So, accusing serious researchers into education and supporters of quality education of being "evoluticians" is your response?
The Fordham Foundation accuratley notes that watering down science standards is a poor way to compete in science, especially internationally. (I'd use a stronger phrase that "watering down" were I striving for more accuracy.)
The Fordham Foundation report is another in a chain of findings over the past 30 years that explain our 40 year slide in science education. If you have a better solution, show your data.
Or are ID advocates naked in education research, too?
"Watering down science"
That would be... willfully ignoring the appearance of design in nature... were I to point the finger toward the other side, as well.
Ed,
The gist of my post is that the FF's grading scheme doesn't track performance, as MikeGene's analysis proves, therefore it is useless. And, that they bought, hook line and sinker, the notion that ID friendly means science-performance will spiral downward, for which there simply are no data.
The solution is very, very simple. Pay teachers a lot more, and science/math teachers more still. Fewer administrators. Less technology but more labs, Longer school days, longer school year, more recess time, longer lunch period, more time between classes, fewer projects, stop rating organization skills as high as content mastery, stop social-passing, more vocational tracks. And less federal oversight.
Oh, and pressure textbook publishers to adopt a maximum weight per book. The trend is bigger and bigger. Combine this with the overemphasis on organization (virtually every class demanding a binder--essentially forcing the kids to carry a filing cabinet around) results in kids with 40 pound backpacks that don't even hold everything.)
Quality time with teaching. It's not ID/Creation that drags down science. On the contrary, that is a part of science. Look at the recent example of the 16 year old home schooled kid who just won a scholarship on his novel way of solving some old math problem (Dirishlet problem). The solution style is supposed to be a great help with aircraft design.
The performance metric that Mike Gene uses looks flawed. First, it measures verbal scores as at least half of the achievement. Second, it presumes that evolution has been taught well for 40 years, and that is exactly contrary to all evidence. Third, it presumes that there should be a direct connection between ACT scores and general science knowledge, when ACT scores measure less than half the college-bound kids. So there is a measurement error and a selection bias, plus an erroneous experimental presumption.
Do you guys know anything about research design? Do you know anything about making accurate statistical comparisons?
A better measure would be one of the NAESP tests, or the international comparison of science achievement, though it skews against the U.S.
The international tests show, incidentally, that in 4th grade, our kids are the best in science in the world. By 8th grade they fall to second or third in industrialized nations. By 12th grade they trail the pack considerably. That measure, which has been consistent over 20 years, shows that our science education is in serious trouble, corroborating the Fordham Foundation findings on metrics that measure the stuff Mike Gene claimed to measure but doesn't.
Every other measure agrees with the Fordham Foundation's assessment. Numbers of engineering students in undergrad and graduate levels in the U.S., from the U.S., has been dropping. Last year China produced three times as many engineers as the U.S. did. India beats the U.S. Don't ask about Europe as a whole economic unit.
But design of studies and research? Well, you claim science ignores design -- but that's exactly wrong. Science finds other sources for design besides deities. That apparently irritates you considerably.
If you don't like the way God designed nature, take it up with Him when you have a chance. In the meantime, it's probably a sin to teach kids false stuff as science.
Like falsely representing that there can be no purposeful reason behind design in nature, ID is necessary for the anti-political effect if nothing else.
To listen to Ed talk, it's hard to believe that China doesn't rule the world, or the "fundies" surely couldn't have been the moral majority when the U.S. landed on the moon... legalized abortion... etc...
How did anything positive for America ever happen, it's a Darrell logical imposibility?
Wow
What a bunch of crazy talk.
First of all the intellectual community as a whole is against teaching ID in the science classroom because, ID is not science. Their other reasons vary but the main consensus revolves around the idea that adding an un-testable element like a deity will distract the students from viewing data in an unbiased manner. Essentially supporting a belief that cannot be determined through the scientific method and allowing for other leaps of unknowable theories.
