# Yet again: Intelligent design could be taught with Common Cores repeal in Ohio



## Explorer (Aug 25, 2014)

Oh, those whacky Christian Republicans!

Intelligent design could be taught with Common Core



> Asked if intelligent design  the idea that a higher authority is responsible for life  should be taught alongside evolution, (Republican Representative Andy)Thompson said, I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. Thats legitimate.



No. It's not legitimate for science class to consider the perspectives of people of faith. 

Again, a demonstration of how religion and science in the US are incompatible.


----------



## StevenC (Aug 25, 2014)

Interestingly, my education had this happen the opposite way around.

In my 2nd year of high school (12-13 years old, so 7th grade?) we had a rather senile nun as a religion teacher. Catholic school, she was the last remaining nun and she wasn't particularly up to date on the church's scientific views. Part of the curriculum for that year was the origin of life, and before she could teach us her version of events about 7 days, she had to teach us the scientific theories/hypotheses. So, instead of being a good teacher and helping her students understand the world, she presented evolution, the big bang and gas clouds as three competing, ridiculous hypotheses. Despite my best efforts to inform her that these ideas were describing completely different events, my peers left doubting reason and evidence for much too long. Over the years that followed it took a lot of convincing (and a biology teacher, who happened to be deeply religious, calling On the Origin of Species a more important book than the bible) for any of them to come around to the science of it all.

Of note also, is that this nun was famously and repeatedly locked in the classroom's storeroom.


----------



## StevenC (Aug 25, 2014)

Double post.


----------



## Necris (Aug 25, 2014)

While it was amusing, back when I was a freshman in High School, my old Science teacher wasted 5 minutes explaining (well, more making fun of) the concepts of Intelligent Design. I give him credit for making it as clear as he could that the scientific community and he himself thought it was bullshit, but the fact that it even came up in a science classroom is far more recognition that ID is deserving of.

It's like teaching Trigonometry in an English Class in that it's needless and unrelated to the topic. It differs in that it is far less useful to the average person and has zero real world applications because it's total horseshit.

These people should start a class on creation myths of the world if they're so desperate to have this idea heard, that's where it actually belongs.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 25, 2014)

(I know technically speaking Intelligent design and creationism are two different things, but my viewpoints on and arguments against both are pretty much identical.)



This is my entire opinion on creationism/intelligent design. Just because a lot of people are ignorant to science and believe something that is incorrect doesn't mean the incorrect thing should be taught as correct.

Also, the whole belief came from some shithead who couldn't pass as a geologist. Not the bible. George McCready Price - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoiler alert! I'm a devout Lutheran. But even I know that a book that's thousands of years old written by multiple people shouldn't be taken literally, as it probably has been lost in translation a quite few times.


----------



## Omura (Aug 25, 2014)

I do not understand why there are people that believe that religious ideas should be taught in schools. There are 7 billion people in the world.
Religious beliefs are huge and varied, and they can't even just be grouped into religions, as each individual has their own interpretation of their own beliefs.
I think what could be taught in schools, is the idea that everyone has a set of beliefs, morals, ideals etc. that each person lives by. To an extent these should be taught, and tie in with the law, and general standards of good manners and respect. But those beliefs will always stray beyond those, to less clear cut things. And that's where there needs to be an air of respect between each other, and an understanding of where the practical becomes belief. 
Evolution is a theory with a lot of supporting evidence. as with all theories, it cannot be proven, but it can be demonstrated as a practical working model. 
Intelligent design (from what I understand of it) is a 'what if' with no supporting evidence, and as it cannot every be demonstrated to be correct, can never be more than a belief.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 25, 2014)

I knew this was an Explorer thread just by glancing at the title snippet on the main page .


----------



## Explorer (Aug 25, 2014)

I'm going to laugh about something which happened yet again.

There's someone who gives me neg rep whenever I post a new news story where Christians or Republicans are opposed to science, or just look bad due to poor choices.

What makes me laugh is, this person just knows that logic and evidence are not anywhere close to being on that member's side. There is no way they can come out in public and make a good case for their argument. 

And that must burn, knowing that they just can't justify their views in public with logic and facts. 



Of course, the difference is, Willy Wonka used applied science, and would abandon failed hypotheses when he had to. (But this blueberry stuff will work at some point! This I swear!)

Friend, again I beg you to join the discussion. Who knows! You might change some minds!

And if you can't muster any evidence or logic to change other minds... would you ever entertain the idea you might be wrong?


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 25, 2014)

Explorer said:


> And that must burn, knowing that they just can't justify their views in public with logic and facts.



They don't need logic or facts. They have charisma a gullible sheep for followers.

EDIT: Also, sucks that someone thinks that intelligent discussion and debate is something that should be shunned in a Current Issues thread. I'm sure someone here (me included) will be happy to counter rep if it keeps happening.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 26, 2014)

Actually, I normally get positive rep for the same things I get negative rep for. I'm actually pretty happy about having ideas which strike folks from both sides pretty strongly at times.

Plus, as Darren noted long ago (pretty sure it was him), none of us have *more* rep than we deserve, so it still balances out. And I even try to make a point to positive rep when someone makes a point which goes so far against logic and facts that it can only be parody. *laugh*

And I do try to give poz rep for things which are positive, in addition to those which make me laugh.

----

As part of what they oppose, I think it's interesting to see that most creationists and Intelligent Design folks are influenced to change their rhetoric due to selection pressures. Most folks don't slip up and say anything about faith, because that was struck down pretty strongly by a federal court ruling that Intelligent Design was just Creationism in sheep's clothing. That Republican stating that the perspective of people of faith should be taught in a classroom dealing with evidence is an example of an atavistic behavior resurfacing after it had been strongly selected against. 

I hope someone finds these links I provided to be at least somewhat educational.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 26, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Actually, I normally get positive rep for the same things I get negative rep for. I'm actually pretty happy about having ideas which strike folks from both sides pretty strongly at times.
> 
> Plus, as Darren noted long ago (pretty sure it was him), none of us have *more* rep than we deserve, so it still balances out. And I even try to make a point to positive rep when someone makes a point which goes so far against logic and facts that it can only be parody. *laugh*
> 
> ...



Educational? If by educational do you mean a series of repetitive posts over several months if not years where you basically pontificate about the same tired subjects by only making small variations in the titles?


----------



## Axayacatl (Aug 26, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Educational? If by educational do you mean a series of repetitive posts over several months if not years where you basically pontificate about the same tired subjects by only making small variations in the titles?



That sounds exactly like education to me. 

I think you gotta relax about it. It's not like he's passing legislation to change your kid's science curriculum to teach whichever pseudo-scientific lord of the rings creation myth happens to be popular among an increasingly small and rather desperate but politically powerful and overrepresented white minority. 

It's the opposite here because presumably you can choose to not read the thread and read something else. A kid in a school district that teaches non-testable creationism along (or instead of) theories based on the scientific method may not be so free to choose. 

I always felt as though home schooling should be for the 'crazies', not for the ones wanting their kids to learn science. 

