Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

gmo corn proves there is genetic "creationism"
inteligent design?...not so much

reply to post by Astyanax
It's good to see these guidelines being put in place for the new style of 'free schools.'

In mainstream education, it's been this way for a very long time. In fact, I don't think 'ID' has been taught in British schools outside of the R.E. syllabus. Naturally, the more religiously-focused schools (Church of England and Catholic), will add more emphasis to the Creationist mythology, but it's rarely (if ever) been presented as a serious alternative to science.

It's such that there isn't even a social discussion about whether 'ID' should be included or not. Culturally, many Brits might favour Creationist ideas and doubt evolution without being invested in them enough to want them pushed into mainstream schools and science lessons. Texas we ain't...

Although it has nothing to do with God or intelligent design, the most successful schools in England are predominantly 'faith-based' when it comes to academic achievement. Moslem, Catholic and C of E, consistently out-gun their non-denominational neighbours. There's a reason for this...and it isn't God either.

Originally posted by Danbones
gmo corn proves there is genetic "creationism"
inteligent design?...not so much

You have that exactly backwards, no? GM corn is the product of an intelligent agent (the scientists), which is the the defintion of Intelligent Design. "Genetic Creationism", as you put it, would mean creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Or no GM corn *poof* GM corn.

Regards.

reply to post by alienreality

But of course the militant folks behind the barring of teaching anything about creation theory is really what this is all about.

No it isn't. It's about the fundamental misunderstanding of science which even this short sentence of yours demonstrates. As a lay-person, you can use the word "theory" to mean any bunch of ideas you, or anybody else, is prepared to give headroom to. However, in science, and thus a science class, the word has a very specific meaning and denotes that any such bunch of ideas worthy of the designation have been arrived at through the scientific method; by testing the constituent hypotheses for evidence and/or logic.

In science therefore there neither is nor can be any such thing as "creation theory" because the hypothesis that a divine intelligence created the universe is not falsifiable by experiment nor possible to derive from pure logic. Ipso facto creationism cannot be taught in a class which is labelled "science" and quite frankly it's a shocking indictment of the shabby state of the teaching of logic per se that it's taken until recently for people to start noticing this.

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by predator0187

 

You say evolution is not intelligent, but I say it is definitely intelligent... Not like a thinking person, but definitely programmed to be... If not, then why does it have processes that would make a certain thing better over time? Why not worse? It seems to be making a choice there to improve upon things... And how can DNA know if improving should be desired unless it was imbued to do that somehow? Who is making that choice?

Evolution is just a species that just adapts better to it's environment, sometimes that jump includes a more intelligent species or a less intelligent one, it does not have a final goal as it has no end game. Everything continuously changes, as in an environment, so the necessity of evolution never stops.

As for making things better, no, it makes things more efficient. As Kandinsky said the animals that have yet to evolve or are not very efficient become extinct. It's simply 'survival of the fittest', sometimes that means a smarter species, as in us, or 'dumber' species as in dinosaurs.

We by no means are a 'peak' of evolution, but we might be smart enough to control our evolution from this point forward. Maybe that is evolutions final goal, to make the species evolve by themselves. Maybe evolutions lazy.

Pred...

reply to post by Astyanax

I think both models will be superceded.

reply to post by troubleshooter


That's true with any of our greatest therories now. To think that we have anything figured out in full with our current level of understanding is ignorant. I am sure in a couple more thousands of years we will be the equivalent of our cavemen.

But this is a small battle won in a large war that eliminates ignorance. Anything that progresses us to the understanding side should be a good thing, no?

Pred...

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

That's true with any of our greatest therories now. To think that we have anything figured out in full with our current level of understanding is ignorant. I am sure in a couple more thousands of years we will be the equivalent of our cavemen.

But this is a small battle won in a large war that eliminates ignorance. Anything that progresses us to the understanding side should be a good thing, no?

I think the change will come from our understanding of Information Systems. Living systems communicate with a seven layed system that is similar to the protocols used with computers/internet except on a scale that makes our systems look primative.

