I have a very through understanding of the necessity of myths, types of myths and how myths have permeated our culture.

Even today, there is much confusion between myth and reality. It;s quaint to look at ancient myths and wonder our our ancestors believed such things. But we do the same thing today - just different myths. You know the "Superbowl Sunday" domestic violence myth? That is "truth" to millions of Americans.

Why? Because they need it to be so.

The way our brain works - the way we organize reality, we need myths.