Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

"There is no scientific evidence that god exists, but what is the evidence that god does not exist?

The case could be made that the stories in the Bible are just stories, but the existence of god boils down to two improbable ideas, one of which has to be correct:

Either this world we all live on, all of the complex web of life that exists here, all simply sprang into being all on its own, starting with abiogenesis and proceeding on to human intelligence, all with no intelligent guidance, intelligence springing unbidden from the ooze, or

an intelligence we call god started the whole thing in motion, and, perhaps, guides the process from time to time.

Two improbable ideas, yet one or the other has to be true. Science can't tell us which one it is, can it?"

You're giving me an either or argument. If only life was that simple. First of all, I'll give you a link (I do this because Carl Sagan said it better than I ever could and so he should get credit) that explains why intelligent design is a fool's errand.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667#

Natural selection is not a random process. It explains all the diversity of life on this planet. Furthermore, look at genetics, and all that has been discovered in that field in the last 50 years. And what is genetics but natural selection acting on biochemical structures and the processes that build them?

In addition, there are genes that are common to nearly all forms of life, including that of human beings. The genes are found in sponges, in fish, lizards, rodents, and humans. How can anyone deny the intimate connection all life on this planet has with every other form of life here when we know such intimate details to be true?

Secondly, "God did it" doesn't explain anything. If it did, we could all just pack up our microscopes and mass spectrometers and go to church and pray that God will give us a cure for cancer. Good luck with that.

I'll leave you with a citation of some prose written by one of my geology professors years ago and published in his memoirs in 2002. It is entitled the morality of nature:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from
grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man
alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.

Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of
mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

 

[GenSeneca]

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god."

How many of the things I listed for Anti-Theism do you agree with?

All I have done here is express my opinion that certain aspects of certain religions infringe ... on the rights of others

Which rights of yours are being infringed by religious beliefs?

You stated that the existence of their beliefs, "hurts us in countless ways as a nation", you still have yet to list some of them.

You also stated the existence of their beliefs causes "divisiveness", why is disagreement bad and what do you propose to end disagreements?

 

[orogenicman]

How many of the things I listed for Anti-Theism do you agree with?


Which rights of yours are being infringed by religious beliefs?

You stated that the existence of their beliefs, "hurts us in countless ways as a nation", you still have yet to list some of them.

You also stated the existence of their beliefs causes "divisiveness", why is disagreement bad and what do you propose to end disagreements?

1) Does it matter? You make up your on definitions and then expect me to take them seriously. Sorry, not happening.

2) If you are a professional, and someone is making false accusations and spreading malicious disinformation about your profession, you'd not only be a little miffed, you be concerned about how an uninformed public might view the "controversy", and how it affects the education of our children, and the future of said profession. That is part of how it affects me.

As for the children, all you have to do is look around at all the instances where creationists/IDers have influenced school boards with regard to science textbooks and curriculum. Neither creationism nor ID is science (they are religious tenants; the courts have spoken on this); they have NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE CURRICULUM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; doing so is a violation of the separation clause, AND hinders the ability of teachers to prepare our future scientists with the materials they are actually going to need in order for this country to continue leading in science and technology. We are already falling far behind many other industrialized nations as it is. Now, I know that to some, the idea of re-living the bronze age might be appealing, but I for one don't particularly find it appealing at all. I don't believe I am alone.

3) Because all this does is rehash arguments that have been made and discarded for the last 130+ years. All it does is create a huge distraction while proponents of creationism and ID continue to push their agenda (which isn't about science at all, but about getting prayer back into the schools).

"Teach the controversy"? There is no controversy. The theory of Evolution is nearly universally accepted by the world's scientists. And until something else comes along with better explanations, there is no reason to accept every crackpot notion out there and fill our schools with distraction after distraction.

4) I've already said what I think needs to happen. Perhaps you should re-read my prior posts.

 

[GenSeneca]

Does it matter?

You said their views were a form of bigotry...

Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Do you really consider yourself tolerant of their views?

That is part of how it affects me.

You were arguing that their beliefs violated your rights, not that they affected you... Which of your rights are they violating by having an opinion that differs from your own?

doing so is a violation of the separation clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

A local school board is not Congress.

We are already falling far behind many other industrialized nations as it is.

And you blame this on Religion?

which isn't about science at all, but about getting prayer back into the schools

Are you suggesting that if we allowed prayer in school that the Creationists and ID'ers would go away?

I've already said what I think needs to happen.

Ah yes... You did say they needed to "get an education" (which I can only presume means abandon their views and agree with yours) or they should go away.

My question still remains... How do you propose to make that happen?

 

[orogenicman]

You said their views were a form of bigotry...

Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Do you really consider yourself tolerant of their views?

You were arguing that their beliefs violated your rights, not that they affected you... Which of your rights are they violating by having an opinion that differs from your own?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

A local school board is not Congress.

And you blame this on Religion?

Are you suggesting that if we allowed prayer in school that the Creationists and ID'ers would go away?

