The Genius of Charles Darwin

[Mise]

Frankly, I find it frightening that even that many brits are that stupid. But then as long as there is one creationist, I will find it appalling. I'm just not willing to accept the truth of my own sig.

To be fair, the wording of the question was ridiculous. It was something like "which best describes the origin of the earth". Evolution doesn't describe that at all...

But yes, 2/3rds is not enough. Which is why I care so much about education - eventually, the old religious people will die out and be replaced by people who were properly educated in science.

 

[Gooblah]

I am sooooo happy I live in a blue state. My teachers all believed in a firm line between church and state. Yes, some of them were evangelical about their faith, but they never let that cross into their work. My biology teacher was agnostic, so I learned a lot more about evolution than I think I normally would've. Now, I can make a convincing argument for it based on scientific fact!

But I tend to disagree with anyone who believes America's universities will die. The public opinion in the US has been like this for a long time. And our universities are still the top. The smart kids, the ones who know that church is not equal to state and the Bible is not equal to science, move on to the top colleges, learn, and enrich our nation. Well, either that or immigrants solely occupy Harvard and MIT (which is going on in MIT, too...my sister told me that it's like 75% Indian and Chinese...).

So if things keep on getting worse and science is shunted to the far corner of the classroom, then I think I'll just pack up and move to Britain. I'm Indian, so I've got some British stuff under my belt...

 

[general_kill]

Not as long as the money is still in the US.

You'll just get a lot of non-national Americans staffing the unis and studying at them. And then they will go on to work for corporate America, acquire US citizenship an become Americans in their turns. It will still be corporate America, but everyone will have been born elsewhere - like New York in the 1920's, when it was said English stopped being spoken at 5 p.m., the end of the business day.

Works fine in an immigration society. Lots of German brains built the US educational system already in the late 19th c. anyway.

Where have you been for the past 5 years?

All our money is in China, bro. So you're saying all the best and brightests are going over to China?

 

[Zebra 9]

Ehhem

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.

[wiki=Issac_Newton]Wiki article[/wiki]


I don't believe that creationism (Intelligent Design) is all that bad for the scientific development of society. After all look at Issac Newton's list of accomplishments!

 

[scy12]

I don't believe that creationism (Intelligent Design) is all that bad for the scientific development of society. After all look at Issac Newton's list of accomplishments!

I don't believe creationism and myths are at all related with the scientific development.

As for Newtons second conclusion that it is God that governs all things. He either was wrong and knew it. Or he either was wrong but ignorant of it. If he acted as a scientist on this subject he ought to knew it.

 

[holy king]

Depending on what poll you use, two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans don't believe in evolution. Last time I looked, democracy was about the will of the majority. If the majority want their kids taught creationism, why should the will of the majority be ignored?

that's because democracy cant work without proper education for the masses.

 

[Evie]

Ehhem


[wiki=Issac_Newton]Wiki article[/wiki]


I don't believe that creationism (Intelligent Design) is all that bad for the scientific development of society. After all look at Issac Newton's list of accomplishments!

Your Newton quote doesn't relate to the position of ID.

Newton's position (in the quote) can be essentialy summed up to "There are things science can tell us and things it can't."

Which is true: science is a way to study and explain the natural world. It cannot do anything good or ill when it comes to questions of the spiritual or philosophical world - Science will not tell right from wrong, nor will it ever determine whether there was an intelligent designer at work in the creation of the universe. Science exist to answer questions like "What?" and "How?". Not "Who?" or "Why?".

The position of ID, however, can be summed up as "The scientific explanation is wrong and should be disregarded; things came into being mostly as they are now (some "micro-evolution" may have occurred),".

That is not science, and has no place in science classes.

Now, if you wanted to teach children in science class that Science cannot and will not prove or disprove the existence of any God(s) - it can only explain how things work, not who (if anyone) made it work that way...that, I could see having a place in science classes. Perhaps one of the first thing that should be taught in those classes, actually.

 

[Verbose]

Where have you been for the past 5 years?

All our money is in China, bro. So you're saying all the best and brightests are going over to China?

Well, China isn't THAT rich yet, by comparison. And not until the Communist part gets its head out of its ass and the thumb out of the eye of the Chinese scientific community.