The ironic thing is that if we actually lived in the law-of-the-jungle dog-eat-dog-world that creationist-types envision in their social and political legislation then they would have been selected out of the gene pool a looooong long time ago. That's the beauty of 'Merica!!


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 26, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Educational? If by educational do you mean a series of repetitive posts over several months if not years where you basically pontificate about the same tired subjects by only making small variations in the titles?


Why do you care though, as long he posts threads that invoke a discussion he's well within the forum's rules. Your free to response to his "repetitive" threads as long you have a legit point to argue (which currently you don't).


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 26, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Educational? If by educational do you mean a series of repetitive posts over several months if not years where you basically pontificate about the same tired subjects by only making small variations in the titles?



Years, hmm? "Joined April 2014". I smell a side account. 

He's well within the rules. His posts spark thoughtful and intelligent discussion. If it bugs you so much don't comment or pay attention. Simple


----------



## Randy D (Aug 26, 2014)

I would have to say that I agree with the Republicans and I would also like to see chemistry taught with more emphasis on the basic literary structure that one utilizes to compose the characters of the periodic table of the elements. 
Not only are the compounds molecular structure and chemical make-up important but it is equally important how well one can artistically illustrate them...........



lol nah just kidding wacky ass Republicans

Cheers

-Randy D


----------



## TedEH (Aug 26, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> His posts spark thoughtful and intelligent discussion



They do tend to be very one-sided though. It's one thing to have a discussion asking "Hey, fellow members of a community I'm part of, what are your thoughts on teaching x vs y in schools?" compared to "Oh man, those religious so-and-so are at it again!"

I'm as much an atheist as the next guy, but I don't think it does anyone any favors to shield them from the fact that other points of view exist. Maybe the literal science class is not the appropriate place for it, but I don't think it should be illegal to have a religion class, or anything like that. The schools I went to had both, and you could opt out of the religion class in favor of an ethics/morality class instead, but the science class was mandatory. I see no problem with that arrangement.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

The creationists do though, and that's the whole point. Creationism does not belong in a science class. A religious studies class is fine (at least if it's all "this is what these guys believe and why" and not "this is the Truth!"), but that's not what they're after.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 26, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> Years, hmm? "Joined April 2014". I smell a side account.



I like this small example of the same kind of slip-up the Republicans do in the news story. 

Assuming that Lance has been around for that long, and that he can no longer post from the original account (*cough* BANNED! *cough*), does this boil down to someone who clings to a personal narrative of "No one agrees with me, therefore I'm persecuted because I'm right!"?

Since both coming back after being banned and having two accounts concurrently are against the rules, I'll take this as confirmation of that "The rules don't apply to us!" entitlement, to which my drawing attention to it is to be discouraged.

Lance is on my ignore list, so kind of a burden I'm stocking you folks with , but be sure to post if he actually has any evidence of this story being either incorrect, or of the Republicans being driven to remove science for any reason other than their religion disagrees with evidence and observation.

And positive rep given to those who can hold their noses long enough to have read his stuff up to this point.


----------



## Necris (Aug 26, 2014)

When I am exposed to a point of view and all of the facts I can find show me that said point of view is completely out of touch with reality I feel fully justified in saying "This is stupid." . 

If the religious so and so _are _at it again, why not say so? Intelligent Design and Creationism are like herpes, they just keep coming back.

The only thing these ideas are useful for is to show just what kind of ignorance actual science is up against as well as showing the sad state of science education in this country.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 26, 2014)

TedEH said:


> They do tend to be very one-sided though. It's one thing to have a discussion asking "Hey, fellow members of a community I'm part of, what are your thoughts on teaching x vs y in schools?" compared to "Oh man, those religious so-and-so are at it again!"
> 
> I'm as much an atheist as the next guy, but I don't think it does anyone any favors to shield them from the fact that other points of view exist. Maybe the literal science class is not the appropriate place for it, but I don't think it should be illegal to have a religion class, or anything like that. The schools I went to had both, and you could opt out of the religion class in favor of an ethics/morality class instead, but the science class was mandatory. I see no problem with that arrangement.



It's one thing to explain to kids that some people have different ideas than them. It's another to have to teach something that's completely and utterly wrong as fact. I agree with having a separate class, but that isn't the issue at hand.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

Explorer, I didn't even know ignore existed until like a month ago. I think it's a bit silly to ignore anyone, as sometimes they might say something of value that forces you to question, or at least find a good way to articulate (almost as important IMO) your thinking... or you just scroll right on by.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 26, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> He's well within the rules. His posts spark thoughtful and intelligent discussion. If it bugs you so much don't comment or pay attention.



I had a chuckle at this. This is a predominately atheistic, liberal forum for a niche (musicians) within a niche (metal musicians) within a niche (seven string metal musicians). There is no intelligent discourse as far as these topics are concerned because everyone mostly agrees on them (myself incuded, I might add) and these threads only end up with back slapping and the start of a hearty circle jerk because of the tone they are started with.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

Eh. Some of them, I guess, but I feel like someone ventures some discussion back and forth in most of them, even the religious topics.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 26, 2014)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I had a chuckle at this. This is a predominately atheistic, liberal forum for a niche (musicians) within a niche (metal musicians) within a niche (seven string metal musicians). There is no intelligent discourse as far as these topics are concerned because everyone mostly agrees on them (myself incuded, I might add) and these threads only end up with back slapping and the start of a hearty circle jerk.



Did you see the Ferguson Shooting thread? 

I think generally SSO is pretty like minded, but I have seen the occasional debate here. For instance I previously stated I'm lutheran and consider myself libertarian. Politically I try to be passive, though.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 26, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> It's one thing to explain to kids that some people have different ideas than them. It's another to have to teach something that's completely and utterly wrong as fact. I agree with having a separate class, but that isn't the issue at hand.



I think it is the issue at hand, or part of it. Neither extreme seems to be willing to compromise. The OP states "It's not legitimate for science class to consider the perspectives of people of faith." There's a huge difference between that and teaching intelligent design as fact.

The way I see it is that you're not going to be able to sway someone who's already made a decision regarding their world view, nor can you prevent them from trying to pass on that view to children. Stripping religion away from the classroom is not going to prevent parents and churches etc. from teaching those things, because as far as they're concerned, it's fact. They may be wrong, but you'll never convince them of that. Just like they'll never convince you that intelligent design is a vague possibility.

I'm all for teaching a science class that is 100% science and 0% politics and religion. But fighting against the flexibility to teach an alternative at the same time only serves to antagonize people whose world views aren't compatible with your own.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 26, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I think it is the issue at hand, or part of it. Neither extreme seems to be willing to compromise. The OP states "It's not legitimate for science class to consider the perspectives of people of faith." There's a huge difference between that and teaching intelligent design as fact.
> 
> The way I see it is that you're not going to be able to sway someone who's already made a decision regarding their world view, nor can you prevent them from trying to pass on that view to children. Stripping religion away from the classroom is not going to prevent parents and churches etc. from teaching those things, because as far as they're concerned, it's fact. They may be wrong, but you'll never convince them of that. Just like they'll never convince you that intelligent design is a vague possibility.
> 
> I'm all for teaching a science class that is 100% science and 0% politics and religion. But fighting against the flexibility to teach an alternative at the same time only serves to antagonize people whose world views aren't compatible with your own.



