Why I see Evolution as a Religion

[Raptor]

When the woman found the soft tissue she basically stated that fossils couldn't fossilize the way we thought they did because otherwise its not possible for her to have found what she did. When you try to bring this up you are immediately slammed into being a YEC who thinks this means that the dinosaurs were running around 6000 years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong; none of the proposed processes of fossilization were changed with the discovery of the soft tissue, a new one was introduced.

Of course no one "claimed" it, but if you see how they are described in books, there is no disclaimer, they present those cute little pictures of the dinos running around and talk about how they ran, how they ate, how they laid their eggs and raised their young, as if someone had actually seen all of this.

Which books? As it's been shown time and time again, the vast majority will preface with a disclaimer.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Raptor X7

[truethat]

Correct me if I'm wrong; none of the proposed processes of fossilization were changed with the discovery of the soft tissue, a new one was introduced.

Which was what?

[truethat]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are skeptical. That is a good thing.

That's fine. It is the basic mind set needed to learn. However. Skepticism is not simply an automatic gainsaying of established thought. The term arises (as do most concepts in modern western society) from Greek philosophy, and while I don't want to head down the historical/liguistic path, it is worth noting that the concept of skepticism is actually quite well defined, to whit:

I think the last most accurately describes how you should be applying your skeptical mind. I think the most important words in that definition are:suspended judgment and systematic doubt.

Both of these imply that, apon reflection and with supporting evidence, judgement and doubt move one direction or another; i.e. towards rejection or acceptance (of the thing being subject to skepticism).

Capeo says:

and he is right.

Why don't you go back and look at how many times I've posted that I'm "with holding judgment"

I think I'm the only person that has used that phrase on here.

When a scientist doing the research doesn't understand how it could have happened I'm not going to believe some poster on a forum over the scientist.

I'm going to WITH HOLD JUDGMENT until I get more information.

[capeo]

Funny Capeo

I've never asked anyone in this thread to agree with me. Is that what you think I've been doing?

I don't give a damn if you agree with me. LOL

Second is it your argument that when it comes to evolutionary science the equation could be likened to 2 + 2 = 4

Because frankly you are getting boring. Every other post you change your mind. Its not proven it is proven, its not a fact , it is a fact.

Wow. I would defy you to find one post where I contradicted myself but it's not like you will anyway. Anyone else is welcome to though. I'd welcome a well construed argument. True, if you haven't been able to follow what I'm saying, if you truly can't fathom what the weight of evidence means in regards to a hypothesis, and that you have consistently claimed scientists are saying things they aren't than this is truly useless. You don't seem to understand that all these finds you've brought up concur perfectly with evolution nor do you even understand that the Theory of Evolution, the fact of evolution, is not based on a hypothesis of what a dinosaur looks like. You're not even grasping that there is a vast difference in the amount of evidence used to prove a theory than there is to make a hypothesis about an individual species amongst billions that lived 75 million years ago and that we only have limited access to but whose very existance in time is an affirmation of said theory.

This conversation has nowhere to go.

[truethat]

Correct me if I'm wrong; none of the proposed processes of fossilization were changed with the discovery of the soft tissue, a new one was introduced.

Which books? As it's been shown time and time again, the vast majority will preface with a disclaimer.

So its a disclaimer? That's all that's needed. So its like a Trim Spa commercial is it? That as long as somewhere they mention "Results not typical" or "most likely" then they can go on to sell the idea like its known?

[truethat]

Wow. I would defy you to find one post where I contradicted myself but it's not like you will anyway. Anyone else is welcome to though. I'd welcome a well construed argument. True, if you haven't been able to follow what I'm saying, if you truly can't fathom what the weight of evidence means in regards to a hypothesis, and that you have consistently claimed scientists are saying things they aren't than this is truly useless. You don't seem to understand that all these finds you've brought up concur perfectly with evolution nor do you even understand that the Theory of Evolution, the fact of evolution, is not based on a hypothesis of what a dinosaur looks like. You're not even grasping that there is a vast difference in the amount of evidence used to prove a theory than there is to make a hypothesis about an individual species amongst billions that lived 75 million years ago and that we only have limited access to but whose very existance in time is an affirmation of said theory.

