Europeans' Understanding Of Science, Evolution, More Advanced Than Americans

[Brooke]

Howdy Andrew,

Hello Brooke.

''Robert, Andrew does NOT believe in evolution...'',

If it is evolution then it can't be possible in my view without intelligent design behind it. I have an extreme amount of difficulty accepting a morphing of one group of anything into something totally differently looking; biological oddities notwithstanding. It looks like a magic wand to me. So, who has a bigger wand the fundamentalists or the evolutionists.  Actually the christians look like their wand is bigger because they need nothing but faith. Of course evolutionists have faith too. They'd rather not call it that however.

Actually, it isn't faith so much as a "hypothesis." Of course, scientists who believe in evolution don't have all the answers, however, they have enough of the answers to form a hypothesis, and then to make a theory.  All that creationists have is a story with NO EVIDENCE at all to support it, that is a big difference.

''... nor does he believe much in God either.  He believes in a non-religious sort of intelligent design. How we get there with the lack of substantial proof about it is beyond me!

Right, Andrew?   

I accept a deity or two or three or four and some females too while I'm at it. So it has nothing to do with whether I accept a God as interpreted by you. You been battling the Christians to long dear lady

Well, I'll admit that when we all first started debating this (years ago, back at AR), it took me and others some time to grasp that you believe in a sort of non-religious form of intelligent design.  That is because most ID, as it is taught today, is being pushed by creationists, so it is a little hard to make a left turn from that and go back to (presumably) the type of intelligent designs that the classic philosphers taught about.

However! Did it occur to you that your own belief system, "a deity or two or three or four and some females" has even less to support it than traditional Christianity does? If you are stating you don't believe in evolution cause there isn't enough proof, I'd have to say that you have a far less standard when it comes to supplying proof for your own personal beliefs.

''He believes in a non-religious sort of intelligent design''.

That's an accurate statement. That said, the religious people won't accept that. I'm sure it's because they are continually battling the evolutionists.


 ''How we get there with the lack of substantial proof about it is beyond me!''

Then you agree you need no proof for your position?

I was talking about YOUR beliefs, Andrew. As Merlin stated one time (who incidentally believes in panspermia as the origin of life), "pound for pound, evolution has more evidence than any other theory out there." Ain't it the truth! 

[Brooke]

Howdy Andrew,

Hello Brooke.

''Robert, Andrew does NOT believe in evolution...'',

If it is evolution then it can't be possible in my view without intelligent design behind it. I have an extreme amount of difficulty accepting a morphing of one group of anything into something totally differently looking; biological oddities notwithstanding. It looks like a magic wand to me. So, who has a bigger wand the fundamentalists or the evolutionists.  Actually the christians look like their wand is bigger because they need nothing but faith. Of course evolutionists have faith too. They'd rather not call it that however.

Actually, it isn't faith so much as a "hypothesis." Of course, scientists who believe in evolution don't have all the answers, however, they have enough of the answers to form a hypothesis, and then to make a theory.  All that creationists have is a story with NO EVIDENCE at all to support it, that is a big difference.

''... nor does he believe much in God either.  He believes in a non-religious sort of intelligent design. How we get there with the lack of substantial proof about it is beyond me!

Right, Andrew?   

I accept a deity or two or three or four and some females too while I'm at it. So it has nothing to do with whether I accept a God as interpreted by you. You been battling the Christians to long dear lady

Well, I'll admit that when we all first started debating this (years ago, back at AR), it took me and others some time to grasp that you believe in a sort of non-religious form of intelligent design.  That is because most ID, as it is taught today, is being pushed by creationists, so it is a little hard to make a left turn from that and go back to (presumably) the type of intelligent designs that the classic philosphers taught about.

However! Did it occur to you that your own belief system, "a deity or two or three or four and some females" has even less to support it than traditional Christianity does? If you are stating you don't believe in evolution cause there isn't enough proof, I'd have to say that you have a far less standard when it comes to supplying proof for your own personal beliefs.

''He believes in a non-religious sort of intelligent design''.

That's an accurate statement. That said, the religious people won't accept that. I'm sure it's because they are continually battling the evolutionists.


 ''How we get there with the lack of substantial proof about it is beyond me!''

Then you agree you need no proof for your position?

I was talking about YOUR beliefs, Andrew. As Merlin stated one time (who incidentally believes in panspermia as the origin of life), "pound for pound, evolution has more evidence than any other theory out there." Ain't it the truth! 

