Warning ! Political Thread . What is (was) Bush Thinking ?

[MeYatch]

For example, I dont believe in evolution. Science can prove that species mutate or change, but it can't prove that one species evolved from another.

believing in evolution does not mean that all species on the planet had a common ancestor, or anything like that.

if you accept that species mutate or change, than you do in fact believe in evolution.

As far as I'm concerned evolution is all but fact. There are plenty of species today that were not the same once upon a time. One of my favorite examples is sharks.

Sharks have multiple rows of teeth, when they break a tooth, a new tooth is pushed forward.

Prehistoric sharks had something like a rolling pin covered in teeth inside their jaw. When a tooth would break, the whole assembly would roll forward and provide new teeth.

Since sharks today do not have rolling pins inside their heads you have to either conclude that
a) current sharks evolved from prehistoric sharks, the current system through natural selection was found to be better than the old system
b) God wisked the old sharks away and set new ones down because he thought it was neat.

There are other less drastic examples of evolution, human beings are taller than they were just a hundred years ago.


sorry to jump in out of nowhere, but evolution is a hot button issue for me, it seems people don't understand it, and any arguments against it that I've ever seen were based on things that didn't make sense.
going back to paul's point, many religious types would like to use the fact that evolution can't be proven to disprove it. It doesn't work like that.
also, as I mentioned previously, unless you are willing to believe things which I consider silly (you are welcome to do so, but I am not willing to consider those things) then evolution basically is fact.

you can hypothesize that men and apes have not evolved from a common ancestor and
a) just because no one can prove that we did, doesn't make that we didn't a fact
b) even if it was a fact, it still doens't dissprove the basic theory of evolution and natural selection.


now that thats done with

I would consider myself an agnostic. I don't believe that there is, or isn't a god. I might have some ideas one way or another, but its not really anybody's buisiness.
but I consider the steadfast belief either for or against God to be a little silly.
I find atomik's opinion that he is superior to people that do believe in God to be as offensive as a religious person that would feel they are superior to a non-believer.

Going back to paul's point, and basic scientific method. Not finding proof of something is not the same as finding proof against it.

In fact, I think steadfast athiesm is perhaps even sillier than steadfast religion for the following reasons:

God's existance can be proven
(though not at this time and not without the direct influence of God)

God's non-existance cannot be proven


How would you disprove the existance of God? Its not possible. Given the abstract nature of religion its not possible to dissprove.

to expect proof a religious person just has to play the waiting game.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

For example, I dont believe in evolution. Science can prove that species mutate or change, but it can't prove that one species evolved from another.

believing in evolution does not mean that all species on the planet had a common ancestor, or anything like that.

if you accept that species mutate or change, than you do in fact believe in evolution.

As far as I'm concerned evolution is all but fact. There are plenty of species today that were not the same once upon a time. One of my favorite examples is sharks.

Sharks have multiple rows of teeth, when they break a tooth, a new tooth is pushed forward.

Prehistoric sharks had something like a rolling pin covered in teeth inside their jaw. When a tooth would break, the whole assembly would roll forward and provide new teeth.

Since sharks today do not have rolling pins inside their heads you have to either conclude that
a) current sharks evolved from prehistoric sharks, the current system through natural selection was found to be better than the old system
b) God wisked the old sharks away and set new ones down because he thought it was neat.

There are other less drastic examples of evolution, human beings are taller than they were just a hundred years ago.


sorry to jump in out of nowhere, but evolution is a hot button issue for me, it seems people don't understand it, and any arguments against it that I've ever seen were based on things that didn't make sense.
going back to paul's point, many religious types would like to use the fact that evolution can't be proven to disprove it. It doesn't work like that.
also, as I mentioned previously, unless you are willing to believe things which I consider silly (you are welcome to do so, but I am not willing to consider those things) then evolution basically is fact.

you can hypothesize that men and apes have not evolved from a common ancestor and
a) just because no one can prove that we did, doesn't make that we didn't a fact
b) even if it was a fact, it still doens't dissprove the basic theory of evolution and natural selection.


now that thats done with

I would consider myself an agnostic. I don't believe that there is, or isn't a god. I might have some ideas one way or another, but its not really anybody's buisiness.
but I consider the steadfast belief either for or against God to be a little silly.
I find atomik's opinion that he is superior to people that do believe in God to be as offensive as a religious person that would feel they are superior to a non-believer.

Going back to paul's point, and basic scientific method. Not finding proof of something is not the same as finding proof against it.

In fact, I think steadfast athiesm is perhaps even sillier than steadfast religion for the following reasons:

God's existance can be proven
(though not at this time and not without the direct influence of God)

God's non-existance cannot be proven


How would you disprove the existance of God? Its not possible. Given the abstract nature of religion its not possible to dissprove.

to expect proof a religious person just has to play the waiting game.