Ah, I see what you're getting at. I'm kind of half and half at even teaching it in schools. If it is taught, yes, it should be in a philosophy class or the like.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 26, 2014)

asher said:


> Explorer, I didn't even know ignore existed until like a month ago. I think it's a bit silly to ignore anyone, as sometimes they might say something of value that forces you to question, or at least find a good way to articulate (almost as important IMO) your thinking... or you just scroll right on by.


 
I too had to put Lance on the iggy list. Reading such blatant denial of reality eventually made my head hurt. The guy ignored every answer to his questions in other threads. Overall, he is just a pain to acknowledge.



TedEH said:


> The way I see it is that you're not going to be able to sway someone who's already made a decision regarding their world view, nor can you prevent them from trying to pass on that view to children. Stripping religion away from the classroom is not going to prevent parents and churches etc. from teaching those things, because as far as they're concerned, it's fact.


 
Ted, the problem with teaching the alternative is that it is giving an inch to those who want to deny science, learning, and knowledge. I will make a slippery-slope argument and say that with the teaching of ID allowed, religious teachers could quickly use that as a gateway to throw their religious opinion and morality into the classroom.

Besides, those who wholeheartedly believe in ID do not want it taught alongside evolution, they want to have it taught INSTEAD of evolution. At the moment, they are trying to get it into the classroom. Again, it is a slippery slope. If it were allowed, then teachers could weight the ID part of the course more heavily than the evolution section.

And because the public schools here are tax supported, religion needs to be kept separate.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


 
According to Cornell University Law School 


> The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual&#8217;s religious practices.


First Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Giving ID any credence would promote one religion's views over others.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 27, 2014)

Omura said:


> I do not understand why there are people that believe that religious ideas should be taught in schools. ...



Because if they allowed themselves to learn and understand that the science is right and their mythological beliefs are wrong, their whole world comes crashing down. They have to be anti-anything that conflicts with or discredits their personal interpretation of, one out of 40k+ indoctrinated versions of christianity, based on a subjective interpretation of one of the 200+ (English, more if you included non-English) versions of the Bible. If evolution is true, then the story of Adam & Eve didn't literally happen, and if Adam & Eve didn't happen then Eve wasn't around to commit the "original sin" which means Jesus didn't need to die on the cross, and at that point their entire religion basically falls apart.

This is a prime example of democracy being three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner and why The U.S. Constitution was written the way it was.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> They do tend to be very one-sided though. ...


Well, for the most part, it's because the theists are anti-reality. There is much that is not up for debate, yet the theists keep trying to treat their mythology as reality.


TedEH said:


> ... but I don't think it should be illegal to have a religion class, or anything like that. The schools I went to had both, and you could opt out of the religion class in favor of an ethics/morality class instead, but the science class was mandatory. I see no problem with that arrangement.



You're lucky. Others aren't so lucky. Especially your fellow countrymen in Ontario and Alberta. There's news bits that make it down here how the public schools that are supposed to allow non-christians to skip-out on the religious indoctrination don't.

The big problem with "separate but equal" in the U.S. is that our Constitution explicitly forbids the government from favoring one religion over another. So, if you want to use government money, laws, etc. to teach one version of Christianity, you'll need to teach as many of the 40k+ versions as possible (which includes Mormonism, Rastafarianism, etc.), plus at least the three major versions of Islam, the five major "orthodoxy levels" of Judaism, the six schools of Hinduism, Sikhism, B'nai B'rith, etc., etc.

Now, even if that was possible, how would people handle real science & history, not to mention the alternate mythologies, conflicting with their mythological claptrap that they BELIEVE to be the truth?


----------



## ElRay (Aug 27, 2014)

Necris said:


> When I am exposed to a point of view and all of the facts I can find show me that said point of view is completely out of touch with reality I feel fully justified in saying "This is stupid.".



and that's what people don't get. People deserve respect until they've proven themselves to be worthy of, and actually earn, dis-respect.

Ideas don't come with an innate "respect". They have to be proven worthy of respect and when they don't, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they're total nonsense, claptrap, etc.

The problem is that too many people can't separate the justified trashing of nonsense they're spewing with an attack on them personally. They can't separate others not BELEIVING their nonsense as an attack on their nonsense, which is equivalent to a personal attack. Religion just amplifies (and I'm talking the stereotypical hard clipping solid-state kind of amplification, not the keep-it-in-the-linear-range solid state or the smoothly overdriven, soft clipping tube amplification) all of this.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> ... The way I see it is that you're not going to be able to sway someone who's already made a decision regarding their world view, nor can you prevent them from trying to pass on that view to children. ...



All the more reason why the spewed nonsense needs to be fought. If you let it slide, more people BELIEVE it and more people are left ignorant of reality.

The key factor that many still miss, is that any endorsement of any religion by the government is unConstitutional and (unfortunately) the number of schools that have demonstrated an ability to teach "Religion as a purely academic topic" is essentially zero.



TedEH said:


> ... to teach an alternative at the same time serves to antagonize people whose world views aren't compatible with your own ...


So füking what? Unless you've got a theocracy, teaching religion as an alternative to reality has no place in government schools. People getting butt-hurt and demanding that their mythology be put on the same footing as reality is religious arrogance and expectation of special privilege at it's finest.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I think it is the issue at hand, or part of it. Neither extreme seems to be willing to compromise. The OP states "It's not legitimate for science class to consider the perspectives of people of faith." There's a huge difference between that and teaching intelligent design as fact.



There may be a difference between teaching something which has no scientific support (intelligent design) from teaching a perspective which has no scientific support (evolution is wrong because my religion says it's wrong). However, neither actually has anything to do with science, other than being opposition to the evidence. 



> I'm all for teaching a science class that is 100% science and 0% politics and religion. But fighting against the flexibility to teach an alternative at the same time only serves to antagonize people whose world views aren't compatible with your own.



Are you saying that one should have the flexibility to teach a non-scientific alternative in that 100% science classroom? I would disagree with that idea. 

There are many interlocking disciplines which support each other, including how fossils form due to sedimentation. However, the religious perspective from many of those who push for intelligent design is that water appeared from nowhere, with no explanatory mechanism other than religious writing, sufficient to cause a flood which covered every land mass on the planet, and then all that water disappeared again, again with no explanatory mechanism. other than religious writing. 

Can you give a persuasive argument as to why the Biblical flood should be part of geology classes? Or how the fact that a prism functions as it does didn't happen until after that Biblical flood? 

You're absolutely right in thinking that I would only want science to be part of science class. How would one be flexible enough to include the viewpoint of one religious faith (and only those which happen to agree with that faith on the particular points being taught)?