Ah yes... You did say they needed to "get an education" (which I can only presume means abandon their views and agree with yours) or they should go away.

My question still remains... How do you propose to make that happen?

1) Are you really going to sit there and ask me to be tolerent of bigots?

2) I'm not going to re-hash and re-hash with you this until you figure it out. Go back and re-read my previous posts. It's all there.

3) A local public school board spends federal dollars, and is answerable to Federal laws, and must protect the Constitutional rights of all its students. The Courts have made this very clear. Is there any of this that you don't understand?

4) Don't try the bait and switch game with me. I suggested nothing of the sort, and you know it.

5) Oh yeah, god forbid that they actually get an education, eh? It's more important to lie for Jesus, eh? Jeez!

6) My answer remains the same.

 

[PLC1]

You're giving me an either or argument. If only life was that simple. First of all, I'll give you a link (I do this because Carl Sagan said it better than I ever could and so he should get credit) that explains why intelligent design is a fool's errand.

It is an either/or argument. Either there is a god, or gods, or not. If not, then there is no intelligent guidance behind the emergence of intelligent life on this little speck of dust we call Earth.

Sure, it's possible that natural selection led to human civilization all by itself. It's also possible that human beings are not the apex of evolution. It's quite possible that intelligence will become an evolutionary dead end.

It's also possible that there is some purpose behind it all. Science can not prove that either or argument one way or another. Yes, evolution and natural selection shows how live came to be the way it is. it does nothing to show why.

Or, is there no reason? Is there no meaning to life? Do we just live for a while, then die, then there is nothing? One day, humans will die out, and intelligent life will be over, nothing left but an uncaring universe? How do you know?

Maybe that is how it is. If so, then mankind does not matter. My life and yours does not matter. One day, we will be gone, and no one will be left to care. Maybe I don't believe that because it is too hard to accept, but there is no scientific proof either way.

One day, the sun goes nova, the Earth is no more than a dust mote that has drifted into a campfire, and it's over. No one is left to know or care.

If intelligent life did not perceive the universe, would it still exist?

 

[orogenicman]

"It is an either/or argument. Either there is a god, or gods, or not. If not, then there is no intelligent guidance behind the emergence of intelligent life on this little speck of dust we call Earth."

It is not an either or argument since there is not even a shred of evidence that there is some omnipotent entity running things. The entire notion violates the laws of thermodynamics.

"Sure, it's possible that natural selection led to human civilization all by itself. It's also possible that human beings are not the apex of evolution. It's quite possible that intelligence will become an evolutionary dead end."

Possible? It's nearly as close to a certainty as science ever gets. Whether or not human beings are the apex of evolution is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.

"It's also possible that there is some purpose behind it all."

It's also possible that there are flying spaghetti monsters, but that doesn't mean that they actually do exist.

"Science can not prove that either or argument one way or another. Yes, evolution and natural selection shows how live came to be the way it is. it does nothing to show why."

Why does fire spontaneously erupt from a solution of sodium hypochlorite and calcium carbide?

"Or, is there no reason? Is there no meaning to life? Do we just live for a while, then die, then there is nothing? One day, humans will die out, and intelligent life will be over, nothing left but an uncaring universe? How do you know?"

Maybe that is how it is. If so, then mankind does not matter. My life and yours does not matter. One day, we will be gone, and no one will be left to care. Maybe I don't believe that because it is too hard to accept, but there is no scientific proof either way.

One day, the sun goes nova, the Earth is no more than a dust mote that has drifted into a campfire, and it's over. No one is left to know or care.

If intelligent life did not perceive the universe, would it still exist?"

None of that truly matters, and here is why. Something I read that Einstein said once struck me as being very profound, and difficult, and yet conceptually simple. He said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Although no one can acheive this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

I get more meaning from trying to live up to that ideal than anything I've ever read before or since.

I'll finish up here with another Carl Sagan video:

 

[orogenicman]

Here is one last image I thought could be added to Carl Sagan's pale blue dot video. This is a recent image of the Earth and Moon taken by the Messenger spacecraft, 144 million miles away:

That's us, the Earth and the Moon stuck out there in the vastness of space. So when are we going to start taking care of it? PLC1 asked what purpose is there to life? Well? I can think of none more vital to our own existence. Can any of you?

 

[PLC1]

Here is one last image I thought could be added to Carl Sagan's pale blue dot video. This is a recent image of the Earth and Moon taken by the Messenger spacecraft, 144 million miles away:

That's us, the Earth and the Moon stuck out there in the vastness of space. So when are we going to start taking care of it? PLC1 asked what purpose is there to life? Well? I can think of none more vital to our own existence. Can any of you?

I can not.

We humans, who once considered ourselves to be the center of creation, now know that we occupy one small mote of dust in a vast cosmos. Are we alone? We don't know. Why are we here? We don't know. Is there a purpose to intelligent life? We don't know. Once the Earth is gone, will there be life to care whether the cosmos continues? We don't know. How did life get started? We don't know.

