Creationism in USA (and Ireland)

robindch

Not sure if anybody's following the 'Scopes II' trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, very closely, but if not, there's some good reporting being done:

http://ydr.com/news/doverbiology/
http://aclupa.blogspot.com/

Michael Behe, one of very few creationists who's actually had some education in biology, came close to death several times during a long-winded suicide attempt in the witness box:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/90481/

More locally, and apart from Ken Ham UCD in February, and the irrepressibly and emphatically clueless JC around the same time, has anybody noticed any creationism in Ireland? It would be interesting to try to guage the level of support in the country.

MetL

I'm not a catholic or even a christian now, but when I was one, attending a Catholic college in my teens (the 80s), I brought up the topic of evolution Vs bible, and science Vs religion.

As I recall, the religion teacher (a priest) told us that there is no conflict between the bible and evolution. Or for that matter between the Catholic church and science. Not sure I agree, looking back on it. In any case he said that the bible is not a litteral story, the important fact is the God's act of creation, not _how_ or _when_ he created. Evolution was cited as God's chosen mechanism - evolution itself is too clever to have happened by chance (the mind boggles!). Awful logic, but it keeps the masses happy?

In any case, I think this might be why creationism isn't such a big deal here. BUT... I have left education behind and don't have children, maybe it is here and I just don't know about it?

ISAW

robindch wrote:

It would be interesting to try to guage the level of support in the country.

As part of a masters thesis I took a set of about 100 questions from a biblical creationist site and peared them down to about 30 for transition Year students.

I went back to the site and couldnt find the originals. Maybe they did not like the answers they got?

But I did find that third level science and geology courses are asking the same question set and have EXTENDED it.

Maybe someone would be interested in working with me on this in Ireland?

robindch

> Maybe someone would be interested in working with me on this in Ireland?

What kind of work do you have in mind? And with what aim?

Certainly, I think it would be interesting to try to find out whether or not there's much support for creationism within the country, and what personal traits/habits/etc are associated with it.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> Maybe someone would be interested in working with me on this in Ireland?

What kind of work do you have in mind? And with what aim?

Certainly, I think it would be interesting to try to find out whether or not there's much support for creationism within the country, and what personal traits/habits/etc are associated with it.

Survey to transition years to arts/science students and to other groups e.g. Jehovas Witnesses, Scientologists (if you can find more than tem in Ireland) born again christians, skeptics, humanists etc. .
covering pseudo scientific beliefs (astrology, creationism?, etc.)

Ireland's first sceptic barometer.

The aim would be to look at the overall attitudes and also compare them to the sub groups and note what differences there are. Obvoiously one might predict some differences in advance but there might well be some surprises as it wont to happen in research.

then we can doctor the data and say it proves psy powers exist and we will both be famous!

Anyway, to go into detail I would have to go to PM and bind you to confidentiality. After all I dont want someone else continuing on from where I left off before I have now do I?

GuanYin

There is a thread that touches on this in Humanities and I'll just touch on it here.

The media, as with most things, has mis-represented alot of the support on ID. The actual concept of ID can exist quite happily with evolution. ID acts as a "driving force".

However, many creationists have seen this as a way to bring creationism to the classroom and jumped on the bandwagon. This is what has led to the current situation in the US schools. The tragedy is not the stance of the creationists (they are just arguing the same old stuff they have been for the past century) but the fact that the scientists are actually trying to argue back in the scientific concept.

ID's true proponents, see it as something to be taught alongside evolution not as an alternative. Which, imho is perfectly acceptable in the context of a religion or philosophy class (or even a psychology one, if you want to extend the context). There is no empericism to ID so it has no value or meaning as a scientific theory.

I personally don't believe in ID and certainly not creationism, but I have no objection to it being raised in the right context and situation.

Evolution is picked on by fundamentalists because of its history with christianity more than anything else, If you want to make a case for God, look at golden ratio's or Pi or quantum physics or something. Biology doesn't really give you much to work with. I heard a quote this year (I can't remember the name of the scientist to attribute it) summed it up nicely. "You can look at man and see God's Temple, but he certainly can't be found living there"

robindch

> [ISAW] To go into detail I would have to go to PM

Fire away!

> [psi] The media, as with most things, has mis-represented alot of the
> support on ID. The actual concept of ID can exist quite happily
> with evolution. ID acts as a "driving force".

Ignoring the media outlets specifically targeting creationists, most of the media coverage that I've seen from the USA has actually been uncharacteristically good in painting what, after all, is a fairly black-and-white issue.

Creationism/ID cannot co-exist with the current understanding of evolution any more than the flying spaghetti monster can. Anybody who tells you otherwise either misunderstands evolution, misunderstands creationism/ID, or both.

> I personally don't believe in ID and certainly not creationism, but I have
> no objection to it being raised in the right context and situation.

Creationism and ID are, for most intents and purposes, identical. Logically, and from the scientific point of view, they *are* identical. Personally, I've no objection to seeing creationism/ID being raised as a cautionary example of how easy it is to motivate people by appealing to their base instincts, but raising it as a "description" of anything is preposterous, since it describes *nothing*.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

Creationism/ID cannot co-exist with the current understanding of evolution any more than the flying spaghetti monster can. Anybody who tells you otherwise either misunderstands evolution, misunderstands creationism/ID, or both.

Can you please explain the specific areas of the original ID theory that contradicts evolution. In its original theological form, it merely acts as a driving force behind scientific phenomenon.

At its base level, its akin to saying, God made the Big Bang. People can believe in the Big Bang with or without god. Hence the two parties can co-exist quite happily.

Likewise, the actual evolutionary process is not in dispute in ID. ID merely suggests that Something (Flying spaghetti monster or not) put the process into motion.

Creationism and ID are, for most intents and purposes, identical.

Apart from the bit where creationists believe in the literal bible adam and eve, 7 days yada yada yada and ID supporters accept that evolutionary process may have occured (albeit at the will of god)? Otherwise *exactly* the same </sarasm>

What is currently in the media in the US is not strictly ID. At least not in the form of the original concept. Which sorta knocks your "good reporting" claim above.

Logically, and from the scientific point of view, they *are* identical.

Please justify this statement. For instance, one of the leading ID-ers is a buddhist who doesn't believe in the teachings of the bible, let alone genesis.

Personally, I've no objection to seeing creationism/ID being raised as a cautionary example of how easy it is to motivate people by appealing to their base instincts, but raising it as a "description" of anything is preposterous, since it describes *nothing*.

