John Derbyshire on Ben Stein’s new film Expelled and the nonsense that is so-called Creation Science:
Western civilization has many glories. There are the legacies of the ancients, in literature and thought. There are the late-medieval cathedrals, those huge miracles of stone, statuary, and spiritual devotion. There is painting, music, the orderly cityscapes of Renaissance Italy, the peaceful, self-governed townships of old New England and the Frontier, the steel marvels of the early industrial revolution, our parliaments and courts of law, our great universities with their spirit of restless inquiry.
And there is science, perhaps the greatest of all our achievements, because nowhere else on earth did it appear. China, India, the Muslim world, all had fine cities and systems of law, architecture and painting, poetry and prose, religion and philosophy. None of them ever accomplished what began in northwest Europe in the later 17th century, though: a scientific revolution. Thoughtful men and women came together in learned societies to compare notes on their observations of the natural world, to test their ideas in experiments, and in reasoned argument against the ideas of others, and to publish their results in learned journals. A body of common knowledge gradually accumulated. Patterns were observed, laws discerned and stated.
(…)
The “intelligent design” hoax is not merely non-science, nor even merely anti-science; it is anti-civilization. It is an appeal to barbarism, to the sensibilities of those Apaches, made by people who lack the imaginative power to know the horrors of true barbarism. (A thing that cannot be said of Darwin. See Chapter X of Voyage of the Beagle.)
And yes: When our greatest achievements are blamed for our greatest moral failures, that is a blood libel against Western civilization itself. What next, Ben? Johann Sebastian Bach ran a slave-trading enterprise on the side? Kepler started the Thirty Years War? Tolstoy instigated the Kishinev Pogrom? Dante was a bag-man for the Golden Horde? Why not go smash a few windows in Chartres Cathedral, Ben? Break wind in a chamber-music concert? Splash some red paint around in the Uffizi? Which other of our civilizational achievements would you like to sneer at? What else from what Waugh called “the work of centuries” would you like to “abandon … for sentimental qualms”? You call yourself a conservative? Feugh!
For shame, Ben Stein, for shame. Stand up for your civilization, man! and all its glories. The barbarians are at the gate, as they always have been. Come man the defenses with us, leaving the liars and fools to their lies and folly.
And that’s from the pages of National Review, folks.
“And there is science, perhaps the greatest of all our achievements, because nowhere else on earth did it appear.”
Advanced astronomy was developed independently by the ancient egyptians and mayans. The Muslim world was centuries ahead of Western civilization in terms of mathematics during the 12th-15th centuries. In fact, it was the seat of advanced thought during that point. Although the final point still stands, that the great and lasting scientific revolution began in Europe at that point.
Wait a minute… you mean science is the foundation of Western Civilization? You mean that science, not religion, lead Christians to build the first hospitals? That an amoral scientific deduction required the first police force to be created in New York? That the passion for unrestricted practice of science led the pilgrims to leave England?
That’s a belief that requires some faith.
Stein is not saying “this happened and because you don’t believe it you are going to hell.” The point of the movie is that the entire concept of divine creation is absent from western educational systems even though it permeated the core of the individuals who created those systems. If the scientific community seeks to be honest about its craft it would at least acknowledge that divine creation is a possibility.
Saying that western civilization is founded explicitly on the scientific findings of the last 300 years fails to account for the knowledge gained by the Socratics, Gnostics, Muslims, and even the eastern societies (Chinese) whose knowledge was brought to the west via trade and war.
The idea that “None of (these prior renaissance) ever accomplished what began in northwest Europe in the later 17th century, though: a scientific revolution” is valid on its face, but the subtext of it is that the largest percentage of these early scientists we Christians. I do not believe that science must be separated from faith, or that the two cannot be at odds. I am however alarmed by any athiestic person who claims that a higher power cannot exist, even though they cannot disprove it any better than they can prove a scientific meta-phenomenon like evolution or the Big Bang.
My kids will study classical science as I did but they will also learn the creation stories of as many religions as possible in order to better understand their world.
What a couple of self absorbed wind bags you two are. In your need to show everyone how knowledgeable you are, you seem to have allowed the point of this article to fly right over your head.
