Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 37534
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2005/5/5-6 [Reference/Religion] UID:37534 Activity:high
5/5     Pretty much sums it up on Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design"
        Bob Novak: Why don't we teach evolution and intelligent design and let
        students figure it out on their own?
        Unknown scientist: Fine. Why don't we teach students the South won the
        civil war and let them figure it out on their own? Why don't we teach
        students that the moon is made of green cheese and let the students
        figure it out on their own?
        http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005059.html
        \_ It's clear that evolution + religion are sensitive topics that
           should perhaps not be taught in high schools. Let them learn
           chemistry, biology, algebra, calculus, etc, and stop at evolution.
           Leave evolution as advanced topics in college.
        \_ cuz fact is the north won, fact is moon is made of rock..
           evolution is an observation but can't be proven
          \_ Sigh...
          \_ moon is made of rock is an observation but can't be proven
           \_ You know, the role of the schools is to teach science.  It is not
              to lord science over religion, but it also shouldn't back down on
              teaching scientific principles when they conflict with someone's
              religion.  Evolution predicts a number of things, such as common
              ancestry which have led to discoveries in genetics and
              pharmaceuticals. It's a tested theory that has passed the tests
              that have been thrown at it.  Believers need to learn not to fear
              science, and atheists need to stop trying to disprove religion.
              -emarkp
              \_ because it's too easy to disprove religion?  -tom
                \_ To the degree that religious claims can be tested, they
                   should be.
                 \- proof has nothing to do with religion. it's like talking
                    about what is a fair voting system to pick my favorite
                    color. --psb
                \_ It is difficult to disprove the statement:
                   "I believe God has a plan"
                   For this, you need to prove God does not exist, or
                   prove God exists and does not have a plan.  God is
                   unfortunately not able to consult.
                 \_ Sorry, you guys have it all backwards. Try "proving
                    religion" first in an empirical fashion, then we'll
                    talk about "disproving religion".
                    \- you are still missing the point. religion isnt about
                       empirical evidence. do you have empirical evidence
                       of the infinitude of primes? "was jesus a real person"
                       is an empircal question. what is the speed of grace
                       in the ether is not. --psb
                       \_ No, you are missing the point. Religion is fine
                          if it merely an abstract study of thoughts. However,
                          it is not fine when people attempt to utilize it to
                          legislate or condone certaint types of real world
                          actions. When you bring religion into the real world,
                          then there is a requisite that it be empirically
                          sound. You don't build a bridge based on pure math,
                          that would be stupid. You build bridges according
                          to structural engineering, which is applied mathematics
                          based on firm empirical footings. We don't legislate
                          or mandate according to fiction, why should we
                          give a free pass to religion?
                          \- Once again: you can ask something like "if the
                             govt worriess less about distributional consequences
                             does that help spur growth" and look for empirical
                             evidence by looking at say the change in gini
                             coeficients vs gdp growth rates. However, what does
                             society owe poor people is not an empirical
                             question. It's not about an enginering optium and
                             arguments about it dont involve Lagrange multi-
                             pliers. Not all *important* questions are empirical.
                             I suppose there is an elevated discussion to be
                             had about what is called "logical positivism" but
                             I dont think that is what you are after. Yes we
                             can all agree bridges falling down on their own is
                             bad and an empirical theory of bridge design is
                             better than buidling bridges through prayer, but
                             to take a locally relevant example: how much money
                             should a society spend on bridges to look cool,
                             how should bridges be funded, what should be the
                             system to decide these question ... those are not
                             empirical questions. is slavery wrong because
                             of empirical reasons or abstract ones? how about
                             free speech? or are these not important questions.
                             i'd hate to think the only thing wrong with
                             racist hiring practices was it may not be an
                             optimal capitalist strategy [see e.g. richard
                             epstein: forbidden grounds].
                             \_ I think you're confusing religion with
                                philosophy. Or rather the behavioral guidance
                                of religion with the factual guidance such as
                                "King David lived in 171482 BC and sired 12824
                                sons". The evolution argument isn't about
                                behavior; it's about history and scientific fact
                                versus "what does religion say is fact".
                             \_ On the contrary, you are arguing that there
                                is no empirical foundation to the concept of
                                morality, but there is, i.e. sociology and
                                psychology. Granted, these areas of study
                                are amorphous, they deal with exceedingly
                                complex questions not easily broken down,
                                but to argue that society itself is not
                                empirical by nature is simply false. We
                                have already established that behavior
                                itself is highly empirical, as is concepts
                                of general asthetics. In fact, one may
                                argue that the concept of religion should
                                be studied in a pure empirical fashion as
                                a sociological question, i.e. why do religions
                                exist and on what basis? One could even argue
                                that religions are merely promulgated worldviews
                                and that society has developed them due to a
                                lack of technology before the advent of
                                science. As for justification of moral values,
                                i.e. should slavery exist or not, there are
                                empirical underpinnings in the sense that humans
                                have this concept of mirroring of minds, and as
                                such we have an emotional basis for not wanting
                                to enslave humans in general, (which is probably
                                why it's easier to enslave africans vs. europeans
                                because africans are different visually to
                                other europeans causing this emotional bond
                                to be weaker). Is nature inherently efficient?
