Femmeworth
Banned
Probably a very long time. :\I wonder how long it will take the US to make a step like this.
You know, considering there are many teachers in the country that don't believe that evolution is real.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dawkins triumphs over creationists - No creationism allowed in UK science classrooms
- Thread starter Korey
- Start date
- Status
Went to a variety of public schools in southern California (Bakersfield to be exact) - not one single mention of creationism touched my ears.
I do hope however that Intelligent Design isn't brushed by the wayside as well though. I view them separately. Although since there isn't much behind ID just yet - it should probably only get a mention in classrooms.
I do hope however that Intelligent Design isn't brushed by the wayside as well though. I view them separately. Although since there isn't much behind ID just yet - it should probably only get a mention in classrooms.
I don't know, I'm forever encouraged by the Kitzmiller v Dover School District case back in 05. But judging from recent developments in Missouri and Indiana, we're going to see an uptick in federal cases like these. Hopefully they all turn out the same with fewer death threats for the presiding judge...
There is nothing behind "intelligent" design. It's hogwash.
astroturfing
Member
less nonsense you mean.
yeah, what exactly about ID should get a mention in a classroom? the proponents never seem willing to specify... because there really is nothing behind it, nothing but religion.
They're aren't separate in any way. Have you ever heard of the textbook "Of Pandas and People?" Its editors literally used Microsoft Word to find and replace every mention of "creation" with "intelligent design," to the point where it actually made some sentences grammatically incorrect because they just didn't give a shit. ID can be mentioned alongside creationism in the footnotes as a crackpot proposal made by those with an anti-science agenda.
Turn my water into wine, first.
No you prove it. I'm not the one who created unsupported garbage.
Well that's because there is no argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Your move, bro. Unless you're going to say that it's only MICRO-EVOLUTION.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Intelligent design is such a bad theory scientifically that teaching it as viable would actually compromise a student's scientific literacy. It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge is obtained.
It's basically the scholarly equivalent of that annoying image macro: "I'm not saying it was a mysterious ill-defined 'designer,' but it was a mysterious ill-defined designer."
Intelligent Design is just the idea of life as we know it being started out by a being much more intelligent then us. Its pretty simple - and yes - has nothing to do with science. Its not something that you teach. But its an idea that has been passed around for centuries.
Now, everyone thinks that nut-job creationists and that idea are one in the same. Its pretty sad. Intelligent Design doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or Christianity. Anyone who says so, doesn't really understand it.
Now, everyone thinks that nut-job creationists and that idea are one in the same. Its pretty sad. Intelligent Design doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or Christianity. Anyone who says so, doesn't really understand it.
In the generic terms you're using, intelligent design is not necessarily connected with any religion in particular. That said, "intelligent design" is being used as a copy-paste replacement for creationism, as mentioned earlier. All the creationist lobbies suddenly became ID lobbies.
Yeah, but we here at NeoGAF aren't them. We should know the difference.
I do agree with you though, on all points. Its pretty sad how the creationists have pretty much taken over ID. So anytime you mention ID, you'll get a face full of vitriol from anti-creationists.
Its funny how we call the term ID 'generic', when the two words should pretty much be taken at face value. But in the realms of politics and religion and science - it certainly isn't.
EDIT: I think this whole debacle is going to actually push science back a few notches. All science is preceded by some nutty idea. We could've used our intellect to possibly find God (whatever that may be), but now the idea is so laughable in the community that its neigh impossible.
Pollux
Member
This first paragraph was type of ID I was talking about. Shouldn't be taught as theory just mentioned in response to the random was of life and universe etc. on phone will elaborate later. But yes...my stupid post was stupid
To some people, if we 'find god with science' - what we found is no longer a God. Even attempting to 'find god' with science is an utter waste of time.
"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"
-Carl Sagan
Pollux
Member
Beautiful quote. And that's generally how I look at science and the universe and the possibility of ET life. But obviously said much better than I ever could.
Anticitizen One
Banned
U.S. is the problem not the U.K.
Citizenkaneclap.gif
Your two sentences have nothing to do with each other that I'm having a hard time finding your point.
To some people, poop is gold. So what. Of course our views would change with new discoveries. Yeah, some people are afraid of it. Some aren't. Neither makes the idea less worthy of exploration.