Ok, I think maybe you should probably go read the works of Paley, Schiller, Allman and Meyer, find out what ID actually *IS* and then come back and debate this.

robindch

> Can you please explain the specific areas of the original ID
> theory that contradicts evolution.

If you're not aware of these, then it might be worth your while taking a look at the good folks over in talkorigins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

...who've put together a good long list of rebuttals to creationists/IDrs, listing, in each instance, what the creationists/ID folks are saying, and where they're going wrong.

> ID supporters accept that evolutionary process may have occured

Some do and some don't. Some argue that speciation is impossible, some that it's possible, some that it's a denial of the bible or their own particular holybook (there are islamic creationists too), while some don't understand what it is; some deny any evolution at all, and some conflate evolution with biogenesis; many know nothing at all while many more are wildly misinformed. The only common factor amongst all the creationist/ID advocates is that each of them wants to believe that there's an invisible man in the sky who made them all.

> you should probably go read the works of Paley,
> Schiller, Allman and Meyer, find out what ID
> actually *IS* and then come back and debate this.

I'm quite familar with Paley's arguments and they've not evolved much since he produced them, whether in the works of Schiller or the christian fundamentalist Meyer, a founding member of the creationist "discovery institute".

If you'd like to take part in a debate on creationism/id, do feel free to drop over to the christianity forum where there's one going on at the moment:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566

GuanYin

you're using a partisan site as an example. Very convincing. You still haven't actually backe dup your assessment that ID and creationism are identical.

In fact, by claiming "some do and some don't" accept evolution, you are contradicting your initial assertion, seeing as creationists by definition, can't accept evolution. So again, in light of this concession, please back up your initial comments.

Well thats strange, because you do realise that ID theology is separate from christianity then. And hence creationism? In fact one of the leaders within the ID movement is a Buddhist (Ken Wilbur).

Just because a large section of the loudest ID-er are christians, it doesn't mean that the actual theological concept is christian.

If you have a good read up on the area, you'd discover that ID is quite far removed from creationism as an ideal, but unfortunately mis-represented by creationists.

I'm banned from christianity so I can't participate there.

robindch

> you're using a partisan site as an example

Well, it's certainly partisan in the sense that it tends towards accuracy in reporting what people on both sides of the bunfight are saying. I can't immediately see why you might think that this is a bad thing.

> You still haven't actually backe dup your assessment
> that ID and creationism are identical.

Take another look at the last sentence in the third paragraph in my posting above.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

Take another look at the last sentence in the third paragraph in my posting above.

Yes I see:

The only common factor amongst all the creationist/ID advocates is that each of them wants to believe that there's an invisible man in the sky who made them all.

Thats a big step away from your previous post which says:

Creationism and ID are, for most intents and purposes, identical

In fact, it may even contradict it.

and certainly it doesn't lend itself to any clarity as to why:

Creationism/ID cannot co-exist with the current understanding of evolution any more than the flying spaghetti monster can. Anybody who tells you otherwise either misunderstands evolution, misunderstands creationism/ID, or both.

The core of ID theology is that there is someone or something influencing the creation of the world. It doesn't specify creationism or evolution or any such process. In fact, theologically evolution and ID don't contradict each other. Evolution deals with the facts of the matter, it has no concern of theological ideas. And all ID says is there is something influencing life.

Now, I'll clarify, I don't buy into any of this myself, BUT, I'd like you to clarify that last quote of yours. BEcause you've offered nothing to back it up.

robindch

No, I haven't contradicted myself. Creationism/ID/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is the simple assertion that there's an unknown something which has created life -- creationists call it 'god'/'allah'/whatever, while IDr's call it a designer -- the difference is purely in nomenclature. Their "proofs" are "supported" in (a) creationism by some selective quotes from an old book, while in (b) ID, by some second-rate, and very faulty, sums. Same nonsense, different way of saying it.

If you believe that ID and creationism are different, then I suggest that you look up the "Wedge Document" on the internet which explains the strategy that creationists must adopt (namely disguising creationism as 'ID') in order to force religion into schools in the USA. This amusingly incriminating document, written by Meyer's 'discovery institute' can actually be found on the DI website at the following address:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

Enjoy!

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

No, I haven't contradicted myself. Creationism/ID/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is the simple assertion that there's an unknown something which has created life -- creationists call it 'god'/'allah'/whatever, while IDr's call it a designer -- the difference is purely in nomenclature. Their "proofs" are "supported" in (a) creationism by some selective quotes from an old book, while in (b) ID, by some second-rate, and very faulty, sums. Same nonsense, different way of saying it.

If you believe that ID and creationism are different, then I suggest that you look up the "Wedge Document" on the internet which explains the strategy that creationists must adopt (namely disguising creationism as 'ID') in order to force religion into schools in the USA. This amusingly incriminating document, written by Meyer's 'discovery institute' can actually be found on the DI website at the following address:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

Enjoy!

No, Creationism implies literal belief in Genesis while ID implies blief ina creator.

That is a hell of a difference.

The flaw in your argument (and its a giant flaw) is that you indiscriminately lump all ID into one category.

As I already stated, many creationists adopt ID theology as a tool to support their beliefs. That does not mean that all ID theology fits this bill, much the same way as all chistrians aren't catholics.

If you are not prepared to step back and take this simple fact on board, there is very little point in continuing this discussion, because it would lack any reason or veracity on your part.

robindch

> Creationism implies literal belief in Genesis while ID implies blief ina creator.

Not right. Biblical creationism, which is what you seem to be referring to, is a specific instance of general creationism (or just 'creationism') which is logically equivalent to ID, as above. You should read the wedge document, it's quite interesting actually to see that some religionists are sufficiently wound up about all of this stuff that they publish strategy documents and pump tens of millions of dollars into PR and propaganda outfits like the DI, ICR, AiG, DrDino and other pious frauds. A sign of the times, I suppose.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

> Creationism implies literal belief in Genesis while ID implies blief ina creator.

Not right. Biblical creationism, which is what you seem to be referring to, is a specific instance of general creationism (or just 'creationism') which is logically equivalent to ID, as above. You should read the wedge document, it's quite interesting actually to see that some religionists are sufficiently wound up about all of this stuff that they publish strategy documents and pump tens of millions of dollars into PR and propaganda outfits like the DI, ICR, AiG, DrDino and other pious frauds. A sign of the times, I suppose.

You're still attributing religious institutions with a theology. Thats a very illogical, unreasonable and stereotyping assumption to make.