                                Absolutely not. This is mirrored in our society.
                                Is its inefficiency a justification for clouding
                                the issues in the guise of religion? Probably
                                not.
             \_ Who (except maybe tom) is trying to disprove religion? Is
                this just another one of your straw men?
                \_ I see it all the time.  Tom is just one of them. -emarkp
                   \_ I don't see many web sites disproving religion. I think
                      most scientists are bright enough to not want to get
                      into circuitous and pointless conversation with you
                      ultra-right Christian fundamentalists. I do however
                      I see far more web sites promoting religious solutions
                      over scientific methods (Scientology, voodoo, etc).
                      What do you have to say about that?
                      \- In my experience in a place like berkeley, you see
                         a lot of hostility toward religion or mocking of
                         religion [church is hypocritical, religion people
                         are naive etc] rather than a specific desire to
                         assert it is false, god doesnt exist etc. Of course
                         there are people like Holube, and it is pointless to
                         speculate on their agenda and motivations, although
                         at some point with aaron/holube-ping I'd say it got
                         personal rather than issue directed. As with the
                         anti-SUV camp, there are specific issues worth talking
                         about [like proslytism] but the vague hostility seems
                         pretty intolerant, given that the majority of religous
                         people *around here* are pretty much the live and let
                         live type and the people doing the condemning are
                         selectively tolerant liberal hedonists.
                         \_ However, is it not true that religions themselves
                            are generally intolerant of other religions? Is
                            it not true that there has been much blood spilled
                            in the name of religion? If there is intolerance
                            against religion in general, perhaps it is because
                            religion itself is generally intolerant.
                                     \- I think it is a lot more reasonable
                                        to suppose voting for BUSHCO2004 is
                                        giving tacit support to Abu Graib than
                                        going to Easter Mass is an endorsement
                                        of T. Torquemada. ok tnx.
                            \- is msft intolerant toward linux? how about
                               the mfgrs of cialis toward the mfgrs of viagra?
                               yes, i think we can agree intolerance is
                               often bad. we can agree the problem of
                               relativism is a tough or for societies to
                               relativism is a tough for societies to
                               grapple with. are you intolerant of bestiality?
                               well to be a little less glib: i believe there
                               is much conflict among societies for structural
                               reasons [see e.g. Man, the State and War], and
                               since religion is an important element in
                               societies it's likely to be a proximate
                               explation for a lot of stuff. with the rise of
                               capitalism/imperialism/colonialism/totalit-
                               arianism in the 20th cent, is it a surprise
                               they play a role in the story of ww1/ww2?
                               the muslim invaders of india and europe didnt
                               specifically want to pick a fight with hinduism
                               or xtianity, they just wanted stuff. athens and
                               sparta or the greeks and trojans didnt fight
                               over gods or souls but for more material and
                               security reasons. i think material concerns
                               are a big part of the 30yrs war, but i have
                               to think about that and check some things
                               before weighting in on this standard case
                               of a relig war.
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/5/28-7/3 [Reference/Religion] UID:54684 Activity:nil
5/28    San Francisco, 24% very religious:
        http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/04/americas-most-and-least-religious-metro-areas/5180
        \_ I expected Boulder, CO, being in the Mid-West, to be pretty
           religious.  Yet it's only 17%.
           \_ God damn hippies.
        \_ It says religiousity is negatively associated with "the share of
	...
2013/3/29-5/18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:54643 Activity:nil
3/29    Old news but HITLERISM IS BACK!
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/29/circumcision-ban-ignites-a-religious-battle-in-ger/?page=all
        \_ The "religious-battle-in-ger" part in the URL is funny.  "ger" in
           Cantonese happens to refer to the male genital.
	...
2012/12/28-2013/1/24 [Reference/Religion] UID:54570 Activity:nil
12/28   Looking for a religiousness density map based on county. Is there
        one out there?
        \_ Try http://search.census.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=census&query=religion+by+county
           \_ Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious
              affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census
              is not the source for information on religion.
	...
2012/12/30-2013/1/24 [Reference/Religion, Health/Women] UID:54571 Activity:nil
12/30   Women on jdate look hot. Do I need to give up bacon to
        date them?
        \_ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-04-10
        \_ Don't know, but you may have to give up your foreskin to date them.
           \_ I think this is a deal breaker for most men, and why
              throughout history Christianity always overwhelms Judaism.
	...
2012/8/21-11/7 [Reference/Law, Reference/RealEstate] UID:54462 Activity:nil
8/21    I'm trying to negotiate rent renewal and my manager came
        back saying she can't do that due to Fair Housing Laws
        that states that if they adjust price for one person
        they need to adjust price for everyone else. Is this
        an actual law or some bullshit she just made up?
        \_ Probably bullshit.
