[chris]

This is completely true. The vast majority were completely happy with what they heard / saw but one wasn't. So what do we do? That's right, we pander to the whim of the one. Tony Blair would be proud of us.

It's happening at all levels of society. We've got to be as inclusive as possible. And if that means bringing the level down so that everyone can have an A grade at A level, then that's what we have to do, it would appear.

I've been doing a bit of interviewing recently. All of the students I saw had (pretty much) A's across the board, but the spread of abilities amongst them was huge. Where once an A grade meant "top dollar" it now means 25% of the population.

Why I object to this is that it is not helping the students. When grades were more strictly awarded it was easier for young people to pinpoint their strengths and weaknesses. They could tell where their abilities, and their futures, best lay. Young people need all the guidance they can get because in late teenage you may not appreciate your real talents and abilities.

Now everyone's told they're brilliant at everything. Some poor souls will end up wasting a lot of time flogging a dead horse; They will make less informed (and hence more chancy) career choices, which will be based on a pipedream and little else.

This sickly namby-pamby sugar-coated world we're striving to create for ourselves is letting people down in a big way. It needs an injection of good old fashioned harsh reality, and Tony Blair and his bunch to be given the boot.

Chris

[chris]

Someone from Cambridge University wrote to the radio show the other day asking the question "Did God invent Darwin?". Genius.

[Heliotrope]

Someone from Cambridge University wrote to the radio show the other day asking the question "Did God invent Darwin?". Genius.

[]
Brilliant.

There was another good one I heard in an interview.
Michael Shermer, author of 'Why Darwin Matters' was asked "What do you think will happen over the next 20 years or so with the ID issue in schools..."
He replied, "Oh, It'll evolve. Really, seriously it will. It'll mutate into something else."

I almost can't wait for it[]

Reference : http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=63

[Mjhavok (OP)]

True; I could not agree more, and that's why we set up the Naked Scientists - to improve the public perception of science and scientists. Through our podcasts, website and this forum I think we're making progress!



Chris

And I am glad you did set it up :-D

[Mjhavok (OP)]

I have many problems with religion, intelligent design, creationism bla bla bla.

My main point and probably my first ever point that made be an "atheist" (I don't really think I should have to label myself with what I don't believe it) was this point.

1. Christians or Muslims or whatever say that their book is the word of god. How do they know? It says it in the book or people have told them. I find this incredibly insane. I can easily write a book of utter nonsense about anything and say it was the word of god. Does this make it so? NO!. Just because someone says something is the word of god doesn't make it the word of god. The books where created by a human being, in most cases many human beings. If someone wrote a new holy book today and said it was the word of god people would ridicule him, but somehow it is accepted from people from over 1900 years ago.

Just because something is written down doesn't make it true or the word of god. Just because someone tells you something doesn't make it the truth.

Evidence is where in the truth lies. Science is backed by evidence. Religion is backed by witness testimony and fictional literature no more true than Shakespeare or Charles Dickens. Definetly not as entertaining as William Gibson, Iain M Banks or Raymond E. Feist. At least in my opinion.

[Ophiolite]

The danger of the IDiots is their ubiquity. Then I noticed Dr. Maciej Giertych's affiliation: he is with the Institute of Dendrology, in Poland. You see - branches everywhere!

[eric l]

The danger of the IDiots is their ubiquity. Then I noticed Dr. Maciej Giertych's affiliation: he is with the Institute of Dendrology, in Poland. You see - branches everywhere!

Dendrology ?  Branches indeed... 

[science_guy]

This "argument" seems to be pretty one sided.

First thing on the plate, the tendency for you people to call my particular community a bunch of ID(iots).  The proper term to place on that particular group of people, who have different views than you do, are creationists.  And I am calling your group Evolutionists respectively.

Second:  You seem to be throwing away the possibility that the universe was created by a higher being, just because it was an idea that was put forth by people from more than 200 years ago, and therefore unreliable.  Not the best form of logic.

There are many Scientists who are creationists, and many of them are good scientists, even though our atheist community has a definition of a "good" scientist to be an evolutionist.  The real definition of a good scientist is one who examines the facts, and comes to his own conclusion.

Neither theory has been entirely proven, or entirely disproven, and should be treated as such.