And why would finding 'God' (again, whatever that may be, not the Judeo-Christian view) be a waste of time? Its the central topic of human existence since the dawn of recorded history.
ALSO: Amazing quote. Wish Sagan was still with us today. And I'm so frickin' afraid for the new version of the Cosmos.
This is a move to preempt this kind of stuff getting a foothold. It may not be a problem now, but it can be down the road.
Like I said before in this thread, Turkey used to be a very secular country, until a shitlord called Adnan Oktar fucked it up.
You can read about what he did to the country and his efforts to do it elsewhere here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
What? They are directly related - a God is an all powerful deity that (to pretty much every religion) exists outside of space and time. How are we supposed to get out of space and time? If we find something that we think is a God, it would have to exist INSIDE of space and time - thus removing it's god status. It's a waste of fucking time looking for God. Ontop of that, if God is all powerful and conscious, we would not be able to find it unless it wanted us to.
What do we do when we find God? What is God? What are we looking for? Either we look for man-made concepts of a deity, or we aimlessly look for something that has characteristics that are completely unknown to us.
I repeat, a big fucking waste of time.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
In a third world country like Venezuela they don't. Don't know about The United States though.
SneakyStephan
Banned
One more country ascending out of the Middle Ages.
Exactly, I went to a catholic school from age 5 to 10 about 20 years ago and the teachers never taught it as fact, they made it very clear that it was all symbolic.
I'm talking the kind of catholic school that had a little church attached to it and did the whole advent candle thing and a few sermons a year and prayers before class.
Hell it was even named Pius X after a pope.
But they never turned it into a brainwashing thing.
Exactly, I went to a catholic school from age 5 to 10 about 20 years ago and the teachers never taught it as fact, they made it very clear that it was all symbolic.
I'm talking the kind of catholic school that had a little church attached to it and did the whole advent candle thing and a few sermons a year and prayers before class.
Hell it was even named Pius X after a pope.
But they never turned it into a brainwashing thing.
Anticitizen One
Banned
It's really bad in Florida where in every college bio class the professor has to give a disclaimer at the beginning before we get into the topic of Evolution. I'm not even an atheist and I think its BS that we have to "be mindful of creationists". Fuck that shit if you don't want to learn don't be in school is what I say.
You sure are bringing a ton of assumptions into this.
1. GOD exists outside of space and time.
2. We can NEVER EVER get out of space and time.
3. We can NEVER EVER find anything outside of space and time.
4. Whatever may have possibly created us, certainly exists outside of space and time.
5. Whatever may have possibly created us, can not be found if it didn't want to.
6. God is all powerful and conscious being.
Widen your horizons and chuck your assumptions out the window. God, as pertaining to the discussion about Intelligent Design, is simply a more intelligent being that created us. Take your religious assumptions out of the equation please.
Take note of this small discovery:
http://io9.com/5873410/breakthrough-cloaking-device-creates-a-hole-in-light-and-time
And realize where we were 1000 years ago, and where we'll be 1000 years from now. Alot closer to what you consider to be 'never'.
ALSO NOTE: EVERYTHING that now know, was once completely unknown to us.
CornBurrito
Member
Why should it be mentioned at all in the science classroom? There is no scientific verification of the idea at present, and the idea doesn't add anything useful to current evolutionary theory.
What if god is defined as a being existing outside of time and space?
In order for one to look for god "scientifically' there needs to be a working definition of god.
What, what?
.... not only atheists are believing in evolution.
Perhaps I don't understand your point. The working definition is the being that began the process of our creation.
Why would we even begin to assume and define God as being outside time and space?
I can't believe it is still human folly to believe we are at the center of the universe. Once our idea of what the universe is expanded - we now begin to believe that we are the center of the very existence of reality.
Who is to say the 'god' that created us is the same 'god' (if there even is one) that created time and space?
It's useless to mention it because there is no evidence of it. What's the point of mentioning any random idea when there is no evidence of it whatsoever?
CornBurrito
Member
And can you give an example of a finding that would be evidence for this being?
The fuck? Saying "god is outside time and space" isn't anything like saying humans are the center of the universe. Nice strawman.