This conversation has nowhere to go.

Capeo I know that the theory of evolution is not based on what a dinosaur looked like.

I'm tired of you all suggesting that I think the color of a dinosaur is what's got me in a tizzy.

What I see is that frustration that's come up before. You are relentlessly in here. WHY? Why is it you want me to agree with you soooo badly.

Its been 40 odd pages of people trying to get me to admit what I am skeptical about is actually a fact.

And this energy is what I say is turning Evolutionists into zealots. This relentless insistence that I am an idiot who doesn't understand how science works. Who thinks if Dinos turn out to be green its gonna throw a wrench in the whole system.

No

You've leapfrogged over what has been posted and gone into education and all sorts of other htings.

Doesn't change what I said in my first post.

Its not a fact. Its a theory. Its a damn good theory but its still a theory.

There are parts that are much more solid than others.

There are parts which are weak.

Scientists seem to think its not a big deal to differentiate to young people or people not familiar with science which is which.

Resistance to the theory causes an uproar and hostility. Check your last post and you might see it.

And nothing I've said isn't true.

So its just funny to me.

[Raptor]

So its a disclaimer? That's all that's needed. So its like a Trim Spa commercial is it? That as long as somewhere they mention "Results not typical" or "most likely" then they can go on to sell the idea like its known?

This debate isn't going to move forward if you keep dragging it back to points that have already been discussed and refuted, and frankly it's incredibly frustrating. Enough examples have been shown where current thoughts are written in a format along the lines of "we think x because y suggests z" (this is what I was referring to) for you to know that what you just wrote is fallacious, why would you even bring it up? Quick attempt to undermine my argument I suppose.

I used the word "disclaimer" because Iams introduced it first. Perhaps it wasn't the most accurate word but seeing as Iams was satisfied with it, and it was him I was addressing, I thought it would be appropriate.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Raptor X7

[capeo]

I take it you did not read the links that showed how the Natural History Museum in New York City presents their information on the dino displays? Because those presentations DO claim they are proof, not in so many words, but in how they present the information (and don't tell me this world-renown museum doesn't have some sharp scientists working for them.)

I've been to the ANHM about twenty times. There are disclaimers everywhere stating that all exhibits are based on the best available evidence. This is reiterated by the curators and the exhibits take care to explain why things are diplayed the way they are. This is from thier website:

Although cladistics provides us with the best current method of determining evolutionary relationships, it is not perfect. Contradictions among advanced features often suggest alternative evolutionary trees. In such cases, the cladogram consistent with the most features is chosen for the time being. True evolutionary relationships can never be definitively established, either by examining fossils or studying DNA. But we can get closer and closer to the actual sequence of evolution by testing hypotheses about relationships with as many features as possible.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/...lls/cladistics/

Yeah, that's real misleading.

Of course no one "claimed" it, but if you see how they are described in books, there is no disclaimer, they present those cute little pictures of the dinos running around and talk about how they ran, how they ate, how they laid their eggs and raised their young, as if someone had actually seen all of this.

But you know what, never mind, because I can already hear the avalanche of excuses and cries of "Creationist! Creationist!" coming.

I don't know what books or publications you're reading but I've never read one that doesn't explicity state throughout what evidence these descriptions are based on our how the evidence has changed over time. Even childrens books about dinosaurs, knowing they can't drop all the science on a five year old, take care to stay away from anything disputable. They stick to when it lived and simple descriptors like "The brontosaurus was a very large plant eating dinosaur... etc."

[capeo]

Capeo I know that the theory of evolution is not based on what a dinosaur looked like.

I'm tired of you all suggesting that I think the color of a dinosaur is what's got me in a tizzy.

What I see is that frustration that's come up before. You are relentlessly in here. WHY? Why is it you want me to agree with you soooo badly.