I doubt it will take a thousand years, I give it five before Dawkens looks like a dawk...
...but a little longer for Creationists to do a serious rethink.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
I think the change will come from our understanding of Information Systems. Living systems communicate with a seven layed system that is similar to the protocols used with computers/internet except on a scale that makes our systems look primative.

I doubt it will take a thousand years, I give it five before Dawkens looks like a dawk...
...but a little longer for Creationists to do a serious rethink.

Well in a thousand years we will be crossing that level 2 civilization threshold so I was just saying we will probably have vastly different theories on ideas by then.

Dawkins is one of the better evolutionary biologists out there so if you think it will take 5 years to disprove him, then you must know something science does not, as Dawkins is really just pushing the beliefs of Darwin with the twist of genealogy.

As for creationists rethink, it will never happen, those people hang on to their thoughts for a long period, going on 2000 years now. Religion will never be let go by a generation it will be a generation that is born into atheism and that seems more and more possible as time goes by.

Pred...

Originally posted by predator0187

Originally posted by troubleshooter
I think the change will come from our understanding of Information Systems. Living systems communicate with a seven layed system that is similar to the protocols used with computers/internet except on a scale that makes our systems look primative.

I doubt it will take a thousand years, I give it five before Dawkens looks like a dawk...
...but a little longer for Creationists to do a serious rethink.

Well in a thousand years we will be crossing that level 2 civilization threshold so I was just saying we will probably have vastly different theories on ideas by then.

Dawkins is one of the better evolutionary biologists out there so if you think it will take 5 years to disprove him, then you must know something science does not, as Dawkins is really just pushing the beliefs of Darwin with the twist of genealogy.

As for creationists rethink, it will never happen, those people hang on to their thoughts for a long period, going on 2000 years now.

Religion will never be let go by a generation it will be a generation that is born into atheism and that seems more and more possible as time goes by.

Dawkins is just selling popular books ... he has not been taken seriously by any real scientists and none of his books have gained favourable reviews. He is a scientist by profession who has failed to seriously address real philosphical and religious issues. Dawkins popularity and influence will not outlive him for long.

reply to post by Astyanax


How can anyone teach what they don't know. Don't teach either one.

reply to post by Astyanax

Ya thats the prob with the school systems, creation vs evolution. Not the fact our kids are being turned into workers lol. This proves nothing. Governments lie. Not a reliable source. When the governments give us disclosure on everything then they can be sited.

reply to post by Kandinsky


There are some acadamies 'up north' owned and run by a guy who made his money in the motor trade and i believe they have been pulled up on teaching creationism in the school. There was a panorama or other type program a few years ago on this, and one of the things was about the up coming science exams and they were having to teach the syllabus as well as there own (creation) theory. I'm sure it was put along the lines of this is fact, but the answers for the exam will be what's in the textbook.

FFS, are you sure, i couldn't believe they were teaching that and still trying to justify creation. doh-nuts

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by predator0187

 

You say evolution is not intelligent, but I say it is definitely intelligent... Not like a thinking person, but definitely programmed to be... If not, then why does it have processes that would make a certain thing better over time? Why not worse? It seems to be making a choice there to improve upon things... And how can DNA know if improving should be desired unless it was imbued to do that somehow? Who is making that choice?

Evolution doesn't do better or worse. It simply does more suited for success in a given environment. Theres no intelligence required. Thats the beauty of it as an idea.

The UK only proved intelligence doesn't exist within their courts and schools.

I don't see the harm of proposing theories but those that would drag us back to the dark ages seem to love the idea of sanitized and uniform education.

Its not a victory over common sense,
Evolution is not repeatable observable or testable, making it far less than a science.
In fact to believe in something that is not repeatable testable or observable is faith, making evolution a religion.

