UKC

For those who maintain we don't have a problem in the UK

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6019140&navcode=94

particularly the extract from a textbook about the Loch Ness Monster at the bottom.

In reply to MG: Bonkers.

In reply to MG:

What's even more worrying / amusing is the comments thread below.

In reply to MG:

Jonny Scaramanga???

Where's Nick Nack?

sickening - religion is the greatest problem in the world today.

sad times

In reply to MG:

Whats more worrying, is that in reality, we are still a religius state. We have blasphemy laws that only apply to the Protestant church, still have laws on trading on sunday and the royals are govererned by a whole host of crazy drivel to do with religion.

We need to get rid of all this completely.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

To be fair YEC isn't really religion is it? In fact it's just as much an attack on faith as it is on science.

In reply to i.munro: You've got to hand it to Bob Hutton though, haven't you? For some reason he reminds me of some one, I can't think who. . .

Anyway, the whole education system is becoming so debased I can't see that this makes a difference in the real world. After all can you imagine applying to university to study biology based on a handful of these ICCE's?

In reply to MG:
"Hundreds of teenagers at around 50 private Christian schools in Britain study for the certificates, as well as several home-educated students."

We could call it a 'problem' or we could pay more attention to the words 'hundreds' and 'several'.

I blame the process of making things like TWO people in Wales having E.Coli poisoning worthy of a slot on national news (just last night).... We're losing sight of what's really worth worrying about...

In reply to MG: I think as far as "problems" go you've got bigger fish to fry...

In reply to Tom_Harding:

It always has been.

In reply to MG:

Think the chick that got a place on the natural science course at Oxford is going to fail her first year. Badly.

It might make me seem very self-centered, but I feel these people exist solely to make me feel superior. I'm all for being let loose on society. Made me laugh anyway

It shouldn’t mean it always will be though. If I had a friend who started believing in ridiculous superstitions and spent time 'praying' to them and worshiping them, it would have to be straight to the mental hospital. This is what should happen to modern religious people, they have mental problems that need help

In reply to MG:

Cretinism in the UK more like.

In reply to Cerulean:


Thats not really an argument against it being a problem.
It is that these courses are now being put on the same level as a proper qualification.
A bit of a retrograde step.

In reply to Tom_Harding: If I had a friend who started believing in ridiculous superstitions and spent time 'praying' to them and worshiping them, it would have to be straight to the mental hospital. This is what should happen to modern religious people, they have mental problems that need help


Religious people are mental and want locking up. Bold statement but I like it.

In reply to dissonance:

Fair enough, it's more playing to rights than relevance but it's a microscopic 'problem' if of any significance at all. If the principle were to somehow blow itself out of all proportion and affect any sort of percentage then it might begin to become something of a problem. What's the worst that can happen - really - an Evangelical Christian gets a job over a non-Evangelical Christian on the basis of one A-Level that was geared arguably in their favour? This sort of retrogade step might, with the slimmest of outside chances, affect one or two people per academic year, whilst keeping hundreds quietly (or not so in the evangelical case) happy.

In reply to Cerulean:


ok so any nutters school curriculum be ticked off regardless of content?
Sorry but if someone wants to learn crap that is their own right (bit trickier when teaching kids though) but they shouldnt expect to get a proper qualification from it.

i feel sorry for the kids really. If it was made clear it wasnt a proper qualification then maybe some of the parents would have them educated at a school with a closer relationship with reality.

In reply to dissonance:

So its an exam with the odd nonsense question in it. It's no big deal really. You should have seen my Chemistry A-level. Christ.

Your argument against the principle is entirely valid (you didn't need to be so clumsy in pointing out the extrapolation) but this case isn't a problem in itself.

In reply to Cerulean:


no its an entire curriculum which appears to be based on on an inability to catch up with 2000 years of progress.
If someone wants to believe that its their choice but it shouldnt be given any recognition as being valid.

In reply to MG:

I wish Bob would come and join in at UKC.

Image the threads !

In reply to MG: Ok so its a VERY bad example of creationism....

Yet so many of you didnt attack it, and they attacked religion instead.
How stupid can you be?
Religious people are mental???
very funny.
need locking up.
Richard dawkins is confused by his own arguments. if people are studying just as hard at 'these' exams then they deserve oxbridge.
School is not about learning facts anyway its about learning to; learn, study, understand, be open minded, think... most of your replies show that you need to start your education from scratch, as you havent even started to use the brain God gave you.

Come on stop using arguments to tie yourselves up please.

In reply to Al Evans:


That's a very short-term, creationist timescale, point of view.

I suspect that hunger, disease, predators, and other humans have been a far bigger problem over the timescale that humans have been around, whilst religions (some of them, anyway) have only been a problem for a mere few thousand years.

Of course, if the planet was only a few thousand years old, then you have a point. But it isn't.

||-)

In reply to Duane:


Well in that case then lets just start teaching any old twaddle just so long as I'm learning to learn!!

Creationism is not about being open minded, it's a very closed minded opinion and the people who "believe" this won't hear of any serious arguement. It is a belief and should not be confused with fact and therefore should not be taught as such even if it is to a minority.

In reply to Duane:

What sort of a teacher are you as a matter of interest?

In reply to Duane:

>I must admire your bravery, apologising for this tosh.

In reply to dissonance:

Still, it's hundreds of people. Try dividing that by 60 million and you get a storm in a tea-cup with the holistic effect of someone peeing off the end of a pier. People might notice it when it happens but it will be completely diluted to nothingness within the blink of an eye. People living in the past? Get yourself to Merthyr!

I went to a traditional Catholic Grammar back in the day and I bet I couldn't name 3 Apostles nevermind 12. The edges get knocked-off once people join the real world. Don't let it worry you.

In reply to MG: It may also be worth noting that the big bang is still taught as a theory in schools, given the lack of scientific proof.String theory also played a large part in my Physics Alevel, the entire concept of which may be utter dross. Now, why is it justifiable to allow kids to learn one theory and not another?

In reply to MG: That's really interesting discussion. The usual evangelical rubbish is trotted out to excuse the lack of evidemce behind creationism/religion. The Answer in Genesis website is crazy sh1t!

In reply to irish paul:
Have a read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Basically Creationism is contradicted by evidence and so is not a scientific viewpoint and has no place in science lessons. The other theories you mention are supported by evidence to varying degrees.

I seriously doubt string-theory was a "large" part of your A-level.

In reply to MG:

I seriously doubt that he attended school

In reply to MG:


So is JJ Thomson's 'plum pudding' model of the atom. So is the idea that The Mona Lisa was Da Vinci's girlfriend. So is the one about protein being key to energy in athletic performance. But all those ideas are taught in science, art and PE lessons on a regular basis.

Teaching one idea as the one which fits our observations best makes good sense. Teaching it as if no others exist or have ever existed is just plain old dogma.

In reply to irish paul: There's a world of difference between a theory that is subject to testing against real-world evidence and one which is, by definition, untestable.

In reply to Mike Highbury: Classy. Would you like me to prove it?

In reply to niggle:

I clearly remember this being presented at school as an early idea, now discarded but possibly useful for understanding more modern interpretations. It is certainly not held up as current scientific knowledge.

In reply to AdrianC: I know and to be honest i disagree with teaching creationism as a fact to kids, I would expect school like this to teach the accepted scientific principles and then point out their own beliefs and attempt to justify the differences.

In reply to MG:


I didn't say it was, but you've "cleverly" edited out the bit of my post where I made it clear that these were past theories.

In reply to MG:

To be fair, it must be nice and easy to throw aside all rational thought, logic and any hint of intelligence to follow an absolute and completely blind devotion to something so delusional it makes Walt Disney films look like factually based documentaries. How nice must it be to know that no matter how badly you manage to screw the pooch, the big man upstairs still has your back.

In reply to MG:


That's the point exactly. JJ Thomson presented it as a "model" or "theory." He didn't say "this is what the atom looks like, unquestionably, no further proof is necesary."
Same goes for the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity.
Schools teach the scientific method of theorising, experimenting, re-examining the evidence, i.e. questioning everything.
I fail to see how a qualification in "closed-mindedness" and "believing what you're programmed to believe" has any validity.
If an employer refuses to employ someone with these qualifications, would he be breaking discrimination law?

In reply to L.J. Fallows:

Wow.

So you actually believe that creationists never, ever practice rational thought or logic, and that they actually have no intelligence?

That's really astonishing. Every bit as astonishing as the creationists' own beliefs if not more so, I'd say. Really insane. Thanks!

In reply to ChrisJD:

Are you sure he isn't already here?

In reply to knthrak1982:


What I find interesting about this very discussion is that in almost every case I've seen the creationists have no problem with their ideas being taught alongside evolution, confident as they are that their ideas are quite right. In fact I haven't heard any call at all from them for the banning of teaching evolution.

Now contrast that open-minded stance with the extremism and bigotry which accompanies the demand that teaching creationism should not be allowed - demands, in fact, that only one idea should be taught excluding major competitors, and even in some cases descending into the worst kind of thuggishness and name-calling.

Certainly there are closed minds here. But not all, if any, are on the creationist side.

In reply to niggle:


As you well know, no one is calling for that.

In reply to MG:


So you're happy for creationism to be presented in science lessions alongside evolution?

Not everyone here is so accommodating.

In reply to niggle:

No.

In reply to niggle:

I made no sweeping statement about creationists.
I was referring to the qualification in the article.

"No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered"
"unquestionable proofs"
"unarguable evidences"

It is my OPINION that such ideas are not in tune with free thinking, and that qualifications based on these ideas are of questionable validity.

Better?

In reply to niggle:


What part of "it's not science" do you not understand? If schools want to teach it in some sort of "general studies" as part of a varied tapestry of global beliefs, well, fine(ish) - but only so long as they also give equivalent weight to the beliefs of the Wherethefeckarewe tribe who believe that the universe formed from elephant dung and the earth is carried around on the back of a giant ostrich.

In reply to knthrak1982:

If they insist on teaching creationism in schools, it should be grouped in with the other religious studies and NOT taught as a science. Though in my opinion, Religious studies should be scrapped as a mandatory subject all together and introduced as an optional study, granting more time for the important subjects such as Maths, Sciences, etc.

In reply to Nic:


Yes, that's what I said: you want evolution taught as the sole "truth" while competing ideas are not presented in competition (in fact you seem to want them safely out of the way where they can't trouble you).

Of course, nobody said anything about giving creationism "equivalent weight" to evolution in lessons, in fact I'm sure you'd agree that given the difference in sheer quantity of support between the two theories, that would be almost impossible.

In reply to L.J. Fallows:


Again, this is exactly what I referred to earlier - in your "idea", creationism is not presented as a competing theory, it's safely removed so that the single idea you prefer can be taught.

