scumble on 13/3/2006 at 10:10
I think we're overdue for an amusing derailment. Paz is on the right track but we just need a bit more of a push...
trevor the sheep on 13/3/2006 at 10:35
creationists r ghey
R Soul on 13/3/2006 at 11:39
Quote:
Its not like the Bible explicitaly states that God didn't use evolution and a big bang to create the universe and the life in it.
If God did do that, it would be even more intelligent than just creating fully formed animals in places, so I don't know why the religious can't just think that because then they wouldn't get upset by all this evolution stuff.
BEAR on 13/3/2006 at 12:46
The main problem I see is this gives people the idea that there is actually a debate about the subject. I personally could care less what people want to believe, but to allow highly educated scientists and, well fucktards to present their cases as 'equals' doesnt seem right to me at all.
Printer's Devil on 13/3/2006 at 13:37
It's called the "downside of democracy". As long as well all play nice and pay our taxes, the guv doesn't have to sick the bulldogs on us. Also, that Gary Larson guy is all right.
fett on 13/3/2006 at 16:01
I think part of what's going on with the creationist crowd is a basic mis-trust of the scientific community. Don't forget that in the last 50 years they've told us that the atom is the smallest thing in the universe (wrong), they've changed the age of the universe half a dozen times, and somehow decided (lately) that they had the nutrition pyramid all wrong (oh - and remember when cigarrettes were supposedly GOOD for you back in the 20's and 30's or thereabouts?). The theory of evolution is obviously 'evolving' as is our knowledge of any other given subject. Creationists bank on the fact that science has been off before, while all the time acting like they've solved the puzzle completely.
However - the same is true of the medical and other sciences and there's not near the amount of dis-trust.
trevor the sheep on 13/3/2006 at 16:12
What's this? THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REFINING CONCLUSIONS AS TIME GOES ON?!
HOW FUCKING DARE THEY
Uncia on 13/3/2006 at 16:20
Quote Posted by fett
I think part of what's going on with the creationist crowd is a basic mis-trust of the scientific community. *snip*
Sounds more like they just don't understand how science works.
N'Al on 13/3/2006 at 16:42
Quote Posted by fett
Creationists bank on the fact that science has been off before, while all the time acting like they've solved the puzzle completely.
I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Quote Posted by fett
However - the same is true of the medical and other sciences and there's not near the amount of dis-trust.
I don't know about that.
Yes, scientists are often far too stubborn and obstinate when it comes to their own ideas and opinions, but no scientist worth his salt wouldn't at least accept the
possibility that he or she's wrong - heck, just look at how often Hawking's changed his mind about the origin of the universe. Which is something we don't seem to be getting from the creationists
at all. Then again, a belief wouldn't be a belief if you questioned its content. But that gets us back to the main point of this entire thread: Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, Intelligent Design is a religious belief. Ergo, DE should be taught in science class, ID should NOT. Whether you choose to teach ID in religious education is an entirely different matter. So, there's nothing to say that ID can't be taught at schools, JUST NOT AS AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY IN SCIENCE CLASS!
And anyway, questioning the thruthfulness of an idea or theory is pretty much the backbone of science, it's built into the system! So, you can level a lot of criticisms at science, but not questioning
per se what's going on surely isn't one of them. What you
can criticise, maybe, is the speed and willingness at which this is done.
Boy, that went on for far longer than I'd intended...
scumble on 13/3/2006 at 16:45
Quote Posted by Uncia
Sounds more like they just don't understand how science works.
I think plenty of them know how science works, it's just used in a disingenous way half the time, as I think Nicker said a few posts back - "intellectual dishonesty".
