Journal Timex's Journal: What is there to be afraid of? 16
"In my experience, people who're confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism." -- Ben Stein, from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
That's an interesting quote, largely because we live in a society that encourages people to be open minded. When someone cannot handle criticism of any kind (for whatever reason), the first thing they do is shout down the other side.
I find it interesting also, that such behavior is especially predominant among the Slashdot community, a group that often imagines itself to be rather intelligent. (Personally, I find belligerent a more accurate term, especially on the front page.)
I have my beliefs, some of which I came to after reaching adulthood (my belief in God being one of these). I am firm in them, and I am willing to listen to rational discussions for or against them. When the person talking becomes argumentative, whether they be on my side or not, I automatically shut them off. There's no calm, rational discussion that will occur, no exchange of ideas or lines of reason. In short, there's no point in trying to carry on a discussion that cannot be two-sided.
This JE has been tagged "Just friends and their friends" because there's no "No AC posts" option. On something like this, I know there will be some people that feel the need to have their say, and that's fine. Some others would be quite abusive about it and not have the intestinal fortitude to post with their name, opting to post under AC instead.
And I'm one (Score:2)
Some Christians in this nation and many Islamics worldwide don't want to hear this- but reason is the mark of a true religion. Or at the very least, a long lasting religion that will outlive it's current participants.
What level of criticism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder though whether Intelligent Design is a reasonable criticism of evolution. They seem to answering different questions in mind, using different methods.
Are you sure about that? They both seem to strive to answer the age-old question of "Where did we come from?"... Science makes no real attempt to address the "...and where do we go from here?" bit that Religion at least covers in many of the options available.
Evolutionary sciences look at evidence of how life has evolved and figures out how it occurs.
Does it, really? It seems to me more like a bunch of people with alphabet soup regurgitated after their name trying to impose their own hypotheses on an ignorant public. When I was a kid in school, I was taught the Scientific Process, where tests
Re: (Score:2)
Evolutionary sciences look at evidence of how life has evolved and figures out how it occurs.
Does it, really? It seems to me more like a bunch of people with alphabet soup regurgitated after their name trying to impose their own hypotheses on an ignorant public. When I was a kid in school, I was taught the Scientific Process, where tests were done to prove things out. I was an atheist then, and had no reason to doubt what I was taught. As an adult, I took another look at what I was taught, and I found that (with regard to the origins of life) the people who created all these "theories" didn't actually follow the Scientific Process, but instead "found" evidence to support their pet theories, while completely disregarding anything that might have put their theories in the Scientific Dung Heap(tm). There was an abundance of selective reasoning, picking-and-choosing what to accept and what to ignore. I was surprised, to say the least, and started searching for answers myself.
The problem in this, and anthropolgy/paleontology have it worse, is that you can't really test pre(post-?)dictions of the past. It's not possible to run multiple trials. If you're very lucky, some find made after you've published your interpretation serves to confirm something you concluded. That's not to say that some 'scientists' don't ignore or falsify data. It happens. It happens even in those fields that do have multiple independent trials available to them. But evolutionary biology is not much
Re: (Score:1)
The problem in this, and anthropolgy/paleontology have it worse, is that you can't really test pre(post-?)dictions of the past. It's not possible to run multiple trials.
Does that mean that one gets a "license" to forgo the Scientific Process? If not, then we must assume that there are some theories that are, by their very nature, condemned to remain "theories".
One area you should look at is experimental evolutionary biology. The people working with fruit flies and bacteria have good experimental evidence that evolution happens.
Is their work an example of microevolution (changes within a species) or macroevolution (changes from one species into another)?
I'm well aware of microevolution, as it has been seen time and time again in nature. None of these changes have resulted in a different species, though. Dogs bred over time are still do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Birds anywhere along the chain can interbreed with their neighbors within a few miles north and south. They do however have identifiable differences that would be considered microevolutions. In addition, the sub-species at the northen and southern ends cannot interbreed with each other. So their differences are macroevolution.