That's just simple dogma, closed-minded and sterile and far more extreme than creationists who want their ideas given a fair hearing alongside yours.

In reply to niggle:

Please explain how this presents a fair hearing of both sides:

"Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

In reply to niggle:


Rubbish. Do you really think that evolution is taught in the many private Biblical-literalist Christian schools in the US?


Scopes "monkey" trial. One of the most famous trials of all time. "The Butler Act, made it unlawful, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, "to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

If modern creationists are not currently calling for banning evolution, it is a tactical decision in the light of court defeats. You can be sure they would love to ban the teaching of evolution.


Evolution does not have any "major competitors" if we're judging on the evidence (as we should do in science lessons). It might have competitors for popularity among dumb-asses.

In reply to niggle:


No, they're asking for an *un*-fair hearing for creationism.

A *fair* hearing in science classes would amount to equal time for equal evidence. That would give creationism zero time.

Or are you saying that any crackpot notion should be presented in science classes even in the absence of any evidence for it?

In reply to niggle:

The Kansas Board of Education, which lost its conservative Christian majority in November 2000 elections, reinstated evolution, the Big Bang theory and plate tectonics into the state's science curriculum on 2.14.2001. Those three subjects had been removed from state standardized tests a year and a half earlier, in effect no longer requiring science teachers to cover those subjects.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Thanks - neatly expressed.

In reply to niggle:


Not quite - science is not presented as truth but as "our best understanding of the current evidence". The day some big bloke with a beard pops out from behind a cloud with a loud "aha!" then all scientists will review their various theories in the light of the new evidence. Until then...well, you figure it out.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well, I've already said to another user, "nobody said anything about giving creationism "equivalent weight" to evolution in lessons, in fact I'm sure you'd agree that given the difference in sheer quantity of support between the two theories, that would be almost impossible".

But, as per the classic template of closed-minded dogma, you didn't even bother to look to see whether there was an answer to your question, let alone check to see if it agreed with your own.

Again, there are certainly screaming crazies who don't consider alternative ideas here - lunatics who want anyone disagreeing with their ideas locked up. But they're not on the creationist side.

In reply to niggle:



And as per your classic misrepresentation tactics, you have chosen to confuse two quite distinct questions. Your above answer is about presenting creationism but not with equal weighting to evolution.

My question -- as you know perfectly well, because it was preceded by the phrase "that would give creationism zero time" -- was about whether creationism should be presented at all.

So why don't you answer it? Here it is again: "Or are you saying that any crackpot notion should be presented in science classes even in the absence of any evidence for it?"

In reply to niggle: What about teaching allowing the teaching of holocaust denial, that 9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag operation, the moon landings were faked etc in history classes?

Ok they won't be given 'equal weight' but after all because people believe in them shouldn't they be presented to allow students to make up their own minds?

Or maybe we could tell clidren Pi was 3, it would make the maths a lot easier and I'm sure it would prevent disengagement.

Education should be about teaching students to think, to identify evidence, assess its validity, place it in context and come to a reasoned decision. Of course, along side this they need to be given some facts.

You start out thinking the earth is round, then a sphere, then an oblate and finally it's geoid. None of these things are wrong its just that the various definitions develop with knowledge and the ability to handle more compelx ideas.

There is no rationale basis for any theory other than evolution and as such it should not be conused with rational thought and discussed only in the context of religion.

In reply to niggle:

Sir David Attenborough receives hate mail from viewers for not crediting God in his nature programmes.

"They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance," Sir David said during an interview with the Radio Times about his latest documentary on Charles Darwin and natural selection.

http://tinyurl.com/d4gscf


Crazies not on the creationists side?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Because I already have and the answer is no, I don't think equal time is a good idea.


Precisely: not presenting competing ideas for consideration is the hallmark of dogma. Banning them from schools, making teaching them illegal, labelling those who hold them as sick or deranged, even demanding the locking up of anyone who even dares to think them - all are tactics with the same end in mind: the eradication of a competing idea.

It's simple extremist dogma and no different to the thinking of fundamnetalist christians or muslims.

In reply to niggle:

Why do you refuse a crackpot notion with little substantive evidence to be taught as a competing idea and yet you want creationism with little substantive evidence to be?

The term "dogmatic" is often used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly and without evidence.

Pot? Kettle?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Sure there are. But not here. And that's what I said, if you read it.

Let's tally up who is here though shall we?


Crazies demanding that those with ideas they don't like be locked up?

One-nil to the atheists.

Crazies saying that those people are mentally ill?

Two-nil to the atheists.

Crazies saying that those disagreeing with them are stupid?

Three-nil to the atheists.

Crazies trying to ban ideas they don't like from science lessons?

Four-nil to the atheists.


In fact if you're honest about this - and I'm guessing you won't be, ha ha! - there are really no foaming crazies at all on the religious side here, but you're certainly well stocked, aren't you?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Ah, the wonderful black and white world of the fundamentalist, where there is only yes and no, with no space for any other answer. You certainly put the "mentalist" in "fundamentalist".

In reply to niggle:


Do you think there is any advantage in having subject lessons or would you be happy for everything to be taught together?

In reply to MG:

We could reduce 10 or more years of education to a simple 5 minute chat..."well kids, it's like this: we just *don't* know, we just dooon't know!"

In reply to niggle:

Here is what I said: "My question ... was about whether creationism should be presented at all. So why don't you answer it?"

niggle replied: "Because I already have and the answer is no, I don't think equal time is a good idea."

Anyone spot that niggle was "answering" a different question to that asked?

Given that there is no evidence for creationism, why should it be presented in science classes? Do all crackpot theories lacking evidence deserve some time in science classes? [Note that the question was "some time" not "equal time".]

In reply to MG: Yes its called Atheism this

In reply to Nic:

Oh except for the honorary agnostic

We could reduce 10 or more years of education to a simple 5 minute chat..."well kids, it's like this: we just *don't* know, we just dooon't know!"

In reply to Coel Hellier:

He does this regularly when in a position of a weak argument. I'm now a fundamentalist it would seem.

He's accused me of being many things based on no evidence whatsoever. I find this rather sad that he has to take this stance.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Who needs evidence - he just needs to *believe* them...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Because it's a competing theory which is relevant in this day and age.

Pupils will almost certainly have heard of it. Some may even be considering it as a possible explanation, having been presented with it in other places.

But instead of seeing it as a threat and its followers as enemies to be abused, censored and imprisoned, why not see it as an opportunity to show how science works and why it's the consensus that evolution is the best explanation rather than creationism?

Teaching, and indeed all of science, is not about an insane super-literal right and wrong system in which we absolutely must teach only one idea or all of them. It's about context and relevance and about demonstrating how to reach good decisions without knowing the absolute truth.

In reply to niggle:


But this isn't a 'competing idea' it's the absence or indeed the negation of an idea. It simply says the world is unknowable & there's no point looking at the evidence & therefore no point teaching or pursuing science.

You cannot teach it in science because it denies the scientific method (& oddly denies the omnipotence of god at the same time).

In reply to i.munro:


Again this is just bonkers black and white thinking.

In reply to niggle:

So from the textbook in the article "Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

So even though transitional fossil have actually been found, this demonstrates how to reach good decisions without knowing the absolute truth.

In reply to niggle:


Offs! It may be a theory, but to call it "competing" is on a level with saying flat earthers have a point. Should geogrpahy teachers teach that? Chemistry teachers don't bother to do the "lead into gold" stuff anymore...it has absolutely no relevance to science; the only reason we're debating it is that a statistically significant number of people (for reasons I cannot understand) seem to believe in it.

In reply to niggle:


It is not scientifically relevant. If it is politically relevant then it should be an issue for "citizenship" classes, or similar, along with other political issues.


No-one is objecting to a teacher doing that. In no way is that outlawed or prevented. The objection is to creationism being presented as though it had scientific validity, accompanied by misrepresentation of the evidence and creationist propaganda materials.


Who said it was?

In reply to niggle:

At my school we had some really good science teachers. They knew their stuff and were very capable of presenting the arguments and basis of scientific theory and teaching the scientific method.

However, I don't think a single one of them would be capable of teaching religious theory. Should such a teacher therefore require further training to be a qualified science teacher?

In reply to Nic:


Exactly. I don't understand why they believe it either. But since they do, wouldn't it be better to show, in a formal lesson, why the idea doesn't work very well and which one works better?

Wouldn't that be a beter way to tackle the problem than just banning it?

In reply to niggle:

Who said I was an athiest? In fact why do you need to be an athiest to be a scientist? Is this a gross generalisation niggle?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


That's the point. There are mistakes in the creationists' thinking. So instead of just banning talking about them, why not show what the mistakes are and what the better available answers are?

In reply to niggle:


Has anyone suggested banning it? All I (we?) are saying is that, in the limited amount of time available in a school curriculum, it should not figure. However, I would add that it should *not* be taught as a "competing theory" in a science class.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Not me. I just said you were on the non-creationist side.


You don't. And I didn't say anyone did.

Do you think that making stuff up about what I've said proves that you're not with the crazies?

In reply to niggle:


Doing that is not banned! Nor is anyone asking to ban doing that.

In reply to Nic:


Actually some have suggested locking up people who believe it, or having them committed to psychiatric hospitals.


Well if you won't teach people why the idea is incorrect, you can't really complain when they continue thinking it's right, can you?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Then what's the problem?

In reply to niggle:

Probably not a bad idea as an aside in one lesson, perhaps in a similar way to pointing out why the idea of an earth centred universe doesn't stack up. But that approach is nothing like what my OP was describing, which is teaching creationism as fact and lying about the evidence for both it and evolution.

In reply to niggle:
Can you give some examples niggle?

In reply to MG:


I really doubt it could take more than one lesson to be honest. The criticisms of evolutionary theory don't really need to be gone into in detail and it's pretty unlikely that kids of secondary school age would have the kind of questions which would take more than a few minutes, don't you agree?

In reply to The New NickB:


Can I assume that you're going to pretend that nobody said this?

And that you think that pretending text which anyone (apart from you apparently) can read for themselves doesn't exist will show that you're - what, open-minded and intelligent?

Good luck with that then.

In reply to niggle:


...and if we taught people *every* idea that wasn't right (presumably a pretty well infinite number) where would that leave us??

In reply to niggle:

Think that should read "someone has." One user, in 1 post, suggested both those things.

In reply to niggle:

me> Doing that is not banned!

niggle> Then what's the problem?

As I said: "The objection is to creationism being presented as though it had scientific validity, accompanied by misrepresentation of the evidence and creationist propaganda materials."

Unless we are vigilant against this, it will likely increase, because the creationists never tire of pushing it.

In reply to niggle:

No you didn't. I cited all of your post. You only talk about creationists and athiests

You go on to say "there are really no foaming crazies at all on the religious side here, but you're certainly well stocked, aren't you?"