Its been 40 odd pages of people trying to get me to admit what I am skeptical about is actually a fact.

And this energy is what I say is turning Evolutionists into zealots. This relentless insistence that I am an idiot who doesn't understand how science works. Who thinks if Dinos turn out to be green its gonna throw a wrench in the whole system.

No

You've leapfrogged over what has been posted and gone into education and all sorts of other htings.

Doesn't change what I said in my first post.

Its not a fact. Its a theory. Its a damn good theory but its still a theory.

There are parts that are much more solid than others.

There are parts which are weak.

Scientists seem to think its not a big deal to differentiate to young people or people not familiar with science which is which.

Resistance to the theory causes an uproar and hostility. Check your last post and you might see it.

And nothing I've said isn't true.

So its just funny to me.

Most everything you said isn't true, True. That's been shown over and over. Nothing you tried to state as evidence of your claim wasn't easily refuted and as soon as it was you abandoned and ran on to something else. You claim there are weakness in the theory of evolution? Do you think you even brought one up? You certainly didn't. With your understanding of it you wouldn't even be aware that you did anyway. You're resistance to theory didn't cause an uproar but the complete lack of any factual basis in your argument does. You can't pose resistance to something by claiming things it doesn't even say.

With that, I'm done.

Peace

[DogsHead]

Why don't you go back and look at how many times I've posted that I'm "with holding judgment"

I think I'm the only person that has used that phrase on here.

When a scientist doing the research doesn't understand how it could have happened I'm not going to believe some poster on a forum over the scientist.

I'm going to WITH HOLD JUDGMENT until I get more information.

I think (for me at least) the problem in comprehending what it is you have been defending with such vigour (and I must congratulate you for your staying power! It's particularly.... um Zealous) is this: On one hand you are making a simple statement - one should be skeptical of claims that seem to be the status quo without justification. I.e, Geocentricity. Galileo proved that status quo was wrong because he was skeptical. He was skeptical because all the work he did seemed to poke holes in the accepted theory.

If that was indeed your argument, this thread wouldn't even make it to 2 pages, because everyone would respond with agreement.

However, you take this simple stance and somehow derive a statement that most people disagree with, which I can only demonstrate with another concrete example - Richard Dawkins. Your statement lies somewhere in this ball park: "I believe Richard Dawkins and those like him are religous zealots because thay try to shout down "alternate" arguments - and since the chosen theatre of battle is the veracity of the Theory of Evolution/creationism/ID, all of these are nothing more than religous beliefs.

Where is your withholding of judgement? You unilaterally lump one thing which is demonstrably defensible with another that isn't. You have made a judgement. What I was trying to do with the definition of skepticism, was to move you towards thinking about the level of skepticism you are applying to this subject. You say you are skeptical towards a few specific areas of (primarily) biology. Fine, as I said. But in order to be skeptical, one HAS to have a reason. It makes no sense to be skeptical for the sake of it. You might even suspect that something smells, just because no-one questions the authority, but when you ask questions about your suspicions (the soft tissue thing) and those questions are answered - a true skeptic, like a scientist, adjusts her thoughts and arguments to include the new information. You have patently NOT been doing that. When the soft tissue question was (repeatedly) answered, your reaction was to dismiss the answers. You say you will withhold judgement 'til you get more information? This begs the question: HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU WANT?

[truethat]

See to me Dogshead the Arena has always just been Evolution. I've never tied the Creationist or ID argument TO evolution. The Evolutionary Zealots are the ones that do that.

And how can the "soft tissue" issues be "answered" when the scientist who is dealing with it hasn't "answered" them yet?

Edited December 7, 2007 by truethat

[DogsHead]

See to me Dogshead the Arena has always just been Evolution. I've never tied the Creationist or ID argument TO evolution. The Evolutionary Zealots are the ones that do that.

And how can the "soft tissue" issues be "answered" when the scientist who is dealing with it hasn't "answered" them yet?