[Andrew Waters]

Brooke I posted a reply but it isn't showing up.

[Andrew Waters]

Robert0326:

''But if America is to thrive and prosper as a civilization then we need to stop believing in 1st. century myth and superstition.''

I'm not interested in myths. It may be more appropriate to ask how did it devolve into myth; I'm assuming you are talking about the person Jesus?. I don't know either. Do you have anything substantial other than your belief that it is? Just asking. Personally I stay away from calling something a myth because it doesn't sit right. I simply leave it alone. I believe in benefit of doubt. If there is truth to be found it will be. That's why I'm highly sceptical of evolution without design behind it.

An do you think America won't prosper because of some of its people fixate' on myth? How does that work. Are we on the brink of collapse because of that? Do you really believe that's possible? Can you direct me to sources that offer this view? If this is simply you airing your frustration then I can accept that.
 
''People need to stop professing things that can't possibly know and wake up and join the 21st. century.''

Then Thomas Jefferson should shut up too?; see your bottom signature. You will recall Jefferson had his demons also.

 ''And if people want to believe in a supernatural deity I would  ask them to do one thing...  Keep it to themselves and leave us sane and rational people out of your delusions.''

You are insensitive to opposing views aren't you. Wouldn't it be better to say you disparage other views because you have categorical proof at your disposal to deny the otherss rather than let your emotions control you.

[Andrew Waters]

Brooke:

''Actually, it isn't faith so much as a "hypothesis." Of course, scientists who believe in evolution don't have all the answers, however, they have enough of the answers to form a hypothesis, and then to make a theory.''

Then you do agree that categorical proof isn't forthcoming? By the way I agree science should be self-correcting but in this particular case, ID vs evolution, the issue isn't about self-correction, it's about getting the ID folks off their backs.

It so happens that some very bright individuals on both sides of the argument can't come to an agreement. My personal feeeling is the evolutionary biologists , or some of them,  operate from a methodological naturalism view, that is, there can be no explanation that can't be explained by natural laws. Whatever a natural law as it pertains to biology I don't have a clue what they are talking about other than their speculation. I've been searching for that one for a long time but haven't come across it yet.

  ''All that creationists have is a story with NO EVIDENCE at all to support it, that is a big difference.''

That's why I said creationists need a magic wand. Not so the ID guys however. These guys look under the same microscope as the evolutionary biologist and come to a different interpretation. They see design instead of a blind mechanistic force at work. And I surely do agree with them on this score.
   
''However! Did it occur to you that your own belief system, "a deity or two or three or four and some females" has even less to support it than traditional Christianity does?''

Considering that it is Christianity then I can see how womens' history would have been lost. Christanity isn't the end game.

'' If you are stating you don't believe in evolution cause there isn't enough proof, I'd have to say that you have a far less standard when it comes to supplying proof for your own personal beliefs.''

Again, a belief or faith isn't a fact. That goes for both the religious outlooks and evolution.

I've read some powerful arguments from the evolutionist camp... coming from them. But none, no not one argument slips over into a ''Well we have all the facts. There is incontrovertible evidence that evolution works.'' I'm sorry to disllusion you young lady but that's the way it is.

On your creationists ''running'' the ID show that may or my not be true. I am aware William Demski is a Christian (Discovery Institute, and Phillip Johnson, retired trial lawyer). And there may be others. Yet according to those in the ID camp, or at least some of them, they profess to have no belief in Christianity at all. If it means anything these guys are all Ph.D. scientists. Not that that would make them right I'm sure. But they are highly educated.

[Brooke]

I've read some powerful arguments from the evolutionist camp... coming from them. But none, no not one argument slips over into a ''Well we have all the facts. There is incontrovertible evidence that evolution works.'' I'm sorry to disllusion you young lady but that's the way it is.

You aren't disillusioning me, Andrew, maybe you are yourself.  Science NEVER claims to have all the facts, so you aren't going to hear that from them concerning the topic of evolution either.

What science does is:  observe and make judgments on the available data.  Once new data comes across, well, it may or may not be time to revise those judgments. There is ample evidence for the theory of evolution, none for the creationist point of view.

Then you do agree that categorical proof isn't forthcoming? By the way I agree science should be self-correcting but in this particular case, ID vs evolution, the issue isn't about self-correction, it's about getting the ID folks off their backs.