So you accuse me of being 'well stocked as a crazy" and you differentiate me from the religious side.

That in plain english is calling me a crazy athiest.

I'm not making anything up. The great thing about the thread is it is written for all to see.

You've now called me a fundamentalist. You have suggested I'm crazy and you have separated me from the religious side thereby accusing me of being an athiest.

It's difficult to develop sensible approaches to opposing arguments with creationists as they are not prepared to accept an alternative to their views.

They then get increasingly more agitated and accuse people when they have a weak argument. Know anyone like that?

To be a scientist you don’t have to be an atheist, its just that most scientists (not creation scientist - there theologians) are. Dawkins goes into a lot of detail about the ridiculously small number of religious scientists based in key fields such as evolutionary biology, geology and physics. This is because to be a respected scientist you need a critical mind, this is where the religious fall over. If you had a critical mind there is no way you could give any weight to creationism or any kind of religion for that matter. Creationism was overturned as a theory over hundred years ago, its just modern creationist wedge strategy that is getting this debate going again.

As I said earlier religion is the greatest problem in the world today and should be seen as a serious (and dangerous) metal illness that need urgent treatment.

In reply to Tom_Harding:


OK urgent action required. First step, triage. I suggest sending the stormtroopers out on Sunday morning to all the churches and rounding people up. They could be sent to holding camps, for their protection, until we decide the best course of treatment, and take it from there.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Yes; you.

In reply to niggle:

I have asked you a perfectly reasonable question in a perfectly reasonable way. I have not seen any evidence in this thread or in the linked article to support your claim, I am also not aware of statements made that would support your claim, but maybe you are aware of something I have missed.

Alternatively you could just avoid the question by throwing insults in an admittedly slightly criptic form.

In reply to Tom_Harding:


Five-nil to the crazies.


My mistake, six-nil.

In reply to Tom_Harding:
>

3/10 - a good initial provocation, but you've come back and had to repeat it, which spoils the troll.

In reply to niggle:

Please present the evidence.

In reply to niggle:


Aren't you counting the same person multiple times?

In reply to The New NickB:


Really?

None at all?

Nothing?

Not even in a post only two or three before yours in the thread about religion being a mental illness, which was echoed much earlier?

That's really extraordinary.

In reply to niggle:

OK, so your running total is based on everyone with any conflicting opinions to yours all being of the same mind and are all crazy?
No wonder the score's so high.
seven - nil?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you had more than one username.

In reply to Tom_Harding:


I think you're going a bit far there, people are ofen religious IME because belief in a god make's life easier for them, and if they're in a country where religion can be practiced on a personal level without dictating what policies are adopted there (which would affect non religious people as well), I don't see why people shouldn't be able to be religious, treating being religous as a mental illness is way over the top I think. Some good friends are religious, and harmless enough.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Tom_Harding:It's a bonkers idea.

In reply to Timmd:

Well said.

(and my comment about the stormtroopers was sarcasm, before it gets moderated)

In reply to niggle:

Having been through the thread, I have found Tom Harding's troll, but even that does not fully support the claims you make.

Sorry I miss how that makes me a crazy, its called evidence and reason?

Maybe it is a strong opinion to take but I find it very hard to respect people personally if they also believe in 2000 year old superstitions. I too have a few Christian friends and I find it very sad they have been indoctrinated and brain washed by there parents and upbringing. Although religion does have many levels of believe, some not as mad as others, they are still on the same "mad" scale so all deserve phycological help but at different levels.

In a few hundred years no doubt people will look back at us and laugh for being so stupid.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Treat religion as a metal illness? Like lead-poisoning you mean?

In reply to Tom_Harding: HEY! Welcome to my club. I'm crazy* too.













































*This accusation brought to you by Niggle Ltd.

In reply to knthrak1982:

If only there was some sort of 'final solution'...

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Do you not think obsessive behaviours and the inability to make rational judgements also needs psycological help?

Most atheists and/or secularists wouldn't care less about creationism were it not for its peculiar in-roads into places it shouldn't be (e.g. as suggested by the article in the OP). Then it becomes our problem. As someone else said, it is like teaching that pi is 3. It does matter.
If secularists are foaming at the mouth these days, it is only in self-defence.
The case against teaching creationism in science lessons is about as strong and as simple as any case can possibly be. Why does the tedious debate continue? Well...

Lead poisoning - mental illness????? come join the crazies!!!

Maybe not the "final solution" but what about alcoholics anonymous or drug anonymous style sessions

In reply to thomm:

I agree with a lot of what scientists and self-professed atheists/ secularists say on these matters but I don't agree with the above. Self-defence implies some sort of attack by the religious. Personal, or at least against some sort of cause.

If this isn't the case then it's simply attack.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

So instead of being "brainwashed by their parents," they'll be in group therapy until they're brainwashed into a way of thinking closer to your own?

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Ah you meant 'mental' illness. Do forgive me, you're hard to follow. Could I also ask what:

'there parents' means in one of your paragraphs, and 'levels of believe'.

It may be that you're attempting to make some sort of point but I'm uncertain at this stage.

In reply to Cerulean:


In America at least, large swathes of science are under continual attack by the religious, who are continually trying to replace evolution with Bible-based creationism. One tactic is to pass laws; of course Christians have overwhelming majorities in all US legislatures, they have failed to succeed only because of the constitution separation of church/state that leads to the courts striking such laws out. Another tactic is to by voting for members of school boards who then vote to remove evolution from curricula and textbooks and have it replaced by evolution. Unlike the UK, there is a lot of local democracy in the US whereby elected school boards are the ones approving textbooks.

It is only the organised and ongoing efforts of scientists and science-supporters that is keeping this stuff at bay.

In reply to Tom_Harding:


I have to take exception to that. If someone believes that the world was created last Tue by Offler the crocodile god, that is a perfectly consistent & sane position. The week-old milk in my fridge having been created at the same time.

Where it becomes nonsensical is when they start looking for physical evidence of that creation by examining the printing of the 'use by' date . This evidence was also created by Offler so why are they looking?
Do they think Offler can't create a milk carton properly?

It shades over into madness when they start drinking the week old milk because it can't have gone off as there isn't time.

In reply to johnSD:


Nice double edged question but pretty stupid really.

1) If i thought people with obsessive behaviours needed help I would have the men in white coats coming for nearly every climber on here, so no

2) Sadly rational judgment doesn’t seem to be a thing we are all born with or can acquire through life, but education is the "help" people need in this subject, and not an education full of 2000+ year old superstitious rubbish

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Hmm I've read about the US, yes. Problems over there in some states but I don't think it really translates to the UK. Ever since Tony Blair buggered off to JPM, Middle-East Csar, European God, or whatever he's doing this week, there hasn't really been any societal assertion of religious values against the populace, or the established educational norms. It would be wide of the mark to think the US affectation we have in other things would now extend to this.


Is there any evidence of this is the UK? Religious creep I mean. We're very good at playing to the minority in this country (as in the OP) but the way some people carry on you'd think it was Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something, and we'll all soon be 'one of them' unless we grab our pitchforks right now.

In reply to Tom_Harding:You don't think people will just hide being religious so they don't get given treatment? It's not like worked in Holland when Catholicism IIRC was being persecuted, there were loads of secret churches which sprung up, and it'd be easier to get organised now because of e-mails and mobile phones, as well as letters because they'd have to be intercepted to check what was being posted. I think it's something which just wouldn't work. Also it's policing people's thoughts, which I don't think is a good thing to try to do. There's possibly lots of fruitcakey people out there who aren't doing anybody any harm.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Tom_Harding:

So would you accept "help" to get over your obsession, and to better rationalise problems in the world and their relative importance?

In reply to Cerulean:


Mainstream religion of the traditionally British sort is continuing to weaken in the UK (though large numbers of, for example, Polish Catholics have slowed the weakening).

However, American-style Biblical-literalist evangelical Christianity is probably getting stronger in the UK. Admittedly this is from a very low base, so it could be discounted as insignificant. However, there are cases of state schools having heads of science who are creationists. Overall it is not the biggest issue around, but some vigilance is in order.

In reply to knthrak1982: At least "my" (whatever that means) brainwashing is backed up with over a hundred years of people devoting there entire life to rational thought and inquisition. Is that not what we do in schools (non-creationist of course)

In reply to MG:
Irrespective of an individual's point of view, there is a fundamental difference between views held from a scientific standpoint and those from a religious standpoint.

As a scientist I will form a 'world view' based upon the best available evidence. There may be things that I cannot understand using this approach and I recognise the limitations. For example, I would be surprised if there is no life elsewhere in the Universe but I have no evidence that it exists at the moment. I can hypothesise that life might exist, but until someone finds it and can demonstrate it's existence in an objective manner (not just tell me that they saw it) then I simply say 'I have no evidence'. One could apply this approach to religion - I have no personal experience of God - and have not seen compelling evidence that he exists.
I am however prepared to change my mind on anything and everything if presented with objective evidence.

Evolution is our best explantion for the diversity of life (past and present) that we see on this planet. The theories of how evolution works are constantly being changed, but the underlying principles I hold to be true. This is what we should teach our students in science classes - not only what we know (or think we know) but why we think it.

There is no place for religion in the science class room. Religions generally have an act of faith - believing something without objective evidence. If one starts with the dogma that a particular religious text is accurate, then one is simply studying that text, not the natural world.

The intelligent design folk tried to get around this by removing the Christian component and starting with a creator. This is not scientific. There is no evidence of a creator, unlike the overwhelming evidence for evolution (even if the underlying principles are still in a state of flux).

If someone hauls the Loch Ness monster out onto the bank I'll be as excited as the next person, but it will make me believe in Loch Ness monster's - not a divine creator. That's what we need to teach our kids - they can make their own minds up about the unknowable and ineffable.

In reply to johnSD:


dont get me started on other subjects!! : )

In reply to Coel Hellier:

My other half works in an inner-city school in London, and whilst the religion is obviously predominantly Islam (followed by Hindi, Judaism, and Sikhism) there is a marked increase in the Evangelical versions of Christianity and the like, particularly in the poorer black communities of Battersea and Streatham for example. We live in Lambeth, a traditionally churchy district, and the occasional 'God-flyer' (as I call them) still lands on the mat in the white areas. This coupled with the Jehovahs popping round every few months. Religious groups have always found willing recruits from the downtrodden areas however.

Interestingly you can usually put religions on a race and affluence scale pretty easily in London. The new poor and religious seem to be of Somalian origin, Christian or Islamic, but then Africa is rife with religions of all flavours and Somalia isn't a nice place to be at the moment.

In reply to Cerulean:

The 'attacks' by the religious (or some of them) are not necessarily personal - they are against particular secular principles through particular channels. Some attacks are against the principle of equality, some are against free speech, and some are against the principles of teaching science to children. It is these priciples that secularists are defending.
I would rather be relaxed about it as you are, but sometimes you have to defend things that you would prefer just to take for granted.