Hell even Dawkins suggested the earth was seeded by aliens, thats fairly cooky for an atheist, never mind a rational (supposedly) human.
And lets not kid ourselves, its the Dawkins of this world who belittle conspiracy buffs the most.
Trumpet your hero, though for me he is a stooge towing the party line. Crushing our freedom to choose and believe whatever we like.
Creationists maybe a little different but they dont kill people.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Its not a victory over common sense,
Evolution is not repeatable observable or testable, making it far less than a science.

That one little sentence shows you don't know the first thing about science or experimentation, or how science works. As has been said to death in other threads, there are numerous examples of evolution both in nature and in the lab.

In fact to believe in something that is not repeatable testable or observable is faith, making evolution a religion.

Evolution is not a religion--it's not something you "believe in" or take on faith. We've seen evolution in action, we KNOW it exists. There's nothing faith-based about it.

Hell even Dawkins suggested the earth was seeded by aliens, thats fairly cooky for an atheist, never mind a rational (supposedly) human.
And lets not kid ourselves, its the Dawkins of this world who belittle conspiracy buffs the most.

I think the idea of the Earth being seeded by aliens a lot more plausible than a supernatural entity saying Poof! Let there be light. But it doesn't really solve the problem of biogenesis--it just moves the responsibility for it somewhere else.

Trumpet your hero, though for me he is a stooge towing the party line. Crushing our freedom to choose and believe whatever we like.

Oh, no, you can believe whatever you want--that's your prerogative. But most of us object to you using our tax dollars as your bully pulpit to shove your mythological nonsense down OUR kids' throats. That's what religious schools are for. If you object to your kids being taught evolution, send them to private school. That's your choice.

You can brainwash your own kids however you choose. That's up to you. But don't you dare subject mine to the same drivel. I won't have it. And you're not doing your kids any favors, you know. They're not just competing with the kid in the next seat for a job in the mill. They're competing with kids from all over the world, and most of the world has enough sense to teach real subjects like math and science, not mythology. Your kids won't stand a chance in that environment, and it will be your own fault.

Creationists maybe a little different but they dont kill people.

Are you suggesting that people who think evolution is correct kill people?

reply to post by Astyanax



You call that a victory? Sounds more to me like its George Orwell's 1984.

You WILL teach what we want you to teach or we will take your funding !

You will not give kids a choice on what to believe, you will only force this one view on them or you won't be able to get funding for your school.

Dude.. this isn't a victory, it's a sham.. no matter what you believe about evolution vs intelligent design. These folks just used this creation vs evolution debate to gain power. That is the least scientific thing that could have happened.

If this reflects the state of science today, no wonder so many people choose to believe in ID on faith. Faith gives eternal hope - it doesn't let people down like science and politics do.

reply to post by Astyanax


Can you be an evolutionist who believes in a creator and not get flamed even if you do not think that religion or creation should be taught in schools? I certainly hope the world of enlightened men are open to that.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Astyanax

 

You call that a victory? Sounds more to me like its George Orwell's 1984.

You WILL teach what we want you to teach or we will take your funding !

You will not give kids a choice on what to believe, you will only force this one view on them or you won't be able to get funding for your school.

Dude.. this isn't a victory, it's a sham.. no matter what you believe about evolution vs intelligent design. These folks just used this creation vs evolution debate to gain power. That is the least scientific thing that could have happened.

If this reflects the state of science today, no wonder so many people choose to believe in ID on faith. Faith gives eternal hope - it doesn't let people down like science and politics do.

No, taxpayers don't want to foot the bill for our teachers to teach something that is non-scientific. We want our kids to learn something useful, that is going to help them succeed in the world. Creationism will teach them nothing except how to close your mind off and not think critically.

Public schools are secular--that is, non-religious. So why should they be taught religious mumbo jumbo no matter how you cloak it? And don't forget, public schools are no longer 100% Christian. You have kids from all over the religious spectrum, yet you'd dare to force your beliefs on them as well?

Religious types who want this stuff taught in public schools are the ones out for the power grab. They see a mass of young minds to mold in their image. New converts, new indoctrinates. That's what they care about.