*Going in the other direction though, there was a recent reboot of an old science show. On the new show, there was often discussion of how science and evidence refutes the "perspective" of religion. Surprisingly, a lot of those who want religion included in the discussion felt that their beliefs were being attacked by being included in the discussion.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I have a tiny suspicion that if one designed a curriculum which included the religious "perspective," and which showed how observable evidence disproved what is put forward from that perspective, we'd see a lot of objections to how the perspectives aren't being given full equal weight to the evidence.*

Is it worth exploring how observation and evidence overcomes dogma and religious perspectives when such turn out to be false? Maybe, but (to reduce what's being advanced to absurdity) I think that you need to teach solid sentence construction and writing before you teach literary criticism, and you need to teach a solid understanding of science first in that same way. 

I think it would be unworkable to teach literary criticism and calculus at the early stages of learning. I'd rather teach in a way which educates and builds in a solid way. 



asher said:


> Explorer, I didn't even know ignore existed until like a month ago. I think it's a bit silly to ignore anyone, as sometimes they might say something of value that forces you to question, or at least find a good way to articulate (almost as important IMO) your thinking... or you just scroll right on by.



I put him on Ignore when he finally demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that he had no interest in actually answering his own supposed questions. It was all cut-and-paste nonsense, and Ignore is easier than scrolling past the cut-and-paste stuff. 

At some point, someone might quote something surprising, and I'll say, hey, that was interesting! Until that day though, I'm going to let others be my researchers (canaries!) on this matter. 

Again, it's not that I put everyone on ignore when we're discussing something. It happens when someone repeatedly and consistently behaves in a way which convinces me they'll continue to do so. 

I know, I'm taking a chance. It's like (IMO) waiting for Bob Dylan, like a blind man in a room with a dartboard, eventually hitting the target of a great song... but look at what happened to the walls in the meantime!  I think there's less chance of insight from Lance than of that blind man hitting the dartboard, and I think both are just purely a chance occurrence, and not due to good aim.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 27, 2014)

A science class should teach one thing: science. 

It's pretty simple really, because science boils down to one tenant: what does the evidence support?

The perhaps not so readily obvious (because religious bias obfuscates things to such a large degree apparently) is that ID is NOT qualified as a science. There is no evidence to support it, so it is not ....ing science; it's just creationism dressed up to fool enough gullible people that it has place in a SCIENCE classroom.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

You know, I've decided to read Lance's post. I suspect that he's going to be making the same point I did a moment ago, that folks who want their perspective presented don't like it when that perspective is shown to be wanting. 

It might not be quite what he intended anyone to learn from his ideas, but Asher might be right in that I did discover something useful already, if only a way to help focus the discussion when folks want religion discussed in the science classroom. Using that religious perspective to show how basic hypotheses are rejected when there is no evidence, or knowing when a hypothesis is completely unfalsifiable and therefore not science, is an amazing tool.

Now to read!

----

Whoops. 

I did learn something... that Lance has been banned. Since his last post contained his observation from possibly years on here, even though the Lance membership was for a short time, maybe TheStig was right in wondering if there was more than one account involved for that member. 

So I learned that trolls gotta troll.

And that yet another person who doesn't like this kind of topic believes that the rules don't apply to his or her side. 

I also learned that TheStig cannot be repped twice on the same post, so I do hope that those of you who use the rep system will give him positive rep for catching that. 

And lastly, I'm repping Asher for encouraging me to step outside my comfort zone, even though it just verified for me that I was right in dismissing Lance as a troll. *laugh*


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 27, 2014)

With a Science class being - oddly enough - about scientifically demonstrated or at the very least properly supported theories, it is only logical that a country that is constitutionally bound to ensuring a secular stance leaves religious theories out of said class. This should be obvious to anyone occupying a seat of political relevance of the country in question, but so often disregarded it hurts.

If this ever comes to be, I surely hope the Sanskrit mythology comes around as it's very entertaining, and perhaps when meteorology is approached a class should be devoted to sacrificing our firstborn sons to Moloch when drought comes and threatens our crops...


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

Oh, you were totally right about that  maybe it's just morbid curiosity on my part though, but if I don't feel like taking the bait I just scroll right on by.

(also, I reported that post as possible Eric Christian dupe account because of the "years" comment. A bunch of us have wondered before... looks like we were right.)


----------



## TedEH (Aug 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Are you saying that one should have the flexibility to teach a non-scientific alternative in that 100% science classroom?



Nope. Not what I said. What I said is that neither side of the argument is being flexible. Science class absolutely shouldn't have religion included. But I think a separate, unrelated religion class should be allowed. Make pure science mandatory, but let religion be optional as well. 

The problem is not who's right or wrong, because you've all clearly made that decision already. The problem is that you'll never convince people to drop their worldviews. Those who want religion to be allowed are just as set in their ways, they're equally convinced that we're out of our minds and unreasonable. Unless both sides of the argument are willing to compromise in some way, or work together or something, someone is always going to feel wronged or under attack and the argument will never end.


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of atheists/scientists/whatever would be more than happy to have a religion class where this stuff is talked about. But that's not what the other side is asking for, nor are they willing to go there. It's not entirely an argument in good faith (hyuk hyuk) because one side is completely unwilling to compromise.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 27, 2014)

asher said:


> I'm pretty sure the vast majority of atheists/scientists/whatever would be more than happy to have a religion class where this stuff is talked about. But that's not what the other side is asking for, nor are they willing to go there. It's not entirely an argument in good faith (hyuk hyuk) because one side is completely unwilling to compromise.



Yea, I don't recall ever seeing objections raised at proposed elective religion classes.

That isn't what the religious right are pressing for though; there are trying to position the bullshit ID as an equally qualified alternative to evolution.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 27, 2014)

One is an interpretation of religious text, the other is substantiated by verifiable empirical observation; one portrays a subjective notion of intent, the other merely states observation of objective evidence, the list goes on and on. I'm truly dumbfounded by this.

As quite a few know, I'm hardly your "traditional" (whatever that is) Christian. This sort of incapability of discerning between objective (data) and subjective (why said data came to be i.e. the meaning of life, transcendent intent, Shiva said so, you name it) is embarrassing at best. What's even more embarrassing is this medieval obsession with forcing a promiscuity of faith in a transcendent entity and the ongoing investigation of the mechanics of nature - different purposes, different spheres of action and study, and if you are to believe science is wrong, then why bother applying religion to it?


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Nope. Not what I said. What I said is that neither side of the argument is being flexible. Science class absolutely shouldn't have religion included. But I think a separate, unrelated religion class should be allowed. Make pure science mandatory, but let religion be optional as well.
> 
> The problem is not who's right or wrong, because you've all clearly made that decision already. The problem is that you'll never convince people to drop their worldviews. Those who want religion to be allowed are just as set in their ways, they're equally convinced that we're out of our minds and unreasonable. Unless both sides of the argument are willing to compromise in some way, or work together or something, someone is always going to feel wronged or under attack and the argument will never end.



I get what your saying but wasn't it you who said something along the lines of "Stripping religion away from the classroom is not going to prevent parents and churches from teaching those things" you are absolutely correct which begs the question "why do they need it in the classroom also?" They don't and I imagine a class like what you're talking about would only become a glorified debate class with kids who understand science arguing with kids who...don't.