I had really hoped that you might address my central issues with that post. If you are just being skeptical when you judge these "zealots" how much more info do you need? You have completely sidestepped what I see as the issue, something that many on this thread have accused you of. You are not a skeptic. You are closeminded and ridiculously pigheaded. I've read through the entire thread, hoping to see you at least entertain the idea that THRE ARE NO CONCRETE ANSWERS, I tried in my last post to be as objective as I could and not to dismiss your ideas out of hand, but as others have said, it pointless. You will not learn, and that is the worst form of ignorance.

Good bye and Good luck

[Lt_Ripley]

So its a disclaimer? That's all that's needed. So its like a Trim Spa commercial is it? That as long as somewhere they mention "Results not typical" or "most likely" then they can go on to sell the idea like its known?

if you can't understand the basis for science . can't understand that it has always changed as evidence emerged.

and you want it to remain fixed. then you shouldn't be studying science for fixed it will never remain as long as humans continue to evolve both mentally , and physically.

you want permanent answers to areas that are still in observation or discrimination . that's foolish.

you think your opinion or that of a minority should count as viable. if it be so then process the evidence and have it weighed. surely if it made more sense, answered more questions than it imposes than that would be substituted . If it doesn't it won't.

If 99 out of a hundred people respond to a treatment for an ailment but one doesn't should that treatment be thrown out ? because of one ?

if the majority of evidence fits and agrees then that is what should be followed to it's conclusion. eventually it will either fit or it doesn't , but you want a conclusion now and that would be premature.

The evidence for evolution fits. it works . it's logical. is it flawless ? no . but it isn't a closed deal either. new evidence is always being added and evidence removed.

there are some ' facts' and maybe that word in itself is a problem. (Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: ) if you've run into 99 hadrosaur skeletons out of 100 that look the same would you call a hadrosaur skeleton fact ? it would stand to reason so. hell not even 99 out of 100 human skeletons look alike. but are similar.

how about instead of 'fact' they call it best fit ? best explanation ? most likely ? yet dispersed within that are facts so you play hopscotch. 2(fact) +(x)=4 (fact) well 2 fits pretty well as x and seeing how the first numeral is a 2 and not 1+1 it's a good theory that x is a 2 as well. it works.

your brow beating science for being inflexible to skepticism yet beating it for being flexible in stating things are theories , ( theory itself being a disclaimer to permanence) or most likely.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Fluffybunny]

I have read through 16 pages of posts. I am pretty sure it was an exercise in futility and I dont even see why this thread is still open... The attitude here is what really slays me and it goes both directions. One more than another, but both ways...

In debating a point, you have to know what you are debating against, it is the first thing you learn in any college level debate class. You learn more about the opposition as you do about your own supportive material, your own supportive material comes easy; it stays with you, it makes more sense; most of it is already there. The other side of the coin takes much work to comprehend and digest...

What I am seeing here is a debate that is going on with really incomplete knowledge of the subject, and some condescending attitudes from both sides. No one is going to budge, and as far as I can see few are here to learn, rather to beat the other side into submission, regardless of whether they are right or not.

Several people on several sides of this discusson have shown clear religous fervor in debating this topic(you know who you are), so the OP has only touched on one aspect of the story...I think there are times when all sides are clearly religous...

[bball]

Ripley my point is not that 2 + 2 doesn't equal four. Its that is WAY more information than they actually have.

The equation is what I stated above.

See the point is that when someone is critical they are attacked for not going along with the group. I will say that Raptor has never attacked me for not going along with the group. But plenty of other people have.

Its a herd mentality that says that I have to accept without question. Or wait what is the new one, I have to have an alternative theory or I can't doubt this one.

I don't need to know what a dinosaur looked like to know that the scientists don't either. And the more information they find out the more old theories are refined or corrected.

So if the whole process is going to be refined and corrected I'm going to be looking at with a critical eye all along and not just accept it because

I don't have another alternative,

I trust that scientists are exempt from being human with the propensity for error,

we have to be content with it,

or any one of the numerous reasons I've been told I'm not allowed to be skeptical about something that is ever changing.