Bottom line, Stein is clinging to an archaic, outdated idea that has no place in the modern scientific world. Want to take your kids to a fairy tale house and teach them all about creationism? Fine, but do it on your time and dime. I certainly don’t want my tax dollars going to teaching kids falsities.
the sentiment is fine but the facts are wrong donkey.
this intelligent design stuff is dishonest bullshit but you sir are just as ignorant.
What do you have against Apaches? They are very scientific, when you get into how they figured out the workings of nature through testing and investigation. Maybe you are confusing them with some other tribes. Read The Tracker by Tom Brown Jr.
My previous comment should have read: What does John have against Apaches?
The issue is not that creatiuon is not a possibility; it is that it is not a scientific possibility. The difference is that until someone devises a testable hypothesis about creation and then tests it, creationism will not be science even if it is true. There is no problem with teaching creationism or intelligent design in a religion or philosophy class, this is appropriate, however it is not science and thus should not be in the science classroom.
I applaud you exposing your children to multiple origin stories I would urge you to be clear to your children on the differences between scientific ways of knowing and spiritual/other ways of knowing.
Well, Mike, without the scientific study of medicine a hospital is just a place to collect the nearly dead. Without the physics and astronomy that underpins, time keeping and navigation there would have been no shipping, hence no New York and so no New York cops. Moreover, the first organized ethical police forces were fashioned after the Peelers. Robert Peel was a pragmatist and implemented ethical rules in establishing the force to measurably reduce the crime rate. At no time did he invoke any religious convictions. It is a common misconception that ethics are derived from religion. Non-religious folks simply base ethics on reality and on logic in order to maximize benefit and minimize cost whilst conforming to evolved human group instinct. They don’t do so because they fear a “god’s” vengeance.
I think you also miss the crucial difference between technology, naturalism and genuine science. Knowing when Mars will rise after observation (as the ancients did) is very different from knowing it is a giant sphere of iron rich rock in orbit around a nuclear furnace.
Making statements which CAN be falsified, is the esence of true science. Evolution HAS NOT been falsified despite colossal effort. It is a predictive theory that is at least as robust as gravity, quantum mechanics etc. It is only in dispute because it conflicts with Christian mythology.
I agree that science says nothing about the existence of divinity or of a ‘plan’ for the unfolding of the universe. What it does say is that if God made man, then he surely did it with evolution. Science is not even ‘interested’ in God – since such a concept is intrinsically non-falsifiable. In that case, in order for religious conviction and science to coexist you merely need to see the bibles creation story as allegorical – as most of the rest of the text is seen – and understand that science is not in conflict with religion because they do not intersect. The evolution conflict is the result of excessively literal reading of a single religious text.
Intelligent design is surely not the route to conciliation because it is a thinly disguised assault on the very core of science – it is not falsifiable and is uselessly non-predictive.
Another thought for you: THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH(John 1:1-18) [I think!!].
To me that implies that the universe (and all creation) is the word of God – not (just) the bible. Hence from your perspective science is a study of the word of God. The universe (and hence the Word) tells us through scientific study that it is 15 billion years or more old. It tells us that we evolved in it over 4 billion years or so from micro-organisms. Who are bible-readers to argue with the Word made flesh??
What I’m saying in brief is that if you like to believe that God created things, great. But what happened after that is – regardless of any devine involvement – is indistinguishable from chance, evolution, and other things that science describes.
(out of respect for you views I have tried to remember to capitalize ‘God’ and ‘Word’ – sorry if I missed any)
I think John Derbyshire’s reasoning was poor, but I think Stein’s argument and “proof” of intelligent design was just as bad. The above two posts (from presumably non-professionals) were more informative and insightful.
I would suggest though, that as an argument, you do not charge people with “disproving” something. It’s your burden to prove it or convince the debater. Asking someone to prove the negative is a sure sign that you, yourself, can’t sell the affirmative. Can you disprove aliens? Ghosts? Gnomes?
“My kids will study classical science as I did but they will also learn the creation stories of as many religions as possible in order to better understand their world.”
– In my opinion, the best anyone could do for their children.
the sentiment is fine but the facts are wrong.
this intelligent design stuff is dishonest bullshit but you are just as ignorant.
einstein was religous, one of his most famoues quotes is “God doesnt play dice”.
