This thread is dedicated to bigredfutbol. I would've hesitated between continuing in the previous thread and opening a new one, but since brf closed that one, here we are. I'm not interested in starting another free-floating discussion of evolution, although this might become one. So here, once again, is the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ The show airs tomorrow. I will try to download it or find it online as soon as I can. I'm interested in hearing what people think of the show and how it handles the issue, especially people who believe in creationism or doubt evolution.
From the title of this thread, I thought you were positing that whether or not we reach the point of Judgment Day - and by implication the Christ's return - would prove one way or another 'Intelligent Design'. Jokes on me I guess...
There is really only one eye-witness to the events who could shed light into this matter, and my guess is that He will not be answering the summons.
You know, that's cute and all, but not particularly helpful to any discussion. (Not that I think you're trying to be particularly serious, but you are just introducing a discussion-stopping fallacy, not unlike a "God did it".)
Well, there are good signs. The theme to "Big Bang Theory", a catchy little pro-inflation-theory ditty by the Barenaked Ladies, is in the top 20 Amazon MP3 downloads. Materialistic philosophy can by popular and fun. Although to my ears, in the second line they said "millions" when they should have said "billions".
I haven't seen the program, and probably won't until it's on DVD, but can we keep this thread around to reactivate whenever the topic comes up on other threads in this forum. I'm a firm believer in de-evolution now, primarily because of the incontrovertible evidence that perfectly good threads can devolve into re-hashes of this debate with the drop of a hat.
The show airs tonight and, as it turns out, you can watch online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/
It isn't? Ok, I was trying to be a bit clever, but my point was that, short of God showing up and saying he did in fact create the universe, there is no way in hell that this can be an interesting trial, because there is no way that the creationists can win. Seriously, maybe I'm off base here, I'm not too familiar with the details of this 'trial'. But, assuming this is all on the up-and-up, what would you expect the outcome of such a trial to be? It will be pretty much like watching Argentina play Serbia at the last World Cup. Obviously there is plenty of scientific evidence that can be introduce to back up the theory of evolution, because it is a scientific theory based on real material evidence that has been gathered by human beings. On the other hand, there is little evidence that the other side can present, because the idea of intelligent design is a theory that can be discussed primarily in philosophical and religious terms. So, if you love one-sided routs, go ahead and watch it.
The point is, will people who support creationism see it as a rout or will they find more excuses to dismiss science? I think the vast majority will still hang on to their anti-evolution stance for whatever reason they choose, but a few may be convinced otherwise, especially a few moderates. I'm glad you see it this way. But unfortunately it is not so obvious to some people. Also, it's important to remember who desperately wanted this trial and hyped it up before it took place. Again, I'm glad you see it this way, but in case you haven't been paying attention over the last 3 million or so threads, the whole creationist movement is not simply about something that we can discuss in religious or philosophical terms. That may be the reality of "intelligent design" but those who support this movement want it to replace evolution in the science classroom. Now, these threads usually end up in a discussion between people who find the idea of intelligent design perfectly acceptable but often aren't thinking this will end up as science. People like you, who think of it as "a theory [although you might want to pick a better word there] that can be discussed primarily in philosophical and religious terms" are ignoring the reason why these threads pop up and why this discussion exists in the first place. I know the trial is a rout, and I know why and I know that it should be a rout in the first place. The creationist movement though continues to claim that they have scientific evidence, theories etc. and that they just need to be given a forum for them. That's one big reason why this trial was important - it is a transparent, available to all, refutation of creationism as a scientific idea. I don't mind discussing these things on more philosophical grounds, especially not with you, who I enjoy debating here both on soccer and otherwise, but when it comes to this issue it seems that you should either make your position clearer (do you support creationism?, do you know what it entails?) or stay on the sidelines for this one, otherwise you slip towards inadvertently supporting creationism (the "scientific" idea) by defending the idea of creation as a valid philosophical/religious position.
Ok, I don't expect that you read all my posts, so let me try to make my position clear in a nutshell. Do I support the theory that God created the world some 6000 years ago as some claim, and he created each species separately, as a literal reading of the Genesis account might suggest, in contradiction to the evidence scientists have found? Absolutely not. Do I think that there is a cause, possibly an intelligence, behind our existence and the existence of the universe? I would say that I find it likely, but I have no idea one way or the other. I am not a man of faith. I am sort of an agnostic to whom the idea of some sort of god/creator/intelligence as a cause of what we are seems to make some philosophical sense, when I look at myself and my own attributes as a human being. But perhaps my sympathy for the idea of a cause makes me also somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the religious man. I will say this, in defense of the religious man. We live at a time in which we demand that everything be proven. In general, we seem to want to disregard that which cannot be proven. So, often the man of faith falls into the trap of trying to prove that which he believes by faith, when it really isn't necesary for him to do so. Often by doing so, religious people set themselves up to be ridiculized, as will most likely happen in this trial that you are promoting. Of course, much of the blame falls on quacks who call themselves scientists who tell the man of faith what he wants to hear. I wish people of faith would disregard such 'so called' scientists, and realize that if that which they believe has value for them and if it is a significant aspect of their life and their reality, then they don't need to try to prove it in scientific terms. That in my view is where they make their mistake. I guess if such trials serve to expose the quacks, then I suppose there is some value to them. But my hope is that the predictable outcome is seen as an affirmation of science, but not as an indictment of genuine faith.