And with regards to people's minds being set and not being able to change their world views, I disagree. I've known plenty of devout people who have realized their religion didn't align with facts and reason, I mean I wasn't raised religious (or atheist for that matter) but don't most atheist come from religious families? Isn't that an example of peoples "world view" changing?


----------



## TedEH (Aug 27, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> I imagine a class like what you're talking about would only become a glorified debate class with kids who understand science arguing with kids who...don't.



I don't see a problem with that scenario. Having the discussion happen at all is a good thing in my mind. I realize opinions will vary though. 



> don't most atheist come from religious families? Isn't that an example of peoples "world view" changing?



I'm not talking about everyone, I'm talking about those who are trying to argue in favor of ID. A person with weak enough faith to be converted or change their mind is probably not spending much time trying to force intelligent design into science classrooms. 

I guess I'm just of the opinion that the general stance being taken in this thread is not one "for science" but rather "against religion", but hey, maybe I'm misreading.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I don't see a problem with that scenario. Having the discussion happen at all is a good thing in my mind. I realize opinions will vary though.



I just feel it would be a waste of school resources and students time when we already have a laughable school system as is? I would value maybe an engineering class where students learn how the technology that surrounds them works above a theology class where the only thing to come of it would be a lot of heated debates and maybe a handful of people crossing over sometimes?




TedEH said:


> I'm not talking about everyone, I'm talking about those who are trying to argue in favor of ID. A person with weak enough faith to be converted or change their mind is probably not spending much time trying to force intelligent design into science classrooms.
> 
> I guess I'm just of the opinion that the general stance being taken in this thread is not one "for science" but rather "against religion", but hey, maybe I'm misreading.



I don't know about you but I know plenty of people (including my girlfriend and her grandfather) that were anti evolution, anti science and very pro ID it wasn't until they actually read into the science behind these theories that they stopped believing.

Don't underestimate the minds desire for facts and knowledge


----------



## SD83 (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Science class absolutely shouldn't have religion included. But I think a separate, unrelated religion class should be allowed. Make pure science mandatory, but let religion be optional as well.



Welcome to my world  Actually, in religion class, we were taught that the Bible has to be seen as... damn, I'm again lacking the right word... that some parts of it have to be seen as parables, as metaphors, and that while the main content was "true" and right (Jesus being the son of God, the Ten Commandents, forgivness, love...), modern day Christians do no longer believe that the entire book was made from facts. Even the local Reverend told us kids that it was to be seen as a metaphor, not taken literal. Which makes sense to me, even if you totally do believe in God and Jesus etc. How are you, as God, supposed to explain the creation of the universe and all that to a rather simple man from 500 BC? "Folks, God talked to me. I have to admit though, I didn't understand anything... so here is what I guess he meant. Hopefully." Assuming that God was all-knowing, intelligent and good-willed, he would have simplified stuff. 

As ElRay already said, if it is against the Constitution to teach a certain religious view as an alternative to science, I wonder how there can be any debate about it. Religion is something that, in my opinion, should not play a role in anything but your own personal life. Besides objective information about different religions in religion class, it should be entirely left out of schools, politics, law, anything.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 27, 2014)

SD83 said:


> we were taught that the Bible has to be seen as... parables, as metaphors



I find that to be an interesting point of view, and I've heard of it before. My dad at one point tried to convince me that all Christians believed the bible was metaphor, but I don't believe that they do- I thought he was making it up as a way of trying to justify theism to me when I objected to it, and I never considered it outside of that moment.



> Don't underestimate the minds desire for facts and knowledge


Fair enough.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I find that to be an interesting point of view, and I've heard of it before. My dad at one point tried to convince me that all Christians believed the bible was metaphor, but I don't believe that they do- I thought he was making it up as a way of trying to justify theism to me when I objected to it, and I never considered it outside of that moment.



To be honest, I have never met anyone in person who claimed to believe something else. And while I don't know most of them well, I trust at least my parents and grandma at that. I'll go as far as saying you'll have a hard time trying to convince a German catholic christian that the bible is in fact to be taken literal. And everytime things like the article in the OP make it to the news, you'll, figuratively speaking, find everyone facepalming. "Those crazy Americans again.". Fact is, I have no idea what the average US christian actually believes in, as only the loudest, craziest make it to the news over here.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Nope. Not what I said. What I said is that neither side of the argument is being flexible. Science class absolutely shouldn't have religion included. But I think *a separate, unrelated religion class should be allowed.* Make pure science mandatory, but *let religion be optional as well.*
> 
> The problem is not who's right or wrong, because you've all clearly made that decision already. * The problem is that you'll never convince people to drop their worldviews.* *Those who want religion to be allowed are just as set in their ways,* they're equally convinced that we're out of our minds and unreasonable. * Unless both sides of the argument are willing to compromise in some way, or work together or something, someone is always going to feel wronged or under attack and the argument will never end.*



At some point in high school, it was proposed that we have school prayer. A group of us joined up, and discovered that several area Christian leaders were at the meeting. They wanted to advise us, but also wanted us to not tell anyone that they were actively involved in the student activity. 

My friends and I went further, and polled students. We figured out how to be fair to all the members of a plural society.

So when the big meeting came up, with the school board members, we had our facts ready. Some spoke about their opposition, some about their support, and we had charts and figures.

So many days for Christian prayer, based on their representation in the school. So many for Jewish prayer. So many for Muslims. Some for the kids who stated that they worshipped Satan. And one day for the kid who said he worshipped the Norse pantheon.

One of the Christian leaders said it was ludicrous, but I pointed out that we just went further than what that leader had advised in the student meetings, in order to have fair representation.

"He was at the meetings?"

"Yes, he and those other fine folks there." I named them.

"I see," said the school board leader.

For some reason, we never got that school prayer. 

But everyone got a powerful lesson in how, in spite of it being presented as a case of everyone having freedom of religion, it was actually about one group lying in order to have only their own faith represented, at the expense of all others. 

Since we're talking about how evidence can make or break a hypothesis... 



I don't agree that everyone is inflexible on any issue other than about whether one should teach religion in a science class. (I don't view excluding religion from science class as a bad thing, incidentally, unless it's to teach the difference between dogma/belief and science.) 

I do think though that there is a case to be made that one side is very inflexible in terms of a sense of entitlement regarding the superiority of its faith, and of the privileges which should be given to that faith over all others.

(unable to rep Asher again so soon, but have dispensed more poz rep, and will again once I read this topic more thoroughly.)


----------



## Necris (Aug 27, 2014)

I'll say it again, as I've said it in other threads, the only truly feasible way to ensure that all faiths have equal representation is to represent none of them. 

The answer to prayer in school is not to take a survey and find what faiths exist in a school and then set aside time for each to have a prayer specific to their religion in the morning, the answer is to have no prayer at all.

