Tracing the whale’s trail [Evolution trial, daily thread for 15 Oct]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 15 October 2005 | LAURI LEBO

[Oztrich Boy]

I once heard that religion was created to control the masses.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx (somebody has no doubt beat me here, I just couldn't resist)

Like he said it first

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger (4BC-65AD)

[WildTurkey]

This a point that really frustrates me about this debate, since, on the one, strict compliance to terms and statements made by science are agressively endorsed, yet just as easily abandoned when it suits a given need.

Example, please.

[PatrickHenry]

Ace marker

[b_sharp]

That pretty much mirrors what I found at university as well.

However, my little blurb was about friends in grade school. I have quite a number of old friends from high school that are drunks, welders, store managers, mechanics, business men, realtors and so on. The only friends that have gone into the sciences are those that had a childhood interest in science.

[highball]

Evolution is no less a "human construct" than gravity is. It's a feature of the natural world that existed before humans ever recognized it. He was trying to play a semantic game.

That seems to be the creationists' last stand - having lost the war, they must try to win a battle or two.

[csense]

Did you miss the memos about the difference between proof and evidence?

Considering the post you responded to, are you agreeing with the poster that common descent is off the table, and do you also agree that this is the prevailing scientific view.

[LogicWings]

Only if you insist. You haven't read Plato?

How do you know Socrates existed other than Plato said so? How do you know what Plato said was the truth? How do you know it was accurate? How do you know Socrates was "wise"? How do you know that the bust of Socrates (which I have seen) is actually of Socrates and not somebody else, just mis-named?

How do you know you exist? How do you know that there is such a thing as knowledge? And finally the best, you said:

for there are kinds of knowledge

How do you know there are "kinds of knowledge" and what are they and how do you know in what way they differ? How do you know they are not all different aspects of the same knowledge? How do you know you know?

Yeah, I read Plato. I wasn't impressed.

[LogicWings]

I once heard that religion was created to control the masses.

Religion is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx

Like he said it first

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger (4BC-65AD)

Non-sequitur.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Undistributed Middle.

[b_sharp]

"I wish I knew what the answer was. I guess a person has to be receptive and willing to be open-minded without being too distracted by the nearest shiny object. LOL How do YOU challenge misconceptions or preconceived notions?"

Since I am a terrible debater, the best that I can do is provide information that is as accurate as possible. I also try to be as accepting of other belief systems as I can and get into name calling as little as possible. Unfortunately I fail at both far more than I would like.

"(I'm trying to think when I try to convert everyone to my way of thinking. Is it that they need constant reassurance? Or the negative feedback triggers some kind of insecurity.) If someone embraces an absolute, it has to set up some type of doubt, because we all know there are no absolutes.

The only people I initiate the conversion process with are my children and grandchild. However, if I find others trying to convert my family or me, and this includes actions taken through the educational system, I respond in kind.

Being a relativist here can be dangerous. :)

[csense]

The more complicated the technology, the more confused the general public is and the more there is a tendency to find some simple explanation for life. Hence, the popularity for the ID movement. It's common nature for people to accept a simple solution, even if it has no basis in fact.

I'm not sure what technology has to do with anything, but I would disagree with you that there is an inverse relationship between human behavior (or at leat this specific behavior) and technology. I, in fact, see an observably opposite relationship between technology and each new and succesive generation of human beings, who are much more comfortable with complexity than than the previous generation. Besides, if society regresses, or at least our particular type of society, then technology would (or should) reflect that.

[js1138]

There's no scientific debate over the age of the earth or common descent.

[phantomworker]

What do you mean by being a relativist? IN contrast to an absolutist?

I've tried to convert my kids. For example, I took them to church and Sunday school each week, vacation Bible school, church groups, etc, etc, and then when one of my sons was in high school, he said, oh my the way, I don't believe in God!!!

Well, that threw me for a loop, I congratulate him for being his own person, but any conversion I tried fell on deaf ears. I don't think conversion is possible unless the other person is receptive.

There are many other examples, though, of how the apple didn't fall far from the tree, so my conversion attempts were often successful. Were you successful at your attempts?

[phantomworker]

Thanks.

[csense]

"This a point that really frustrates me about this debate, since, on the one, strict compliance to terms and statements made by science are agressively endorsed, yet just as easily abandoned when it suits a given need."

Example, please.

Well, of the latter, QED; of the former, you've got to be kidding me...

[csense]

There's no scientific debate over the age of the earth or common descent.

Then be a man, step up to the table, and back up your words. Provide proof of common descent.

[phantomworker]

The more complicated the technology, the more confused the general public is and the more there is a tendency to find some simple explanation for life. Hence, the popularity for the ID movement. It's common nature for people to accept a simple solution, even if it has no basis in fact.

I'd have to agree with that. That is actually very true. The general public has about a 12th grade education, don't they?

A simple solution has great appeal to many people, including educated ones.

The word is Parsimony: Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor

[WildTurkey]

There's no scientific debate over the age of the earth or common descent.

Why? Even the leader of the ID movement believes in common descent. It's a moot point.

[js1138]

Don't waste my time. Proof is for mathematics. Common descent is the consensus of biologists after several hundred years of collecting and analyzing evidence. You've been on these threads long enough to know where the evidence can be found.

You can start here.

[WildTurkey]

Considering the post you responded to, are you agreeing with the poster that common descent is off the table, and do you also agree that this is the prevailing scientific view.

It's off the table. The leaders of the ID movement believe in common descent and publicly state such. If your leaders believe it, you have to believe it also.

[phantomworker]

Some more evidence for simplicity. I am taking an online class from USC called Systems Architecture which is basically a course in heuristics. Some basic heuristics when designing a system or techology are: "Keep it Simple, Stupid"; "Simplify, Simplify, Simplify" and Oscam's Razor: "The simplest solution is usually the correct one."

So it follows that there is a tendency to find some simple explanation for life.

And if USC can score a winning touchdown in the last 3 seconds of the game today, I will accept what they have to say. LOL