It is all of the things we don't know that makes philosophical discussion possible. The existence of a supreme being, or perhaps beings who have some purpose for this little world is a matter of philosophy, not science.

There is no conflict between science and religion, none. There may be a conflict between some scientific truths, like evolution, and some religious fables, like the creation myths that have sprung up in so many different cultures. There is no more a conflict between theism and science than there is between art and history. They are two different fields of study, two different ways of looking at things. You can not discuss the existence or nature of god from a scientific perspective any more than you can discuss history from a musical perspective. There may be some overlaps, but they are two separate fields of knowledge. There is no conflict between them.

 

[GenSeneca]

1) Are you really going to sit there and ask me to be tolerent of bigots?

Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

You have clearly demonstrated your intolerance toward beliefs and opinions that differ from your own...

Is there any of this that you don't understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Anti-Theists do tend to argue for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

It's more important to lie for Jesus, eh?

Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.

They believe what they say is true.

My answer remains the same

Clearly you are unable to specify which of your rights are being violated by the existence of an opinoin that differs from your own and you are equally unwilling to explain how you would make the people who espouse these opinions "go away".

 

[Gipper]

Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

You have clearly demonstrated your intolerance toward beliefs and opinions that differ from your own...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Anti-Theists do tend to argue for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.


Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.

They believe what they say is true.


Clearly you are unable to specify which of your rights are being violated by the existence of an opinoin that differs from your own and you are equally unwilling to explain how you would make the people who espouse these opinions "go away".

Well that is good enough for me. Orgyman has proven himself to be a bigot.

Why do you hate me because I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

May God forgive you and save your soul. Amen.

Peace be with you.

 

[orogenicman]

Seneca, you and the Gipper clearly are not interested in having a discussion here. Your only interest is in mounting ad hominem attacks against me because of my views against creationism. As such, obviously you have nothing further to add to it, so I'll assume that you can't or won't address the issues I've brought up because you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. You both have my sympathy.

 

[orogenicman]

I can not.

We humans, who once considered ourselves to be the center of creation, now know that we occupy one small mote of dust in a vast cosmos. Are we alone? We don't know. Why are we here? We don't know. Is there a purpose to intelligent life? We don't know. Once the Earth is gone, will there be life to care whether the cosmos continues? We don't know. How did life get started? We don't know.

It is all of the things we don't know that makes philosophical discussion possible. The existence of a supreme being, or perhaps beings who have some purpose for this little world is a matter of philosophy, not science.

There is no conflict between science and religion, none. There may be a conflict between some scientific truths, like evolution, and some religious fables, like the creation myths that have sprung up in so many different cultures. There is no more a conflict between theism and science than there is between art and history. They are two different fields of study, two different ways of looking at things. You can not discuss the existence or nature of god from a scientific perspective any more than you can discuss history from a musical perspective. There may be some overlaps, but they are two separate fields of knowledge. There is no conflict between them.

There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, particularly since so many of faith participate in the scientific process. The fact remains that there are differences between the two that needs to be addressed before things gets even uglier than they already are.

 

[PLC1]

There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, particularly since so many of faith participate in the scientific process. The fact remains that there are differences between the two that needs to be addressed before things gets even uglier than they already are.

If the differences are that one is philosophical, while the other is scientific, then there is nothing to address.

If the differences are that some people refuse to let go of a belief system even when it has been proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt, then perhaps it does, but how?

Adherence to the First Amendment might be a good start.

 

[orogenicman]

This is really not a first amendment issue at all. It's an education issue, and an economic one. The United States is once again missing from the list of top-10 science and math education countries. A new Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study last year confirmed that America lags behind many other industrialized countries at the task of preparing tomorrow's labor force. Long-term economic growth depends on a fully competent talent pool, including workers who can excel in a technology-based economy. But young people in many less-developed countries now outperform their American counterparts in both science and math.

US students' presently have stagnant science scores. This is very disconcerting since we are also confronting the largest number of job losses since 1945. Science and technology have been powerful engines of prosperity since World War II, but, sadly, science education and the versatility of the American workforce are both in decline. In 2006, the respected Programme for International Student Assessment reported that 15-year-olds in the United States ranked 17th on science tests and 24th on math tests, compared with teens from 29 other wealthy nations. The United States is failing to address the problems of science education for tomorrow's workforce. And if we don't so something ahbout that soon, we might well be finding ourselves concentrating more on teaching them Mandarin. I mean that literally. Few other countries have been more successful at getting their students up to speed in science than the Chinese. I think its a wake up call, but if we ignore it, then I think our children are going to be much worse off than we ever were. We are already the first generation in decades who don't believe that our children will be better off than we are.

And so education is, I believe, the most important issue in this debate. And yet, when we look at our education system in this country, we see, for instance, Texas school boards more interested in promoting an anti-science religious agenda than in promoting real science education. It is regressive, and an unfortunately distraction that is damaging to our children's future, and the furture prosperity of this country.