The answer to religious symbols in public property (such as a state capitol bulding) is not to have hundreds of plaques and statues representing every single faith held by the population of said state littering the landscape; the correct answer is to deny every single one of them.

The same is also true for this Christian creation myth; teaching every single creation myth ever held by any religion is not the answer, the answer is to keep creation myths out of science classes.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 27, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Nope. Not what I said. What I said is that neither side of the argument is being flexible. Science class absolutely shouldn't have religion included. But I think a separate, unrelated religion class should be allowed. Make pure science mandatory, but let religion be optional as well.


 
Religion classes are optional. They would be called "church."


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 27, 2014)

I would also like to point out:



Grand Moff Tim said:


> What are the odds Lance is Eric Christian? Any way to look in to that?


 


Grindspine said:


> Snap...
> 
> Now I feel like I wasted time replying to that moronic troll. There is a very good chance that it is, in fact, that guy.
> 
> Hopefully a moderator can view the IP addresses and ban if appropriate.


 
In regards to Lance. I am surprised that he wasn't banned after the Republican claiming Earth & Mars have the same temperature debacle. Grand Moff Tim pointed out that it was Eric quite a while ago, August 3rd to be exact.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Religion classes are optional. They would be called "church."



There are plenty of capacities for religious studies classes in an academic setting, and they can even be quite interesting, and the setting allows for much more rigor in the study than "believe this!".

Also, I think a bunch of us were having Eric? thoughts at the same time


----------



## tedtan (Aug 28, 2014)

asher said:


> There are plenty of capacities for religious studies classes in an academic setting, and they can even be quite interesting, and the setting allows for much more rigor in the study than "believe this!".
> 
> Also, I think a bunch of us were having Eric? thoughts at the same time



I agree. Even if it were just conducted as an introductory humanities class that would provide a basic comparative overview of the various religions (at least the major ones like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) and how they not only compare to one another but also how they fit into the various cultures from which they sprung would be a good thing. Most Americans could use a good kick in the ass when it comes to understanding and respecting other cultures. A philosophical approach could be interesting as well.

I also agree about the Lance Thrustmore = Eric Christian thing. I think a lot of us became convinced of that about a month or so back.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 28, 2014)

asher said:


> There are plenty of capacities for religious studies classes in an academic setting, and they can even be quite interesting, and the setting allows for much more rigor in the study than "believe this!".
> 
> Also, I think a bunch of us were having Eric? thoughts at the same time


 
I can understand comparative religion classes being available in a university setting. At that age and education level, students are expected to have enough background knowledge to be able to think critically.

At the grade school level, which is what common core would control, children are still very impressionable. The line between instruction and indoctrination is very blurry at that stage. 

Though some students start college/university at 16 or 17, most are 18+ by the time many of the elective courses are being taken. The dividing line between a minor being taught religion and an adult being given the opportunity to learn about religion is a large one.


----------



## pink freud (Aug 28, 2014)

I'm pretty sure I DID have a religion class in school, it was called Social Studies - World Religions. Lasted about a quarter, focused on basic tenets of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. I think it was in Junior year of high school...

Did nobody have something similar?


----------



## frahmans (Aug 28, 2014)

Reading this thread is interesting. It goes to show that there agendas to push a certain religion in the public area over others. That in itself is not fair but I understand because said religion is a majority and a lot of government people are strong advocates of said religion. They will always have a bias. When I was in a junior high in America,i went to a public school in New York. As a one of a handful of Muslim kids, it angered me none of my holidays were actually celebrated. But, I learned that there is the constitution and then there is reality. 

Back on topic. This is more of the same. Religion has a place but taught as a specific subject at private religious schools not in a public school where it is supposed to be secular. But they want to push an agenda of the conservative faith to those in Ohio. 

*I am not here to talk about validity of intelligent design but I would like to chime in. I subscribe to it and have had countless others try to prove their point. What stands out is their passion. The passion at which they want prove their point was as scary as the religious guy who wanted to push his faith. One calls God "Jesus", the other calls God "Science". Those type of discussions need to know boundaries of respect in others opinions because faith (in god or science) is one's opinion and viewpoint.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2014)

frahmans said:


> *I am not here to talk about validity of intelligent design but I would like to chime in. I subscribe to it and have had countless others try to prove their point. What stands out is their passion. The passion at which they want prove their point was as scary as the religious guy who wanted to push his faith. One calls God "Jesus", the other calls God "Science". Those type of discussions need to know boundaries of respect in others opinions because faith (in god or science) is one's opinion and viewpoint.



Not this again


----------



## tedtan (Aug 28, 2014)

pink freud said:


> I'm pretty sure I DID have a religion class in school, it was called Social Studies - World Religions. Lasted about a quarter, focused on basic tenets of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. I think it was in Junior year of high school...
> 
> Did nobody have something similar?



We had a required multicultural studies course that spent ~6 weeks on religion in college, but we didn't have anything similar in my high school.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 28, 2014)

asher said:


> Not this again


 
Just breathe and ignore the silliness of the statement.

I would like to state that "faith in science" is a nonsense phrase. Faith is believing in that which has no evidence. Belief in science IS belief in evidence and conclusions drawn from said evidence. Faith is not (or, at least, should not) be a consideration.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Aug 28, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Just breathe and ignore the silliness of the statement.
> 
> I would like to state that "faith in science" is a nonsense phrase. Faith is believing in that which has no evidence. Belief in science IS belief in evidence and conclusions drawn from said evidence. Faith is not (or, at least, should not) be a consideration.


I did once score big points with my language teacher in high school when I wrote an essay stating basically "science is just another form of belief"  didn't agree with it at all but hey, made me pass.

Over here we get cultural/social studies or whatever it translates to in high school for a year or two. It deals with political ideologies, religion and the likes. There is no mention of God in science nor biology because quite frankly, why would there be? 

Then again our system is very different from the States. I don't think any of our biology teachers would teach abstince during sex ed


----------



## Explorer (Aug 28, 2014)

I think that folks argue the "belief in science is a religious faith!" thing because they feel it is unwarranted to think that things will often continue as they have before. 

In other words, we might act as if we count on gravity because it has always worked before, and that is equivalent to religious faith (to those trying to make that point). 

I think it's like believing provisionally that your lights are going to come on when you flip the switch coming home late at night. It normally works, but once you get in a situation where it doesn't, you plan for those contingencies.

And if gravity became intermittent, then folks would plan for that too 

Funny... the argument (from religionists) that people have religious faith that natural phenomena will always remain the same just doesn't hold up when we're talking about anthropogenic global warming, does it? And even there, it turns out there is a huge religious component for a lot of folks who have religious faith that their particular deity won't let it change, with all observable evidence to the contrary being denied.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 28, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> "faith in science" is a nonsense phrase.



I'll disagree with that one. I made the argument in another thread that there is an element of faith in science if you look at it from the point of view that you have to rely on the word of someone that you assume knows better than you, unless, of course, you're a scientist. I realize that adds nothing to the conversation, but I'm just throwing it out there.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 28, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'll disagree with that one. I made the argument in another thread that there is an element of faith in science if you look at it from the point of view that you have to rely on the word of someone that you assume knows better than you, unless, of course, you're a scientist. I realize that adds nothing to the conversation, but I'm just throwing it out there.