Crazy guesses in math and other related subjects is considered acceptable, if they don’t pan out the math will show it. So if a 16 year old math prodigy just happened to be home schooled so what, it is unrelated. Now if he had done something related to evolution or some related subject then I would accept the comparison. I have not seen a science or math equation yet that required God as an element for successful completion.
Did you guys know that there are other groups out there who are quietly hoping that ID gets added to the science curriculum? One group believes that the Earth was seeded by aliens and we are the result. Another group thinks that aliens bread with proto humans and we were the result. The aliens were later mistaken for Angels and they were the basis for our current religions. These are both examples of ID theories and hold as much weight as the current theory being presented.
What is to stop them from being presented equally in the science class if we lower the standards to accept un-testable beliefs?
Finally, current theory does not ignore the design in nature; it just gives other theories as to its reason. To just personify something without knowing anything about it is irresponsible. If we did actually evolve on this planet and adapted to live here over hundreds of millions of years we would indeed look like we were perfectly suited to be here. Not because we were made to live here, but because we were made by our living here. These are guesses that fall in line with the current working theory of evolution. They may yet be disproved but as a working, constantly tested accepted theory, Evolution is not going anywhere. It may change, but as far as the intellectual community is concerned it is as solid as the theory of gravity.
Later
Finally, current theory does not ignore the design in nature; it just gives other theories as to its reason.
This is a false statement, in that it is designed to cover up the fact that the "other theories" that get used are intended to downplay the significance of evidence for purposeful design in nature, like the anthropic principle.
Island
Cover up?
I assume you know that most evolutionists work in independent groups, making any attempt at a cover up next to impossible. Why cover up anything if the theory holds weight scientifically? After all if a scientist finds something that is new and provable they become a "hero" getting credit for the redirection of the theory.
Where is the motive?
Later
Yeah... uh huh... that's why Lynn Margulis calls them "neodarwinian bullies"... because they're so reasonable.
Island
You fail to convince me, the so called moral godless inferiors would certainly respond to selfishness long before some silly misguided cover up.
The money from interviews alone would be a cash cow that almost no one could ignore, and the fame… well, just being an unreasonable bully doesn’t cover it.
Later
One more thing
What about the huge numbers of evolutionists that support ID, the ID’ers say are out there, wouldn’t they be testing new theories in an effort to get this data into mainstream science.
Well, you're right, it's not that simple. Creationists commonly abuse the anthropic principle as evidence for god, and they are relentless in their constant barrage, so proponents of science tend to react automatically to this... and the result is a devil's advocate approach which causes them to come up with rationale against the implied significance.
Multiverse's were the favored method for falsifying its significance until people woke up and started pointing out that unprovable theoretical speculation doesn't get it against an observed fact of our universe, so they went after other means for doing this.
Find me one proponent of evolutionary theory that notes that the anthropic coincidences indicate that life only exists balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies, where any sustained difference results in conditions that are so far away from any kind of life that we can possibly imagine that "life as we know it" is the only form of life that is possible in our universe.
Show me somebody that faces this fact honestly.
Island
I accept this argument of anthropic principle as a possibility of ID, and most of the people who I know would as well, some of them being evolutionists, but why personify it before we are sure. It is not that different from early people thinking that a river has a spirit that gets angry and floods to attack the people. We know this is not the case and the old religions that supported the spirit idea have faded into myth.
I accept the idea that anthropic coincidences MIGHT show some evidence of a creator but looking at data from hindsight does not prove it. If the only life that could have formed on our planet is the kind we see, then the idea that we are here discussing it should not be a surprise to anyone, it happened one way or another here we are. Weater we evolved to best survive in this environment or were made to, is unanswerable at this time. If it could be either, why jump to one conclusion before disproving the other?
Later
The anthropic principle can't evidence for ID without direct proof.
"but why personify it before we are sure."
No, it IS evidence that we are not here by accident.
Quote me:
life only exists balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies
This information is invaluable to evolutionary theory if anybody tried using it.
Read my rebuttal to Mark Issac's talk origins archive.
