Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

These are both false statements.

1. The statement that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact. Newton's theory of gravitation supplemented with Einstein's general relativity are theories which explain it.
   
2. The statement that organisms change over time (evolution) is a fact. Natural selection is one of many theories which explain it.
   
3. The statement that children inherit traits from their parents is a fact. Genetics is the field of science which provides the framework, methodology, and theories to explain it.
   
4. The statement that there is a glass on top of my dining room table is a fact. My theory of how it got there is, that someone was drinking it and left it there when they were done.

Science is absolutely based on factual information. If it were not, it would simply be a belief system like religion.

~Ulrika~

Ok, one more post now I've had some food...


You cannot believe in 'Intelligent' Design and not be Christian; because it is fundementally the story of Creation from the Christian Bible. correct?

The only thing, *the only thing*, ID believers have to go by, is a book written and edited over the last 2000 years. There is no and can never be, unless he materializes on Earth today, any proof that a spirit made the Earth and everything on it in 7 days. There is no way you can prove what you believe. ID is NOT science.

The scientific community, believe in absolutely nothing unless it's been proven.

They believe nothing but what they have witnessed and/or what they find completely 100% logical based on other related findings. They are logical.

I'm not a Darwinist, Evolution is the only theory I know he came up with. The guy could've just been lucky for all I know. However his theory is becoming more widely accepted as a Scientific fact as people actually understand our planet and life upon it. (And above all, how lucky we are to be here). Evolution happens on a daily basis. The faster an organism reproduces, the faster it can evolve. This evolutional process happens when it's enviroment changes.

I'm not a Darwinist, there's no such thing as far as I'm concerned. You're a Scientist or you're Religious.

Although I admit, before the big-bang we have no idea what there was or why it happened, we have a few theories, but obviously no ability to find any proof. All our proven facts started out as a theories.

There is absolutely no similarity to ID's theories and Science. The Religious community have been proved wrong so many times over the years.

- There was the whole flat-earth thing and Galileo was branded a heretic, he smartly pretended to forget about it all until Columbus proved it. (one of many bible re-writes there)

- How about the first time we discovered heaven wasn't in the sky? Seriously ask anyone where heaven is and they immediately point up... where? who knows, maybe another planet.

There must be an absolute stand against 'Intelligent' Design being accepted as a Scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about it.

It's just the Church having one last go at us before their last theory is proved wrong.

There, finished

At least you didn't call me sweety in there... i'm getting tired of it, but you haven't been saying it to me so I can't yell at you for it.

And it's impossible you're right... nothing is impossible. It could be that all of Neualtenburg is populated by Ulrika's alts and she just types *really* fast

Form of... Occam's Razor!

Maybe people just agree with her.

Doctor Mike,

I agree with the notion life adapts. That is not in dispute. My problem with the current teachings in public school is macroevolution and abiogenesis is being taught as fact.

I believe life changes, sometimes dramatically, to fit it's environment. I don't believe life came from non-living matter. The law of biogenesis tends to agree, life comes from life. Reproducing abiogenesis hasn't been accomplished at this point.

Adaptation isn't evolution. Adaptation is a function of living beings, similar to self-repairing a wound.

Survival of the fittest is also a natural function of a living being, not to be confused with evolution. There is no mechanism found in nature to suggest life forms evolve into other creatures.

Evolution teaches creatures stop evolving when they have no external forces demanding a change. They use this argument to explain animals that have not evoved(changed in any way) for millions of years. This brings up many questions. What forces of the environment forced animal to fly? Why did humans need to be intellectual? Why are there weak humans anyhow? Wouldn't a cochroach be sufficient? What caused the evolution of people to continue yet left termites as they have always been?

Where are all the levels of developed life form in the fossil record?

People just agree with Ulrika?

Like, in general? No, not necessarily. Not even me.

It's more a distinct matter of not agreeing with Kevn Klein.

In general?

No, not necessarily.

But, more than bloody likely? Yes, even generally.

Especially me.

Just, you know, FYI.

FWIW.

YMMV.

kk

Sorry, I didn't read the whole post yet. But this sentence stops the whole thread for me. The answer to the question you posed is "incorrect".

The ID theories completely ignore the Bible or any religious teachings. They lean completely on the physical evidence found in nature.

What? What evidence... good grief man! What physical evidence? There IS NO physical evidence that the Earth was made in 7 days.

Man, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but I think you're just trolling. No one can be that oblivious about what they believe.

Please read up on ID theories. No ID theory currently being discussed for schools suggests a 7 day creation. There is no evidence for it and no one is discussing it.



snip..