It's about getting the creationists off their back! 

On your creationists ''running'' the ID show that may or my not be true. I am aware William Demski is a Christian (Discovery Institute, and Phillip Johnson, retired trial lawyer). And there may be others. Yet according to those in the ID camp, or at least some of them, they profess to have no belief in Christianity at all. If it means anything these guys are all Ph.D. scientists. Not that that would make them right I'm sure. But they are highly educated.

Well, the creationists are the ones pushing a religious sort of intelligent design in the schools.  The cases in Kansas were all pushed by school board zealots.  No one that I am aware of is pushing a non-religious ID in schools that will carry the same weight as evolution.

[Robert0326]

Then Thomas Jefferson should shut up too?; see your bottom signature. You will recall Jefferson had his demons also.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.  So no demons to worry about.  Now as far as my "insensitivity" is concerned, my problem is that most Americans that believe the Bible is 100% true and try to shove it down everyone's throats.  I also can't stand ignorance.  I read in a newspaper article about a month ago about how a mother was homeschooling her 10 yr. old daughter who loves biology and science using books from an online bookstore that caters to creationist.  And while reading these books she said out loud, "That isn't true."  Now if a 10 yr. old can see through Creationist BS why can't the rest of America?

[Volitzer]

Cuz there are a portions of Americans that take the Bible for religious truths, not historical or scientific truths.

[Andrew Waters]

Brooke:

 ''What science does is:  observe and make judgments on the available data.  Once new data comes across, well, it may or may not be time to revise those judgments.''

Can you expand on your ''may or may not'' please. Just to give you a little sense of what I'm driving at, you phrase it as though new data may not be accepted. Does this mean the prevailing consensus may not like it even though new data may sway some geneticists away from that consensus?

''There is ample evidence for the theory of evolution''...,

I believe most ID people accept change over time in it simplest form, not however on the speciation explanation (new species).

''...none for the creationist point of view.''

Creationists have no proof, agreed on that.

And since I do agree on that then your continued use of the word is a red herring. If you continue to use creation in this debate to seek the upper hand then I'll call you on a strawman argument.

Now your rebuttal may yet and still fall back on, in your mind, that most IDers are creationists when you have no way of proving that then the burden of proof will be on you to present evidence to support your contention. Agreed? 

[Andrew Waters]

Robert0326:

''Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.''

Maybe, maybe not; or maybe when it was convenient; I don' tknow.

''Among the inestimable of our blessings is that ... of liberty to worship our Creator in a way we think most agreeable to his will''

Reply to Baptist Address, 1807

This reads like Mr. Jefferson can comment on how people, including himself, can project onto a Creator what he might think. In other words if Jefferson believes a Creator existed at one time and left the premises (a part of Deism) and since humans are his creation then wouldn't the people know how to worship him since he is the Creator, without thinking about ''...most agreeable to his will.''?

It appears to me one should worship as they see fit and leave projection of God out of the picture. It might make Him mad.


 '' Now as far as my "insensitivity" is concerned, my problem is that most Americans that believe the Bible is 100% true and try to shove it down everyone's throats.''

If they try to shove it down everyone's throats but haven't succeeded why would you think they can. Are you referring to the Jehovah's witnesses? If perchance you are then treat them with respect by opening the door and telling them you aren't interested. Besides they only come knocking once every couple of months. Big deal.

But then you may not be talking about that group at all. You may be wondering why some ID folks want design taught in classrooms.

Well when you have PhD scientists looking at the same genetic information and see design instead of random mutations and natural selection as the only only answer then I can see why you might and Brooke are upset since you both appear to be naturalists.
   
  ''I also can't stand ignorance.''

Sho' you right.

  ''I read in a newspaper article about a month ago about how a mother was homeschooling her 10 yr. old daughter who loves biology and science using books from an online bookstore that caters to creationist.  And while reading these books she said out loud, "That isn't true."  Now if a 10 yr. old can see through Creationist BS why can't the rest of America.''

What, exactly, was the little girl speaking about? Don't forget she is 10 years old. So how would she know anything as truth except what she has been told. I'm thinking you're losing your balance here by straying so far away from substantive remarks.

[Robert0326]

The 10yr. old was in public school and her mother took the advise of a friend to try and home-school her.  She is interested in biology and when she started reading the books her mother had bought her from some ministry online she was suddenly confused by what the book was saying about evolution and knew that the book was wrong.   I also have a personal interest in the case of religious people indoctrinating children.