It isn't like I didn't try to explain it, but they were too busy calling me a creationist to listen:
Undestand that I never even bother to try to hide my open contempt for willful ignorance:
http://www.geocities.com/
natures...insArchive.html
See how Mark fails to consider the previous mentioned points... his thoughts are that other life forms can exist given "slightly" different condions, which are not possible for the sustained cumulative reasons that I gave.
Island
It is not “proof” unless other theories can be eliminated first. Like it or not, it is just another possibility.
If it were proof how could anyone ignore it?
Later
Island
I am checking out your proposed reading, give me a minute.
Thanks
that was me above
Island
Ok I looked at your post but I see the problem, you claim that the anthropic principle states that there could not be any other life other than what we see, but you do not explain why. You need to back up your point in a manner that your reader can understand. Otherwise he is going to assume a straw man argument and disregard your statement.
Also new evidence about life on earth is changing the way scientists think about the nature of life. We have found life in the frigid world of the Antarctic in the form of new fungal growth, we have found life in the super hot volcanic vents under the sea, scientists are beginning to think that life might in fact be common in the universe and that anywhere we find liquid water, we may find life as well. Until this is decided one way or the other the anthropic principle is just another idea.
Later
Island
Now thinking about it deeper, I have other problems with the anthropic principle. We humans would not be the dominant life on this planet had it not been for a drastic ice age created by a meteor hitting our planet. Other life (Dinosaurs) should be here in our place. It is not fair to say we are the only organisms that could have evolved on such a planet, but actually one of many carbon based possibilities. We survived because mammals have a trait the dinosaurs lacked, adaptability. (According to evolution) Should we discount the dinosaurs? If so why?
Later
Okay Frank, I don't mind answering your questions, but you seem to have lost track of the point:
To establish a valid natural design hypothesis, all that you need to do is to establish plausiblity and evidence, not absolute proof.
In this matter, the question is something like; Is there evidence that carbon based life, (not just humans), somehow purposely guaranteed to appear in our universe universe?
And the answer is yes, as evidenced by the finely tuned constants of nature.
Leonard Susskind, the "father of String Theory", says,
"the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable"
http://physicsweb.org/articles/r...eview/18/12/3/
1
...but Lenny believes that there is more than one universe, and this is not something that anyone can prove, so his ability to claim that this is only an "appearance" falls from, "multiverse reasoning", because multiverses are not a valid hypothesis without a lot more proof than string theory.
That's not origins science, it's unproven theoretical physics until somebody establishes that string theory absolutely is the final theory of everything and makes at least some testable predictions with it. So far, they're nada and zip on both accounts, so it isn't valid to use this speculation against the AP.
So... the fact that "the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable" takes on a much stronger meaning if there is only one observed universe... if you get my drift?
That's a *natural* design hypothesis that is very well supported by the evidence in the observed universe.
Intelligent design is another story, because, like you said, the plausibility for alien manipulation is ludicrous, and that is exactly where the battle should be fought... not on the basis that you can downplay the significance of writing on the wall evidence. If that were the case, then Darwin would have never made it out of the gate.
Get it?
I already explained why this whole argument is convoluted, so please go back and review that, as well as the significance that was made apparent by the balanced nature of the conditions.
Once you've admitted that I have a valid point, then I will be happy to address any other questions... later, after I wake up, read the paper, get milk and feed the dog.
FYI:
The "appearance of intelligent design" is a natural design hypothesis, because there is no jusification for making a leap of faith to a supernatural forces, since a physical need for carbon based life to arise gives the same "appearance" as "design".
Even the term "design" is suspect, for example, fungi make "fairy-rings" simply because they are physically predisposed to do so, so "design" is simply the sum of an object's expressed bias for satisfying whatever relevant physical need.
Both sides are equally arrogant.
One for assuming that we are above nature, and the other for assuming that we can actually detatch ourselves from the natural process.
Island
Both sides are equally arrogant.
here is something we both agree on!