Nice post, a lot of good information. I would also like to add that evolution is "proven" and "true" within the scientific paradigm. "true" is what works, and evolution is a wonderful scientific theory.

For example, you can see evolution in action right in the labs. Scientists use the basic biological principles of evolution in order to make new medications and predict how different medications might work. They know that bacteria will adopt and change to current medication and are able to change it.

However, I would say that if you are talking about "universal" truth - science does not "prove" it "supports."

Here's an obvious difference for why intelligent design/creationism are not valid science regardless of whether or not you accept evolution.

Creationism/intelligent design specfically state that the world is too complex for us to understand. An example of this that they readily use, even though scientists have mapped it out step by step now, is the human eye. Creationists argue that because the human eye is so complex it must have been designed by a supreme creator.

Evolution states that there are intermediate steps between life and when scientists are looking at a problem they can reduce the complexity to simpler issues.

Let's see how this now applies in a science lab.

Let's say there is a scientists who is trying to find a cure for AIDS. AIDS is a particularly interesting disease because it has the ability to evolve very quickly, which makes finding a cure for it next to impossible.

If the scienitist focuses upon the ideas proposed by evolution he is able use reduction to see how whatever particular strain he is studying evolved into its current strain. He is than able to see how he might possibly be able to treat it.

In contrast, intelligent design and creationism both tell us that the AIDS strain is "too complex for us to understand"; thus, God did it.

You can see how the one theory just doesn't make any sense and is completely useless.


In defense of a strong materialist position, however, I think they would advocate the idea that "while they cannot prove a pink unicorn does not exist, they have absolute confidence that they do not." God for them is the same way, and they believe tradition has changed and altered how people precieve the idea.

A second arguement for strong materialism might have nothing to do with the scientifiic method, but linguistics instead. For example, when someone says "God" they are implying both a direct person and an indirect person. This would be similar to saying "Jeff" (specfic) and "every man" (Non-specfic). They might hold that the term "God," simply doesn't make any sense in its current use as language; thus, it is therefore meaningless.


A third arguement for strong materialist is the classic philosphical arguement of the problem of evil, though this only applies to the Christian God, not God in a theistic sense, and can be countered by the arguement of free will.


Anyway, I think strong materialists have produced some interesting and original thoughts on the matter, though I don't agree with them.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

At: Ill answer that with my own opinion.. as somebody with my own beliefs.. and Ive documented it for quite some time that I feel Religion is a disease, some have called it a "neurological psychosis"

Jason: Are you talking about Richard Dawkins?

At: and I agree.. I do not feel more intellegent or humanly superior to the religious because of their choice to worship God.. however I do think of myself as more mentally enlightened, and in my personal belief, enlightenment = superiority.

Jason: I'm having a hard time understanding this part of what you said. You state specfically that you do not feel more intelligent or "humanly" superior. However, you think that you are more enlightned or superior. What is the difference between "human" superiority and "enlightenments" superority.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

At: Ill answer that with my own opinion.. as somebody with my own beliefs.. and Ive documented it for quite some time that I feel Religion is a disease, some have called it a "neurological psychosis"

Jason: Are you talking about Richard Dawkins?

At: and I agree.. I do not feel more intellegent or humanly superior to the religious because of their choice to worship God.. however I do think of myself as more mentally enlightened, and in my personal belief, enlightenment = superiority.

Jason: I'm having a hard time understanding this part of what you said. You state specfically that you do not feel more intelligent or "humanly" superior. However, you think that you are more enlightned or superior. What is the difference between "human" superiority and "enlightenments" superority.

My current understanding of what you mean is that you do not feel that you are biologically superior to anyone, but you think you have the right answer objectively.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

If that person was a Satanist, and is now a Fundamentalist Evangelical, there may be a good chance that his religious beliefs are based simply in his psychosis(es). He may be using religion as a prod to annoyingly seek attention. Religiosity (as opposed to religion) is symptom of mental illness (I think Bassist25 could comment on that).

My own personal arrival at atheism stems from my Pentecostal upbringing. I saw the rituals, such as speaking in tongues and the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit," and to me it was like watching a magician at a child's birthday party... I immediately saw through everything... even as a kid, I could tell it was forced and fake. Messages supposedly from God himself were nothing more than judgemental diatribes spoken in the dialect of Central PA. Okay, if these people are whacked, I thought, then I have to delve into my own raison d'etre, and really give my spirituality some deep thought. What I came up with after many years was an appreciation for scientific thought, and an acceptance of my own mortality.
I don't judge people for being religious, even though they judge me for not being religious. I do judge them for being stupid, or mean, or irresponsible, but that's just me.