This thread is pretty much done in my book but its shown that when you don't go along with the group be prepared to get attacked.

Its also proved that when Evolutionary Zealots are caught in a corner they will suddenly say its the way "science works" to be mistaken.

Yet they sure seem to care when they think they are putting a creationist in their place.

back pedaling at its finest.

I can't believe you believe you have actually made people back pedal and that you have made valid points. I know Capeo has asked a dozen billion times to please just post something that would be an example of your evo's. Or an example of where you see assumptions be made, and being presented as fact. If you are going to argue it's happening, shouldn't you have to support it. But you never do. Why? I am so shocked at how many times you have dodged the questions asked of you. It is actually quite a neat little trick to be able to continue on with it for so long. The only things posted are completely in disagreement with your argument because words like "suggest", "perhaps" and "might" litter the links/articles. I am starting to wonder if you know what "theory" even means. The very name says that it isn't fact, as a whole.

I also notice an evolution (pun intended) of your term 'evo.' Because in the beginning of the thread you were continuosly saying that you use the term 'evo' to describe someone who argues against creationist. Or you described an 'evo' as someone who says it is either evolution or creationism. But those points seem to have simmered down because they were debated by people (successfully I might add) and the flaws in the logic were exposed.

So lately what we have seen from you is you have a problem with the entire theory of evolution and your perception of how it's presented (misguided one BTW), not just problems with the 'evos.' anymore. And I think we see a difference now because your original idea 'evos' was nullified pretty quickly. But this newer version of 'evo' is an even WORST attempt at making a point. Because the problem is NO ONE presents the theory of evolution in the way you seem to think. To me it just seems as if your just firing every last attempt to rectify yourself and your argument, as you are backed up against the wall as a result of your ideas, thoughts and arguments being continuosly exposed.

People get so frustrated with you because it doesn't appear you actually read their post that you are responding too. Most times you reply it is an immediate defense mode, which in reality isn't necessary (most of the time). So in this state of angst and frustration you don't even debate the information you are replying to. (Again, not always though) But for whatever reason there just seems to be some things that you refuse to address, which happen to be important to your thread. As a result people debating you get frustrated, then you get frustrated then it just becomes a big shouting match. (both sides guilty, not just picking on you) You have also repeatedly said, it isn't about the science, so why post scientific articles? That is a tad strange. Please don't take this all too personal. I am just trying to analyze the situation at hand.

[truethat]

What part of Richard Dawkins don't you understand? I've posted it several times already. So what do you mean I haven't posted any Evos?

The only reason I stopped using the term was because Saruman asked me not to.

Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Zealot. He's a scientist and a zealot who attacks creationism.

He is not "responding" to Creationists having an scientific discussion when he writes "The God Delusion" and the "The Root of All Evil" he's attacking for its own sake.

And I've mentioned him through this entire thread. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean I didn't say it.

[truethat]

I had really hoped that you might address my central issues with that post. If you are just being skeptical when you judge these "zealots" how much more info do you need? You have completely sidestepped what I see as the issue, something that many on this thread have accused you of. You are not a skeptic. You are closeminded and ridiculously pigheaded. I've read through the entire thread, hoping to see you at least entertain the idea that THRE ARE NO CONCRETE ANSWERS, I tried in my last post to be as objective as I could and not to dismiss your ideas out of hand, but as others have said, it pointless. You will not learn, and that is the worst form of ignorance.

Good bye and Good luck

First of all calling me names is childish. Who says I will not learn? Who says I am brow beating science.

You all can't seem to separate the forest from the trees. This thread is not about science its about ZEALOTRY and its something you all can't seem to recognize.

When people are getting angry and frustrated that someone won't accept what they say as a fact when its just a theory, that is no different to me than a religious fundy flipping out because an atheist says there is no God.

Its the heart of the problem. You keep wanting to discuss science and evolutionary theory.

You've all agreed that there is reason to be skeptical towards Evolution because its not proven and its open to refinement.

What I see here is a lot of double speak. You agree to that but then you get mad if someone actually IS skeptical.