Peter,
If you’ve read his writings, you know that the “God” that Einstein referred to was not the same concept that Jews and Christians have of a diety.
How exactly will learning a vast amount of creation stories help your kids to better understand their world?
Teaching religion stories as cultural history isn’t the issue; it’s teaching religion and prayer as fact without any scientific proof. And also teaching just one religion, when students of a school would surely be from many different religious backgrounds. That is what church is for. When my daughter goes to school, I want her to be taught things that will help her advance in the business world. If I want to instill spiritual beliefs, I’ll send her to church. I don’t know why people have such a problem with that idea.
“creation stories”
Thank you Mike, for proving Enginerd’s point quite succinctly, obviously without even meaning to
Science is observing and making conclusions based on these observations. Creationism fundamentally fails this definition; Creationists already have a conclusion and are searching frantically to find supporting evidence. This is NOT science… it’s not even pseudo-science. It’s about as scientific as Astrology.
Science is my religion. Creationism is one of the only religious viewpoints that I, as a Scientist, find truly and horribly offensive.
Thanks for the great post Enginerd.
“you mean science is the foundation of Western Civilization? … science, not religion, lead Christians to build the first hospitals?”
Applied sciences like medicine did not actually work or become any good until the invention of the scientific method and the adoption of the germ theory of disease. We could still be praying over the beds of the sick and relying on magic for healing. So you can say the “Christian” hospitals were started by folks that wanted to get a magical golden ticket, but those hospitals were useless without good science.
“…amoral scientific deduction required the first police force to be created in New York”
That is just stupid. Anywhere there are people, you need police. This has nothing to do with science. What are you getting at?
“the passion for unrestricted practice of science led the pilgrims to leave England” Of course not — are you dense? What kind of a straw man are you trying to erect here?
“That’s a belief that requires some faith.”
Wow — you sure knocked that straw man on its ass.
“…that the entire concept of divine creation is absent from western educational systems…”
How exactly can you test whether a magical force that has no basis in nature can do something? You can’t test the magical claim that God is tweaking the knobs behind the scenes in such a way as to be completely outside of nature – yet able to influence it! Any phenomena you observe can be boiled down to God did it. Don’t investigate – don’t learn how the system became the way it is — just jump to the conclusion that God did it.
And whenever science determines how something actually works – or how it came to be – leaving only small gaps that are not understood — ID folks jump right into the gaps with “God did it”. Whenever a new gap emerges – god is there to fill it in until science fills the gap. God is relegated to the parts of human knowledge that are unknown – only to be ejected when science makes things clear. What a pitiful way to worship your magical dude.
“it permeated the core of the individuals who created those systems”
One of the great things about science is that it has a great disdain for arguments from authority. Who cares that Newton believed in God – he was also an alchemist. Does that make Newtonian mechanics untrue? Of course not. The concepts that he discovered existed long before he did – and eventually someone else would have discovered it if he had died in the plague. Does it matter that Pythagoras was a pagan cult leader? Of course not — the theorem works regardless if it was his or his half uncle Fred’s.
Scientist honor other scientists – but they all understand that the knowledge accumulated by science is greater than any one discoverer. Compare that to religions who say a magical prophet gets magical insights from a supernatural force with a small sense of scale.
“it would at least acknowledge that divine creation is a possibility” It is not possible unless you imagine a magical force that can completely move outside of any physical laws it wishes. If you are going that far – why not just imagine that the world was created 5 minutes ago and that all the evidence to the contrary was created to trick you. You could also imagine that the galactic overlord XENU placed evil spirits on earth that cause you to do bad things – or that if you eat a cyanide capsule when a comet approaches that you will be whisked off to heaven.
Imagination is great. I love fantasy. But fantasy is not science. Science deals with what can be tested and known based on evidence. If a hypothesis is not tested, it is mere speculation. String theory is a good example. Until we can actually develop some tests that give us some good data one way or the other, string theory is just speculative. Evolution is the inverse of that. Evolution has a mountain of evidence behind it and it is supported by hundreds of individual lines of evidence from every subject in science. It has stood up to repeated attempts to tear it down – as any theory should. It has lasted because it is the best model available that fits the evidence. It is a simple as that.