That could happen though. Apparently the current chairman of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is for the first time a scientist appointed on merits, not a political animal as those before him. That's at least a signal from the Chinese political leadership that they might let the sciences rip without worrying to much about control from now on.

 

[Dubai Vol]

that's because democracy cant work without proper education for the masses.

Very good point. And which American political party wants to cut funding for education? Hmm.

 

[Séamas]

I'm Catholic, yet I can't see any reason for creationism to be thought in school... Evolution pretty much explains everything, why it isn't taken as fact by some people is utterly perplexing to me.

BTW, was the series any good? I didn't watch it because I can't stand Richard "I'm-a-twit" Dawkins.

 

[Zebra 9]

In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC).

[wiki=Young_earth_creationism]Wiki Article[/wiki]
I emboldened the text.
This isn't conclusive (I doubt I could find any thing conclusive you'd believe) but it shows that he at least felt God had created the universe, why else would he put a date on it?

P.S. I have no clue who authored that page, although I think it is correct since I have read that same fact in another place before.

 

[Bill3000]

Why do creationists care about Isaac Newton anyway? He was a heretic by any and all standards - he was a freaking nontrinitarian. That deserves burning at the stake, not praise.

 

[Zebra 9]

Well, I think that anybody would agree with me when I say that your belief in the existence, non-existence, or anything else regarding the trinity will affect your scientific beliefs. The trinity is just a belief about God that is set forth in the Bible, not a scientific principle, where as the Genesis account, when taken literally, puts forth the scientific principle that God created the universe in 6 days. Do you see what mean? I read that article on wiki before I posted it so I know what it said and that he would have been considered an heretic, but I felt nothing mentioned would have had any affect on his science.


EDIT: Nothing regarding religion deserves burning at the stake.

 

[Mise]

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.

That's right. The Big Bang explains what set the planets in motion.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, I think that anybody would agree with me when I say that your belief in the existence, non-existence, or anything else regarding the trinity will affect your scientific beliefs.

I don't. I don't see how beliefs affect what mathematicians do, for instance.

The trinity is just a belief about God that is set forth in the Bible, not a scientific principle, where as the Genesis account, when taken literally, puts forth the scientific principle that God created the universe in 6 days. Do you see what mean?

Not really. How do you know when something in the bible is a belief and not a scientific principle?

 

[Zebra 9]

Uhem, the big bag happened how many billions of years prior to the formation of the planets? I don't doubt that energy that was left over (or was alleged to be left over) could have played a part, but the prevailing theory (that is the evolutionary one) is that the gases, rock, and other debris started pulling together by gravitational attraction and as they pulled tighter the heat caused a swirling motion that eventually resulted in planetary orbits.

 

[Miles Teg]

Isaac Newton was a brilliant man. He also inhaled enough mercury that he was taller on a sunny day.

A scientist (with significant pseudoscientific leanings) endorses an idea outside his field, and before the tools and techniques to make a scientific investigation. That scientist is very likely wrong.

(that is the evolutionary one)

You fail science forever.

 

[Zebra 9]

Well how would God being a trinity effect science? He could be a mole that lives on planet Jimbobiah in the galaxy hippytopia and it would have no effect on earth's science. Do you agree?

 

[Mise]

Uhem, the big bag happened how many billions of years prior to the formation of the planets? I don't doubt that energy that was left over (or was alleged to be left over) could have played a part, but the prevailing theory (that is the evolutionary one) is that the gases, rock, and other debris started pulling together by gravitational attraction and as they pulled tighter the heat caused a swirling motion that eventually resulted in planetary orbits.

What's your point? If you're trying to prove that your understanding of science is limited and confused, then mission accomplished.

 

[Masquerouge]

Uhem, the big bag happened how many billions of years prior to the formation of the planets? I don't doubt that energy that was left over (or was alleged to be left over) could have played a part, but the prevailing theory (that is the evolutionary one)

No. Evolution has NOTHING to do with how planets formed.

is that the gases, rock, and other debris started pulling together by gravitational attraction and as they pulled tighter the heat caused a swirling motion that eventually resulted in planetary orbits.

I think that Mise was pointing to the "first mover", the original cause that started it all.