Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Ichneumon]

They obviously have not heard of the Dover decision over there in DarwinDawkinsland.

And someone obviously has not heard that the First Amendment -- the basis of the Dover decision -- does not hold sway in England.

...or he's just trolling with his red herrings again.

[Ichneumon]

Someday, perhaps you'll work your way up to spamming threads with something that's actually relevant to the topic.

[Ichneumon]

Insisting that there is a supernatural explanation starts scientific inquiry with a presumption also. This also biases their views and conclusions.

Thanks for pointing out the biased nature of creationism/"ID".

Either way is biased. Assuming a non-supernatural, or *naturalistic* point of view is not a neutral position.

Fine, but that's not what science does, so you can relax.

[DocRock]

Evasion... adress the peer reviewed facts next time.

[Sola Veritas]

"Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption. This biases their views and conclusions, whether scientists like to admit it or not.

Very well said!

[metmom]

I'm not familar with Old Man Coyote.

I am pondering the rest of your post and trying to figure out how your statements about science and religion are connected.

I also see that science falls into the "We're right and everyone else is wrong." category. The evidence of that is when one is criticised for questioning current scientific wisdom on a subject and, anticipating the request by some individuals to provide examples and cite them, I am thinking on that.

I do believe that science is capable of disproving some creation accounts. For example, we've been around the earth and have not seen an infinitely high stack of turtles or a giant man, holding up the earth. So those can be classified as myths and be put to rest.

[Sola Veritas]

"You are right. Grandfather Coyote is the creator, just as Native Americans thought all along.

Do you have a problem with this?"

Hey, if you want to make statements like that...go for it. However, I'm not the one you better worry about having a problem with it. It is God you had better concern yourself with.

[DocRock]

adress = address

[ChessExpert]

"Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption."

True.

I think it is true that given enough time, life will originate and evolve. But how much time is enough time? What if we conclude that there just isn't enough time? What then? Well we might consider panspermia, the idea that someone seeded the universe with life. But if that someone is alien life, as we know life, panspermia would seem to invite an infinite regress. Another solution is to assume an infinite number of universes. These are two ways to save evolutionary theory, based on the assumption you articulated above. But the assumption is philosophical in nature. I don't see that it is necessary in order to do good science. For many, it is an article of faith. Many of that faith are intolerant, as the insults and ad hominem attacks on this (and similar) threads demonstrate.

[Luis Gonzalez]

[Ichneumon]

Evolution and creation are both religious in nature,

Completely false. Hey, I have a novel idea, why don't you try to learn something about a topic before you spout nonsense about it?

because both accept premises based on supernatural means.

Wow, you *are* confused. No, evolutionary biology does not "accept premises based on supernatural means". Were you sleeping in school?

Both use science to back up their beliefs.

No, evolutionary biology uses science to *arrive at* and *validate* its beliefs through testing, whereas creationists *misuse* science to try to disingeuously convince people that their beliefs are as valid as those of well-established fields of science which actually *have* passed the hurdles of the scientific method.

A lot of scientists believe in the evolutionary model,

Almost all of them, in fact.

which is based on the idea that we got here through random chance processes.

Wow, that's a *really* poor attempt at describing evolutionary biology. Evolution is a stochastic process, yes, but it's not a "random chance process".

These use science to back up their claim, but we must be careful not to assume that, because evolutionists are scientists, that evolution is science. It is not the case.

You're just spewing *lots* of BS tonight, aren't you? Your claim is entirely false. Evolutionary biology is science, by every criteria.

If authority matters,

It doesn't.

there are scientists who are creationist as well.

Yeah, so? You "forgot" to mention that most of them are evolutionists as well.

Some make it an argument of "my scientist can beat up your scientist."

It's almost exclusively the anti-evolutionists who do that, because they've got nothing else to work with. That's also the reason they distort and misuse quotes from *pro*evolution scientists in order to dishonestly make it appear that those authorities doubt evolution or agree with the anti-evolutionists.