Its a tad silly after a while.

[truethat]

I'd like to explain it a different way because I think Lilly kinda got what I said when I used the term ART to describe the dinosaur collections.

And since Ripley is here we have an artist.

To me what I'm noticing since I'm studying mythologies is that a lot of how Evolution is presented to the public is presented as ART and not science. Its presented as myth. Now this is NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. I keep saying that. This is about a shift is consciousness which is hard for people to understand but PLEASE can you try.

Here is a quote by Norwood Frye who studied mythology.

As a type of story, myth is a form of verbal arts, and belongs to the world of art. Like art, and unlike science, it deals not with the world that man contemplates, but the world that man creates. The total form of art, so to speask is a world whose content in nature but whose form is human. hence when it imitates nature it assimlates nature to human forms The world of art is human in perspective, a world in which the sun continues to rise and set long after science has explained that its rising and setting are illusions. And myth too makes a systematic attemtp to see nature in human shape, it does not simply roam at large in nature like the folk tale.

One way that humans use MYTH is by using Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, games, and unseen or unknown sources of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphous. The term is derived from two Greek words, ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), meaning human, and μορφή (morphē), meaning shape or form. The suffix '-ism' originates from the morpheme -ισμός or -ισμα in the Greek language.

^^^^from Wiki

The idea that the little "Worm" in the Tree of Life site is contemplating his brother and sister offspring is anthropomorphic.

So try to understand that we have a world of refinement in Science and we have wonderful things. But the art of Science is taking on a life of its own.

People say "Oh we know they are just models" but really people believe that the dinosaur models for example represent a real thing. Just like for example, people who read the Harry Potter series who come away really believing that Harry Potter is a real thing somewhere in the back of their minds.

Its the difference between fairy tale and MYTH. And much of what is presented in Science with regard to animals is MYTHIC in the way it uses primitive language.

The story of the Science of Evolution is represented as ART to me. You wouldn't normally think of it that way but it is ART.

Models of animals from the past, drawings by artists are ARTISTIC renditions of the animals. But there is a clear separation in normal art and in mythic art. In that MYTHIC art is believed.

When you see a person prostrate before the statue of Mary or Jesus on the Cross and that person seems to actually believe in what they are looking at, that's mythic art.

As opposed to someone looking at a statue of Teddy Roosevelt perhaps.

When a person gazes with wide eyed wonder at the art of the dinosaur skeleton it is because he believes in the mythic art.

Its a normal reaction. But when this mythology gets so engrained that NOT to believe in it is to anger others, that is a very interesting thing to me.

I do not say that Science is MYTH. Science can not be myth. But the art of science can be.

Does that make more sense?

Edited December 7, 2007 by truethat

[Goblin-5]

They are not being TAUGHT AS SCIENCE

These religious groups can propose all they want, its not going to happen. We have a separation of church and state in this country and Creation myths are NOT Going to be taught in science class.

Show me where its happening? To justify this mad panic about it.

And btw I don't think teachers or scientists speaking out about it is wrong. I think the frustration that explodes is what is wrong.

You can't make a fool think. If these people want to believe their ideas then fine. But why do you care?

Its a competition for followers if its about getting people to believe your theory over the religious one and if that's what you are competing against its turned to religion.

True, the separation of church and state is not the issue. It is a question of education curriculum. Your so called "Creation myths" are being pushed by powerful religous forces. Private universities funded by these groups are already skewing the theory of evolution. The religous lobby has played and continues to play a huge role in the formulation of governmental policy (see abortion issue). If the message is promulgated that evolution is simply a woefully weak idea based on presupposd secularist ideas and is no better than alternative "science" then the local school boards will have little or no choice ut to accept the teaching of Creationism or ID as equally scientifically valid. When (and I do say when because the religous forces in the South are immensly powerful both financially and politically) this occurs it will be far too late to try to counter the idea that these "alternatives" are not scientific as it will be argued that by their very silence on the issue before they were introduced into schools, scientists will have tacitly agreed that they were valid theories.