ID as a theology is not creationism as you have asserted. You can be an ID-er without being a creationist. The wedge document relates to a group of people, not a theology.

I'm making an argument for the tehology, you're attributing the theology to an institute or body of people.

Do you see the flaw in this?

robindch

> The wedge document relates to a group of people, not a theology.

In that case, I suggest that you have another read of it, 'specially the last bit which contains the original 'wedge' text, and this theological comment:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Does this make it clear enough?

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

> The wedge document relates to a group of people, not a theology.

In that case, I suggest that you have another read of it, 'specially the last bit which contains the original 'wedge' text, and this theological comment:

Does this make it clear enough?

But thats put forward by a group. Thats not what the original theology of ID is.

You seem to have great difficulty in separating the difference between theological ideal and practice put forward by a group of people.

For instance: the ideal of christianity (or even catholicism), is NOT that put forward by the catholic church.

The wedge document is not the theology of ID. Where exactly is your difficulty in assimilating this very simple piece of information.

Incidently, you have yet to reconsile your original assertion that ID and creationism are identical, with the later assertion that they only always share the notion of a higher being or creator. Of course, I'm not surprised you won't conceed anything. I find there is more dogma and blind rhetoric and among skeptics than most religious organisations. And before you start on, I'm actually a professional scientist who doesn't believe in ID, creationism or any other such theology. I do however, believe that one should actually know the subtle differences in making an argument.

In the ID vs science debate, scientists are just as ignorant as creationists in sticking to the matter at hand.

robindch

> the ideal of christianity (or even catholicism), is NOT
> that put forward by the catholic church.

Leaving aside the petty jibes in your post, you do raise, by implication, two interesting questions here which I've never seen adherents of any particular religion raise. Which are: (a) what does a person have to believe so that they can feel that they're able to call themselves "adherents" of some religious belief (ie, the people who created the wedge document believe sincerely themselves to be creationists, IDr's and christians), and (b) why is there so much variation in this beleif (ie, why do some people not believe that the believers are stating the truth concerning their beliefs).

While these fights over nomenclature are as daft as they are common amongst various religions, I've never really understood why people bother to get so hung up upon names, or spend so much time trying to justify their belief in one particular interpretation of some creed-du-jour, rather than actually trying to advance or develop the belief itself.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

Leaving aside the petty jibes in your post, you do raise, by implication, two interesting questions here which I've never seen adherents of any particular religion raise.

I'm not an adherent to any particular religion per se and if you took petty jibes from my post, apologies, they were not intended as jobes, merely my opinion.

Which are: (a) what does a person have to believe so that they can feel that they're able to call themselves "adherents" of some religious belief (ie, the people who created the wedge document believe sincerely themselves to be creationists, IDr's and christians),

Well you see, thats the issue. The question you must ask yourself is, is the reverse implicitly true?

ie: Do all the people who see themselves as ID-er agree with the tenants of the Wedge document?

The answer of course, is no. There are at least three leading ID-er who are not from the christian faith (I mentioned the most prominant one already) and who, in their works, merely believe that there was something before to set the natural laws in place.

Now I personally don't have any opinion on this either way as there is no evidence to suggest there was or wasn't, but as a theological question, I respect the asking of it, because history has shown us the importance of asking questions, scientific, theological or otherwise.

and (b) why is there so much variation in this beleif (ie, why do some people not believe that the believers are stating the truth concerning their beliefs).

And I'd try and answer this point by saying it is the nature of humans. We are a self serving bunch by nature. The minute any ideal leaves the theological arena and enters some sort of organisational structure where questions are not encouraged, it inevitably becomes self-serving. By and large, religions warp because of personalities, ambition, corruption and greed. It is, in effect, political.

While these fights over nomenclature are as daft as they are common amongst various religions, I've never really understood why people bother to get so hung up upon names, or spend so much time trying to justify their belief in one particular interpretation of some creed-du-jour, rather than actually trying to advance or develop the belief itself.

Again, you are not separating the belief from the (organised?) religion. They are in fact to very distinct entities.

For instance, the idea of skepticism, is a very easy concept to understand. It implies scientific reason and logic. Yet the quality of posting among skeptics (or those who would call themselves skeptics) on this board in many and varied. Many enter into reasoned debate and will consider points of view from other posters. Many blindly follow the rigour of what they have read or been told and will not deviate from that viewpoint no matter what argument is put before them.

Would you be happy if everyone who wished to see what the Irish Skeptics were about, were only initially exposed to the arguments and postings of Williamgrogan (who could be considered by many to have been very self serving and personally motivated in some of his posts) and made their mind up on IS through that alone?

Yes you would find that there were many many people who agreed and embraced his reasoning and ideas, but that would not imply that ALL people who would consider themselves skeptics are like this.

IS is not a religion, but the same concept can be applied to any interest group you care to choose.

robindch

Here's a bit more on the Republicans in Dover who put creationism on their science curriculum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html

...and their unhappy fate at the hands of the voters of Dover

:cool:

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

Here's a bit more on the Republicans in Dover who put creationism on their science curriculum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html

...and their unhappy fate at the hands of the voters of Dover

:cool:

Sweet isn't it

To be fair, I think people are making a far bigger deal out of Kansas than needs be. Its really more local politics than an affront to science.

For anyone with a reasonable memory will remember that this stunt was pulled before, Evolution was actually banned on the Kansas State curriculum in 1999. Which meant no exposure at all for students. At least now, students are allowed make up their own minds (even if it is a farce).

In 2001, Kansas voters ousted that schoolboard too and normal service was resumed.

I'll give the current situation a 18 months before its resolved.

robindch

> I think people are making a far bigger deal out of Kansas than needs be

You're quite possibly right in this, but having said that, reading the wedge document does rather suggest that getting ID onto the curriculum is one part of a specific strategy in which is intended to install fundamentalist christianty as the dominant political force in the USA (with frankly predictable results for the rest of us). Take a look, for example, at the first "application" of the "statement of worldview" of the fundamentalist Patrick Henry College:

http://www.phc.edu/about/BiblicalWorldview.asp

This institution is closely linked with the White House (internships are given preferentially to PHC students) and seems, as far as I can make out, to be attempting with considerable success to turn itself into the American, or at least the Republican, version of the French ENA.

While I'm not a conspiracy merchant and can live happily until my dying day without ever hearing of Kansas again, the above does give me a dose of the willies...