I'm talking about all religious groups.  The ID and religious groups want more God in the classroom and less science.  That's why.  They don't want anyone undermining their position on how everything can to be.  It's as simple as that.

 

[Andrew Waters]

Robert0326:

''She is interested in biology and when she started reading the books her mother had bought her from some ministry online she was suddenly confused by what the book was saying about evolution and knew that the book was wrong.''

Robert what I'm trying to undertand is what was the young girl confuded about to know what's wrong. First you say a book, then books.  Your initial comment on this suggests that it was one book the girl was offended with now it seems she had a host of books to complain about.  All I'm asking is what was the central issue with the ten year old? Was it everything for the little girl? Or, as is more likely, ''evolution did it and not God'' undoubtedly brought on by the contentiousness of the opposing ideas in the political arena.

Look at it this way. Since the little girl has a religious mother who may well have forced creation on the little girl from a young age, and all the school is suppose to be teaching is biology, not about a creation, then how is it the girl can suddenly know creation is wrong? Unless maybe the biology teacher has a stake in this also.

 I'm thinking, generally, ten year olds are impressionable and probably lean more toward their parents in an effort to please them. But on this issue it sounds like the little girl and her mom are at odds on more than just this issue. It could be the little girl resents having religion shoved on her at such a young age; I know I resented it quite a bit when I was around that age.

If there is a central issue or even issues that the young girl gets other than a simple teaching of biology then it may be from the biology teacher at school. If that is the case, and there isn't any way to know, what was it the teacher could have said to the young girl that would prompt her to blurt out ''that's wrong'' to her mom. Either a book said something to the effect that God has no place in the classroom, and I wouldn't think that is the case, or the teacher may have suggested it.

Now it is always a possibility the girl really has a presence of mind far beyond her years but what it seems like to me is both the mom and the teacher (school system) are at odds on what they think the evolution issue represents. 
 
   ''I also have a personal interest in the case of religious people indoctrinating children.''

I gathered that from your posts a couple of days ago. I'm free of this contentiousness.

 ''The ID and religious groups want more God in the classroom and less science.''

What science do you think they want less of, physics, chemistry, etc.  Is the idea of evolution actual science. Can you do it in the classroom. Can it be demonstrated, repeated, and shown to be true via experiments.

What the theory of evolution can show scientifically is the undeniable, close relationship of ever living thing on this planet. Yet it doesn't take an evolutionist to make other scientists see that fact.
 
Here's something for you to think about when you lie down at night in the quiet of your bedroom. Evolutionary biology says all life originated from a single cell. Christianity and others say God created everything. So who's got more religion here? Don't you think they are talking about the same thing. Keep in mind neither of them can actually prove it.

''They don't want anyone undermining their position on how everything can to be.  It's as simple as that.''

Interestingly I see it the same way Robert0326 but not in the way you have in mind.

[Robert0326]

The article was simply stating that what the girl had learned about science and biology prior to her mother trying to home-school her with these books from the ministry made perfect sense to her.  Then after reading about evolution from the ministry books she knew that they were full of crap.  Her mother now regrets buying the books.

No they are not talking about the same thing when it comes to evolution.  The differences between Biblical creation and evolution are as different as night and day.  Yes evolution is a science, it's also called Anthropology.  You might have heard about it.

[Andrew Waters]

Robert0326,

''Her mother now regrets buying the books.''

Did the mom regret buying the books because the girl was upset or did the mom realize evolution was fact and her creation wasn't?  It makes one wonder why the mom bought the books in the first place. Maybe the mother was doing an experiment with her daughter.

This story sounds strange Robert0326.

No they are not talking about the same thing when it comes to evolution [single cell).  The differences between Biblical creation and evolution are as different as night and day.

Well if a christian says He created everything wouldn't that include the single cell? And the evolutionary biologist says all life came from a single cell then what's the difference. You will recall neither can prove it. It was to far back in the past.

  ''Yes evolution is a science, it's also called Anthropology.  You might have heard about it. 
 
 I agree they work together trying to figure out stuff; sometimes they scratch their heads and say ''aw s..t.''

[Robert0326]

Yes the girl was upset.  The difference is that evolution works very well on it's own with the assumption of a supernatural deity.