“…believe that science must be separated from faith”
IT MUST BE! FAITH IS NOT TESTABLE! I can have faith that my magical friend will come and stop my fall if I jump off a building, but the evidence from such an experiment would prove my faith was nothing more than an illusion. Faith is little more than belief in fantasy — belief in something for which there is no evidence. SCIENCE NEEDS EVIDENCE!
“I am however alarmed by any athiestic person who claims that a higher power cannot exist”
Another straw man. No one is claiming God cannot exist – any more than one can claim pink unicorns cannot exist. Science simply states there is no evidence for the existence of anything like a supernatural magical force with conscious intentions. Most atheists – if pressed would confirm that they hold out a .000001% chance that a magical dude might exist – but they think the likely hood is low enough not to be concerned about it. Overall agnostics and atheists feel the way they do because they do not want to lie to themselves. They want to understand the world as it truly is – not as a fantasy way point we have to endure until the next life.
We are here for such a short amount of times – why waste it pretending to be living for the next life? Live the one life you have and be happy the molecules that make up you happened to be able to understand they exist. We are in a golden time that may be unique in a vast amount of space and time. Live this time to the fullest and try to be as happy as possible while you exist!
“prove a scientific meta-phenomenon like evolution or the Big Bang”
What the hell is a “scientific meta-phenomenon”? It is probably just pseudo-intellectual crap but what the hell. God differs from the above mentioned concepts in an important way. EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG ARE SUPPORTED MY EVIDENCE!!!!!! The solid state theory was tossed out — no evidence. The theory that the earth was at the center of the universe was tossed out — no evidence. Lamarkian evolution was tossed out — no evidence. Do you see a pattern developing here?
Scientific theories live and die by the evidence. If there is no evidence to support a hypothesis, even if people really like the hypothesis, even if really important people discovered the hypothesis, if there is no evidence to support it, it is cast aside.
“did but they will also learn the creation stories of as many religions as possible”
Good! Kids should learn all about all the religions of the world. But you would not try to tell your kids that the sun really IS Apollo, would you? Why try to fill your kids heads with crap as science? Let science be science and let religion and philosophy be what they are. Don’t try to inject your magical fantasies into science or into a science classroom.
People freak out way to much on both sides. The demagoguery and exaggeration of both sides is shameful. Closed minded believers and strict scientists should realize that whatever created matter and energy and self awareness is much bigger than they could ever imagine, understand, or calculate.
My own personal credo is if you want to believe whatever you want, go ahead, you are free to believe anything you want to believe in. Just do not cause harm with those beliefs. And Ben Stein is causing ALOT of harm with this movie.
To the previous poster, there are hard scientific facts, tests and studies that prove evolution, the big bang or any other main law or concept in science. If it doesn’t have hard evidence the scientific community rejects it. No hard evidence for a creator god out there, not accepted in academia.
It will not be God that saves us from the mess we are creating here on Earth, It will be us plain ole humans working hard and getting through it.
Mike says:
“If the scientific community seeks to be honest about its craft it would at least acknowledge that divine creation is a possibility.”
And right there is the problem with the creationist movement as demonstrated by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just about ANYTHING is possible. There are many things that are probable and even more that are improbable. That does not make them valid.
> [...] though they cannot disprove it any better than they can prove a scientific meta-phenomenon like evolution or the Big Bang.
They can, however, compile evidence that supports one or the other (or a completely different one). There is a lot of evidence for evolution and [something like] the Big Bang.
I guess I feel that comparing the inability to *disprove* the existence of a higher power with the ability to *prove* evolution and the Big Bang is a bit misleading: they can *support* evolution and the Big Bang much, much better than they can *support* the existence of a higher power.
If something is un-testable than both proving and disproving are difficult and the next question may be thought more philosophical than scientific: is something we can neither measure nor theorize in a serious way something to be concerned about?
The “Just in case it’s true” idea fails miserably here, because deciding which particular traditions to follow “just to be on the safe side” seems a daunting task.