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

> I think people are making a far bigger deal out of Kansas than needs be

You're quite possibly right in this, but having said that, reading the wedge document does rather suggest that getting ID onto the curriculum is one part of a specific strategy in which is intended to install fundamentalist christianty as the dominant political force in the USA (with frankly predictable results for the rest of us). Take a look, for example, at the first "application" of the "statement of worldview" of the fundamentalist Patrick Henry College:

http://www.phc.edu/about/BiblicalWorldview.asp

This institution is closely linked with the White House (internships are given preferentially to PHC students) and seems, as far as I can make out, to be attempting with considerable success to turn itself into the American, or at least the Republican, version of the French ENA.

While I'm not a conspiracy merchant and can live happily until my dying day without ever hearing of Kansas again, the above does give me a dose of the willies...

I think what makes this so unlikely is that the US will never change the constitutional amendments required to make it so. The one thing that US politicians will always stop short of is tampering with the constitution. This is why the gun laws in the US will always remain, even after incidents like columbine and to a lesser degree 911 (well that and the fact that you'll never get anyone brave enough to actually go down to the southern states and get everyone to hand their guns over).

Every single US president has been an openly active christian (whether personally or politically motivated) and many have had strong ties to the church, but not one of them has tried to take on a change to the first amendment.

samb

In trying to taclke this extreme denial of reality we should try to embrace the moderately religious and try to emphasise that god and reality are not incompatible concepts. The earth being 6,000 years old is incompatible.

Oh, when I said god and reality are compatible I meant theoritically, if thier actually was a God. Very unlikely.

Its like dealing with terrorism, if your attack them they will become more extreme. We need moderation even if it is a little irrational.

Also try not to be too condesending towards the moderately religiuos.....however hard that may be somethimes...:D

GuanYin

samb wrote:

In trying to taclke this extreme denial of reality we should try to embrace the moderately religious and try to emphasise that god and reality are not incompatible concepts. The earth being 6,000 years old is incompatible.

Well you're talking about one main religion there actualy, not the world populations of "moderately religious" as a whole.

Furthermore, the head of the churchof the specific religion you're alluding to, has conceeded that that genesis defined creationism is not literal.

If you wish to be considered scientific, please try not to generalise, speak (or in this case type) in clear concise terms and separate specific facts from unspecific wooly thinking.

Ok, I'll preface this next bit with "I don't believe in the 'christian god'"

Oh, when I said god and reality are compatible I meant theoritically, if thier actually was a God. Very unlikely.

Ok, you seem to be falling on science to launch this attack on "belief based systems", so lets turn the tables.

What scientific evidence do you have that there is no "higher being". You say that it is "extremely unlikely" I'd like to see source material or some sort of reference that separates that statement as a qualified scientific conclusion, as opposed to .wait for it...your own belief.

Now, like I said in the preface to this, I don't believe in god myself, but its my belief. Therefore I'min no position to mock anyone elses belief.

I love science, I've devoted my life to it. But I can't abide by thye misuse of so-called scientific reasoning. Which you are clearly protraying here.

Putting it in simple terms, if you're going to do something "in the name of science" then do it properly and scientifically, otherwise you're being as much of a sham as all the con artists the irish skeptic society detests.

Its like dealing with terrorism, if your attack them they will become more extreme. We need moderation even if it is a little irrational.

Surely by definition, you would be referring to the "extremely religious" in this analogy and not the "moderately religios" who you referred to above. How do the moderately religious act like terrorists. Where and when have they (the moderately religious) become more extreme under challenge. Surely the whole point of referring to them as "moderates" inferrs that they do NOT tend to wards extremism.

Do you see my point on being clear when you make an argument?

Also try not to be too condesending towards the moderately religiuos.....however hard that may be somethimes...:D

Well I try not to be too condescending towards those who are unable to string a coherent argument together, don't understand the concept of scientific debate or inquiry, confuse tehir own personal "belief" with a scientific axiom and haven't researched simple terms like "moderate" and "extreme" before using them in an inappropriate analogy.

Of course, I generally fail in this endeavour.

Yossie

Hi samb. Only your ninth post in and already you get savaged by some condescending “scientificer-than-thou”.:o

It is my belief that psi's post was deliberately rude with the intension of trying to intellectually bully another poster. I can now see why the christian forum might have band him. Perhaps they ran-out of cheeks to turn. {In terms of clarity I have difficulty with some of psi posts, I probably would get a more realistic interpretation if I were to square him. Hehe!:D }

I would suggest that “a nice tone” is generally an important part of effective communication.


Although I don’t fully agree with the sentiment of samb’s post it is easy to see the point he/she was making and only a pedantic (NOT scientific) reading of it could follow on to psi's response. Anyway, scientific writing is a necessarily rigid exercise used pretty much exclusively when publishing in a scientific field. It is not ideally suited to human interaction on other topics.

Re: Beliefs
On a human level, beliefs are all we have. However all beliefs are not equally valid (which surely must be one of the core tenements of being a skeptic). Rational enquiry, which science is a part of, is the human endeavour that aims to evaluate and compare these differing “beliefs” to establish which ones are a more reliable basis for making decisions about the world.

Re:God
Psi asks samb to show evidence for his/her claim that a "higher being does not exist”, which is surely the oldest one in any theists book (a.k.a. “the invisible gardener” debate), since it is nigh-on impossible to disprove anything, c.f. “flying spaghetti monster”, “orbiting teapot”, etc.

My myself and ISAW have had a length debate on god in the “Why isn’t the ISS exclusively atheist in outlook?” thread, so I don’t want to colonise this thread with that issue.

But on science and atheism….
Science by definition is materialist; hence it is perfectly scientific to say that chances are there is no god, no “magical flying spaghetti monster”, no “magical orbiting teapot”, no toothfairy, etc.

GuanYin

Yossie wrote:

Although I don’t fully agree with the sentiment of samb’s post it is easy to see the point he/she was making and only a pedantic (NOT scientific) reading of it could follow on to psi's response. Anyway, scientific writing is a necessarily rigid exercise used pretty much exclusively when publishing in a scientific field. It is not ideally suited to human interaction on other topics.

Yet it is difficult to perform a scientific dissection of a topic, with unclear, ambiguous language. Would you not agree?

Re: Beliefs
On a human level, beliefs are all we have. However all beliefs are not equally valid (which surely must be one of the core tenements of being a skeptic). Rational enquiry, which science is a part of, is the human endeavour that aims to evaluate and compare these differing “beliefs” to establish which ones are a more reliable basis for making decisions about the world.