Catholicism officially endorses evolution
My first time learning to multi-quote, its pretty cool. I get where you're coming from. I suppose I don't believe that the idea of a creator is a 'random idea'. Its a belief that has transcended thousands of years from culture to culture. It should be mentioned because it is a very very large part of human history - and statistically a possibility. Its not like saying 'unicorns poop rainbow cookies', at least in my mind. Not to say that it is true. Nowhere have I said it is fact. But if we're only teaching facts to children in school, we're doing something really wrong.
Perhaps you misread my sentence.
I believe saying "our creator is the same being that created the time and space"- is entirely the same as saying "God put us at the center of the universe". How is that a straw-man argument? Its Religious and Cosmological History. Please re-read my last sentence in the last post for clarification.
You're assuming that our creator (aka ID GOD) is the same being that created the universe (aka another variation of GOD). Why do you assume that? If there is a scientific quest for ID GOD, why would you even bring that other possibility into the equation at this time?
The lack of evidence does not preclude anything from being true.
Why does everyone have to reply with the word 'fuck' or 'fucking' too? Its doesn't add anything to the argument. I hope people aren't getting peeved here. This is still a logical discussion on my end.
EXTRA:
Scientist 1: Hey lets start a search for a being that brought us humans to what we are today.
Scientist 2: Ok, well lets start with what we know. We know God is an all powerful being that created the universe and reality.
Scientist 1: ....Uhhh...nice start there Scientist 2.
When I took a biology course before dropping out some girl kept asking "Why would god do that, it doesn't make sense" and the professor just shut her down. I forget exactly what he said, but it was the equivalent of "STFU and learn".
Yup, I went to a catholic primary and highschool, in australia, and this is how it was.
The bible was a bunch of storys that had some good morals attached to most of them. Don't kill and shit.
And when we studied jesus' it was like 'ok, and what is the moral of this story?'
Same here. I didn't get to communion because my church was burned to the ground. But in the time that I was there - it was all about the lessons of the Bible that we could take away.
EXTRA: Its funny to me, how it goes against all human belief that perhaps it was some fat globular piece of crap that spit on our planet - giving us the necessary building blocks for life. Nope, its gotta be some magnificent all knowing being or nothing at all.
I'm actually SAD that this passed. In what kind of world do we live that we actually have to live with crazy theories like creationism and we need to make laws to stop it. Where is the common sense? I'm glad that nobody here as ever tried to tell me about young earth creationism. (Old earth creationism might be possible, who knows, maybe we really begun as Douglas Adams claimed: the third-rate survivors of an alien race whose space ship crashed here. But only in that case )
But only in that case )Hell, even Einstein believed in a God that set the universe in motion. Yeah, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time believed in a (passive) God.
Or it is a parable for the struggles of early mankind and urging them not to stray away from the word of God. Also note the original text doesn't mention Adam and Eve as the only creations. The text actually speaks about the creation of 'them' which means they could have been talking about a bigger group like the 1.000 - 10.000 needed for actual evolution. Really, the Bible is a much better read if you read it as parables instead of historical accounts. It is not a work of history, it is time the church stops pretending it is.
Indeed, and one of my first religion teachers was an actual monk. I don't think I have met any Belgians that believed in creationism except for the ones beloning to one specific religion, and even they tend to go for a more figurative approach of their holy book.
I'm not really against the idea of a creator or anything. Statistically, you could argue that our universe is more likely to have been simulated than not. But whether you like it or not, intelligent design is no longer some innocent other theory. It's been hijacked by creationists and until you can separate them then they should keep that from the science classes.
Is this sarcasm? You can still teach creationism in relevant classes like theology. This just keeps it out of science classes.
It has indeed been hijacked, and I think its the classroom's responsibility to separate them. Not be afraid of them and never tell their students about it. Otherwise we get a bunch of people thinking creationism and intelligent design really are the same thing - halting the forward progress of ideas.
Oh and that idea that all of existence is a simulation is a really interesting one too. Too bad Philosophy is dead and no one gives a shit anymore, its probably where this stuff belongs in the meantime.
No, no sarcasm. And creationism wouldn't even be relevant on current theology anymore as even the Catholic Church has come out for evolution. The historical relevance can of course be still relevant, but the actual explanation of creationism shouldn't belong in school. We also stopped discussing the flat earth principle for instance outside of history, while that too has theological implications and even there it is nothing more than 'people believed the earth was flat until someone pointed out it was round and he got killed.'