While it is true that most scientists in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries were professed Christians, that is only because a person could be imprisoned, bannished or even killed by the church for being an atheist. The church weilded so much power and was responsible for so much carnage in Europe that publicly acknowledging an atheistic worldview was tantamount to committing suicide.
It should also be noted that it was the period after the fall of Rome, when secular governments collapsed and theocratic government under the Church of Rome took over, that Europe entered the Dark Ages. Under the control of a church that preferred Bronze Age mythology based on faith over the scientific knowledge offered by the likes of Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, the advancement of science in Eurpoe ground to a halt until the beginning of the Renaissance. They don’t call the time when Europe woke up from religiously motivated intellectual poverty “The Enlightenment” for no reason.
1.) So those other civilizations in the 12th century had atomic theory worked out by the 1500s? No? And by 1650 they had computers and space travel? No?! Amazing.
2.) You’re mis-reading it. Science is a great achievement of western civilization. Yes, there was religion, the main patron of arts and the dominant organization in society. Like anyone had a choice back then. So the early scientists were Christians so there fore we have Christianity to thank for the microwave oven.
That makes sense right up until you give it a moment’s thought. Just because early scientists were Christian doesn’t mean that their religious beliefs were somehow right as well. If they had full grasp of the facts we have now there would be every reason to think they would have different opinions. Also, they were *early* scientists. Interesting that as time wore on the idea of divinity went away, sort of like an imaginary friend does when you get older.
Is Science powerful? More powerful than the arts? Sure. We have devices that nations would have gone to war for a 150 years ago, bombs that would put the fear of a christian god in Atilla the Hun, medicines that have extended lifetimes 3 fold and in the future perhaps unbounded.
As for higher powers not existing, here’s an exercise: Disprove Russel’s teapot. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Or any other non-real entity. Try disproving that the World of Warcraft isn’t based on a real place. You can’t? That’s because there are a million-billion things you can’t disprove but are not likely to exists. Even if there is a “higher-power”, he/she/they/it had to have come from somewhere, probably by evolution.
Mike said:
From the Encyclopedia Britanica:
Mike said:
Believe it or not, not everyone involved in the creation of those systems was religious.
The scientific community is being honest about its craft by staying out of the religious arena.
Mike said:
And that is the verbally slippery slope that is frequently used in order to attempt to put religious belief and the scientific method into the same playing field. Your statement implies that you require someone to disprove religion and/or prove evolution before you can accept the latter.
Religion is based on faith. Articles of faith are developed and held regardless of observations that support or contradict that system of beliefAgain, scientific theories are based on observations. If there are no observations to support a proposed theory, then no one is going to devote time to attempt to disprove it.
I’ll be honest, I am sick to death of the “Creationism vs. Evolution” arguments. I fail to see any reason that the Theory of Evolution is difficult for a person who believes in divine creation to accept…the idea that species evolve over millenia can easily be described as miraculous.
Mike: “If the scientific community seeks to be honest about its craft it would at least acknowledge that divine creation is a possibility.”
Christorpher Hitchens reponds: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
It’s not an atheist’s job to anything to be possibly true, but rather for the believer to show it is. All current evidence points towards the emergent properties of systems explaining the universe and none towards any supernatural intervention. As far as epistemologically possible, the existence of any deities has been disproven. And that’s just a bonus of scientific inquiry, a freebie. Please do go ahead and prove your God(s), while we go on with other questions in the meanwhile.
“Saying that western civilization is founded explicitly on the scientific findings of the last 300 years…” well, since no-one has said that, I think we can safely ignore the many wrongs in your statement.
I have an issue with creationism and creation-science and all that other “jazz”. I have an issue with Ben Stein’s movie. I am really disappointed with many aspects of the whole evolution vs creation debate going on right now.
However, as an atheist, I am none-the-less reminded of the Tower of Babel when I read the line:
“Stand up for your civilization [...] and all its glories. The barbarians are at the gate, as they always have been. Come man the defenses with us, leaving the liars and fools to their lies and folly.” (emphasis mine)
I agree that “Intelligent Design” is not a science and under no means should be taught in a science class. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that the scientific revolution was only done by 17th century Europeans as this is a eurocentric view of the world which completely disregards every other culture and every other time period. Let’s not forget that Europeans were just barbarians when the Egyptians made the Pyramids. The Mayans and Indians independently came up with the concept of “zero” (your 17th century scientific revolution wouldn’t have happened without “zero”). People in pre-Columbian Meso-American had an extremely advanced understanding of astronomy and were able to calculate the exact dates of solar and lunar eclipses while their European counterparts thought they were angry messages from God.