To get the thread back on course, however, the rhetoric's just popping like popcorn now. Santorum's making moves in the polls, but the GOP-ers are really hurting for support, and are distancing themselves (however temporarily) from the Bush administration. Hannity's stretched tighter than a drum and he gets more agitated every day. Even ol' Rushy's tripping on his d*ck more, and calling some incumbents "Cut and Run Republicans." The Dems offer no real solutions, but at least right now... they don't need to. They just need to sit there, shut up, and let the other guys implode. Fox News is a nonstop comedy show, and reports on anything BUT Iraq and Foley. I just freakin' love this sh*t. Who'd have thought a bluegrass-pickin' hillbilly could be so political.------->JMS

Yeah, your right. This thread seems to have transformed to be about religion, but I think that's still interesting that people can't talk about politics in today's age without talking about religion as well (or so it seems).

[Jason_of_soundrive]

At: Ill answer that with my own opinion.. as somebody with my own beliefs.. and Ive documented it for quite some time that I feel Religion is a disease, some have called it a "neurological psychosis"

Jason: Are you talking about Richard Dawkins?

At: and I agree.. I do not feel more intellegent or humanly superior to the religious because of their choice to worship God.. however I do think of myself as more mentally enlightened, and in my personal belief, enlightenment = superiority.

Jason: I'm having a hard time understanding this part of what you said. You state specfically that you do not feel more intelligent or "humanly" superior. However, you think that you are more enlightned or superior. What is the difference between "human" superiority and "enlightenments" superority.

My current understanding of what you mean is that you do not feel that you are biologically superior to anyone, but you think you have the right answer objectively.

Or maybe I'm completely off, now that I think about it you also said "personal," which I guess implies that you feel you're reached personal objective truth, which I guess would be a subjective ideology? So, your major problem is people who have not felt this personal kind of "enlightment" that you have a specfic problem with?

I think most Christians would argue that they have a personal relationship with their God, though again it is a subjective ideology as the self is subjective, and thus they have acchieved an individual sense of enlightment.

Maybe, I'm way way off though. Let me know.

[Hawk]

You guys write too many words. lol

Mutation or change does not have to mean I believe in evolution. I believe most any animal can change. I don't believe it can change into something else ! Name any animal and tell me (with facts) what animal it was before.

And I understand creation can't be proven either.

How can you say creationism or anything from God says that AIDS is too complex for man to solve. It is men, not God, who says stupid stuff like that.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

You guys write too many words. lol

Mutation or change does not have to mean I believe in evolution. I believe most any animal can change. I don't believe it can change into something else ! Name any animal and tell me (with facts) what animal it was before.

And I understand creation can't be proven either.

How can you say creationism or anything from God says that AIDS is too complex for man to solve. It is men, not God, who says stupid stuff like that.

Okay, The theory of intelligent design specfically states that "things are irreducible complex; therefore, they had to have a creator." It would be similar to stating that a watch is a complex thing becuase it has to have a creator. You can't apply the theory into a scientific setting - it just doesnt work. A theory that tells scientists that the world is irreducible complex is completely useless. This is the only form of creationism/intelligent design that I've heard of anyway - this is the one that they want to be taught in science classes, which is an outrageous notion for the reasons I outlined above.

And I think what he was saying was that if you believe that mutations are occuring, and believe that natural selection is occuring, you therefore also believe in evolution. You are dividing the terms into "micro" and "macro" evolution, but that's what's wrong. It's the direction of evidence that is important, not expecting scientists to wait in a lab for billions of years until a new creature pops up or something. The theory, within a scientific paradigm, is proven in contrast to creationism. I'm tryinig to make the point that one is valid science and the other isn't. Evoution is the best interpretation fitting to the evidence - that we share a 98 percent genetic similarity with chimpanzees. Nearly, every aspect of today's biology is based on the theory of evolution - that's the importance I'm trying to point out and contrast between the two theories. One is valid science the other theory is not. One is proven within the scientific paradigm and the other is not. When talking about science, this defines what "true" and "proven" are - if we are talking science, we are talking evolution - there currently is no other option nor another way to look at it and still call that way "science".

[bassist_25]

I think that there is some confusion in this thread about what science is and what science isn't. Very few scientific principles go on to become actual laws. Science is just a frame by which to understand general principles in the world. Its method is designed to be as objective as possible. A theory is a set of principles used to explain some sort of phenonena. Science "proves" nothing. It simply offers confirming or disconfirming evidence of some sort of phenomenom. Of course, it may not always reflect normal everyday life. That's not because the theory is incorrect. It's because there are many confounding variables in an uncontrolled evironment. Science tries to eliminate those confounding variables so we may better understand how the underlying principles work.

Intelligent Design is a great concept for a philosophy course, but it has no place in a biology course, the same way a talk about C++ programming wouldn't belong in a theology course: They're both irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

Though I have always found the Watch Argument to be more convicing than the Cosmological Argument. I always hated the Cosmological Argument because it goes on to set its own rules, then the conclusion is that it breaks all of those rules, a very poor philosophy, IMO.