In reply to thomm:

Perfectly understandable but what principle(s) do you feel has been genuinely threatened by [a] religion in British society today.

In reply to Cerulean:


Two glaring examples of violation of religious equality and freedom of religion are provided by schools:

A non-religious family will generally have a worse choice of taxpayer funded school than a religious family. The "faith" schools use their power over their intake to admit a higher fraction of more desirable kids and exclude a higher fraction of less desirable schools. That means that the socially-selective faith school has a better academic and discipline record (and hence is popular, perpetuating the cycle and their ability to pick pupils), whereas surrounding schools suffer from this selection by the faith school. A religious family can benefit from this, by preferential admission to the desirable school; a non-religious family cannot. This results in a large inequality, based on religion, in access to services that cost the taxpayer tends of billions a year.

A second example is the legally required compulsory religious worship in schools, which directly violates religious freedom. Yes, many schools now ignore this legal requirement, but many still enforce it. Yes, parents have the right to withdraw their kids (though the kids who are required to do the god worshipping do not), but that involves singling out their kids and depriving them of the other school-community aspects of assemblies.

There is no way either of these would be tolerated if it were Christians who were the worse off, and they should not be tolerated when it is the non-religious who are worse off.

Another principle threatened by the religious: free speech. The "religious hatred" laws threatened to seriously hamper free speech. They were watered down in the Lords (as a result of campaigning), but their advocates had stated that, for example, they would prevent any speech linking Islam to terrorism.

In reply to Cerulean:

Another example of gross inequality would be the content of the legally-required "religious education" part of the curriculum. Pressure groups for the non-religious have, over recent years, had a huge fight trying to get non-religious philosophies and approaches to ethics and citizenship treated alongside their religious counterparts, and for the right to non-religious people to representation on committees that determine such content.

In reply to Cerulean:


ermm, but you can apply its only a few people to almost anything. Doesnt really make it right and in this case having it sit alongside real qualifications devalues those.


Not really the same thing. I am guessing they taught the standard curriculum and not their own random world view.
Which is really the problem i have with the religious schools it really does depend on the teachers how heavily it is pushed.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Right thanks. I was really asking if there were any established principles being threatened by more current or new threats. The above is a product of historical tradition that the modern atheist has identified as a hindrance to progress in the acceptance of secular trends being established to reflect the views of the present-day population. Something of 'old news' being popularised by newly empowered atheism.

We do pander to minority groups in the UK, yes.


Ah but this really has its routes in public order and terror legislation itself. 9/11, slowly drifting into the past, prompted these sorts of changes and presented a realisation that 'home-grown' terrorist cells may become a problem via the polarisation of religion. Extremism if you will. The battening down of the hatches on "religious hatred" that you mention was in order to prevent the process of marginalised groups finding a significant following in order to mount a genuine threat to public and national security (7/7?). A far more complex principle than merely pandering to, or protecting the religious.

In reply to dissonance:

Yes you can apply it to almost anything, and there was no suggestion that it was right. I'm sure everyone realises that not only will people from these schools be discriminated aginst outside of 'religious' employment when placed against other candidates, but they will also find themselves straightened-out once they leave school at 16 - and see the world for what it really is. 16 or 18 or whatever the very young age is benig the most poignant part of this. To reiterate; this issue itself is not big, more another small strip of evidence in the portfolio for presentation of the case against religion having state sponsorship.

In reply to Cerulean:


Wasn't the main justification behind "religious hatred" laws, and censoring criticism of religion, the fact that Blair-government policy (and the West in general) was being perceived as anti-Islamic. To counter this they pursued a policy of promoting and appeasing "moderate" Islam.

This was partly in the hope that "moderate" Islam would then aid the rooting out of extremist elements, but also because of the attitude (characterised by Blair, but again more widespread) that Islam, being a religion, must be a Good Thing. So, yes it is more complex, but the root justification is appeasement of "moderate" Islam.

Hmm, or is that more or less what you said above?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think we're on the same lines yes, but I think the point about religion being a 'Good Thing' borders on paranoia somewhat, at least in terms of those pitted against religion per se. Politics is a slippery game of suggestion, implication, and coercion. A game at which TB excelled. He certainly had his own agenda in peddling religion as a 'Good Thing' but I believe in this case at least that the motives were genuine, ratified someway by their indeniable urgency to appease the masses and fend off a real threat. He may have been lucky ultimately in that the stone killed two birds for him, albeit too late for him to use it to genuinely bolster his 'Faith School' drive in the UK.

The relationship between TB and the underlying promotion of religion from a state point of view is a debate in itself. No doubt it played to many in the cabinet and the corridors of power, but thankfully we do live in a democracy and there are others with influence who try to find a balance. Take it Clegg is fairly high up on your list of politicians...?

In reply to snoop6060:

They were abolished last year

In reply to MG:
I lurk, i don't post, but honestly people, this is a no brainer: In the beginning there was nothing, then God (who is nothing?) made alot of stuff from nothing, then the man he made from nothing was lonely (as you would be if you were a prototype lifeform made from nothing) so God made a rib woman (no one knows why he didn't make her from nothing instead of resorting to surgery, but he's God so he doesn't really have to answer to me, plus he'd just made the entire universe from nothing so maybe B&Q had run out of "nothing") Anyway, then rib woman ate a forbidden apple because a talking snake told her to do it (God later condemned him to slither on his belly for eternity, i can only muse on how he was supposed to move before said event took place being as he has no legs or wings?) anyway, God was a bit miffed at this fruit thievery (no more nothing in stock to make stuff with remember!) so he condemned her to being "fig leaf" shy and all her future kind would be born with some original sin that would require them to be baptised to wash away, untill eventually he'd send his own son to die and come back to life etc etc......

Really?

Honestly?

This self serving drivel is worse than an eastenders and big brother omnibus, and having spent an hour every sunday morning for the first 18 years of my life listening to related guff, i've wasted almost enough time to have watched every episode of the aforementioned bumf!

but i don't see why all you religious types care, we're all going to burn in hell and gnash teeth and stuff anyway and you'll be on a cloud playing the harp and saying i told you so. You're destined for a better place, for us atheists, this is all we got! we're clearly desperate people!

I don't think there's really any doubt that there's an imbalance between the representation of atheists and that of religious people in our society.

But I wonder if many atheists have had the simple common sense to wonder if they might be taken more seriously if they were prepared to discuss the issue seriously instead of screaming that religious people are mentally ill and should be locked up and or/forcibly brainwashed out of their beliefs?

In reply to niggle:


Well niggle, only one person on this thread has taken the latter stance (and I suspect that even he is not entirely serious). Plenty of atheistic pressure groups (for example the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association) have addressed these issues sensibly and seriously. They are gradually getting somewhere, but it is a long drawn out battle against a government tendency to listen preferentially to the religious lobby and automatically assume that religion is a Good Thing.

In reply to niggle:

Many? Or few? Do you have the statistics to show many athiests not prepared to discuss the subject due believing religious people are mentally ill (rather than the singular example on this thread).

In reply to Cerulean:


Two examples of the automatic "Good Thing" assumption are:

The recent establishment of state-funded Islamic schools, with almost no wider debate in society about whether the values and ideas of such schools were ones that we as a nation wanted to promote and support with tax money. Instead it was just done by fiat by Government ministers who were themselves religious and who adopted the Good Thing assumption.

The widespread Blairite tendency to argue that genuine Islam cannot by associated with repression or abuse of human rights because religion is a Good Thing, and thus any such repression must be a distortion of the "true" religion.

[Hmm, two Islam examples, I'm sure I can think of examples of the Good Thing assumption applied to other religions, just for balance ....]

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But the issue here is not atheists/agnostics vs religion.

With this one warped exception religions accept that scientific study of the world as it is, or even as it simply appears to be, is a valid exercise, even if all that you can learn is an insight into the mind of god.

Creationism stands alone in seeing science as a threat & continuously attempting to attack the public perception of it.

Niggle you keep referring to my posts and lumping them with everyone else. I'm pretty sure a lot of the people on here are slightly more religion tolerant then me.

I was brought up as C of E went to Methodist Sunday school and spent 5 years at a catholic Brother (religious type) run secondary school. I have a lot of personal disgust at religion coming from my time spend t around Christian nutters. Thankfully they are pulling my old head brother up on child abuse changes so at least I will be able to see at least one locked up.

I am yet to see one bit of good come out of religion

In reply to Tom_Harding:


Getting to drink wine on a Sunday morning?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: Anyone can do that. You don't have to be religious; just French.

In reply to dan bailey: Dan Brown books?

No religion - no books!

Bad example though.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: We have religion to thank for some rather wonderful art, architecture and music. Not recently I hasten to add.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

nah he wrote crap about other subjects as well. i still cringe at the memory of reading his novel interpretation of cryptography.

It would have been painted if religion wasent around i suspect, rather then about religion the subject would probably have been the monachy.

Dan Brown books are just another reason to rid the world of religion very quickly.

In reply to dan bailey:


Do we? Or is it that artists depicted religious themes because that was where the rich patronage could be found, the churches having milked the citizenry? If Michelangelo had been commissioned by rich non-religious patrons, rather than the Pope, might we not have had just as good art, but on other topics?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree completely that atheists should be included in any discussion about society and politics - as I've said before, even solely religious discussions could benefit hugely from a neutral, which is to say strictly atheistic, viewpoint.

But inorder to have a discussion, we need to have a topic to discuss. What I think is problematic is that the atheist lobby's favoured discussion points are:

- Religious people are insane and/or deluded

- Religious people should be stripped of their rights in education

- It should be illegal to teach some religious ideas in some classes

- Some religious groups should be extreminated by bombing and invasion

- Religious people should be locked up

The list could obviously go on, but the point is made. Clearly there must be rational, sensible atheists out there who lament at all this extremist posturing, but much of the time they're drowned out by it.

The same is true of a lot of religion, no doubt.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


He was commissioned by non-religious patrons and produced several good secular works. But Michelangelo was a deeply devout man and believed that his skill and inspiration were sent by God and his secular works never rivalled his religious ones.

In reply to Coel Hellier: It's too hypothetical. Surely atheists can be broad minded enough to allow a bit of wonder at the genius of Islamic architecture and Renaissance painting without trying to divorce it from its religious context? Religion may not have achieved anything worthwhile in hundreds of years, but I do love a nice bit of medieval stone work...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's not really a relevant argument though. You are essentially trying to dimensionally-reduce and rewrite history. Nobody is saying that religion was fundamental or the primary driver in the development of art, or charity (or democracy and education a la John Knox) - but you can't deny that those things happened in the context of religion and that religious people and organisation developed a lot of good things. Pretending otherwise - like Tom's "nothing good has happened in the world due to religion, it's the biggest problem we have" - isn't constructive or fair.