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005059.html
Intelligent Design Bob Novak, on Crossfire: Why don't we teach evolution and intelligent design and let students fig ure it out on their own? The response from an unknown God-hating scientist: Fine. Why don't we teach students the South won the civil war and let th em figure it out on their own? Why don't we teach students that the moo n is made of green cheese and let the students figure it out on their o wn. Meanwhile, in bizarro land, Terry Jeffrey is advocating that belief in ob jective truth requires that you believe in intelligent design. This woul d make a great SNL skit, except you can't parody these guys. evolution trials in Kansas: Charles Thaxton, who lives near Atlanta but is a visiting assistant prof essor of chemistry at the Charles University in the Czech Republic, als o presented another key criticism of evolution. He testified that there 's no evidence that life formed from a primordial soup. Irigonegaray asked Thaxton whether he accepted the theory that humans an d apes had a common ancestor. At some point, people are going to recognize that faith is not a very use ful building block for a logical syllogism or a good foundation for scie ntific inquiry. On the other hand, teaching creationism does do damage to science. read this, most notably this: A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of relat ed hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental t ests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concep ts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggestin g their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for expl oring less well-understood areas of knowledge. new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing t heoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental test s, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we atta ch to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical wor ld is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expr ession, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fal l, because "Gravity is only a theory." Comments Part of me really wants to take up these frauds on their offer. Show the umpteen million pieces of evidence for biological a daptation. Let the ID con-men flounder about defining complexity, suffer humiliating refuta tion, and then repeat exactly what they said before. Let them mangle sce pticism into an obligation to be a sucker. Then afterwards, some good Christian rock songs about judicial activism. Thomas on May 5, 2005 04:29 PM ID is nothing more than a smoke-screen for creationism, and creationism i s absurd. Any 'scientific theory' you can refute with two words is usele ss. And then they are forced to engage in Scopes Monkey trial style gibberish about the concept of time and what a day really means. this one 8 0 years ago sufficed, in my estimation: MR DARROW--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife. Do es the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day" and "The morning and the evening were the second day" mean anything to you? MR BRYAN--I do not think it means necessarily a twentyfour- hour day. If you will take the seco nd chapter--let me have the book. The fourth verse of the second chapter (Genesis) says: "These are the generations of the h eavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lo rd God made the earth and the heavens." The word "day" there in the ver y next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning" as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day: "in the day when the Lord made the Heaven and the earth." MR DARROW--Then when the Bible said, for instance, "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," --that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours? MR BRYAN--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days. MR BRYAN--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better o n that subject than those who think it does. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in six m illion years or in six hundred million years. I do not think it importa nt whether we believe one or the other. MR BRYAN--My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt t o argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days. MR DARROW--Have you any idea of the length of the periods? MR DARROW--Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day? MR DARROW--And they had evening and morning without the sun? MR DARROW--They had evening and morning for four periods without the su n, do you think? MR BRYAN--I believe in creation, as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will accept it. And they had the e vening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods . Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time? MR DARROW--The creation might have been going on for a very long time? MR BRYAN--It might have continued for millions of years. John Cole on May 5, 2005 04:33 PM The real problem is that evolution is so poorly taught in high schools th at teaching ID along side it would probably convince kids that ID is rig ht. It provides the answer whenever there is an ev identiary gap in the fossil record: it must have been designed. For many high school students, that would unfortunately be a more persuasive ans wer than: we don't yet, we're still looking. Steven on May 5, 2005 04:48 PM The advocates of evolution probably try to prove too much. Teachers can s how that evolution is a fact that can be witnessed over the course of te n days using fruit flys. But those same teachers should admit that the w hys and the wherefores are not completely understood when the theory is used to map the development of life from the primordial soup to today. B ut all that can be done while maintaining rigorous critical thinking. And I don't wan t either taught in public schools because we ought to be teaching critic al thinking (and the scientific method, which requires critical thinking ) in schools. Birkel on May 5, 2005 05:17 PM My Dad is an atheist and he thinks the evolution theory is not adequately been proved , yet. I agree with Birkel that critical thinking skills should be taught in sch ool, but the teachers will still have to contend with students who do no t beleive in evolution. I went to school in the eighties and we learned evolution, and Creationism was never mentioned. I know 2/3 of my class b eleived in Creationism, but noone ever questioned the teacher about it. They did the experiments , passed the tests, and went on with their live s No harm, no foul. This was an advanced class where most students went into engineering, medicine, computers,etc. Creationism and Intelligent Design does not need to be taught in public s chools. How are these students supposed to compete at the collegiate lev el, and in the real world if they want a degree in the sciences. JS on May 5, 2005 05:41 PM My Dad is an atheist and he thinks the evolution theory is not adequately been proved , yet. Intelligent Design can best be summed up as: "Hey- this shit is complicated and I don't understand it- some 'intellgie nt' being or thing must have designed this. Oh, and by the way, these cr eationists over here think God did it all in seven days." John Cole on May 5, 2005 05:46 PM Think of it as an opportunity. The more young people from Kansas with a w orthless scientific education, the more math, science, and engineering e mployement opportunities for a young person in China or India... Fitz on May 5, 2005 05:47 PM I think the coolest thing about evolution theory is that it is chageable. You can question it and based on new observations the theory can adapt. Creation, like ID and religion in general, cannot be questioned. JG on May ...