This is a misconception, you don't need to be a scientist to understand science and you say "faith in someone" as if it's one scientist who everyone believes... No, I'm skeptical of any new scientific discovery until it's proven repeatable by MANY sources.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 28, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> I'm skeptical of any new scientific discovery until it's proven repeatable by MANY sources.



Doesn't that support my comment? That's admitting that you have to make a conscious decision to either trust or not trust a scientific conclusion based on how many sources agree with it, not because you've proven it yourself. If you personally duplicated an experiment, or re-did the math involved, etc. and came to the same conclusion, then fine. You did science. Otherwise, you're still showing faith in the products of a process you didn't participate in.

Edit: It's very well possible that maybe you do participate in some way, or keep yourself knowledgeable enough to escape the example I gave, but most people don't. The average non-scientist person has had no personal experience with a lot of the things they believe are true.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 28, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Doesn't that support my comment? That's admitting that you have to make a conscious decision to either trust or not trust a scientific conclusion based on how many sources agree with it, not because you've proven it yourself. If you personally duplicated an experiment, or re-did the math involved, etc. and came to the same conclusion, then fine. You did science. Otherwise, you're still showing faith in the products of a process you didn't participate in.



I'm not a scientist but I do keep myself very knowledgeable and I'm aware that many do not understand the scientific process including atheist, I'll always be the first to admit that being an atheist does not by default make you intelligent.

But no, I don't think what I said supported your comment because the difference between science and religion is religion expects you to have faith in the products of a process you didn't participate in and you never will participate in because they're just stories written by people who didn't understand the world around them whereas science expects you to have faith in the products of a process you didn't participate in but if you'd like you can educate yourself to understand this process and learn the math to understand the physics behind complex theories, or astronomy, particle physics ect. 

I've never launched a satellite into space either but I wouldn't call it faith when I say I know they're up there.


----------



## StevenC (Aug 28, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Doesn't that support my comment? That's admitting that you have to make a conscious decision to either trust or not trust a scientific conclusion based on how many sources agree with it, not because you've proven it yourself. If you personally duplicated an experiment, or re-did the math involved, etc. and came to the same conclusion, then fine. You did science. Otherwise, you're still showing faith in the products of a process you didn't participate in.
> 
> Edit: It's very well possible that maybe you do participate in some way, or keep yourself knowledgeable enough to escape the example I gave, but most people don't. The average non-scientist person has had no personal experience with a lot of the things they believe are true.



You don't have to have faith in something that's demonstrably repeatable. You don't have faith that X-rays can be used for medical imaging because we see it done every day, for example.

You do have to have faith in something that is in no way supported by evidence and that can't be demonstrated or proven. When something happens in the scientific realm, people release a paper on it with their results and methodology. In maths, my field, you can simply read over someone's proof in many cases.

Religions often only have ancient texts written and edited by people who didn't understand the world nearly as well as we do today. These texts have no evidence to back up their claims, so you have to go 100% on faith. In fact, some religious texts go so far as to say you shouldn't test them because, for example, god won't answer your prayers if it's only to test that he's there.

With science, some people do take it on faith that this has been backed up, but you don't have to because it is very easy to get a hold of anyone's paper on the topic. And then you can get a hold of the paper that supports or refutes it.

Religion has to be 100% faith, science doesn't.


----------



## pink freud (Aug 28, 2014)

The difference between science and religion isn't faith; it's falsifiability.

Science only cares about subjects that have the potential to be shown true or false. The god hypothesis is incapable of being shown true or false (until such a time that a god actually explicitly reveals themselves).


----------



## Explorer (Aug 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'll disagree with that one. I made the argument in another thread that there is an element of *faith in science* if you look at it from the point of view that *you have to rely on the word of someone that you assume knows better than you*, unless, of course, you're a scientist. I realize that adds nothing to the conversation, but I'm just throwing it out there.



Now that's an interesting idea. 

*You're saying that you have religious faith in your car mechanic. *

*Wait... is that really what you're saying?*



TedEH said:


> Doesn't that support my comment? That's admitting that *you have to make a conscious decision to either trust or not trust* a scientific conclusion based on how many sources agree with it, *not because you've proven it yourself.* If you personally duplicated an experiment, or re-did the math involved, etc. and came to the same conclusion, then fine. You did science. Otherwise, you're still showing faith in the products of a process you didn't participate in.



*Yup. You're believing in an conclusion from one source.*

*Is that really religious faith?*

I'd argue that you trust the auto mechanic, not that you have religious faith in the mechanic, because that mechanic can be relied on to do the job right without overcharging. (This assumes you trust that mechanic, because if you don't, why are you taking your car there? That would be lacking in common sense, right?) 

Someone can decide to trust in science's tentative conclusions because it's worked out so far, and because it weeds out the bad stuff better than other processes. Wild cold fusion news stories? Weeded out due to non-replicability. Gravity? Still working. Tobacco Institute results that cigarettes are not addictive, and don't cause cancer? Falsified. Diseases caused by germs? Provisionally true, but then superceded by discover that some are caused by genetics. 

Your mechanic being trustworthy? Only because you haven't caught that mechanic messing up. If you did, your trust in that conclusion would disappear. 

The conclusion that all disease is caused by germs? Proven false. 

The Bible stating that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds? Observably false, but still inerrant according to the fundamentalists, because they have religious faith that the Bible is literally true and without error. 

*Come back with a better definition of "faith" that doesn't apply to someone's provisiona; trust in their auto mechanic, and we'll talk about it. *Otherwise, I refuse to believe that anyone has religious faith in science, only that they trust its conclusions the same way they trust their mechanic.

*(It could be that you do have religious faith in your mechanic, incidentally. Let us know if that is the case.)*


----------



## TedEH (Aug 29, 2014)

To everyone who replied to what I said-

I never used the words "religious faith". I'm using the word faith as in "confidence or trust in a person or thing", which is the basic definition of the word without considering any context around it.

As in, yes, you absolutely have to have faith that your mechanic is going to know what he's doing and not rip you off. You have to have faith that the scientific community is being honest and unbiased. You have to trust that whatever source you use for news isn't manipulating information for their own purposes or to fit their own bias.

So take what I said and replace the word faith with trust. There's a required element of trust in science- you trust it because it works, you trust it because it hasn't failed yet, you trust it because it's willing to change- etc. etc. - but you're still trusting it in most cases without testing it for yourself, in a lot of cases because you cant. 

Take the common argument that you can't "prove" God to someone who doesn't believe it's there. Imagine having that same conversation about bosons with someone who doesn't believe those exist either.

"Ok, so show me a boson then."

The difference is not that one is true and one is not- the difference is that one opinion is willing to be changed and the other is not. We don't "believe" science because it's "true" but because it's flexible.

I'm amused by the fact that you guys are so hyped up to attack religion that you'll add an element of religion to a post I made just so you can tear it down, haha.