>If Michelangelo had been commissioned by rich non-religious patrons, rather than the Pope, might we not have had just as good art, but on other topics?

He might have, but the fact is that he didn't.

In reply to i.munro:


I'm not so sure that creationism is alone in this regard. Many mainstream religions want to cordon off large areas of human concern from science. For example decision-making (free will?) and moral judgments in human minds -- mainstream religions get very twitchy about scientific investigation of these. They'd much prefer to erect barriers and wave "science keep out" placards. [For example, Tim Chappell, who is a professional in the area of social science and ethics, has insisted on these forums that ethical judgments are in a domain totally separate from science.] Of course science will just roll its tanks over the flimsy barriers, barely noticing the whimpering of the religious.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So which of the meanstream organised religions have made official statements to that effect then?

In reply to johnSD:


Constructive, no not realy. Fair, definatly

In reply to niggle:

niggle, you can't argue against the atheists saying what you've said they have above, and then argue that religion needs official statements otherwise the statements isn't affected by the religion.

I'm sure you can see the contradiction in your two arguments.

In reply to niggle:

>

Those two are very different. No atheists have seriously maintained that religious people as a whole are "insane". Deluded? Well, yes. But a "delusion" only means a "false belief". Saying they're deluded just means they're wrong in their opinion about the existence of God. Why is that problematic or a preventor of debate?


What "rights" are you on about? Your statement is too vague. If you mean that religious people should have no more rights in education than non-religious people then, again, what is wrong with arguing that?


I don't think anyone has gone as far as saying it should be "illegal". What people are saying is that we should not adopt curricula that promote certain non-scientific ideas as though they were scientific.


Hardly a mainstream opinion!


Hardly a mainstream opinion!


No niggle, the point is not made. You are the one who is trying to avoid sensible debate here. Your tactic is to search for isolated extreme opinions and then shout "look, look, an extremist!" in response to any attempt at discussion.

In reply to niggle:


The Catholic church, for starters. And arguments to that effect are common among vocal believers.

How about we start a debate, and niggle can argue his view on it (or his religion's view) and other people can argue theirs?


Is abortion right or wrong?

In reply to Footyfan4:

Depends.

Both.

In reply to johnSD:

Care to elaborate?

When is it right, and when is it wrong, and why?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


No. In fact I've said quite specifically that I'm sure there are atheists with intelligent and constructive topics to discuss, but that they are currently being drowned up by lunatics and extremists.

The acid test of this is simple: look at this thread. It begins with an atheist complaining bitterly that one niche religious view is a problem for the whole country and quickly descends into aggressive, abusive name-calling and extremist rhetoric.

So where is the reasoned, constructive debate? There's a very little here, but it's almost entirely swamped by hate posts from the fringes.

freedom to women - is such a personal thing that they should be able to make the decision themselfs. Not be forced to have a child they maybe dont want of cant care for because of warped religion morals

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And of course we're all expected to just take your word for this.

Again, this isn't constructive or reasoned debate - it starts with a ridiculous slur which is almost certainly a flat-out lie and is backed with a nonsense "everyone knows that" support.

It's just rubbish and exactly proves my point about why atheists aren't taken seriously.

In reply to niggle:

Have look through the forums a lot of topics on UKC decend into to that - nothing to do with religion

In reply to Footyfan4:

Nope.

It's complicated, and it's complicated, because it involves medical and social ethics and the balancing of probabilities.

In reply to Footyfan4:


Again, you're just proving my point for me.

Abortion, as has been pointed out, is a hugely complex social and medical issue. It's not a black and white, yes and no, right and wrong subject - so treating it that way is unlikely to lead to a constructive discussion.

Im intrested to know in what situation it would be wrong, assuming the woman has made the choice of her own free will?

In reply to niggle:


Your "drowned out" excuse is absurd. Your tactic, when presented with 99 sensible and measured opinions, and 1 more extreme one, is to point to the extreme one, yelling "look, look, an extremist" (fainting in mock horror, like a Victorian lady at the sight of a wooden chair without cloth on its legs) and claim feebly that that one person is preventing sensible discussion. It simply ain't so.


Well certainly not anywhere near you, since your regular and ongoing tactic is to prevent anything such by misrepresentation, misdirection, misinterpretation and a whole slew of other "niggle" tactics.

In reply to niggle:
It begins with an atheist complaining bitterly that one niche religious view is a problem for the whole country

That would have been me. I would dispute "complaining bitterly" bit, I was more pointing out the problem was real and not imagined as some on these forums like to maintain. Do you find my OP objectionable?

In reply to niggle:

What point am I proving?


Yes, it is complex. If it is possible to identify that it is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, then it's not unreasonable to go further and identify circumstances where it would be right, and those where it is definitely wrong. Of course, you cannot say just because it would be right, means that it must be done, merely that it would be acceptable.

If there is a 100% chance the mother would die carrying the child to birth?

A 50% chance?

A 1% chance?

It's possible to examine many issues within the whole area of abortion to better understand why we see it as right in some circumstances but wrong in others.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

What about if the baby would stand a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb, and there would be no ill effects or risks for the mother greater than those associated with abortion, nor would she be compelled to care for the child in any way.

Is that right?

In reply to niggle:


Hardly, my point was a measured statement of a widespread and mainstream religious position.


Would you like a cite for my claim?


Atheists *are* taken seriously. All science is atheistic these days, and scientific thought it highly dominant in many arenas. If we aren't taken seriously among believers, well, who the heck takes any notice of the religious in intellectual circles? It is many decades since religious thought has had any sensible contribution to make to intellectual society and advance; these days the religious just get laughed at or patted on the head.

In reply to Footyfan4: If i'm reading that right your saying that - if the baby would definatly survive the mother should be forced to continue with the pregnacy against her will and then have the baby imediatly taken from her after birth. That cant be good for the mothers mental state?

In reply to niggle:

Again I ask - show the statistics that the predominance of athiests are lunatics and extremists over the intelligent and constructive athiests. Only one person has made a view about religious folk being mentally ill.



Start again niggle, I've been through the thread and nowhere does MG identify his religious belief or not. He does not identify himself as an athiest anywhere in this thread so you cannot make your claim.

As to the abuse - you are the person that suggested I'm a fundamentalist and a crazy atheist. No one else has even attempted to lower themselves to this level - only you.

Lets look at some of your posts.

niggle 13:52 Wed - In fact if you're honest about this - and I'm guessing you won't be, ha ha! - there are really no foaming crazies at all on the religious side here, but you're certainly well stocked, aren't you?

niggle 13:54 Wed - Ah, the wonderful black and white world of the fundamentalist, where there is only yes and no, with no space for any other answer. You certainly put the "mentalist" in "fundamentalist".

niggle 14:50 Wed - Five-nil to the crazies

niggle 13:13 Thurs - But I wonder if many atheists have had the simple common sense to wonder if they might be taken more seriously if they were prepared to discuss the issue seriously instead of screaming that religious people are mentally ill and should be locked up and or/forcibly brainwashed out of their beliefs?

Reasoned constructive debate?

In reply to Footyfan4:

Wouldn't a discussion of abortion be more appropriate in a new thread?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And yet just a few hours ago your main discussion point was that embattled atheists are waging an ongoing battle to be heard by a prejudiced regime which treats believers preferentially.

Your self-contradictory rhetoric about believers being ignored is especially ludicrous when we consider how much time and effort you spend talking to and debatig with believers right here.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Not necessarily.

An abortion could be banned as murder.

If the baby could be safely delivered by caesarian section, and would stand a good chance of survival, then is this not preferable to the mother having the baby aborted?

The other alternative under banning abortion would be that the mother would be forced to give birth and (assuming she wants nothing to do with the baby) it be taken away from her. Bad for her mental health, but does this balance against the life of the baby?

It's a question of when the rights of the baby are significant enough for the rights of the mother to be affected.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes.

I won't start it, but if anyone else wants to I'll come along and join in.

Ideally I'd like niggle to, or another religious person, to enable the debate to have religious and non-religious aspects and examine them. That's why I brought it up here.

I'll not talk about it in this thread now though.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Your extreme black and white view on every point raised here fits that profile almost exactly. I can see that you're upset by that. I you want people to stop thinking you're nuts, why not stop actig like you're nuts?

In reply to niggle:


Well yes, the UK government has been a somewhat backward bastion of pandering to the religious, and at odds with society as a whole. One example was the Blair government's policy of increasing the number of "faith" schools when opinion polls were showing the population to be 64% against *any* taxpayer funding of faith schools.

My "atheists are taken seriously" was about the intellectual community, not about the UK government.


I meant more that their ideas are ignored, and it is true, theological ideas are just not taken seriously in intellectual life today.

In reply to Footyfan4: I see where you are coming from, I think it comes down to the debate of when is a foetus/baby a person. IMHO it’s not till they stick there little head out. A women should always have total control over what happens to their body and their baby, and forced caesareans is far more morally wrong then abortion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Exactly.

Why on earth would anyone include an atheist in a debate which involved religion in any way when that is their starting point? Someone with a prejudice that extreme is never, ever going to contribute anything useful to a discussion about religion. They neither want to nor are able to.

That's my whole point, beautifully illustrated by you.

Are you referring to every atheist in the entire world. I don’t think its prejudice half the time - its frustration at religious closed mindedness

In reply to niggle:


Because the debate is not about *religion", it's about how different people of a range of different opinions (various religions plus the various non-religious) should be treated in society today.

That debate does not require respect for any particular opinion, it only requires respect for people's right to their opinion.


But as you say, we're not really interested in discussing theology. But we are interested in (and both able to and entitled to) discuss how society should treat people.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

So a woman who is at her due date should have the option to kill the unborn baby and have the remains extracted by c-section or induced labour?

(and I don't mean to use kill in an emotive way. terminate, or similar mechanical term could be substituted)

In reply to johnSD: Yes i do beleave she should, its not a baby until its born (IMHO), although i think doctors would probaly rule it out on medical grounds (rather then Moral).

I will add to that though. You would hope that a woman would have made there mind up by the end of the safe abortion window. I'm no expert on it but im guessing that is what the criteria are for choosing the latest date allowed, safty rather then morals.

In reply to niggle:

Haha. Other, that is, than the single most useful thing its possible to know about religion!

In reply to niggle:


Not going into the atheist vs. theist debate, but I disagree that 'controversial' theories should be told in school. If they were true scientific controversies, with a decent group of professors behind an idea, then it would be something different, but most 'controversial' theories have been thought out by madman, and are an absolute waste of space in the classroom. Remember that taking these subjects into consideration takes time away from real science.
Science is really quite conservative, it takes time and it isn't easy to get a new idea accepted in the community- this is a weakness, but is also its strength, scrutiny is incredibly important.