Indeed, but there is a marked difference (even outside of the pedantic realm) between attacking the belief and attacking the believers for believing. Its a subtle difference, but one that makes a world of difference between logical or skeptical thinking and say, just being - as you put it - rude.

Re:God
Psi asks samb to show evidence for his/her claim that a "higher being does not exist”, which is surely the oldest one in any theists book (a.k.a. “the invisible gardener” debate), since it is nigh-on impossible to disprove anything, c.f. “flying spaghetti monster”, “orbiting teapot”, etc.

I agree totally. And it is my opinion that science has no business lowering itself to such endeavours. Higher beings and their existence are not a topic for science, as science is based on emperical evidence or the elimination of other probabilities. We don't have either here and the attempts of scientists to belittle theologies through science, is a simple knee-jerk reaction to the action of evangelical opposition to science. Whats the point in that, its sinking to their level.

Theology and philosophy are the realms of this debate, not science.

But on science and atheism….
Science by definition is materialist; hence it is perfectly scientific to say that chances are there is no god, no “magical flying spaghetti monster”, no “magical orbiting teapot”, no toothfairy, etc.

No, it is perfectly scientific to say that there is no evidence of god, flying spaghetti monster, magical orbiting teapot or toothfairy. However, without a set of conditions to test a hypothesis, science cannot apply itself to tackling the question.

Yossie

Originally Posted by psi
Yet it is difficult to perform a scientific dissection of a topic, with unclear, ambiguous language. Would you not agree?

I’m sceptical of the use of “scientific dissection” as a linguistic analytical tool. In fact I’m of the opinion that linguistic deconstruction doesn’t bring much to a debate about issues, where it is the substance of points made that are of import. Naturally a minimum level of coherence and clarity are required. (Which is my big problem, since words don’t come easy to me. Unfortunately, there are also a few around the ISS board for whom language is a big part of it.)

Hence, I thought it was pedantic of you to labour over the words samb used and completely ignore the points he/she raised; which were

1. Why not take a softer line with those who are only moderately religious (in general) which would allow the highlighting/isolation of the loonier ones who are creationist, etc.
2. Taking a hard-line, (as in the case of terrorists etc), can be counterproductive by turning moderates off your opinion and hence drive them into the arms of the more extreme.

Both points were valid, clear and coherent. (Although I really don’t agree with either - sorry samb ) These are what your reply should have addressed.

.....there is a marked difference (even outside of the pedantic realm) between attacking the belief and attacking the believers for believing. Its a subtle difference, but one that makes a world of difference between logical or skeptical thinking and say, just being - as you put it - rude.

As regards you getting the ball and not the man, a.k.a. attacking the belief and not the believer. I would consider………

Well I try not to be too condescending towards those who are unable to string a coherent argument together, don't understand the concept of scientific debate or inquiry, confuse tehir own personal "belief" with a scientific axiom and haven't researched simple terms like "moderate" and "extreme" before using them in an inappropriate analogy.

……..to be on the rude side with not much subtlety about it.



Anyway....

........And it is my opinion that science has no business lowering itself to such endeavours. Higher beings and their existence are not a topic for science.......

I used the term “rational enquiry” earlier so that we are not straight-jacked by the rigors involved in talking in precise and pure scientific language; such talk, as I have said, has a relatively small area of application and an even smaller audience. So of course pure science doesn’t address magical teapots etc. In fact your own co-opting of science into dissecting language doesn’t fit with your later narrow, rigid restriction of it to just lofty pure science. I think if we just restrict ourselves to drawing a line under pure, hard science and ignore the rest of the “rational enquiry family” and hence claim that we can't comment scientifically on anything else, is to cut of our nose to spite our face. It does not mean that these issues cannot be resolved by a rational/scientific/sceptical approach.

One can still objectively, rationally and with respect for evidence/reality (i.e. scientifically) say that evolution is superior to creationism (and/or ID); that torture is wrong; that the Holocaust did happen; that homeopathy doesn’t work; and that atheism is superior to theism/agnosticism. These are exceptionally important issues that should be dealt with scientifically and imho do not represent a “lowering to their level” - as you put it.

No, it is perfectly scientific to say that there is no evidence of god, flying spaghetti monster, magical orbiting teapot or toothfairy. However, without a set of conditions to test a hypothesis, science cannot apply itself to tackling the question.

The scientific chances of my phone turning into a cabbage can be regarded as very low. Would you agree? Or would you feel that you could only go as far as saying that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that my phone will turn into a cabbage? If so, is this equivalent to there being no evidence that my phone will be stolen on my way home? Can we not scientifically differentiate between these two possibilities and identify one as more probable than the other even though there is no direct evidence and both are untestable?

.........the attempts of scientists to belittle theologies through science, is a simple knee-jerk reaction to the action of evangelical opposition to science. Whats the point in that, its sinking to their level.

Atheists and in particular atheist scientists rarely only restrict their beliefs to "no god exists", what you tend to find is that these people (me include) have a worldview, which atheism is part of; but, because theism is such a popular and widespread delusion are forced to be labelled by that one issue. In reality they also don’t believe that sugar-bowls have souls, or in mother earth or ghosts or tarot card readings, etc. It is way too narrow to restrict it to just the god question or some such, when it is really about differing worldviews.

The point is about trying to convince people of that worldview rather than just winning them over on a case-by-case basis. Your idealised view of pure science cannot support itself without the justification from the worldview provided by science's "rational enquiry" underpinnings.



We’re way off topic with all this stuff so back to “creationism in Ireland”.
Anecdotally, I'm finding creationism (or at least radical doubt about evolution) to be more and more common. The last argument I had with a creationist was with a nice young chap on the nitelink from town. He sat down beside me and took out his little Gideon’s bible and things kicked-off from there.

If they're on the dublin bus "vomit-comic" at 3 in the morning then they are everywhere!:eek:

GuanYin

Yossie wrote:

I’m sceptical of the use of “scientific dissection” as a linguistic analytical tool. In fact I’m of the opinion that linguistic deconstruction doesn’t bring much to a debate about issues, where it is the substance of points made that are of import. Naturally a minimum level of coherence and clarity are required. (Which is my big problem, since words don’t come easy to me. Unfortunately, there are also a few around the ISS board for whom language is a big part of it.)