A good comparitave case would be the field of eugenics which was not scientific but held sway in schools for decades in the 1900's - 1940's with such prestigous institutions as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution providing substantial funding for it. As a "valid" scientific theory it was used as the basis for a myriad of attitudes and laws designed to maintain either the purity of the race (apartheid, marriage laws etc) or to eliminate deleterious contaminants from the human species (killing or sterilisation of mental defectives, sexual perverts (homosexuals), sub species Balcks, Poles, Russians, Jews). While this is an extreme case, the very fact that scientists who knew that the entire field was a crock simply figured that so long as THEY knew that it was a crock, it was not for them to lower themselves into the realm of public debate as t would be beneath the dignity and status of a reputable scientist to do that. As a result a few million people died.

It is not a competition for believers (converts) to evolution... at least not from the evolutionists point. It IS a battle to prevent scientifically provable falsehoods from being promoted as valid alternative fact based theories. All scientists have a responsibility to the truth and to promulgate said truth. Equally (and up to now this has been lacking) they have a duty to combat untruthfullness when they see it being foisted upon both the scientific and non scientific public. I dont know how to make it clearer to you.

[IamsSon]

I'd like to explain it a different way because I think Lilly kinda got what I said when I used the term ART to describe the dinosaur collections.

I do not say that Science is MYTH. Science can not be myth. But the art of science can be.

Does that make more sense?

This is a great post. Really interesting and I think it gives a great insight into how you are looking at this issue and where you're skepticism comes from.

[truethat]

True, the separation of church and state is not the issue. It is a question of education curriculum. Your so called "Creation myths" are being pushed by powerful religous forces. Private universities funded by these groups are already skewing the theory of evolution. The religous lobby has played and continues to play a huge role in the formulation of governmental policy (see abortion issue). If the message is promulgated that evolution is simply a woefully weak idea based on presupposd secularist ideas and is no better than alternative "science" then the local school boards will have little or no choice ut to accept the teaching of Creationism or ID as equally scientifically valid. When (and I do say when because the religous forces in the South are immensly powerful both financially and politically) this occurs it will be far too late to try to counter the idea that these "alternatives" are not scientific as it will be argued that by their very silence on the issue before they were introduced into schools, scientists will have tacitly agreed that they were valid theories.

A good comparitave case would be the field of eugenics which was not scientific but held sway in schools for decades in the 1900's - 1940's with such prestigous institutions as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution providing substantial funding for it. As a "valid" scientific theory it was used as the basis for a myriad of attitudes and laws designed to maintain either the purity of the race (apartheid, marriage laws etc) or to eliminate deleterious contaminants from the human species (killing or sterilisation of mental defectives, sexual perverts (homosexuals), sub species Balcks, Poles, Russians, Jews). While this is an extreme case, the very fact that scientists who knew that the entire field was a crock simply figured that so long as THEY knew that it was a crock, it was not for them to lower themselves into the realm of public debate as t would be beneath the dignity and status of a reputable scientist to do that. As a result a few million people died.

It is not a competition for believers (converts) to evolution... at least not from the evolutionists point. It IS a battle to prevent scientifically provable falsehoods from being promoted as valid alternative fact based theories. All scientists have a responsibility to the truth and to promulgate said truth. Equally (and up to now this has been lacking) they have a duty to combat untruthfullness when they see it being foisted upon both the scientific and non scientific public. I dont know how to make it clearer to you.

So are the evolution myths are they not? Are not Museums filled to the gills with depictions of dinosaurs aimed at children? Lots of pretty decorated statues for the kids to take home? Loads of books telling them all about how the dinosaurs behaved?

Movies filled with Dinosaurs behaving a certain way, Jurassic Park being a number one box office hit, The Land Before Time depicting Anthropomorphic versions of kid friendly human like dinosaurs?

By the way Eugenics is alive and well today its called Genetic Research today and it was and is regarded as science.

This is another thing I notice, when SCIENCE does something and they are wrong down the line its brushed off as though they weren't "real scientists" or they were "mistaken" but in the present day we are supposed to accept that Science is an untarnished field, their track record doesn't look much better than the Creationists.