Creationism falls in the category where there are very few scientists who agree with it, let alone respected professors. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this, and thus it should not be told.

Sorry, science is not a fluffy world where new ideas are greeted with pleasure, and people feel bad when they appear to be untrue- instead, it is very hard and rigorous, and any new ideas will be greeted with great scepticism, and you have to come with very hard and convincing evidence before it becomes established.

In reply to deepsoup: Too true...

In reply to Tom_Harding:

Can I suggest that your views are probably at the furthest extremes of society? I.e. not many people would agree with you.

Medically I don't imagine there is any difference in cutting a living or dead baby by caesarian, so the ethical decision would be entirely based on morality (i.e. the baby would be seen to have rights, and those rights would be considered).

In reply to johnSD: I think you are probaly right... Out of intrest what criteria would you draw up for the llatest possible date for abortion?

In reply to niggle:
"If Michelangelo had been commissioned by rich non-religious patrons, rather than the Pope, might we not have had just as good art, but on other topics?"

Botticelli got more religious as he got older, and his painting refelcted that. No real change in quality, just subject. Birth of Venus and Primivera to various Assumptions Of The Virgin. All beautiful.
It's often said that the Church of England owns the best buildings in Britain, sometimes by me

In reply to niggle:

Please point to my extreme views.

All I've done in all my posts is

1. highlight a contradition in one of your comments by showing where creationists have banned science in school
2. highlight a threat made by creationists
3. highlight your oxymoron when refusing to teach subjects with limited research
4. highlight when you accuse me of something (which you do without substantiating)
5. hilghlight a section of text from a creationist book that makes an incorrect statement
6. Asked how you could call me something without evidence
7. refuted the point that you claim I was making things up when all I was doing was copying your own text
8. requested evidence of when I've become agitated and abusive as you claim I had done so
9. suggested to someone that they join the 'crazy club' that you have decided that I fit in
10. asked for evidence on the lunatic to intelligent athiests you claim
11. suggested wine drinking
12. suggest dan brown books
13. asked again for statistics to your claim in 10 and highlighted you are the abusive person contrary to your claims

You continually claim to know my emotionaly well being and yet you are not next to me. There is only you that thinks I'm nuts. No one else has made that claim on this thread.

You claim the sample size of lunatic athiests from one person posting on here.

You claim I'm upset and nuts based on your sole post.

You do not base your comments on factual evidence but demand it from others.

And you say I'm nuts?

You assume too much niggle.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Attributing extreme views and emotional states to other posters is niggle's mainstay tactic. Of course he then complains that *other* posters are hampering sensible discussion!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


i still wonder if he is just a really dedicated troll or actually believes his positions.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Cough!!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry that I've hijacked. His other tactic is to divert. This progresses so he never fully answers outstanding questions but then reiterates his unsubstantiated claims as highlighted in this thread.

Personally, I think that if there is sufficient movement in the creationist front then this should be taught in schools. My religious studies did not concentrate on christian religion alone. This is a perfect place for this sect of religion not in science lessons.

In reply to dek:

You wanna see a doctor about that!

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Mullah Niggle is very busy at the mo!

In reply to fijibaby:


Do you really think he got more religious as time went by? I'm not sure. His subject matter certainly did, but artists at that time rarely chose their own subjects - they were usually commissioned by their patrons. There are some stories that he was a follower of Savonarola, but I'm a bit dubious about them for a variety of reasons.

I think this all points to the simple truth of the idea that the church pushed art forwards mostly because it had the money to spend on the best art. By and large, private patrons commissioned the then-fashionable classical works while the richer and more influential church commissioned religious ones, so artists (with all the usual commercial pressures of mortgages, wives and bills hanging over them) tended to aspire to mainly doing lucrative church contracts with a few private pot-boilers between times.

Michelangelo followed the same path, as did Da Vinci, Coreggio, Donatello and many others.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
This is what I mean about bordering on paranoia, you can't expect a referendum on a religious decision when countless others are also made without referendum. Iraq, for example? I should imagine the amount of registered votes against Iraq would probably number in amount similar to votes against some new religious notion being passed. We elect them and we can change them, that's the standard comeback. It's too much, apparently, to expect a referendum on anything...

As I said, religious leanings will always find support in politics, Westminster recruits from the home-counties schooling system which is solidly supported by the olde English Church. That trend is older than even class itself.

In reply to MG:
The problem as I see it is that creationism is being taught as serious science

In reply to Cerulean:


But on Iraq there was widespread debate and the government made huge efforts to make the case for its policy. Similarly, with something like assisted-suicide policy, there is widespread discussion and attempts to carry public opinion with any change in policy.

When the government decided to start using taxpayers' money to promote and support Islam, they made almost no attempt to justify this to public opinion (which, opinion polls showed, was hostile to the idea). Instead they just did it, making the assumption that it must be a Good Thing because it was religious.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I thought (I may well be wrong!) that it was far more prudential than that: simply a wise move to support moderate Islamism in the UK to reduce social tensions. No?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Does taxpayer promotion of Islam and segregated schooling reduce social tensions? The example of Northern Ireland, with generations of religiously segregated schooling helping to keep two communities apart and hostile, suggests not. The American South and apartheid South Africa are other examples where segregated schooling has done the opposite of promoting social cohesion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't have the answer to that, and rather suspect (as you do) that it does not. I simply suggested that that was the government's primary motive rather than doing it because it was 'a Good Thing because it was religious', or however you put it.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Agreed - I would call that obscene - even to imply, as creationists do, that there's a genuine controversy over the origins of the universe and the development of life on the planet is a distortion of the truth that is indistiguishable from a lie.

As an aside, do you think that Paul's dictum about being all things to all men, is how Christians justify warping the truth to their own ends?

In reply to csw:


Not just Christianity. I think that all religions are flexible when it comes to adapting to the social and scientific views of the time. The happy clappy Christianity of today is a far cry from the fire and brimstone religion of the middle ages. Early Islam took the view that science was revealing the nature of God and the Church of England famously accepted evolution. Perhaps the latest manifestation of this is the equating of particle physics with Eastern philosopy. This God of the gaps has worked quite well for many hundreds of years but as the gaps get smaller it becomes increasingly hard to squeeze God in. The solution? A pick and mix philosophy which highlights those aspects of science which, on the surface, seem to bolster religion (usually with the proviso that such discoveries were first shown by religion as a kind of oneupmanship) and condemns as false that which doesn't fit the current religious view point. But it isn't enough or even I think productive to heap scorn upon religion. Science must act as the prophet Elijah in lighting the fires of Baal and prove its superiority with evidence and continue proving it until the religious fanatic admits that the fires are actually lit!

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


They have to be!

I'm sure we all agree that the key mistake that creationists make is to try to use religion to understand the physical universe. Religion just doesn't have the tool kit for that kind of work; no experiments, no studies, no way of formalising findings.

Religion is very good at other things - in describing relationships, ethics, emotion, responsibility, community, law and lots of others things it's very successful, as you'd expect from a mature philosophical system. It may surprise you but the attempts by fundamentalists to use this philosophical system in the scientific role are actually quite a new phenomenon.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
What does that mean, practically speaking? How does a government go about supporting moderate Islamism?

In reply to niggle:
I'd agree with that.

Religion is good at describing things. I'm not sure what you've said here makes much sense.

In reply to anonymouse:


I think that religion's biggest success throughout history has been to create social cohesion because it provides a great way to create systems of shared values, a key component of strong community relationships.

Look at the way religions cleverly use tools like narrative (as parables or epic mythic histories), social hierarchy (as organised instruction or leadership) and art (as poetry or storytelling - it's a hugely powerful way to play on some of the most basic aspects of human culture to weave the values and ideals into the fabric of our society.

Interestingly, there have been some recent indications that some scientists are proposing that this is the evolutionary role of religion, and I think I might well agree with that.

In reply to niggle:


Not really, for most of the middle ages people used the religious approach to understand the physical world. Indeed, they would not really have understood the distinction you're making. A few notable milestones were Galileo (conflict of religious and empirical approaches), Newton (looked to the Bible for instruction on the physical world) and of course Bishop Ussher and his infamous Earth dating (early 17th century). So it isn't really anything new.

In reply to niggle:

Homosexuality, women clergy, ...


And war.

In reply to niggle:


I think I agree with most of that. Would you say that, for example, communism and football fan-clubs use much the same techniques and appeal to the same aspects of human nature to form cohesive groups?

In reply to niggle:

You are right here, and this a reason why I refuse to ever completely condemn religion. However, when there are many different religions within a community (as well as atheism), it becomes necessary to find a balance between them all, and I think in such circumstances, religion can lead to a reduction in strength of community relationships, as there are clear divides between people.

I assume you are saying this, as a comparison to just coming out with laws, and little explanation of the reasons for them/examples of why it is necessary. This could well be good for purposes of educating children, but not for adults, and I think it would be possible for children to be educated in a similar manner, but one which is more useful in developing logical thought and reasoning. Something that can be learned from religion, and improved upon.


If this is the case, would religion continue to grow, and the strengths of beliefs increase, or is it just a tool for enabling humans to live alongside one another more peacefully, working together rather than competing? Seems reasonable, but I imagine that religion will 'evolve' out again.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That's not really true. For example, the one about medieval people thinking the earth was flat is rubbish: they didn't and hadn't done since the ancient greeks realised it was round. The idea that the church promoted flat earthism was a rumour put around by a guy who had an axe to grind with the church.

In reply to Footyfan4:


It can do. Fortunately religion has a built in mechanis, to cope with this by fracturing into different sects or denominations to allow developing viewpoints to be accommodated.


Don't adults read books, tell stories and appreciate art?


The beliefs increase then branch and create new versions of themselves (although I don't agree with meme theory, you can probably see the viral nature of this process). But yes, I think its main purpose is as a tool for living successfully together.

In reply to MG:


Yes, with much the same results - a lot of good and some bad. As human beings we value our individuality because we think it gives us value as people. Finding others who share our views makes us feel that more strongly because they value those ideals in turn as they value them in themselves.

But it seems to me that individuality comes with a burden of being different from some others too, which can be a cause of friction. I'm not sure if there's a way around that.

In reply to niggle:
I quite agree with you in the main. Though I think that religion has always used the science of the time.
As for the rest, ethics, relationships etc. At its best religion does provide a framework for these which suits some people. At their heart most religions are concerned with improvement of the human condition. Be that going to Heaven or escaping the wheel of life and death. It is only the dogmatic side of religion that I have a problem with.

In reply to niggle:

Would that be Washington Irving, I think he was the propogater of the Flat Earth theory but did not believe it himself, the church jumped on the bandwagon as another tool to discredit scientists?

In reply to niggle:
Possibly, although religious differences have sometimes had the opposite effect. It may be a chicken and egg problem: you can't have religion without society, religion helps hold society together.