You don't need to be overly eloquant, you just need to know the right terms and so to speak, know your enemy.
Simple subtle differences between a belief, the believer, the moderates, the extremists and the organisations is a good start. They're not all one item to deal with, they're a complex social structure of differing views, like any organisation, even ISS.

Hence, I thought it was pedantic of you to labour over the words samb used and completely ignore the points he/she raised; which were

1. Why not take a softer line with those who are only moderately religious (in general) which would allow the highlighting/isolation of the loonier ones who are creationist, etc.
2. Taking a hard-line, (as in the case of terrorists etc), can be counterproductive by turning moderates off your opinion and hence drive them into the arms of the more extreme.

Ok, my issue with samb was that the points he/she made took some huge assumptions which simply make a big difference to the points. But on the specific points:

1: Tyring to "convert" creationists, moderates or not, is just as bad as extremists in religion. That aside, the post was highly condescending to those it seeks to embrace.

2: is a good point, but again, I think that the differences between moderates and extremists in any given religion has little to do with the stance on evolution. In fact, in my experience, the people who see the creationist-evolution issue as a high agenda are the "loony" religious extremists and the just as loony evolution extremists. Most reputable scientists couldn't be arsed getting involved in the debate and most religious moderates could care less.

Both points were valid, clear and coherent. (Although I really don’t agree with either - sorry samb ) These are what your reply should have addressed.

I'd disagree with you here.

As regards you getting the ball and not the man, a.k.a. attacking the belief and not the believer. I would consider………

……..to be on the rude side with not much subtlety about it.

Well take the post in context and you might notice there was a hint of irony in there. Perhaps directly attributable to the last line in the quote I was responding to. I still made a general comment, I didn't actually attack the poster, more the lack of logic in the post.

The only personal attack on this thread is from you at me.
So you can hardly judge.

One can still objectively, rationally and with respect for evidence/reality (i.e. scientifically) say that evolution is superior to creationism (and/or ID);

Fair enough.

that torture is wrong; that the Holocaust did happen;

I'm not convinced that you can scientifically conclude torture is wrong. Its a theological debate imho.

that homeopathy doesn’t work;

You'd need to define what you mean by work in this instance.

and that atheism is superior to theism/agnosticism.

By what measurement would you put forward this?

These are exceptionally important issues that should be dealt with scientifically and imho do not represent a “lowering to their level” - as you put it.

Ok, exactly how do you scientifically establish grounds for measurment of theological ideas?

The scientific chances of my phone turning into a cabbage can be regarded as very low.

Under the laws we observe yes.

Would you agree? Or would you feel that you could only go as far as saying that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that my phone will turn into a cabbage?

Its an entirely different scenario. Mainly because we understand the physics required for such and incident to occur. We understand the atomical arrangements and the structures and understand entropy and such, all of which would govern such an occurance. Based on our vast knowledge of the permutations involved, we can scientifically conclude the probability of such an occurance is low.

Now apply the same procedure to any of the scenarios you put forward above that I have questions.

If so, is this equivalent to there being no evidence that my phone will be stolen on my way home? Can we not scientifically differentiate between these two possibilities and identify one as more probable than the other even though there is no direct evidence and both are untestable?

Again, you can conclude the probability based on the relative circumstances of your walk home. How far, how bad the area, the time you walk home. The crime statistics in the area. Your size, your age, your height. And someone could give you odds. The know variables are FAR less complete than your previous phone to cabbage scenario, so the "odds" put forward in terms of probability, would reflect this.

You seem to have a mis-conception of what science is, what it can do and how you apply it.

Science replies in emperical evidence, a knowledge of the area it is applied to. This is where ID and creationism fails in the science arena. Neither can provide these things. That shouldbe the end of it, but then you get people following ID and creationism out of the science arena, into a theological one, and trying to win their case there. It makes no sense to do this.

In the same way, you can only apply the scienific rigour, to systems you can understand. We have evidence of evolution and how it works, We can apply it there. How the hell do you apply it to whether athiesm is better than theism? What basis do you measure?

Atheists and in particular atheist scientists rarely only restrict their beliefs to "no god exists", what you tend to find is that these people (me include) have a worldview, which atheism is part of; but, because theism is such a popular and widespread delusion are forced to be labelled by that one issue. In reality they also don’t believe that sugar-bowls have souls, or in mother earth or ghosts or tarot card readings, etc. It is way too narrow to restrict it to just the god question or some such, when it is really about differing worldviews.

You have just entered into a theological/philosophical debate.

The point is about trying to convince people of that worldview rather than just winning them over on a case-by-case basis.

Your idealised view of pure science cannot support itself without the justification from the worldview provided by science's "rational enquiry" underpinnings.

whats that got to do with any of the stuff you put out above.

If they're on the dublin bus "vomit-comic" at 3 in the morning then they are everywhere!:eek:

This is your biggest problem here. You are just like they are in approach, in dedication, you just have opposite views of the same "theology".

samb

psi, perhaps I was didn't explain my point very clearly. All I meant to say was that we should try to embrace the moderately religious (meaning those NOT inclined to extremism or creationism) and in doing so try not to be too patronising towards them. We can't help but be partronising and outraged towards the extremists because of the extent to which they lack reason. (must I qualify this statement with an explanation or references).

I am an athiest and do not BELIEVE therefore in god. I think I should be able to say this without explaining myself, must I explain everything I say even when it is not particularly relevant? I made the assumption that most of the people on this forum were also, sorry.

''But I can't abide by thye misuse of so-called scientific reasoning. Which you are clearly protraying here.''
I invoked no scientific reasoning because I was not trying to explian my disbelieve. I believe that the existance of god is very unlikely. That is a statement not very relevant to what I was saying admittedly, but I was not being pseudo-scientific. You, spi, have not backed up this accusation with reasoning or references yourself. How did you come to the conclusion that I was trying to be scientific?, was it because I said that I think god is UNLIKELY. Even if you have a point and I was alluding to scientific reasoning you are being hypocritical.

I was making a point based on my believes. from now on when I say something and I don't explain it you can assume that it is MY BELIEF.

Yossie, thank you for defending me.. When I used the word tacle I meant, try to explain why creationism and extreme terrorism are wrong (psi, must i go into it now, i'm tired and want to make a point and sleep, not do my dissertation) to believers. In galvanising and strengthening this support for Secularism, Evolution etc from moderately religious we should be nice. Of course it is the evidence and arguments that will win the support eventually, but we must be nice or they won't listen. It is thier beliefs we must tackle.