Later
Meaning that Frank is in willful denial of the facts, so he won't admit that I've made a valid point, but he can't rebutt that point, so he'll just let it ride until such a time as someone can?
Because that's highly typical of the exact form of willful ignorance that my participation in this forum is all about.
That last post was mine...
Of course India and China produce more engineers than America.
Both have over a billion poeple. Per capita they produce fewer engineers than most 'western' countries.
The world is changing though, and America will inevitably no longer be the centre of it. Deal with it.
I lived and worked in India for a couple of years. There were many articles in Amrican magazines bemoaning the outsourcing of IT jobs to places like India. Further there was often the irrational judgement that such jobs were inherently exploiting the poor indian programmers who were kept in a cubical and paid peanuts.
The reality is that an American company can outsource to Indians, paying then an excellent rate by Indian standards (guaranteeing an excellent quality of life for them) and still pay far less than an American based programmer (even an indian in America).
The world is changing. To simply point and say, they produce more engineers than us is almost meaningless. Of course they do.
That's right. Economics is one of the factors for other countries producing more engineers than the USA. Look at the device you are using to post these messages on the blogs you participate. These computers are bascially made overseas.
Another factor is that other countries would like to unseat the USA as the technological power. Therefore, the emphasis on more engineers in other countries.
So, I am missing the rationale why some people try to connect the "more engineers in other countries" to teaching ID/Creation in the USA.
As for the math prodigy, home schooled people are usually those who want to have ID/Creation. The point is that ID/Creation didn't drag down this kid. Nor, did ID/Creation drag down Pascal and Newton (examples from the past). If anything, ID/Creation makes for a better person.
First of all Island I can argue all day long about just about anything. It is fun for me so don’t count me out just yet.
Secondly your point as you call it, still means nothing as long as the other theories are still valid as well. You may not be well informed about the evidence of other universes and dimensions coming out of quantum physics of late. So once again the argument is at a stalemate. Example: When photons (light particles) are shot at a wall they react with each other. When a single photon shot at a wall it still acts as though it is being affected by other photons even though it is traveling alone. Scientists speculate that the photon could be affected by photons from another universe or close dimension.
And please do not paint me as the straw man, I never said that you did not have a valid position I said the other scientists have equally valid positions. I also said and still believe that until you can show your position as the only plausible explanation, than to personify a possibly natural event is irresponsible. Besides what you explained to me in your last post is not ID it is a natural design hypothesis. Because you yourself said it does not require a creator. Also the “observed universe” is so small compared to what we suspect to be out there how can we really make any confident claim as to how the whole thing works? We can see so little of what’s out there we are trying to determine the shape of the ocean by looking at a hydrogen molecule.
Your claim, that the nasty, mean, probably ugly evolutionists are trying to hold your hypothesis back, is also a bad one. You site one guy and claim he represents the whole scientific community’s beliefs. How could you possibly know this? Also I have found that when the scientific community turns its collective back on a hypothesis there is usually a darn good reason for it. So if this is the case you might want to take another honest look at their counter data. Unless it is a hypothesis that can’t be tested in which case we are both typing for nothing because that is not a hypothesis it is speculation until someone can give some testable data.
Lastly you are correct you do not need absolute proof in science, science works more by ruling things out and through testing hypothesis. In order to move from hypothesis to theory you need to test your hypothesis, look for more evidence and rule out the other bad ideas. Your claim is “look at this” it means that there was an intelligent designer, but you are ignoring the other possibilities. When someone in a Christian family dies do Christians automatically decide that God hated that person and killed them? Why not it is certainly plausible, remember god did a lot of killing in the Bible. The other possibilities may not hold much weight with you, but most of the people who have dedicated their lives to the research think differently.
Later
Elvis,
I am offended at your statement that ID somehow makes a better person. I was brought up without religion of any kind, and I can safely say I am a more caring, moral and law abiding than the bulk of the religious community. I have dedicated my life to protect and help people. And as I have stated on this site in the past I try to respect everyone until they show me they do not deserve respect. I know that the Bible teaches these things but I rarely see Christians practicing them. Did you know that the prisons in this country are filled with Christians? I have herd about very few scientists in jail.