[chris]

I don't think that anything we know scientifically about the origin of the universe and the Big Bang can rule out creation. If God did create the universe, and hence the Earth, then why not invent some rules to govern its evolution and development? They're necessary. Without them the system just could not survive. But that's not the same as saying that God made the Earth 6000 years ago.

I don't think creationism and evolution are the mutually exclusive worlds that people perceive them to be. Something must have preceeded the Big Bang. Who knows what and how? But sentimentality must not be allowed to muddy the scientific waters of our attempts to understand the world around us.

Chris

[Heliotrope]

This "argument" seems to be pretty one sided.

Of course it's one sided.
There isn't another side.
There is only one side.
Furthermore there is no argument either.
Same as there is no debate.

First thing on the plate, the tendency for you people to call my particular community a bunch of ID(iots).

Incorrect.
That is my propensity.
No one else has used the term.
Do you have a more suitable word for those who do not aknowledge rationality and reason ?
I'll be more than happy to use it.

The proper term to place on that particular group of people, who have different views than you do, are creationists.

Not at all.
There are many people who have different views than I do.
Not all of them are creationists.

And I am calling your group Evolutionists respectively.

As you wish.
Rationalists would be more accurate however.
Furthermore, it would be an error of judgement to polarise this or any other discussion into two opposing groups. Indeed a false dichotomy would result.
There are many different viewpoints and not all of them fall into one of these two categories.

Second:  You seem to be throwing away the possibility that the universe was created by a higher being, just because it was an idea that was put forth by people from more than 200 years ago, and therefore unreliable.  Not the best form of logic.

This is a nonsequitur.
No one is throwing away any possibilities at all.
There is nothing in science so far that excludes the possibility that the Universe was created by some form of divine being.
There is, however, a great deal in science that excludes the possibility that the Universe was created by a divine being some time after approximately 15 billion years ago.

There are many Scientists who are creationists, and many of them are good scientists,

Absolutely.

even though our atheist community has a definition of a "good" scientist to be an evolutionist.

Incorrect.
The measure of a "good" scientist is experimental and observational rigor. Not what they have as personal beliefs.

The real definition of a good scientist is one who examines the facts, and comes to his own conclusion.

Incorrect.
A "good" scientist comes to the inescapable conclusion that is in the data they have gathered.
Personal opinions do not come into it.
If the data contradict the scientist's own opinions then their opinions are incorrect.
The scientist must take stock and come to some sort of internal standpoint that they are happy with.
This does not affect the data or the observations and certainly does not affect the conclusions to be drawn from them.

Neither theory has been entirely proven, or entirely disproven, and should be treated as such.

Why on Earth do you think there are so many scientists all searching Nature for clues about how we came to be ?
They are searching for insight into questions such as "Why are we here ?", "What is the Universe for ?", "How does the Universe work ?" etc... etc...
The answers to some of these questions can, at present, only be guessed at.
There are others that are yielding to experiment and observation.
In the future more of these fundamental questions will be able to be tackled in a rational way with experiment and observation.

Scientists are looking for the answers to the same questions as creationists.
Answers to the same questions that every 8 year old child asks of it's parents.
BUT, they are doing it without preconceived ideas about what they will find.

Creationism presupposes that "god did it".
Science tries to find out if god did it.

[Heliotrope]

Dendrology ?  Branches indeed... 

[] []

[rosy]

I feel inclined to point out that whilst IDiots may be Heliotrope's choice of dismissal, and I can see why those who favour the intelligent design hypothesis might object to that, I don't believe science_guy speaks for all those who think a higher intelligence was involved in the universe coming into existence in disclaiming the description "Intelligent Design" in favour of "Creastionist", I was under the impression that the ID camp was a pretty broad spectrum of people with a lot of different outlooks from (a)-god-(orotherbeing)-set-up-evolution to god-made-the-world-in-7-days.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to know what colour of (to use his preffered term) creationists science_guy belongs..