The Tuskegee medical experiments were done by scientists, the Eugenics field was supported by scientists and the person who introduced Eugenics was supported by Scientists and STILL IS supported by scientists. Galton and Darwin were scientists.

If the entire field knew it was a crock why did Margaret Sanger who was one of the founders of the Planned Parenthood movement support it?

Eugenics was revived by scientists just a few years ago with the Publication of the Bell Curve.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve</a>

You want to make the debate between the nasty old Creationists and the pure Scientists but history doesn't bear out this argument.

Could you explain to me by the way why it is that when science is hideous and unethical Science tries to pretend it had nothing to do with it? Eugenics wasn't shunned by the science community. It was supported by it until it was picked up by Hitler.

Most students don't know anything about Eugenics or the way it unfolded and its funny. Why don't scientists teach them about the mistakes of science?

Edited December 7, 2007 by truethat

[Raptor]

Are not Museums filled to the gills with depictions of dinosaurs aimed at children? Lots of pretty decorated statues for the kids to take home? Loads of books telling them all about how the dinosaurs behaved?

...and again, the harm in this is...?

[hairston630]

So are the evolution myths are they not? Are not Museums filled to the gills with depictions of dinosaurs aimed at children? Lots of pretty decorated statues for the kids to take home? Loads of books telling them all about how the dinosaurs behaved?

Movies filled with Dinosaurs behaving a certain way, Jurassic Park being a number one box office hit, the land before time depicting Anthropomorphic versions of kid friendly human like dinosaurs?

By the way Eugenics is alive and well today its called Genetic Research today and it was and is regarded as science.

This is another thing I notice, when SCIENCE does something and they are wrong down the line its brushed off as though they weren't "real scientists" or they were "mistaken" but in the present day we are supposed to accept that Science is an untarnished field, their track record doesn't look much better than the Creationists.

The Tuskegee medical experiments were done by scientists, the Eugenics field was supported by scientists and the person who introduced Eugenics was supported by Scientists and STILL IS supported by scientists. Galton and Darwin were scientists.

If the entire field knew it was a crock why did Margaret Sanger who was one of the founders of the Planned Parenthood movement support it?

Eugenics was revived by scientists just a few years ago with the Publication of the Bell Curve. Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

You want to make the debate between the nasty old Creationists and the pure Scientists but history doesn't bear out this argument.

I think I see what your saying. Your implying that Scientists today shouldnt fully rely upon their "current" discoveries and call them as fact when in 20 years these may have been incorrect. Similar to previous scientists who consider their current work (of their time) to be solidified, to years down the road, have it refuted by a new discovery or new science?. I think I see what your talking about. So scientists should not rely on their discoveries and concider them factual when in a few years they MAY be refuted?

Hairston

[truethat]

I think I see what your saying. Your implying that Scientists today shouldnt fully rely upon their "current" discoveries and call them as fact when in 20 years these may have been incorrect. Similar to previous scientists who consider their current work (of their time) to be solidified, to years down the road, have it refuted by a new discovery or new science?. I think I see what your talking about. So scientists should not rely on their discoveries and concider them factual when in a few years they MAY be refuted?

Hairston

Yes. And in "depicting them as Art" they are creating a myth surrounding their findings. The models that are presented to the public are usually "believed" to be accurate depictions. And even if its just a matter of color (since so many people brought that up) its drawn into the collective and cultural consciousness as a TRUTH. When its really just ART.

The difference between "just art" and MYTHICAL ART is that people get upset when you don't accept the mythical art because so many people believe it.

So for me when I see Evolutionary Zealots getting angry or mad because someone rejects the picture of the dino as Mythic Art, then this frustration or anger is a sign that a myth is growing out of it.

Its no longer about Scientific Method but about accepting the Myth.

[IamsSon]

...and again, the harm in this is...?

So, you're saying it's OK to teach Creationism as science then? I mean what's the harm right?