"Real" ringworlds

[Loser]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.

The problem isn't the evolutionists, it's their publicists, really. These people are probably working for grants. Their 'job' is to make sure the grant-board wants to give them more money. Very few scientists can afford the expensive hobby of educating the public.

And it's not even the fault of the educators. They don't make the decisions, they don't write the textbooks anymore, they don't even get to choose them.

And it's not the fault of the administrators. They don't have time to learn the theories, let alone time to make the right decisions. They're doing the best they can with what they've got.

And it's not the fault of the fifth estate. The members of the media aren't getting paid to educate the public. They aren't even getting paid to delivery correct or verifiable information. Face it, they are getting paid to entertain us: 'educational' programming is just a different sort of entertainment.

It is the fault of the public, as much as you might be able to use the word 'fault'. We (they, if you'd rather) don't really care to take the time, to invest our minds, to think enough to actually understand any of this stuff. At best we (or they again, of you want) just do a poor job of memorizing poorly delivered 'facts'. Humans don't want enlightenment, we (they if you must, you elietist) want dogma, want unquestionable rules handed down from those higher on the priestly hierarchy than we are, want to assail and exclude those who don't know those rule or, worse yet, challenge them.

So many people don't understand the one thing that makes Science better than any other Dogma: it is wrong, it is fallible, it is questionable and it's okay with that. It should be all these things; anything that isn't provable and improvable like "The Will of God" for example, anything that requires faith belongs in a different field.

At this point I would like to remind a few of you what faith is, to paraphrase a certain philosopher: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived, I would have to know Greek to understand the implications of the tense. Since we can prove scientific theories, one would be slandering 'faith' by using it to defend ones beliefs against assaults supported by proof. Such a defense has to be mustered in similar form: hypothesis, tests, evidence, rational arguments, and peer review.

I have faith that humanity will continue to improve; on the other hand I have evidence that it has improved. I have faith that Science will solve all the problems humanity will ever find or make for itself, while I have evidence that it has solved many, many problems and answered many curiosities in the past. I have faith that I will offend someone today. I have proof that many people are easily offended.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Creation theory can readily explain such irreducibly complexities right now while, at present, evolution doesn't seem to be able to.

There is some truth to this. But what many Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality; I'd love to see certain Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin and an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun should a 'backwoods' mystic type walk into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real actual paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.

Any one of these can easily, quickly, and confidently come up with 'answers'. But many of these 'answers' will either fail to stand up to Science, or will call upon forces outside the jurisdiction of Science. Things like God and Aliens and whatnot.

Again, they can all bring something to Science. They need only follow the rules the scientists follow.

It strongly reminds me of all the Southern U.S. Bible Belters who think they want God in Government but forget how uncomfortable they'd be with the God that would end up (or already is) in the government of Utah. They don't really care about God in Government, if they did they wouldn't want a Mormon God in such a nearby government. They just want power, and this is a cheap way to get it. Just another caucus.

[edit: removed some generalizations, after their nature was made clear by a later poster]

[ May 19, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Loser ]

[dogscoff]

Beautifully put Loser, all of it.

Then imagine the fun when a 'backwoods' mystic type walks into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real paranoid delusional...

Don't forget the Norse mythologists, we want to stick our oar (axe) in as well.

[Loser]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Beautifully put Loser, all of it.

Thank you, you are too kind.

Hey, anyone and everyone, if you like what I'm saying, how I'm saying it, or the sound of my name, show your love and feed my rating.

If you dislike what I've got to say, how I'm saying it, or are having a bad day don't be shy: step up and give it a wack. Go on, you know you want to.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Don't forget the Norse mythologists, we want to stick our oar (axe) in as well.

Ack!

I feel quite foolish. I knew there was another fairly well-known creation mythos I ought to have mentioned... I completely neglected Europe's other well defined religious traditions.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Loser:
There is some truth to this. But what Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality, I'd love to see their Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin or an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun when a 'backwoods' mystic type walks into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.

It would probably be about the same as when a uniformitarian evolutionist, a catastrophic evolutionist, and a puntuated equilibrium evolutionist get together - you see, evolutionists don't agree too much on the nature of reality either, except within their own enclaves.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:
There is some truth to this. But what Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality, I'd love to see their Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin or an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun when a 'backwoods' mystic type walks into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.

It would probably be about the same as when a uniformitarian evolutionist, a catastrophic evolutionist, and a puntuated equilibrium evolutionist get together - you see, evolutionists don't agree too much on the nature of reality either, except within their own enclaves.

---

Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers, where the creationists usually are quite convinced that they already have all the answers.

Go Loser, that was one of the best Posts this year!

[Krsqk]

Is it just me, or is there a gross mischaracterization of creationists and evolutionists going on here? At least in my circle, I don't know of any "we have all the answers" creationists. And you're also lumping all creationists in with your dislike of "Bible-belt" Christians, which I'm sure any Buddhist or Muslim (or Viking, for that matter) would take great issue with.

While we're tossing ad hominem attacks around, why not discuss the evolutionist who says (or at least behaves), "We may not have all the answers, but at least we don't believe in some religious superstition"? Isn't that as bigoted and closed-minded as the people about whom you take issue?