There's one huge, gaping, ugly flaw in this line of reasoning: attraction. You (and anyone that buys this line of thought) are making the assumption that members of one group are interested in the features found in the other group, when looking for a mate. I don't believe for a minute that breeding can be forced between animals. They'll try if they're interested, and that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm not understanding your objection. If they don't mate, whether it's due to preference or genetic incompatibility doesn't matter. A species is only a species if the members share genetic material.
I'm not exactly buying the argument that preference is the only issue with the case I mentioned, but I'm having trouble tracking down a link, so I won't argue that point.
To answer your question (Score:2)
(Not trying to be controversial, just the way I see it going based on past experience. Of course, the 'fizzling' may take anywhere from a few years to decades, so YMMV.)
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing to be afraid of. This ID thing is the latest 'fad' from the hardcore fundies, a new 'vulnerability to exploit. Once that fizzles, they'll move onto something else.
The term "Intelligent Design" may be new, but the concept behind it is several thousand years old. I don't think it's a "fad", though.
I found this bit rather interesting, though I cannot confirm the accuracy of the quote attribution:
Voltaire, atheist, French author, humanist, rationalist (1694 - 1778), held up a copy of the Bible in the air and smugly proclaimed, "In 100 years this book will be forgotten and eliminated...". Shortly after his dead, Voltaireâ(TM)s private residence became the headquarters of the Geneva Bible Society and became a major distribution hub for the very Bible he assigned to extinction.
(I have confirmed through a few sources that Voltaire was a theist and did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, neither did he feel it necessary to adhere to Christian ideals to believe in God, so it's possible that he did say something to this effect.)
(Not trying to be controversial, just the way I see it going based on past experience. Of course, the 'fizzling' may take anywhere from a few years to decades, so YMMV.)
Like I sa
Re: (Score:2)
I know, and that's not the point I was trying to make. What I mean is that its current face, ie the ID movement, won't last forever. I also happen to think that Genesis is close (a highly relative term, could still be a couple dozen years, IMO) to being phased out. As has been said a million times, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Voltaire, atheist, Fre
Re: (Score:1)
I also happen to think that Genesis is close (a highly relative term, could still be a couple dozen years, IMO) to being phased out.
I would be interested to see if you're right, but forgive me if I think you aren't.
As has been said a million times, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I believe it can be best described that the existence of one does not (necessarily) depend on the other, although the meaning of either is diminished by the presence of the other.
God does not depend on the evolution, or He has no business being called "Creator", any more than an engineer that builds a self-replicating robot can take credit for any self-aware offspring that come about a few million generations later.
Evolutio
Re: (Score:2)
although the meaning of either is diminished by the presence of the other.
Disagree. I happen to find them interestingly complementary.
God does not depend on the evolution, or He has no business being called "Creator", any more than an engineer that builds a self-replicating robot can take credit for any self-aware offspring that come about a few million generations later.
You're making a few assumptions, such as assuming we're His only "experi
"No AC" posting option (Score:2)
The nearest you can get is actually 'no foes' - because otherwise, your foes could easily circumvent the ban by posting AC, it also bans anonymous posting but wi
Disagreeable (Score:2)
I have my beliefs, some of which I came to after reaching adulthood (my belief in God being one of these). I am firm in them, and I am willing to listen to rational discussions for or against them. When the person talking becomes argumentative, whether they be on my side or not, I automatically shut them off. There's no calm, rational discussion that will occur, no exchange of ideas or lines of reason. In short, there's no point in trying to carry on a discussion that cannot be two-sided.
I LOVE rational discussions with people who disagree with me. I HATE people who can't disagree without being disagreeable. I including in "disagreeable" people who are nasty and rude, as well as those who are dishonest in their facts or rhetoric.
Like, tonight, watching an interview with Obama. He is more agreeable than most politicians, especially on the left, but he said that McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts originally because, McCain said, of his conscience; and now that he favors extending them, McCain
Re: (Score:1)