"William Dembski, one of Intelligent Design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of Intelligent Design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that they look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design proponents believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which attempt to explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection. Intelligent Design proponents claim that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "Intelligent Designer" may not be observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence claims "Proponents of Intelligent Design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that Intelligent Design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the idea."

Dude. I know what ID is. I've been learning all about it since I first ever heard it mentioned.


It is the belief. That all things are made, by God, to a design.

That's the first chapter of your Bible.

You are a Christian are you not?

Are you an atheist?

Oh snap!

The question is to make a point, should we assume one's personal beliefs bend their ability to reason? If so, wouldn't one's belief there is no God also slant one's understanding of reality?

I said this in a post on like page 5 or something

I dont say God doesn't exist. I have no proof he does. I don't believe your Bible (well not the Old Testement part of the New Testement may be true but 'added' to over the years)

That would make you an agnostic I guess. Would that slant your opinions any less than my belief system?

Considerably. My views are from what I learn for myself. Not from an ancient book that was badly translated in the first place.

Hi Kevn. I don't think that it should. Reality and beliefs are separate. (At least they should be). Saying that the grass is green is reality. We all see it. That's the way it is. Saying I beleive the grass is light green is a belief...others might not see it as light green compared to the grass on the other side of their own fence you know?

So believing in God (or Gods) should have no bearing on "reality". It's how individual people express their beliefs and how we receive or interprete them that throws everything off.

If you tell me that the grass IS light green as opposed to saying that YOU BELEIVE the grass is light green, I am going to take that the wrong way and get defensive because everyone knows that the grass is just plain green...it's a reality right? I just heard you try to make your "belief" a "reality".

I think that if we all expressed ourselves more clearly when communicating...and if others were less defensive and more receptive to others "beliefs", we could all keep perspective on reality and get along much better while respecting the beliefs of others.

That's my 2 cents.

You assume all who believe in ID are Bible thumpers.

While it's true those scientists who have come to accept ID are probably leaning towards a faith in some creator, many started their search open-minded, without a faith in any gods.

From your posts on ID it's clear you haven't spent much time openly exploring the theory.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm just saying ID has nothing at all to do with religion, the Bible, or a 7 day creation.

Evengelical neo-Christian Conservatives.... Bible thumpers... up to you. I prefer to call them Extremeist Christians.



And now they think there is one... becoming... religious

Ok let's put it differently. If you're a believer in ID, you believe in God. is that true?

I absolutely believe in a creator of the creation, just as I believe in the watchmaker who made the watch I found on the ground, even though I can't prove the watch was made by intelligence(it has no markings words or numbers on it).

Common sense tells me the complexity of life is so much more complex than the watch, I have no choice but to believe there was a maker.

Until there is proof life came from non-living material, I guess we are both standing on our own personal biases.

Define "non-living material" and use it to discuss the nature of the virus, DNA, and proteins. This is the third time I've asked for a definition.

~Ulrika~

Your common sense isn't worth much in these forums.

~Ulrika~

You need to take that watch back man, how do you tell the time?

That's the thing. A Religious person won't take that watch apart and see the gears that operate it. They just think. Hmm, nice watch.

How so? On the contrary, I am a "religous person" as you call it. However, I would definitley want to take that sucker apart and see how it was made! Such as life goes, I consider science more of a means to disect life and see how it's broken down.

It does not mean I don't believe in God just because I study the world from a scientific angle.

...and please be careful how you voice your opinion. It is not a fact that a religious person won't take it apart. That's your own belief. When you speak that way, your readers are hearing you state that as a fact which it is not.

And since you are not a religious person (so I am assuming from reading), how would you know what a religious person would think, since religion is based on a faith which in my opinion you have not acquired or do not follow.

I do apologize if I read incorrectly. lol

Actually Juro is right, the law of gravity is a theory. And yes so are all the laws of newtonian science. Claculus too is just a descriptor. The problem with saying something is a law, and not a theory, is that you have to then explain what happens when you experience something that does not floow the known "law." We have knothing like a complete understanding of gravity and magnetism or even time really. Thus from scientific position these are theories, as is evolution.

The real danger to religion comes from trying to use it to fight science as an alternate truth. The essence of chirstianity is lost in this debate, and the enlightened Christ is made to seem a foolish superstition. Even to a buddhist, christ, from his reported actions was an enlightened man. This hullaballoo about ID simply demeans science and demeans religion more.

The powerful aspect of christ to me is his basic teaching of love thy neighboor as thy self. This is a powerful message that is a universal instruction for good. And guess what it does not seem incompatible with the theory of evolution. Religion and spirituality have their place, and I think they have an essential place, but trying to have a scientific debate between ID and Evolution is like a miata and a semi playing chicken.