I can't help but get the impression from your posts that you see the religious man or religious person as somehow under attack or at least under some kind of barrage. I find this problematic simply because it moves the discussion away from what creationism is and the issues that it brings up and towards a defense of the average religious person, a defense which is a straw man here - the average religious person is not under attack in any way, certainly not when it comes to evolution. Your "plight of the religious man" paragraph above seems like a weird tangent to me (a straw man as I stated above) that has nothing to do with the creationism movement which neither represents the religious man generally speaking, nor deserves to be characterized as some sort of plight. Evolution does not attack religion, it is itself under attack by religious extremists. Creationists have made it their goal to remove evolution from the classroom and have attempted to do so in many different ways and continue to do so. This is, as I stated in the previous thread, a group of people who believe evolution and materialism are causes of the poor moral state they claim we find our world in today. Your posts, while contributing to a general discussion on religion, seem like a non-sequitur here where we are not talking about religious people in general but a specific idea that is well-defined. Granted, this idea does try to represent itself as backed by your average religious person and does so by fooling them as you posited above, but no one here who attacks creationism doesn't understand that - which is what effectively makes your defense of this person a non-sequitur. Anyways, I'm just trying to clarify what the discussion is actually about and who the participants are here and reiterate that there is not only no attack on religion here, but that that would not even be relevant to this particular discussion.
Ok, fair enough. I always enjoy your posts. I do understand the need for these trials, and the importance to fight for a curriculum that teaches our children proper science. I agree with you that evolution does not attack religion. But I do think that sometimes people (not necesarily you) like to publicize such events in order to make fun of some sincere but misguided people of faith. I mean, what is likely to happen at this trial? Will they show some people who honestly think that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs, and that a flood is responsible for the extinction of most species, and then call on some serious scientists who will make them look ridiculous? I understand that some extremists in some places are trying to challenge evolution and to force schools to teach a version of creationism as science. But I think that to say based on these efforts that evolution is under serious attack is a huge overreaction. Truth is, the theory of evolution is generally accepted as scientific fact, and it is taught properly in pretty much all school districts, and also I believe also in most christian schools. And, wherever the teaching of evolution is challenged, it easily stands up in court. (as I am sure it will in this particular trial that you are promoting.) Sure, lots of people will say they don't believe in evolution. But these are people who have no idea about science, just like there are lots of people who have no idea where France is in a map, and lots of people who don't have a clue about how a car engine runs. I am pretty sure that anybody who has an interest in science will learn about evolution as fact, just as anybody who is interested in geography will learn where France is and so on. So maybe that is why, when I read about this trial in which some serious scientists will most likely humiliate a few misguided people of faith who were sold some kooky scientific ideas by some quack who passed himself as a scientist, I didn't take it to seriously and I started out with an attempt at a clever off-handed comment making fun of the whole thing. So, that is why my comments sound non-sequitour. Believe me when I say that I am not attempting to be anti-science. But I guess it doesn't help that when I think of the people who will get laughed at, I get the image of my own late grandmother, who was one of the nicest people I knew, but seriously and earnestly believed that Noah had left the dinosaurs out of the arc because they were too big and he had no room for them.
I hate the production style of this show - renactments ... ponderous voice-over ... pretentiously ethereal and foreshadowing music ... it's sad.
I disagree that it is taught properly in all school districts. Textbooks are watered down (due to fights by creationists, IDers) so that evolution occupies minimal space, and is often qualified with doubtin language ... teachers skirt around the issue to avoid being the cause of a fight ... teachers themselves may not properly understand evolution well enough to teach it properly.
I'm enjoying it. I don't love renactments, but how else are you going to portray testimony from a trial? I thought they handled it well. The voice over and the interviews are informative. I like the chronological retelling. It lets the story play out like an episode of Law & Order. I give it a B+.
Good show. Although sometimes frustrating. But mostly comical. My question is: why do us rational people care what religious (read: irrational) freaks want to believe? If I claimed that the world was made out of cheese, you'd all just ignore me. It wouldn't bother you in the slightest, even though I'd be no further off base than any of the deluded individuals who believe in intelligent design. So why don't we just let these idiots continue to throw stones at the moon and armwrestle the flying spaghetti monster? Leave 'em be! They are not worth wasting too much of an open-minded person's time on.
Oh, come on. Nobody objects to their right to believe what they choose. Rational people only care when the irrational folks try to impose their views on everyone else. Like when they try to make science teachers teach creationism, thereby spreading religious views in a public school classroom, and undermining real science education.