While I appreciate your point of view, being an avid fan of medieval history and an atheist, I’m going to have to agree with Mike. We owe the preservation of our ideas and our culture to the Christian churches and monasteries. You cannot equate any success in our Western civilization to any source without also adding the Christian church to the mix. It WAS our culture for hundreds of years. It was the caretaker of our places of learning, and it preserved the record of our accumulated knowledge, as the church permitted.
Where I disagree with Mike, is his assertion that there is any value in teaching creationism in a science class as opposed to English class, where I learned it. I never read the Bible until after I graduated from high school. What I learned about creationism or Christian stories was taught in my literature courses. One cannot appreciate Dante or many other talented authors without appreciating his point of view. It is, however, only a point of view, a particular philosophy, not a scientific exploration of the world around him.
“I am however alarmed my an athiestic person who claims that a higher power cannot exist…”
This is why this should not be taught in a science class. It alarms you. I was never alarmed by the Theory of Relativity or the periodic table. I was never alarmed by what I learned in science class at all. I was bored sometimes, and occasionally confused, but never alarmed.
It’s philosophy, not science.
@Mike
I’m not sure where you are getting that the author states that western civilization is “founded” on science. He is stating that science is *one* of western civilizations greatest achievements, if not the greatest. Whether or not it is the greatest is subjective, but I don’t see where he is saying western civilization was founded on science.
Also, why should a person’s religion be considered while reviewing their scientific findings? Part of the beauty of science is that if the findings are accurate and well founded, they will be accurate and well founded regardless of which god you worship, if any at all. Not all scientist believe in the same god. Not all scientist believe in god at all. But they agree on a methodology to discover the many unknowns of the natural world, and this methodology must exclude divine texts and prophecies as data.
@Mike. You just don’t get the point. You are making strawman arguments. You confuse motives with abilities. Religion might have provided motivation for some of the things you claim, though I’d argue innate human altruism would have done it without religion, but none of that would be possible without science. There’s no point in building hospitals without medical (scientific) knowledge, and even the buildings can’t be done without structural (scientific) knowledge.
In terms of cultural aspects of our civilization, you might have valid points and I’d agree that Doug was a little ambitious in his use of the word civilization. We wouldn’t become inhuman barbaric beasts without science. However, he is entirely correct about the appearance and operation of modern Western Civilization. Civil engineering is largely responsible for the buildings, sewers, and water supplies, which in turn are largely responsible for a jump in our lifespans. Medical science is responsible for our vastly improved health and incremental improvements in lifespans. Mechanical and electrical engineering (applying physics knowledge) are largely responsible for the remaining technology for communications, travel, and productivity improvements that created the modern Western Civilization. And biology and chemistry allow us to understand our effects on the rest of the world, which perhaps has shown us the problems that our Western Civilization is causing.
Religion might have been motives behind some of the particular developments, but the mechanism by which even religion implements these things is through science.
That description is not faith. It is deductive reasoning with full records. If there’s anything that could be said to be not faith, it is this knowledge.
Doug does stretch a little with the implication that only the last 300 years of science are responsible, and you are right to some degree there. Science has existed long before then, with some of the greatest works coming from ancient times and the Middle East, before having their curiosities subdued by religion’s power to dissuade questioning of “God’s work”. But it was the Renaissance that did bring about modern, methodical, and highly successful science. It is modern science, in the last 300 years, that we have largely to thank.
If Stein’s point is what you say it is, that’s all the more reason to keep it out of science class. I certainly learned about the church’s influence and motivations in Western Civilization activities. But I learned them in history class for their historical context and in sociology class for their cultural context. They are very relevant there. I would highly support even including comparative religion as mandatory curriculum, where students learned about all the world’s major religions, beliefs, and histories, but without professing the “truth” of any one of them. School is for education, not indoctrination.