----------



## vilk (Aug 29, 2014)

Even as I was reading Explorer's post I was just like, um... yeah basically that's faith when you let some dude fiddle with your car. There's no real way you can know what he's going to do because there's no fool-proof way to predict human behavior. And if you don't know what's going on in your car there's even that to boot.

Faith is something that all people use in their daily lives and even though it could be considered illogical to believe something that we don't know is true we absolutely all do it all the time. I think religion is stupid and bad and I am atheist as all-get-out but you shouldn't stigmatize all faith just because some clowns are crazy enough to believe in magic.


----------



## asher (Aug 29, 2014)

You're using the word faith in a religious discussion and are surprised when people keep its use consistent with the context?

Obviously faith has a couple ways to use it. But based on the context, one has been consistently used through the whole discussion, so using it slightly differently without noting that - but writing in a way that both readings work - and then griping when people use the previously established usage is silly.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 29, 2014)

But I did define what I meant by "faith", immediately after using the word:



TedEH said:


> if you look at it from the point of view that you have to rely on the word of someone that you assume knows better than you



In either case, you're still talking about the same thing. The only difference between religious faith and non-religious faith is putting the word "religious" in front of it. It still ultimately means that you trust something, whether it's the scientific process, or your priest/bible or what have you. 

Either way, this adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> But I did define what I meant by "faith", immediately after using the word:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah...I feel like now we're just trying to break words down to their most base levels of definition. I mean with that kinda definition of faith I could say

"I have faith if eat food my body will digest it and I'll have to shit at some point."

It just getting ridiculous because these are the types of discussions that would devolve from a religious dialogue in a school (the actual point of this thread) people arguing about the definitions of words or how they should be used.

We all understand "Faith" can be defined simply as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" but I think most of us understand that words can change their fundamental meanings if they're being exclusively used by one group long enough who also doesn't understand the correct definition like the word "fag" I don't like this word and don't use it in a derogatory manner but when I look up the definition the first thing I find is "a tiring or unwelcome task" that doesn't mean I'm gonna start using that word in that sense because at least here (America) it's more widely known as derogatory term much like faith is know more widely know as a religious term.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 29, 2014)

vilk said:


> Faith is something that all people use in their daily lives and even though it could be considered illogical to believe something that we don't know is true we absolutely all do it all the time. I think religion is stupid and bad and I am atheist as all-get-out but you shouldn't stigmatize all faith just because some clowns are crazy enough to believe in magic.





TedEH said:


> In either case, you're still talking about the same thing. The only difference between religious faith and non-religious faith is putting the word "religious" in front of it. It still ultimately means that you trust something, whether it's the scientific process, or your priest/bible or what have you.





> > faith
> > noun
> >
> > strong or unshakable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence
> ...



Sure, we apply faith in our daily lives as we can't always trust the person we are working with and sometimes we have to rely on others without fully knowing their intentions. That is becoming less and less true though with social media and review sites making it easier to pick people based on their history (facts and evidence). Anyhow, people trust and have confidence in science because it is proven by action and is typically observable, or at the very least the end result is observable. It is repeated and verified by countless sources usually as well. Is anyone who just believes a group of scientists putting faith in them? No, they are placing their confidence with them because those individuals have proven themselves to be reliable (until proven otherwise). We'd never move forward if we expected anyone who had an opinion to fully research every scientific topic that has ever taken place, to proof any and all theories and/or run a test on everything. Frankly, it'd be a huge waste of time and would seriously hinder progress if that was a requirement before moving on to new projects/data. If it's repeatable, verified by countless sources and is based on hard facts there is little need for everyone to be well read on it. Confidence and trust are based on evidence and the history of an organization/individual, faith requires nothing. It's semantics and faith is certainly a usable synonym, but they don't share the same definition.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 29, 2014)

Given the "...especially without proof or evidence" part of that definition, I'd say we _don't_ really put faith in a mechanic or a scientist. I generally consider it evidence that a person will probably be a reliable mechanic when they work in an auto shop, and same goes for other occupations. If I make an appointment to see a doctor, go to a hospital, and meet a man in a white coat in a room with medical charts and degrees on the walls, that tends to be evidence enough for me that he's a doctor and can be relied upon to perform the services of one. He might be a scheister and my trust could be misplaced, but it's not for lack of evidence that he could be trusted.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 29, 2014)

Here's the reason I wanted to make sure that "faith" wasn't used to prove, as funamentalist religionists in the US claim, that science is a religion. They do that to support teaching religion in the science classroom, since (in their definition) trust in the scientific process is a kind of religious faith. 

That has been done many times, which is why I thought it worthwhile to make sure that inaccurate assertion wasn't used to support such an argument later int he conversation. 

----

It is worthwhile to note that the naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism, including religion) which is assumed to exist as part of science is something which fundamental religionists also attack. Say there are no supernatural causes means you're tossing out those religious stories as probably not true unless you have observable proof. Having the Bible means that the Bible is full of true stories, according to their logic, and (for uncertain reasons) also means that stories of the virgin birth of folks like Mithra and other such tales are not true.

I find it fascinating and terrifying that a mythology dating back to the Bronze Age still has so much power on the minds of some. Did you all see the nearby topic about that website stating that Goths are Satanic? Or how observable evidence of anthropogenic global warming is untrue because that same Bronze Age deity would not allow such a thing to happen? That fact that the deity wanted one of the mythology's heroes killed, and then got fooled by the hero's wife cutting off the hero's foreskin and smearing blood all over the hero's crotch... and, by the way, this mythology should be taught in the science classroom. (Yup, we're back to the topic again.)

Lulwut indeed.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 29, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Funny... the argument (from religionists) that people have religious faith that natural phenomena will always remain the same just doesn't hold up when we're talking about anthropogenic global warming, does it? And even there, it turns out there is a huge religious component for a lot of folks who have religious faith that their particular deity won't let it change, with all observable evidence to the contrary being denied.


 
Are you speaking of uniformitarianism? That is the assumption that processes we see today are similar to those processes in the past. For example, gravity exists today, so we can posit, unless there is contradicting data, that gravity existed in the past.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'll disagree with that one. I made the argument in another thread that there is an element of faith in science if you look at it from the point of view that you have to rely on the word of someone that you assume knows better than you, unless, of course, you're a scientist. I realize that adds nothing to the conversation, but I'm just throwing it out there.


 
I am a scientist. I have education in natural sciences and social sciences, work experience in various aspects of medicine, and a certification as a medical laboratory professional.

Scientific knowledge, as it is known today globally, is expected to be questioned. Research articles contain method and material sections to explain how the researchers reached the results of the experiment. Academic articles are written in such a way so that any scientist can replicate an experiment and compare results.

Briefly, *good science is reproducible so as not to require faith on the part of the scientific community.*

And your comment gave me a good opening to state that.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 29, 2014)

For the record, I never meant to imply that science was a form or religion.



> Briefly, good science is reproducible so as not to require faith on the part of the scientific community.



I think that's about the best possible response someone could have towards what I meant to say.


----------