I agree, discussing it in philosophy classes is the most appropriate place until there is actual evidence supporting it. We had a good philosophy class when I was in school, and that was a topic we actually spent a lot of time on.
Oh sorry, I completely misread your sentence. I took it the other way somehow.
CornBurrito
Member
I'm not saying to present existing evidence. I'm asking you to give an example of a future finding that you would consider evidence, or a future finding that would disprove intelligent design.
For example:
Hypothesis: There is an invisible dragon in my garage.
Finding that would be evidence for this hypothesis: Upon spreading flour in my garage I find a dragon shaped thing covered in flour.
Finding that would be evidence against this hypothesis: Upon spreading flour in my garage I find nothing. The flour settles on the floor.
Not really, surprisingly. Every now and again there'll be some news story about some small-town community trying to convince people the 1st Amendment doesn't exist (the one that establishes the separation between church and state) and try to fight for the legal right to teach Creationism in some fashion in the classroom.
As others have said, this most often happens in Texas or somewhere else in the south. Places where guys like this are in charge.
You're not asking me to present existing evidence, but in your very example - you use existing evidence: flour, light, vision, gravity. Can you provide an example that actually uses what you're asking for?
Or heck, just get to the point.
Because its pretty obvious that what we're looking for is beyond our current understanding and discoveries.
Lets ask a cave man to provide possible future evidence that the Earth has a molten core while we're at it. He couldn't do it. Doesn't make it not true. Try thousands of years later after many many incremental findings and discoveries - sure its possible to prove.
But really, why are you asking that question? I just wanna know what point you're trying to make.
Or heck, just get to the point.
Because its pretty obvious that what we're looking for is beyond our current understanding and discoveries.
Lets ask a cave man to provide possible future evidence that the Earth has a molten core while we're at it. He couldn't do it. Doesn't make it not true. Try thousands of years later after many many incremental findings and discoveries - sure its possible to prove.
But really, why are you asking that question? I just wanna know what point you're trying to make.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh hey, is it the evidentialism debate again? While it's correct that a caveman could not surmise that the earth has a molten core, neither could we expect him to make that deduction. Whatever rational observations he makes with the evidence he has at hand are the best he can do. Its unreasonable of us to say "well he should just have faith that the core is molten because someone else told him it was so without any evidence of their own"
In that sense, the question of God's existence is as meaningless as the unsubstantiated claim of a molten core. Whether that is "true" or not is irrelevant, what matters is what conclusions we can draw from the evidence we have at hand.
If this were not the case then we would have to give all claims without evidence an equal (and non-zero) level of plausibility, and since there are an infinite number of claims without evidence, well, that's not very practical.
In that sense, the question of God's existence is as meaningless as the unsubstantiated claim of a molten core. Whether that is "true" or not is irrelevant, what matters is what conclusions we can draw from the evidence we have at hand.
If this were not the case then we would have to give all claims without evidence an equal (and non-zero) level of plausibility, and since there are an infinite number of claims without evidence, well, that's not very practical.
Nice post. Except all great discoveries were never very practical. It takes someone with a belief in an idea with low plausibility to actually go out and do the work to discover it. Think of Columbus, because the prevailing thought at the time - with the evidence at hand - was that he'd fall off the earth and die. Instead he found the new world.
Should we all be closed off to the idea that life was influenced by an outside party forever?
Sure the cave-man could never surmise that the earth is molten. Nor should we expect him to believe anyone who says otherwise. But that isn't the point. The point is that reality and our conclusions at the time aren't always aligned. And just because we don't have the evidence, doesn't mean we should preclude the possibility and eventual discover. Otherwise, we'd all still be in Europe - and that's not very practical.
EDIT: Or he could've fell off the damn earth and you'd be right. lol. Also note that none of my debate had anything to do with giving the idea of an outside influencer of our evolution (aka ID GOD) equal or even substantial time with the theory of evolution. Just making sure we're on the same page. Note that it only takes one man, giving substantial time to an idea that is nutty, for them to make a discovery - not the entire populous.
CornBurrito
Member
I don't think those fall under the definition of evidence. Those would be the materials used in my experiment.
I don't think I've argued that.
I don't really get your point here. Look at the bolded. You seem to be arguing that it is currently impossible to find evidence of an intelligent designer given our current tools. So what are you expecting scientists to do?
- Status