In all the times I have discussed creation/evolution with evolutionists, I have not been accused of being closed-minded about science; but I have been accused of being closed-minded because I would not accept macroevolution and origins theory as more scientific than creation. That reflects a mindset of superiority and a refusal to distinguish between belief and science.

[edit] Maybe the thread title should be edited to more accurately reflect its contents. Primogenitor?

[ May 19, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Loser]

I appreciate your reply, Krsqk, and I may go back and edit my previous post to tone down a couple generalities in those Last two paragraphs.

But I must object that we have right here, and I quoted, an 'all the answers' Creationist. Involving a 'higher power' is a catch-all that can be abused, so easily, to answer any rational challenge. I know Creation Science has moved past such things as 'Gap Theory', so this example is a little dated, but let me just show you what I mean.

"What about the dinosaurs, how do they fit in?"

"God put the fossils there. Maybe it was to test us, to test you, sinner."

The explanation is silly (and I know full well that Creation Science has a better approach to this specific question these days), and you might say it's only silly at this level. But it just doesn't stop being silly when you move it up to the grand, epic, where-did-it-all-really-come-from scale.

The Christian Creationists I know, and have questioned, and with whom I have debated, all have the same reason for wanting to believe in Creation Science: they do not want to question the Bible. It is of great importance to them. It makes them happy and secure (the good ones) or at least makes them who they are.

(If this is not the case for you, then I would love to carry on a discussion of the matter with you, perhaps through private Messages or e-mail, if you'd allow it. Or in person if you happen this way.)

This is placing the Bible itself above challenge, above improvement, and above question. Does not Paul himself say "Test everything. Keep that which is good."? What is right will be proven, what is weak will break, and the human race may be left with something worth clutching, worth studying, worth devoting to memory, and worth devoting our lives to. Lord knows we could use something like that, because psychology, sociology, and pharmacology aren't doing any better than the dead-end Dogma with which we formerly oppressed each other.

Just for the record, I don't dislike Bible Belt Christians. I dislike power-plays in the guise of piety.

I will not call you close-minded at your first confession of faith. I will only call you closed minded if you fail to respond to questioning. I will not call anyone close minded who can entertain an idea without believing it, really. Isn't that someone's (Aristotle's?) definition of an intellectual?

There is faith, and it is a good thing. And there are matters provable by Science, and it is a good thing.

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Loser:
A mini-essay on science, faith, and Southern Baptists

I agree that creationism is a theory of faith. I also say that evolutionary theory (macroevolution, abiogenesis, etc.) is a theory of faith--that is, a theory which by definition places itself outside of the realm of science. It is not scientific theory, but naturalistic theory. As such, it has no claim to the respectability of science.

By "evolutionist," I do not refer just to the scientists, but their promoters, the textbook authors, the professors, etc.--in general, those who believe in evolution (as "creationist" usually means "one who believes in creation"). The public could do a better job of looking past the surface--they could also look deeper into politics, but few will do that. It is because of this that political deception is widely effective. I place the major blame in two places--textbook authors, who should have a grasp of the difference between science and theory; and teachers/professors who do know the difference, but often blur over the distinctions, especially in lower level science classes. I realize that a 100-level course isn't going to delve into molecular biology; but it's not too much to ask to say, "This is how we think it happened, but there's room for disagreement." The professors who are out to destroy their freshmen students' faith are pushing an agenda, not teaching science.

[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below.

[ May 19, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers

Not really. (link)

[ May 19, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Krsqk]

In order to stay mostly on topic, I will respond to your faith/Bible/etc. points via PM/email.

Some creationists, just like some evolutionists (and if there are any other competing families of theories, some of those people, too) will concoct an ad hoc pseudo-knowledgeable reply to temporarily silence any question for which they do not have a better answer. It is difficult, without tone of voice, to distinguish between such a response and a purely theoretical, "This-might-be-the-answer" response. (I would also note that "sinner" isn't a derogatory term in Biblical Christianity, so that isn't a good indicator of the tone.)

I agree that "Well, maybe God did it" doesn't fit well into logical argument. Evolution theory has an equivalent--"Given enough time, it's possible." This is not based on observation, but is merely conjecture. The problem with attempting to fit origins debate into logical structure is that neither one can be logically proved. Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process. As one creationist put it (not referring to you and me), "I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'" Sure, it's a cutesy saying meant to make evolution sound silly and isn't meant to prove anything; but the heart of it is correct--it's a debate between the natural and the supernatural.

Mopping up a few loose ends:[*]Again, I wasn't referring to your comments on Bible-belt Christians, but to Ruatha's. I agree that many people don't think through the consequences of their political desires, instead focusing on short-term convenience.
[*]Intellectual debate without believing the ideas being debated is fine and good, as far as that goes. Emotional detachment is not a requirement of cognitive engagement, though. Vehement argument against an idea is not a sign of close-mindedness, but of passion.

There is faith, and it is a good thing. And there are matters provable by Science, and it is a good thing.

I won't tell you the planets and stars all move out of love for the Prime Mover if you don't tell me science favors a naturalistic origin of the universe.