[eric l]

I agree that it is not possible to know wether the "Big Bang" was an act of will from some "Intelligent Designer" it is a matter of belief.
Wether you believe or not will depend on

• your own personality and/or experience
• the trust you put in the person who wants you to believe or disbelieve and his or her argumentation

It is quite possible to imagine an intelligent designer who creates not so much a universe as we know it, but a set of rules by which we evolve to the universe as we know it.  And that may be a fair point to start a discussion.
One of my points against creationism is that it seems to be designed to see man as the "ultimate creature", like Teilhard de Chardin's "point omega".  Considering the vulnerability of the "ultimate creature" to primitive organisms like e.g. the bird flue virus, the "intelligent designer" must have taken some stupid risks ! 

[daveshorts]

Science doesn't tell you what is true, it tells you what is probably the case, where the probablility in probably is variable, depending on whether you are talking about string theory or whether the ball I just threw is going to hit Jupiter.

Science can't rule out the possibility that the universe was created 4000years ago, or for that matter 2 miliseconds ago, but it can say that if this was the case the flying spaghetti monster made a bloody good job of making it look 15 billion years old when it touched us with it's noodley appendage and created the universe last tuesday. So if we want to find oil/iron ore or guess where the planets are going to be next week it is best to assume that it is 15 billion years old and get on with life.

[science_guy]

I'd be interested to know what colour of (to use his preffered term) creationists science_guy belongs..

I am of what most people might call an old earth creationist.

god-made-the-world-in-7-days.

That is not our view for this particular view on things.  The Bible did not come in English, but was translated into english from many different languages.  The language that it originated from is the hebrew language.  There are many words for "day" in hebrew, but the one that was used in the bible is translated to "any period of time in which somthing is accomplished", or somthing similar to that effect.

the old Earth creationist view of things is that God created everything, including nature.  Because God does not lie, then his record that we find in nature is true, though subject to different views and explanations that we, as scientists, put out to the community.  Therefore, If we find evidence that the Universe was created 15 billion years ago, then that must be when it was created. 

[Mjhavok (OP)]

How convenient.

[chris]

Science_guy:

To take a religious example, it strikes me that to stand up and say you're a creationist on this forum must you must feel a bit like Daniel in the lion's den?!

Chris

[Heliotrope]

I am of what most people might call an old earth creationist.

Gotcha.
Now I know where you're coming from.
(I think)

the old Earth creationist view of things is that God created everything, including nature.  Because God does not lie, then his record that we find in nature is true, though subject to different views and explanations that we, as scientists, put out to the community.  Therefore, If we find evidence that the Universe was created 15 billion years ago, then that must be when it was created. 

I'd just like to clarify something.
Assuming that there is evidence that the Universe came into being 15 million years ago is it your understanding that the "creation event" (perhaps a poor term) ocurred before that time ?
Also, given the above, is it your view that everything that has come after 15 million years ago does not require the intervention of god or is it your view that god still has an ongoing hand in things ?

I'm just trying to get a handle on the limits of your belief.

Personally I have no problems with what people choose to believe. Beliefs are beliefs and are not subject to verification of any sort other than the person holding them... holds them.

I find fascinating the places where belief and verifiable information come into contact so I ask in all openness.
I personally would have no problem with someone who holds that god created the Universe at some time even in the face of absolutely incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
I also have no problem understanding that people who hold beliefs might not want to have to examine their beliefs too closely and do not require verification of them or not. The comfort, guidance and support they bring far outweigh any desire to find out their limits or where they come from or the usefulness, to them, of such information.

All I ask from someone is that they aknowledge their beliefs might not be the whole, or part, of the way things can be observed to work.

There are many words for "day" in hebrew, but the one that was used in the bible is translated to "any period of time in which somthing is accomplished", or somthing similar to that effect.

I didn't know that.
Makes more sense like that.

[Heliotrope]

Science_Guy,
I'm also curious as to why you (seem to) think that because you are a believer in the traditional creation you are a proponent of ID.
Unless you are a proponent of ID as well of course.

[Heliotrope]

I agree that it is not possible to know wether the "Big Bang" was an act of will from some "Intelligent Designer" it is a matter of belief.

Incorrect.
It is a matter of investigation and observation.
Those investigations have not yet progressed to the point at which it is possible to decide which is the case.
Just because something is unknown does not mean that it is unknowable.
That would be to fall for a logical fallacy.

Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.

Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gaps" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.