As for creation as a possibility, there is presently nothing keeping it from being a scientific hypothesis. But if it’s going to play in the field of science it must follow the rules of objective methodology. By all means, present it as a hypothesis. Show how it explains the observable data, generate predictions that model would make, and test observations against those predictions to check if the hypothesis is consistent or not. The reject or modify the hypothesis and repeat. Follow blind testing protocols as necessary and submit for peer review to ensure the conclusions are as objective as possible, and slowly build up a complete theory (model) of how it works.
THAT is science. ID wants to skip the hard parts; skip the observations, generate no predictions, ignore where the hypothesis is inconsistent with data or internally inconsistent logically, and call the original hypothesis as a complete theory and teach it alongside works that have legitimately been through that process. THAT is dogma, not science.
I’m glad your kids will hear both creation stories (hopefully with explanation of them being religious beliefs) as well as science. Children are born as scientists, curious about everything and learn by trial and testing. I hope that forcing a single dogmatic point of view and killing any curiosity or questioning urge is not part of your plan. It doesn’t sound like it, so good for you.
To Mike:
“I am however alarmed by any athiestic [sic] person who claims that a higher power cannot exist”
Atheists do not claim that. They do, however, claim that particular conceptions of a higher power, based as they are on a lack of evidence, are no more likely to exist than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Beyond that, please define “higher power”. Science, and indeed rational thought, requires clear definitions. You can imagine whatever you like, but don’t confuse your vague imaginings with reality. And the less vague you make them, the less likely they are to bear any resemblance to any sort of reality.
Science is a way of understanding reality by asking questions, conducting experiments, and measuring the results. If you can’t put a number to it, it ain’t science, it’s philosophy or religion or wishful thinking.
As a serious born-again Christian who speaks to God on a fairly regular basis, and who sometimes gets answers, I believe that science, honestly done, is one good way to understand what God has done and is doing. If you don’t understand math, don’t even bother asking why or how, just enjoy the love; understanding is not for you. To paraphrase Arthur Clarke, God is not only greater than we imagine, he is greater than we can imagine.
Intelligent design is simply pretend science by people that don’t understand science, in the same way that kindergartners play “house” without understanding the reality of jobs, housing markets, or marriage and family. Science will not find God, but will find what God has done.
Intelligent design belongs in church, or maybe in philosophy class. God is weighed in our hearts, not in pounds or on scales.
Enginerd
What bothers me is the fate of your children’s beliefs. Science doesn’t answer how it all began. Science merely tells us how God did it. I take pity on your Children, because it is apparent that your take is that God did it. You really don’t care how, it’s just that it doesn’t jibe with your reading of the Bible.
What the Hell is wrong with you? Don’t you understand that science is your friend?
Evolution doesn’t tell us how it all began, only the relavtive how one species changes over time.
I doubt any atheist would have an argument here.
Well, I pity your children, and you, too.
May God have mercy upon your soul.
This site lies. It put word in my mouth. liars.
“My kids will study classical science as I did but they will also learn the creation stories of as many religions as possible in order to better understand their world.”
If you want to teach them understanding why tell them lies? Also, each sect claims their creation story to be absolutely true. All you’ll be doing is raising a very confused child that doesn’t know what to believe because instead of teaching critical thinking skills you’ll be teaching them to accept anything so that they “may better understand the world”. If they’re lucky they’ll learn that when these stories were made up we were a very very ignorant group of people and not everything is to be believed.
[...] a) Poveştile prezentate au fost atât de mult alterate încât nu mai au nicio bază în realitate. Sursa: The Truth behind the Fiction b) Există numeroase cazuri în care consensul academic a fost răsturnat de către cercetători solitari ce au reuşit să aducă dovezi noi. Sursa: Challenging Science c) Anti-Defamation League, organizaţia evreiască ce luptă împotriva anti-semitismului a emis un comunicat de presă prin care îi acuză pe creatorii filmului de folosirea ilicită a Holocaustului în justificarea ID-ului. Ei resping orice legătură între Evoluţionism şi Holocaust. Sursa: Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust d) National Review publică un articol prin care atacă atitudinea retrogradă şi barbară a farsei numită Intelligent Design şi în special a filmului Expelled. Sursa: The Creationist War On Western Civilization [...]