Later
First of all Island I can argue all day long about just about anything. It is fun for me so don’t count me out just yet.
You did that yourself, because this method for learning doesn't make you correct, nor does it make your opinion equally valid, rather, it exposes that you do not know how science is done, and you do not know what the science is. There is also a beneficial aspect to it, because it accelerates the learning process, but at the scathing cost of your integrity when you assume a position of pseudo-"strawman"-authority, that you don't "own".
Rather than to look for every way that I might possibly be correct, you burn your own fingers in spite of yourself.
You need to study the hard sciences including advanced theoretical physics to even understand what I'm talking about when I say that, because you will find out stuff like:
1) There is only one preferred theory and it's the one that gives the most accurate, (not perfect), representation of nature, in the least possible number of steps.
a. It's based on empiricism first, whenever possible.
b. Theoretical speculation never supercedes observational evidence unless it resolves the problem in less steps or more steps with greater accuracy.
c. The observed universe supercedes multiverse rationale for the above reasons among others that I've already explained to you, which you continue to ignore at the cost of your own face.
So, you are just wrong.
2) Mr. Susskind's statement is a known fact of science, the only question is why. I don't need to cite anybody's authority to be correct in this matter, you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and speculation.
a) It's no secret that physicists do not like the anthropic principle because they know that creationists will abuse the implication of specialness that necessarily comes with it... It is no secret that is the reason that they don't give the creationists an inch, but it is also no secret that Lenny's statements are a valid interpretation of the observed physics.
Lenny is boldly stating what is known because he thinks that he can bury creationists ideas in an infinite amount of potential that you get with multiverse logic. But Lenny's ideas do not supercede the implications of the anthropic principle in the observed univere, so he's defining a valid natural design theory without intending to, until and IF such a time ever arises that would'a could'a shoulda' maybe'... is proven to superced observation.
Until that happens, you are simply wrong... AGAIN... and your accusations that I'm just resentful because evoFanatics don't like my theory are superceded by the fact that the physics does not lie, and the preferred theory does not care, so it does not matter what I nor evobiologists may like or dislike about each other's ideas.
Because the preferred theory necessarily trumps all... per the rules that govern how science is done, that you quite obviously do not understand...
... so I won't bother to go on.
Don't pretend to own a position that you don't own, or you're just a strawman, Strawman... 
Island,
You wrote: "Quote me:
life only exists balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies
This information is invaluable to evolutionary theory if anybody tried using it."
Allowing for the sake of argument your first statement, could you explain exactly how the observation is "invaluable" to evolutionary theory? Are you claiming that it somehow falsifies evolutionary theory?
Island
Wow, did you get spittle all over yourself while spouting that venom? I must have struck a nerve, good I will go on.
I have been doing a little studding while you ranted so here are my issues with your silly hypothesis.
1) Your hypothesis cannot be unfalsified therefore it can never be a theory. We have no idea if there are any other universes out there and we may never know. This makes your hypothesis unfalsifiable and not capable of becoming a theory, there could be an infinite number of universes out there, the vast majority uninhabitable we have no way of knowing.
But now I understand why you would want the scientific method altered, it would then allow for your hypothesis to become a theory, along with alien seeding and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Like I stated before, under certain ASSUMED conditions the anthropic reasoning applies. But if one assumes a large or infinate number of real universes, then anthropic reasoning is flawed (because it is almost certain that a few would be habitable through random chance). It all depends on where you stand on the universe issue, and whatever stance you take you can’t be proven right or wrong.
2) Anthropic reasoning ASSUMES that carbon based life is the only possible kind of life, that may or may not be true in our universe, again unknowable. However there could be a whole host of life in other universes that live quite happily where they are. Our universe would doubtlessly be deadly to such life as theirs would be for us, but you can’t just assume they do not exist, you can’t just assume they do either but that leaves you with an unattainable answer.