Oh, psi, I believe that all who believe in a 6,000 year earth are seriously deluded, please explain your wooly reasoning that I meant one specific church. Please read my prevous post again you seem to be a confused, angry person,I believe. My belief, my belief, my belief, must I keep saying it you pedantic person.

Myksyk

"You seem to be a[n]...angry person...you pedantic prat" gave me a great laugh this morning.:D

GuanYin

samb wrote:

psi, perhaps I was didn't explain my point very clearly. All I meant to say was that we should try to embrace the moderately religious (meaning those NOT inclined to extremism or creationism) and in doing so try not to be too patronising towards them. We can't help but be partronising and outraged towards the extremists because of the extent to which they lack reason. (must I qualify this statement with an explanation or references).

Your PoV is based on the assumption that the moderates believe/care what the extermists think. But by and large your post (even clarified here) is condescending rhetoric.

I am an athiest and do not BELIEVE therefore in god. I think I should be able to say this without explaining myself, must I explain everything I say even when it is not particularly relevant? I made the assumption that most of the people on this forum were also, sorry.

Well when you offer a view that may or may not be directly opposed to the views of others and don't offer any foundation behind it, bar "your belief" then in the context of any debate or argument, your view is as worthy as theirs.

I invoked no scientific reasoning because I was not trying to explian my disbelieve. I believe that the existance of god is very unlikely. That is a statement not very relevant to what I was saying admittedly, but I was not being pseudo-scientific. You, spi, have not backed up this accusation with reasoning or references yourself. How did you come to the conclusion that I was trying to be scientific?, was it because I said that I think god is UNLIKELY. Even if you have a point and I was alluding to scientific reasoning you are being hypocritical.

Your post came across as a condescending cheap shot at people who believe in God.

"6000 years", "god and reality - theoretically incompatable"

These are both lines of argument based on scientific reasoning. You didn't enter in the details, but you pulled them into your argument here.

But my bad, you alluded to scientific reasoning rather than using it.

I was making a point based on my believes. from now on when I say something and I don't explain it you can assume that it is MY BELIEF.

Perhaps then your post would be better suited on the spirituality forum, seeing as you claim to offer no scientific reasoning and only wish to put forward your beliefs?

Oh, psi, I believe that all who believe in a 6,000 year earth are seriously deluded, please explain your wooly reasoning that I meant one specific church. Please read my prevous post again you seem to be a confused, angry person,I believe. My belief, my belief, my belief, must I keep saying it you pedantic prat.

Well, youre talking about christians really (as far as I can make out). What about the hundreds of other religions out there that may believe in various different "creation" theories of varying extremes.

I'm not confused (well except maybe by your posting style and logic) or angry.

I mean for instance, I'm not the one resorting to personal abuse - which one might point to as an indication of loss of calm and anger...

samb

"6000 years", "god and reality - theoretically incompatable"

These are both lines of argument based on scientific reasoning. You didn't enter in the details, but you pulled them into your argument here.

I actually said god and reality are not incompatable concepts.
I BELIEVE the planet is much older than 6,000 years old. This believe is based on science but I didn't think it was nessesary to go into the details regarding geology etc with what I presumed was an educated bunch of people.

Well when you offer a view that may or may not be directly opposed to the views of others and don't offer any foundation behind it, bar "your belief" then in the context of any debate or argument, your view is as worthy as theirs.
Perhaps then your post would be better suited on the spirituality forum, seeing as you claim to offer no scientific reasoning and only wish to put forward your beliefs?

As I have said above: I presumed a certain level of education within this forum. My point was regarding how we try to educate or ''convert'' people away from extreme religious beliefs such as 6,000 year old creationism. I was not having a cheap shot at people who accept reality (evolution, old planet) but are religous, I was saying we should embrace this world view. Again, do you mind if I mention I believe in evolution, old planet without backing this up?, again, it is not relevant to my point. I can give offer scientific reasoning to back up my believe, but I didn't think it was relevant.
I an talking to skeptics after all.

Well, youre talking about christians really (as far as I can make out). What about the hundreds of other religions out there that may believe in various different "creation" theories of varying extremes

I was talking about anybody that is not informed about the age of the planet.

I mean for instance, I'm not the one resorting to personal abuse - which one might point to as an indication of loss of calm and anger...

Sorry about the word prat, it was silly. You called my reasoning wooly and said I couldn't string a coherent argument together. You attacked me.
Sorry that my style of posting isn't great, I can work the advanced posting on this computer for some reason. I'll try to work on my prose.

As I said before, in your prevous post you didn't yourself explian how I was alluding to scientific reasoning. You have now, but my point that we can't be expected to explain every word when making a point is still valid, you do not yourself, so don't expect everyone elso to do so, please.

GuanYin

samb wrote:

I actually said god and reality are not incompatable concepts.

Why so? I don't believe in "God" myself, but I don't see how believing in a God is in any way incompatable with any scientific theory you wish to put forward.

Please explain how they are not incopatable concepts. They both lie in completely different aspects of life. It is akin to saying Christianity is not compatible with playing Rock Guitar.

I BELIEVE the planet is much older than 6,000 years old. This believe is based on science but I didn't think it was nessesary to go into the details regarding geology etc with what I presumed was an educated bunch of people.

Indeed, but I don't think there are many people who believe the planet is 6,000 years old (although without a worldwide survey I can't back this up you understand). However, those who believe so are most certainly not "moderates" by any common sense definition of the term. This is my general truck with your posts, you seem to have some skewed definition of what moderately religious is.

As I have said above: I presumed a certain level of education within this forum. My point was regarding how we try to educate or ''convert'' people away from extreme religious beliefs such as 6,000 year old creationism.

Ah, OK, so its only extremists that believe this. Thats cleared that up..

I was not having a cheap shot at people who accept reality (evolution, old planet) but are religous,[/quote[
Ok now you have defined "reality". Exactly how does belief in God, outside of extremist belief in God, lend itself to be incompatible with belief in evolution or an old planet?

Where is the contradiction?

As an interesting aside, the age of the Earth was only established in the 1950's. There were many ludicrous guesses over the preceeding 70 years, including the luminary Lord Kelvin, who (after revising his initial figures downwards) eventually arrived at 24 million years old as the age of the earth. Regarding the nay sayers today (who again, I point out is almost exclusively in the realm of the evangelicals) 50 years is a short space of time for a paradigm to be accepted, see what happens in 50 years from now.