This isn't unique to religion though. Many folk/fairy tales have a strong moral framework that isn't religious and helps weave values and ideals into the fabric of society. There seems to be a slippery line between what is perceived as allegorical and what is perceived as absolute truth, between metaphorical and concrete language.

The flip side of what you say, which may be true, is that religion can also be used by the religious elite to take and hold power, prestige and wealth using precisely the same tools.

Interesting. Who? One hypothesis I've heard is that religion helped hold society together as settlements grew in size, by acting as a surrogate family unit. Now we have laws, science and so on, it's importance in that respect is diminished. I guess that might be one motive for creationists and other fundamentalists - they see that these things are successful so try to twist their religion to look like them. I don't know.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Me too. What I find odd is that things religions tend to be most stubborn and dogmatic about are the things they're actually least sure about. We're pretty sure about the value of social frameworks and shared values, but instead of being dogmatic about that religions have a habit of choosing vague, hazy stuff like the existence of a supreme being or the origin of the universe.

That doesn't make sense to me.

In reply to anonymouse:


Hang on, I actually saw it in the "10 scientific mysteries thread".

I'll go find it.

In reply to niggle:

Yeah there's a bit about it here, but the cite seems to be missing. Worth reading though:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327201.400-10-mysteries-of-you-supe...

In reply to niggle:
The idea that the earth is round has probably been rediscovered and forgotten many times. I imagine that it's easily forgotten because the consequences run so strongly against the evidence of the senses, common sense and intuition.

In reply to anonymouse:


Yep, true, I mean, why don't all those Australians just fall off? Are they all hanging on by their fingernails all the time?

In reply to niggle:


A good example of this "extremist posturing" by "militant" atheists who are preventing any sensible discussion by their offensiveness.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/oooooooffffeennnnssiiiiiiivvve.p...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Wow, that's possibly the most obnoxious case of censorship I've ever seen.

In reply to niggle:
Thanks, niggle.

In reply to MG: The idea that this sort of creationism makes any sense at all is on a par with the idea that evolution being 'true' excludes the existence of a God.

Both camps are daft.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

Does anyone believe this?

In reply to MG:

Well Darwin struggled with the idea for a while, but no evolution does not preclude the existence of God, it just shows the start of the OT to be cobblers.

Plenty of other arguments to preclude the existence of God.

In reply to The New NickB: start of the OT to be cobblers.


Not cobblers - a prophetic poem

In reply to Nigel Modern:


Name a "camp" that claims that evolution being true [why the quote marks?] excludes the existence of a god. I suspect you're strawmanning.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

Well Biblical literalism had to be re-evaluated a little didn't it.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I think you took the bait Coel...:O)

Why is Dawkins (and others) so interested in evolution except that he sees it as 'proof'...

You know why I put quote marks on evolution (or should)...it's a theory. The best we have for explaining a process we only partly understand. I think as a theory it needs to evolve.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I would suggest that Dawkins sees the thoery of evolution as a work of almost unequaled genious. Rather than just something to bash the religious with, as I have already said, plenty of other ammo for that task.

In reply to Nigel Modern:


You have Dawkins backwards. His number one priority, his number one concern is evolution. His whole life as a scientist has been devoted to understanding evolution and advancing our understanding of it.

It would be fairer to say that the only reason he wades into the religion is because religion is the biggest barrier to the promotion and acceptance of evolution. In America creationism is explicitly trying to replace evolution in classrooms, while elsewhere, even "liberal" religious attitudes are still the main barrier to people accepting evolution.

It's probably a fair bet that Dawkins would never have bothered with religion had it not been for this. For most of his career Dawkins wrote very little about religion, except for the odd barb in response to religious-based attacks on evolution. It was only 30 years after his first book that he wrote anything on religion more generally. And that was because, while religion can survive without creationism, creationism cannot survive without religion.

Oh, and by the way, Dawkins has never said that evolution disproves God, so don't misrepresent him. It is only Christians who have that sort of crass, simplistic view.


And do you know what the word "theory" means in science? It does not mean, as it does in colloquial use, "unproven". So why does evolution being a theory lead to you putting it in quote marks? Evolution has been so overwhelmingly proven by copious evidence that it has long been accepted as established fact by everyone who knows what they're talking about.


Why, what is wrong with it? Let me guess, you dislike it because it doesn't include your god.

In reply to Coel Hellier: oh please your not still being Dawkin's number one defender. Dawkin's does not have particular expertise in either science or philosophy, his professorship is in something like public understanding of science, very different fields! He's got a reasonable line in pithy one liners, a distorted agenda and a somewhat disturbing focus on the 'jewish God'. His well documented response to the question 'what if your wrong' is just nonsense (but admittedly does make a good sound bite.)

In reply to tatty112:

Do you know absolutely Sweet FA about his academic credentials or do you know even less?

And how does a person with years and years of academic work at Oxford and UCal not have particular expertise in science or philosophy- let alone have the credentials to be awarded an eminent role as professor of public understanding of science (at a world class university), or be a fellow of New College, Oxford.

I can only imagine that you say he has no particular expertise in science or philosophy in the sense that he has general expertise in the fields of science, philosophy and literature, for all of which fields he has been awarded highly prestigious awards.

It seems to me, like most non-scientific critics of Dawkins, you are attempting to discredit him, simply because you don't have the wit to criticise his ideas.

And Dawkins is humble enough to recognise that it's the ideas that matter.

However, and I'll close by resorting to low personal slurs (as they amuse me).

There are few people, outside of those so intellectually challenged that they might spell Dawkins as "Dawkin's", who may say that he does not have particular expertise in science or philosophy.

In reply to Nigel Modern:
>

Actually the latest thinking is that it should be regarded as a law on a par with gravity. On account of its robustness.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Infact I think I shall henceforth refer to "the law of evolution" just to keep things clear

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Actually here is a snippet that puts it very well.


When enough people buy the assumption that a generalization can't ever
be violated, it gets dubbed a 'law of nature.'


It already has. More so, actually. No one can rigidly prove the laws
of thermodynamics (in fact, modern subatomic physics depends on the laws
of thermo being breakable within the uncertainty principle), but you can
rigidly prove, by direct observation, that Darwin's rules of variation
and selection work the way Darwin said they did. Just look at the scare
this week about that staph strain that's resistant to vancomycin.
Darwin's process is no longer a theory, it's an observed fact. The
"theory" part comes in when you extend the process to cover the origin
of larger taxa over geologic time. We _know_ that Darwinian evolution
can produce speciation, because we've seen it happen. We don't _know_
that it can also produce new genera, families, orders, classes, or
phyla, because we haven't directly seen any of those things happen, but
we _theorize_ that it can.

In reply to Duncan Bourne: Theres an interesting film (starring Kirk Douglas) currently on True Movies 'Inherit the Wind'. Its dealing with the trial of a teacher in bible belt America for teaching Evolution and Darwinism.

In reply to tatty112:


"You're" not "your" and "Dawkins" not "Dawkin's". And yes, the science of evolution does need defending from ignorant, semi-literate creationists like you.


ROTFLMAO! Oh yeah?? How about 3000 citations recorded on the Science Citation Index to Dawkins's lead-authored scientific research. How many times have you been cited on the Science Citation Index tatty? Let me guess, never?

And how about a book (Selfish Gene) that is required reading on just about every biology degree worldwide, and accepted as a landmark in its field?


He took up that post relatively late in his career, after a long and distinguished career as a zoologist at prestigious universities in the UK and US.

How about you tatty, what are your qualifications to twitter about science or evolution? Let me guess, you have a diploma in teaching design to kiddies, and you've read the Answers in Genesis web page?


Quotes to back that claim up?


Why? (And "you're" not "your". Sheesh, what chance do the kids have when their school teachers don't care?)

In reply to MG:

This is a very sad article and totally undermines both our education system and the majority view of Chrisitianity in this country. It is not right for doubt about evolution, from whatever source, to become the object of tension with science. Such doubts should be raised and challenged in the science class room, university lecture theatre and in the lab; they should not become an area of quasi-knowledge that become embodied giving an credence to their being scientifically real. There are plenty of problems with evolution, but those problems are really just yet to be understood aspects that need scientifically clarifying. I still can't quite fathom who these religious eccentrics are though. I'm not that regular a church goer, but I've been sizing up a few up here recently: Baptist, Church of Scotland, Episcopal, another Baptist, another Episcopal, and I have heard none deal with the genesis story as if it is anything other than allegory. Furthermore, the university research department I work in has a fair number of openly christian individuals, including PIs, none of which have a problem with evolutionary theory, except at its boundaries, where the science doesn't add up. Having been in the CofE for while, I've never seen such views arising there. Perhaps these views are not mainstream religion, but arise from some form of personal adaptation, understanding, in which case what is the source?

The only time I've met people with these sort of views was in university as a student when a rather radical group of the Christian Union were advertising a bible study, which when I went to it involved no form of bible study as I've understood it, it being rather more dictatorial from the group leader along these lines: "Last night I was reading and God came down and spoke to me and told me what this passage of scripture meant". It didn't matter if it was the whackiest stuff, challenge was definitely not welcome. Their bible study was of the order of 5 minutes dictatorial bible discussion and then 25 minutes of speaking in tongues, which was of course, quite literally, psychologically hysterical. Well these guys were of the view that evolution wrong, and creationism right, and were not open to religious or scientific challenge on the matter, which tells you alot about their mind set. Indeed, for their spiritual sustenance, they travelled to Greenock to a well known whacky church called the Struthers Memorial Church, where a well known fundamentalist called Hugh B Black preached.

There certainly is a growing phenomenon of fundamentalist ideas appearing at the aggresive intersection with society, for example, in education. What the source is, or what the reason for this emergence is far from clear, because it doesn't appear in the theology of any of the churches I attend or have attended. It seems to me, that those who believe these odd views seem to be far more motivated to purport them than any form of religious motivation exists to oppose them, which brings the gross appearence of polarisation toward fundamentalism.

In reply to Jimbo W: Fundamentalism is believing in God, there are just degrees of the implimentation of it.

In reply to Jimbo W:
Well said and well put.
For me it is the difference between the "how" and the "why". For me I think that there is enough evidence out there to say that this is "how" things most likely occurred. "Why" is still open to personal interpretation. For instance to use an analogy. The community of Findhorn in Scotland at one time produced some fantastic vegetables and anything planted grew amazingly well for such a northern situation. Now this was variously described as the chance occurrence of particularly fertile soil with a particularly sheltered location and other significant physical attributes or a deep spiritual energy. Many went for a combination of both. So for my analogy I would say that the scientific view of Findhorn is akin to Evolution while the view that it is scientific elements but they have been put together by some unseen and so far undetectable force is akin to the majority Christian view you describe and while these two groups are happy with their own viewpoints, which do not cancel out the basic science, the creationists are out there claiming evidence for fairies at the bottom of the garden.