What should be done is to examine (and debate) the evidence, not the names behind it.

And that's what evolutionary biology does. I'll be glad to debate the evidence with you any day of the week, so why don't you stop just telling blatant falsehoods about science?

[I am not sure of the answer so it must be designed that way by some unknown (or known) intelligence". That doesn't seem to be science to me.]

Allow me a tongue-in-cheek retort: That's not science. That's common sense.

No, actually, it isn't. Common sense would dictate that if you don't know the answer, you don't presume an answer, which is what you're advocating. And that goes in triplicate for presuming an "answer" that involves unknown being(s) of unknown capability acting at unknown times in unknown ways by unknown processes in unknown amounts for unknown motivations, which is no "answer" at all.

[vpintheak]

Is the vocal 1.2% minority here whining yet?

[King Prout]

Dave,

accepting random interactions and events as driving mechanisms does not render the ToE "religious" in any sense.

try a thought game:

Given -
your ancestors 10 reproductive cycles ago all lived
my ancestors 10 reproductive cycles all lived

Question - exactly how many random interactions and events transpired between then and now which directly affected the present outcome of both you and I posting responses on this very thread?

Tentative prediction/answer - A truly staggering, mind-bogglingly HUGE number of random interactions and events, including specific reproductive events, including but not limited to: nominally 2046 extremely specific and statistically improbable gamete fusion events; 4092 chance-influenced lives; the specific history of nations, cultures, and technology; my knowing a certain FReeper in 1984-1988; Jim Robinson founding FR (which was itself predicated on a whole slew of other random interactions and events within the same timeframe); etc.... almost literally ad infinitum

and, yet, out of all these random interactions, something highly specific has arisen: we *are* both here, posting on this very thread, not "in spite of" but in a very real sense *because of* an enormous web of random interactions and events.

see?

[King Prout]

please see #53

also, as a personal favor to me, please cut Dave some slack - he doesn't strike me as one of the obnoxious ones who are the true soul of gnat-like irritation, and I see no profit in being harsh with him over this.

just MVHO, of course.

[Right Wing Professor]

Is quote mining a cheap shot?

Just want to get the ground rules straight.

[microgood]

So, what? Should we all just give up in the meantime? Give up and go back to the caves?

Not at all. Most of the great accomplishments from science comes from the collection and classification of data and phenomena. That is always valuable whether the theories used in conjunction with it are wrong or flawed. Having a problem with the assumptions of a particular theory does not equate to being against science.

I could chip you a good arrowhead if necessary, in about 30 seconds, but I prefer supermarkets.

Not one with notches in it for tying to the arrow. No way.

You go back to the Dark Ages, thanks. I'll stay here and support science.

Drama queen!

[Right Wing Professor]

also, as a personal favor to me, please cut Dave some slack - he doesn't strike me as one of the obnoxious ones who are the true soul of gnat-like irritation, and I see no profit in being harsh with him over this.

Clearly you missed his thoughts on how the theory of evolution is an enabling mechanism for child abuse.

[TXnMA]

CREVO thread -- with at least one thought-provoking cartoon (#50)...

Guess some would say that I fit in the "gutter" between frames... '-}

[King Prout]

Clearly you missed his (daveloneranger's) thoughts on how the theory of evolution is an enabling mechanism for child abuse.

EH?!?!?

Yes, I did somehow miss that.

Dave,
exaggerated sex-linked traits such as large breasts, heavy buttocks, pouty lips, etc... are all thought to have evolved to offset the generally neotenic appearance of the adult woman, so as to make it *exceedingly* clear to a normally-wired male what females are of-age and which are not.

in evolutionary terms, pedophiles are clearly defective and too dangerous to be permitted to be free in a cooperation-based pack society, and should be treated as such.

your take on this was...?

[Right Wing Professor]

No, I was referring to an older 'critique' of Daly and Wilson's work on child abuse and evolutionary genetics.