I was saying we should embrace this world view. Again, do you mind if I mention I believe in evolution, old planet without backing this up?, again, it is not relevant to my point. I can give offer scientific reasoning to back up my believe, but I didn't think it was relevant.
I an talking to skeptics after all.

Yes and my argument is simply that none of this explains why you think moderate believers in God, are thinking outside reality and need to be converted to anything?

I was talking about anybody that is not informed about the age of the planet.

Not informed or don't believe. There is an important difference.

Sorry about the word prat, it was silly. You called my reasoning wooly and said I couldn't string a coherent argument together. You attacked me.
Sorry that my style of posting isn't great, I can work the advanced posting on this computer for some reason. I'll try to work on my prose.

Your apology is accepted, your style of posting is merely confusing. I'm not quite sure exactly what you think a moderate is and why god does not lend itself to reality (where reality is your definition of evolution and a planet that is approx 2500 million years old).

samb

Why so? I don't believe in "God" myself, but I don't see how believing in a God is in any way incompatable with any scientific theory you wish to put forward.

Please explain how they are not incopatable concepts. They both lie in completely different aspects of life. It is akin to saying Christianity is not compatible with playing Rock Guitar.

psi, please read the first sentance of mine you just quoted above again. I think this should clear up your confusion.


Sorry if my first post led to this confusion, although yossie got what I meant perfectly. Just to clarrify what I was trying to say and some semantics

Extremist=6,000 year old creationists, reject neo-darwinian evolution, very little chance of engaging in discussion so no chance of ''converting them'', or anybody of any belief willing to die for thier beliefs when those beliefs are not backed up by hard evidence.

Moderate=possibly may be religious and creationist but not young earth creationists. Many, but maybe not most I don't know, may not be informed about the actuall estimation of the age of the earth or evolution etc. These people WE(assumption made about who I am communicating with) need to embrace and try not to be too condecending or patronising towards. Some people that don't believe in evolution are not extremists they are simply not informed. Unfortunately it is taught to very few in school.

I have read many of your posts and BELIEVE that our overall outlook is very similar. I agree for instance that ID is not incompatible with evolution. I still think that you were trying to intellectually bully me with your initial response and in doing so were very pedantic. You failed to understand my points (possible my fault as I have said) but instead of trying to make me clarify them politely , as I hope I now have, you attacked me. I think I deserve an apology for this.

samb

I hope it is clarified now, please read my first post again, in the light of my clarifications since I hope it is now comprehendable. Yossie point about tackling the beliefs and not the believers is an important one. Can we now discuss something else.

psiI think what makes this so unlikely is that the US will never change the constitutional amendments required to make it so. The one thing that US politicians will always stop short of is tampering with the constitution.

Yes,I hope you are right. It is worrying though, evangelicalism seems to be growing strongly in America (anyone know figures?). That 1984 quote ; He who controls the present controls the past, he who contols the past controls the future (is that right?), seems apt.
Also (I believe) irrational beliefs can propagate further if not addressed with education. I am very concerned. Have you seen that ''hear the issues'' website about political issues in the US. It is shocking the level of misinformation there was about Iraq, WMD, Al'queda etc. This is why skepticism is so important for a healthy democracy. With the military power the US has I am very worried about this growing culture of patriotism, religiousity, and knowing you are right.

This is my perception, Am I right?, In general is ignorance and irrationality growing in the US? I can't back it up but it makes for a discussion. (any figures?)

Oh, has anybody seen that film on RTE today called WE WERE SOLDIERS, that 1984 quote springs to my mind again

GuanYin

samb wrote:

psi, please read the first sentance of mine you just quoted above again. I think this should clear up your confusion.

Nope, still missing your point.

For the record, "god is not compatible with reality, where reality=earth is 2500 million years old and evolution occurs" is what I've taken from your posts.

I simply don't see how peoples personal beliefs interfere with either of these issues.

I don't see any difference in the thrust of your main point to that of a hardcore evangelist targeting those with "moderate scientific knowledge" for conversion. In fact, its pretty much exactly the same thing.

Why do you feel the need to convert people? Stand by your own convictions, argue the facts and let people make up their own minds. If they wish to be blind or ignorant of the truth, its no concern of yours.

Moderate=possibly may be religious and creationist but not young earth creationists. Many, but maybe not most I don't know, may not be informed about the actuall estimation of the age of the earth or evolution etc. These people WE(assumption made about who I am communicating with) need to embrace and try not to be too condecending or patronising towards. Some people that don't believe in evolution are not extremists they are simply not informed. Unfortunately it is taught to very few in school.

Hermm well my confusion is stemming form your definition of a moderate. Its a rather specific definition but in the context of your now-explained meaning of moderate thats fair enough.

I have read many of your posts and BELIEVE that our overall outlook is very similar.

Perhaps.

I still think that you were trying to intellectually bully me with your initial response and in doing so were very pedantic. You failed to understand my points (possible my fault as I have said) but instead of trying to make me clarify them politely , as I hope I now have, you attacked me. I think I deserve an apology for this.

As I said before, we are all entitled to our beliefs, so long as we don't expect others to adhere to them.

samb

I said that god and reality are not incompatible concepts, meaning they are compatible. I have always said this. Most of your confusion has stemmed from this misreading......the penny drops...:rolleyes:

Why do you feel the need to convert people? Stand by your own convictions, argue the facts and let people make up their own minds. If they wish to be blind or ignorant of the truth, its no concern of yours.

Yes I agree, that's why I put the word convert in inverted commas. I just meant that we should try to educate and inform moderates about the facts of evolution etc if they happen to be ignorant on such topics. This will make them less inclined to go along with extremists (for example in the case of teaching creationism in schools). As I have mentioned already, it is important to differenciate between extremists and the moderates that are just a little ignorant. Many people have a poor understanding of science and therefore do not realise how much evidence is out there. Many friends of mine believe in evolution but do not actually understand it properly. Others do not believe in it, but I would not call them extremists because they do not care enough.

its no concern of yours.
But I am very concerned about the level of ignorance on this planet, I can't help but be.

Would you consider anybody that does not accept evolution an extremist?

GuanYin

samb wrote:

I said that god and reality are not incompatible concepts, meaning they are compatible. I have always said this. Most of your confusion has stemmed from this misreading......the penny drops...:rolleyes:

Ahhhhhhhhh.I see now. Doh! My bad!

Would you consider anybody that does not accept evolution an extremist?

No, there are plenty of people who wouldn't accept evolution because its a new and foreign concept to them, not because they deny the facts.

These people would hardly be moderates though.