In reply to


This question illustrates the difficulty that scientific and colloquial meanings of the words "theory" and "law" are very different.

In colloquial usage, "law" means "proven correct" and "theory" means not-proven and might well be wrong. Both of these are wrong, as used by science.

The term "law" is used for a statement about how things work that can be summed up in a single equation or a succinct sentence. And the word is still used even if the "law" is only approximately true or even disproven. An example of this would Newton's law of gravity, which is now known to be wrong (superseded by Einstein's relativity), but is close enough to right in many situations that it is still very useful.

Other examples are things like Boyle's law, Hooke's law, and the perfect gas law, which are all only approximately true. For example the Van der Waal's equation, while still only an approximation, works much better than the perfect gas law. Nevertheless, the perfect gas law is still useful because it is very simple and easy to use.

So, "law" does not mean "proven", it just means "statement in one sentence of one equation" -- that statement might be true, approximately true, or far from true.

The word "theory" does not mean "unproven" or "hypothesis" or anything similar. It really means "explanation", but it is generally used for package of ideas that have wide explanatory power. In other words it is for explanations that can't fit in one sentence or one equation.

Thus, a "theory" (= package of explanatory ideas) might contain several "laws". A good example would be the "theory" of thermodynamics, which is a package made up of the four "laws" of thermodynamics. Another example of a theory (= explanatory package) is evolution, which contains laws (one example being Dollo's Law, which itself is an example of an approximately-true law).

Thus, a "theory" just means "package of ideas", things that can't be summed up in a sentence. The term carries no connotations of "unproven", and is used for things that are proven correct by copious evidence (e.g. germ theory of disease; Darwinian evolution), and for things now proven incorrect but still useful (e.g. Newton's theory of gravity; Bohr theory of the atom), and for things now junked as wrong and not useful (e.g. phlogiston theory).

So the answer to the above question is that the questioner does not understand the scientific usage of the words: "theories" never becomes "laws". Though, yes, it is a pity that the scientific usage does not fully match the popular usage, which can lead to misunderstandings.

But having said all the above, scientists rarely bother discussing this stuff among themselves because scientists don't really care about these labels; what they care about is the evidence, not the mere semantics of the label. Whether something is labeled "hypothesis", "law", "theory" or whatever doesn't change the evidence for it, so scientists rarely bother discussing which label is most appropriate. It doesn't matter.

The only people who try to make an issue out of these things are creationists. They are the only ones who make arguments about the truth of something based on which of these mere semantic labels is used, which shows the utter emptiness of their thoughts.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Cheers for that Coel. It clears up the difference between "Law" and "Theory" for me. I had thought it a case of direct observation.
Hope you got some good climbing in on this excellent day I have been curled up with lemsip bemoaning the fact that I am too ill to climb.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Yep, had a good time at Back Forest and Newstones for a few hours.

Are you growing a short curly tail and saying oink, oink?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Now Coel you know that flying pigs run counter to evolutionary theory

In reply to niggle:


There's hope for Iowa after-all!

"Late Friday night DART officials reversed their decision to remove the banners [...] DART met with the sponsors of the ad, Iowa Atheist and Free Thinkers, Friday afternoon. DART concluded they were operating under an outdated advertising policy. DART officials apologized to the group and said they would reproduce the ads [at] their expense."
http://www.kcci.com/news/20327547/detail.html

Also notable are the outraged comments from some of the good citizens of Iowa. Here are three:

"I will never ride a Dart bus again. We are letting this cult destroy America which was founded on religious beliefs."

"I agree with Sassy12 we allow this ad to be put back on the buses then what. [...] remember 9-11? That was evil that day are going to go back to that again?"

"Do Not be surprised when people do not ride these buses with these signs on them! What are you thinking, or should I say not thinking! Especially at fair time!! This is a disgrace to ALL AMERICANS AND EVERYTHING WE FOUGHT FOR AND WILL ALWAYS STAND FOR!!!! This is one family would will never board these buses!"

And if anyone's interested in what could possibly be so outrageously offensive in the atheists' ad as to provoke these responses, see the ad itself in this link:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/oooooooffffeennnnssiiiiiiivvve.p...

In reply to Jimbo W:


An excellent post - and much more the calm, mature approach that does theists credit than many of the comments on here.

J

In reply to Moacs:
Why this is the friendliest "Evolution VS Creationism" debate ever
Hurrah!

In reply to Jimbo W:
That was my experience too.

The fastest growing group of Christians in the UK are the Pentecostals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/pentecost...

They're big on the holy spirit and the direct experience of god, which sometimes expresses itself as speaking in tongues. As whacky as a little glossolalia might seem, at least it isn't deliberately anti-science. I think there are two separate things going on here. There's the literalist stuff, and the more ecstatic, mystical stuff. You are kind of balling them together and they don't necessarily belong together. To me, they almost seem to be shooting off in opposite directions.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

"I go into the Upanishads to ask questions" - Niels Bohr.

In reply to Andrew Murray:
I suspect he found very few answers there.

In reply to MG:
Where an issue is represented by two extremes , the answere lies somewhere between the two ,
think about it

In some cases, yes, but i can think of a good few where it doesent

In reply to rayash:

Argument to moderation

next fallacy please

In reply to anonymouse: "He (Werner Heisenberg, after discussions with Rabindranath Tagore) began to see that the recognition of relativity, interconnectedness, and impermanence as fundamental aspects of physical reality, which had been so difficult for himself and his fellow physicists, was the very basis of the Indian spiritual traditions" - Fritjof Capra.

In reply to Andrew Murray:

So, he already knew the answers and found something that sounded similar in an old book. I don't want to knock ancient wisdom, but as a rule you can't use it to calculate things, like the perturbations to mercury's orbit that are attributable to general relativity, say.

In reply to rayash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

In reply to rayash: So on the issue of whether or not there's a god the answer is there's a bit of a god? Or maybe there is a god but it only works part time (could do with it getting back on the clock as I reckon its got a lot of e-mails to deal with).

In reply to rayash:


"Jill thinks she is pregnant, but her GP tells her that she isn't. Therefore Jill is exactly one-half pregnant."

Notable how the rather patronising remark "think about it" is usually used by those who haven't.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I'd considered posting the "little bit pregnant" argument last night, but on reflection I'm not sure it's appropriate to a debate about such an abstract concept. Which isn't to say his argument is appropriate, but this isn't an either/or situation.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Therefore the probability that Jill is pregnant is about 5%.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I love to use the phrase "think about it" because it drives some people mad - like pink hippos or the song "hey mickey". They can't stop thinking about it.

In reply to toad:


Hmmm, isn't it?

Either the Earth is about 6000 yrs old, as the YECs claim, or it is about 4.5 billion years old, as science tells us.

Either man was specially created, much as he now is, or man has a common ancestry with all animals, and emerged gradually from a long line of ancestors, from fish-like things to reptile-like things to shrew-like mammalian things to monkey-like things and thence ape-like things.

In reply to Coel Hellier: yeah, sorry - Not expressing myself clearly, I'd assumed Rayash was being more general than just the YEC debate.

In reply to toad:


Yep, but even the old-earth creationist stance is fairly either/or with the scientific one. I guess the theistic-evolution stance beloved of people like Francis Collins is not so either/or, but that's pretty far from what is usually called creationism.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


or God could have a really devious sense of humour and she created it 6000 years ago but then faked it to look older

In reply to dissonance: typical of a woman!

In reply to dissonance:


Ahh, last-Tuesdayism. My favourite philsophical stance!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


you heretic!!!!!!!!!!!

the world was created last wednesday you, you, you Arghhhhh words fail me.


I did meet someone once who was actually a fan of the dinosaur test. the scary thing is i think they thought they won the argument since i was rendered speachless.

In reply to dissonance:
Or created it 10 trillion grillion years ago and faked it to look younger.

In reply to smithers25: I think you have no idea of what religion is, what it represents and its purpose. You sound like a bit of a twunt.

In reply to tony92:

Go on then - do explain.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: oh, go on then.

youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg&

In reply to toad:

Ah, as usual the irony of a whiny, ranting headcase shouting that whiny, ranting headcases should sit down and shut up is lost both on the whiny, ranting headcase posting the link and the whiny, ranting headcase in it.

Bit hard of thinking, aren't you?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

In reply to niggle: Oh thank goodness for that - I was having withdrawal symptoms today!

In reply to niggle: you forgot unoriginal - I nicked it from another discussion board - but hey, The Niggle seal of approval is worth more than gold.

In reply to niggle:


Went to see him the other night, very good. You'll possibly be pleased to hear that Dawkins gets as much stick as the religious in his show.

In reply to MG:

Sadly there'll always be an audience for that sort of thing - the kind of comedian who welcomes the "good on yer mate sticking it to them muslims, they got it coming" comments afterwards, and the audience who make them.

In reply to niggle:

He's quite a lot more subtle than that actually, as was his audience.

In reply to MG: Snap, I was just going to say that as well. Saw him last Thursday. Very good show at the Fringe.

In reply to MG:


Oh yeah, that video was really subtle and didn't involve him bellowing a non-stop stream of anti-religious bollocks at all, is that what you actually think?

He's not even half a step up from Bernard Manning, and his audience are exactly the same: snarling halfwits looking for someone to hate.

In reply to niggle: I haven't seen the youtube clip but I am surprised you think that about Marcus Brigstocke.

In reply to MJH:


I take it then that you think he's got "the right idea" about "them Muslims", is that right?

Is it a big surprise to think that a man making a living shouting anti-religious abuse isn't terribly smart or subtle? It's got all the subtelty of making jokes about "darkies".

In reply to niggle: actually, Nig. His beef was with the Abrahamic religions generally and in 7 mins he got stuck into christianity, judaism and Islam pretty evenly.

In reply to niggle: In which case you are missing the point and the irony.

Whatever else he is, he isn't a bigot.

Yes his comedy is often ranting - that is his "style", but it is rarely about religion. Having said which he has a very good show on at the moment at the Fringe kind of about religion or at least his own need for spirituality.

In reply to toad:

What's truly sad is that Brigstocke himself almost touches on the truth when he says that religious extremists need an audience - but he's too stupid to realise that it's not the moderate religious people who he blames who are that audience.

It's him.

It's every shouty, god-hating, cookie-cutter knob end ranting about extremists and how much you hate them and wish they'd all just go away. You are their audience, the ones who legitimise what they do by obsessing about it endlessly, publicising it and saying they must be stopped.

Seen any religious moderates starting threads ranting about religion here?

No.

But there are a hell of a lot of them started by "atheists" who just can't seem to stop thinking, talking and shouting about God and religion. Brigstocke is right; religious extremism would wither and die if it was considered sensibly and calmly and gradually sidelined more and more.

But what's sensible or calm about him or his moronic rant?