Re: Britons Unconvinced by Evolution: BBC Programme 'A War on Science'

On 26 Jan 2006 11:51:24 -0800, jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>Bob D wrote:
>> jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> > Bob D wrote:
>> > > Just posted on BBC News Website.
>> > >
>> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm
>> > >
>> > > This is disappointing news. The article points out that it is younger
>> > > people that seem to be less favourably inclined towards Evolutionary
>> > > Theory.
>> > >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Yes, there is a world beyond the U.S. public school classroom!
>>
>> Funnily enough, teaching in a UK classroom myself, I have known this
>> for some time.
>>
>> > There's no separation between church and state on most of this planet.
>> > Science uncritically accepts the Catholic Church's theistic version of
>> > evolution being taught in every cornor of the globe. Young people are
>> > not blind to hypocrisy. So, all those inconsequential souls that you
>> > just assumed would mindlessly conform to your atheistic world view,
>> > don't. And what is sad and most unfair, is that you don't even
>> > understand why.
>>
>> What makes you think that an understanding of the reality of evolution
>> is necessarily 'atheistic'?

Not surprisingly, you've got your 'facts' hopelessly twisted.

>In the U.S. public school classroom, the only constitutionally and
>bureaucratically accepted form suitable for teaching is "atheistic".

First, 'non-theistic' would probably be more accurate. U.S. schools
no more say 'there is no god' than they say 'there is a god'. They
simply don't address that specific issue in the curriculum. That
said, they are perfectly free to discuss *about* religion as
appropriate to the subject matter.

And what does a bureaucracy have to do with anything here?

>Debate is not permitted.

Are you suggesting that discussions do not occur? I seem to recall
such matters being discussed whenever they were raised. Whenever the
subject of religion came up, it was dealt with in a professional
manner, with the teacher not approaching such questions dogmatically.
In fact, I couldn't even tell you what my teachers personal religious
beliefs were based on how they dealt with such questions, as it should
be.

>The only possibility for causation is random
>chance...

And that certainly couldn't be because that is what the evidence shows
now, could it?

There is no evidence that outright supports an intelligent cause and
plenty to indicate against it. Pure conjecture doesn't count in this
department.

>except maybe microbes from Mars (which just sets back random
>chance hypothetically dictating the evolution of Mars).

Yes, there is the random meteorite that originated from Mars; and yes,
there is evidence that microbes might have hitched a ride on meteors.
What's the problem? Such issues are, at most, trivial side issues
with regards to the theory of evolution.

>It's alright to
>drag microbes surviving a virtually impossible journey through space
>from Mars into the lesson plan, but not patterns, design, intelligence
>or anything remotely suggesting even a single contribution from a god
>or gods.

And of course that has nothing to do with the fact that there is
evidence pointing towards the former and no evidence for the latter.

>Our atheist friends consider all of these things as state
>sanctioning the establishment of a religion

So now you're projecting your beliefs onto them. How unoriginal (and
still dishonest).

>and their lawyers have
>successfully won their argument in our courts

Yes, thanks to a not so unimportant document called the constitution.

>(which tends to make many
>of our theistic friends feel that the state is sanctioning the
>establishment of atheism, as did the Soviet Union and the People's
>Republic of China... you remember, the bad people... Communists).

As opposed to what, the Taliban?

>> > You see, at one extreme are the Young Earth Creationists and at the
>> > other extreme are the atheistic evolutionists. In between those
>> > extremes is everyone else. Believe it or not, most people want to be as
>> > far from an extreme condition as possible. If it makes you feel better,
>> > you can call it "the herd mentality". And while you realize that the
>> > little YEC group has broken off from the herd to form its own self
>> > reassuring delusion of reality, you never bothered to notice that the
>> > little atheistic evolutionists group had been doing the exact same
>> > thing. As you might imagine to the rest of the herd you both appear
>> > isolated and ridiculous, not that that matters to you (It's just what
>> > happens in extremist groups).
>>
>> Hmm So you seem to be saying that any minority group (BTW
>> 'Evolutionists' are not a minority amongst educated people), is by
>> definition wrong?
>
>Right and wrong are such relative measures.

As is apparently the truth to you.

>Are your educated people "educated" because they think for themselves
>or conform to what other educated people think?

I think you will find, if you hang around here long enough and
actually pay attention, you will find that the evolutionists are the
ones who follow the evidence honestly and not try and defend their
position simply with dogma, like most Creationists and ID proponents
do.

>Point in fact, we send
>students to law school to teach them to think like lawyers. Lawyers
>twist evidence to get rulings that serve their clients with absolutely
>no consideration to any wider affect beyond creating disputes that
>result in other lawyers earning fees to twist evidence to get the next
>set of rulings, and so on and so forth. To these educated people, right
>and wrong aren't relative, they're irrelevent.

And your comparison is equally irrelevant since it is the job of a
lawyer to *twist* the facts in deference to his client's interests
while scientists change their positions in deference to the facts.

The funny thing is that it is the religious zealots who are the ones
who, like lawyers, twist the facts (those which they even bother to
deal with) to fit their own position. It is the fundamentalists, like
the lawyers, who show bias. The difference is that it is the lawyer's
job to be biased for a greater good, while the fundamentalist is
simply biased by choice.

>Aren't we too sophisticated to try to use class distinction (educated)
>as an argument?

Education is not a 'class distinction'. Certain classes may have an
easier access to a better education, but in the end the education
itself makes no class distinction.

There is nothing more ironic than a Creationist who thumbs his nose at
a proper education while trying to convince others that his position
is the more intelligent.

>> > Like your YEC cousins, you have the value of your convictions to affirm
>> > the rightness of your position and who's going to bother to argue with
>> > that?
>> >JTG 1/26/06
>>
>> I await your argument.
>> All I have seen so far is a mini rant.
>
>It was intended as more of a "burn" than a rant. Burns are happier,
>more jovial. It's not everyday that I can find a means to set YECs and
>atheistic evolutionists adrift in more or less the same boat. Some
>might even open their minds a crack and learn tolerance for each other.
>Is that such a bad thing to work towards?

Why should the educated 'learn tolerance' in regards to ignorance and
stupidity? The fact that you begin with the preposterous position
that a spectrum spanning from the ignorant to the well educated has
two ends that are essentially equal in validity is hardly a starting
point for good dialogue.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Bible is Accurate: AGAIN
    ... are finding out that evolutionists deny all evidence which supports ... of being open to evidence supporting the Bible was and is a lie. ... "supernatural is absent from these processes" (Naturalism). ... OBJECTIVE facts in order to keep you as their buffoon. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Bible is Accurate: AGAIN
    ... I have reviewed the posts of evolutionists up until this point and you ... of being open to evidence supporting the Bible was and is a lie. ... "supernatural is absent from these processes" (Naturalism). ... OBJECTIVE facts in order to keep you as their buffoon. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Those crass Creationists
    ... deriving theories that explain the facts. ... became Creationists as a result of studying the evidence. ... And I do wish you would stop using the word "evolutionists". ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Gore film - court judgement.
    ... Gore was dressing up unproven information as known facts. ... As regards government, traditionally they have funded education system ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... pressures and random mutations, etc. those bacteria were so perfected ... as evidence against some view or other. ... An EP typically understands neither science ... superiority based on your so called education. ...
    (talk.origins)