And for me to be a straw man, I would have to had said something I didn’t. So stop fibbing and take an honest look at the data without assumptions.
Your little hypothesis is still in question and now your motives as well.
Here is the egg right back at ya!
Enjoy.
Well, you claim science ignores design -- but that's exactly wrong. Science finds other sources for design besides deities.
What? Naturalistic science necessarily rules out design in the natural world. Take evolution; we all know about theistic evolution, but are any science experiments ever conducted in pursuit of it? I can't imagine there are, or even how it would be done. Science as we know it can't begin to approach a question not dealing with the natural world. While I suppose you could posit a natural designer, who actually does that? If there is a god who intervenes in the natural world, science is entirely incapable of understanding that with any accuracy. It's just an inherent limitation in the methods.
Also, I have no idea how quality of evolution education is supposed to correlate to the number of engineers. Of all the major engineering disciplines I can think of off the top of my head (like civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.), none of them have anything to do with evolution. I guess there's probably a bioengineering field out there that might find evolution useful, though it's not taught at either of KY's engineering schools.
And finally, what's most entertaining about the whole "what're we gonna teach the kids in school" debate is the fact that public schools largely suck at teaching anything. It's like a whacked out version of Tom Sawyer, where Tom not only gets all the kids to whitewash the fence for him, but they actually start kicking the crap out of each other over who gets the privelege of doing it. I'm pretty sure I was taught evolution (pretty sure) and yet I really know very little about it. I'm not even sure what it's good for; who needs evolution to understand how a cell works? Maybe you do though, who knows.
Allowing for the sake of argument your first statement,
What do you mean by that? Either you know that this is a factual statement about the anthropic/cosmic-coincidences, or you don't, but there is no "allowing for the sake of argument" about it... Got it?
http://www.novanotes.com/jan2003...003/
anthcoi.htm
bout like Frank, my initial instinct is to ask you who the he!! do you think that you are that you would level that kind of arrogant tone at me before you study what it is that being talked about for verification.
At least ask for the reference first.
could you explain exactly how the observation is "invaluable" to evolutionary theory? Are you claiming that it somehow falsifies evolutionary theory?
No, I'm saying that the information could be used by evobiologists to make predictions about life, just like it can be used in this manner to make predictions about life in the cosmos, like:
Life will not be found on Mars or Venus for this reason, but it will be found on every banded spiral galaxy that exists on the same evloutinary plane as us, in terms of age and location in the history of the evolution of the universe.
I know of at least one peer reviewed paper that makes the same predictions if you'd like a reference to that???... before you argue for the "sake of" making incoherent noise... like frank does.
I hate the auto-anon function
bout like Frank, my initial instinct is to ask you who the he!! do you think that you are that you would level that kind of arrogant tone at me before you study what it is that being talked about for verification.
HAHAHA... I just read frank's comments and now I see that I need to clarify the above to read...
'...before you study what is being talked about'... from someplace besides the highly motivated atheist web-sites, like infidels.org... or the likes of Vic Stenger... etc... lol
Frank... I already addressed your lameness... Do you ever read anything that's written, or does it take a month of repetition for it to set in?
island,
I can certainly imagine how the observation of (possibly apparent) fine-tuning could inform expectations about finding life elsewhere in the universe. It is not at all clear to me how it might inform evolutionary theory. If you have a reference thereto, I'd be grateful if you would share it; alternatively, simply articulating an example of a prediction within evolutionary theory that is shaped by the anthropic principle would be helpful.
In reply to your vitriol, my advice is to remember to take your medication. Mine was a reasonable and respectful query.
Cheers,
Shaggy
Island
Again you have fallen victim to your arrogance and can only lash out with insults. Maybe you were not hugged enough as a child, or maybe too much. Any way if all you do is spout the same old crud and feel compelled to insult everyone that questions your hypothesis you will never convince anyone. It makes you look insecure.You have not given a decent answer to a single one of my legitimate questions. Per your own writing the anthropic principle depends on a single universe model, which you cannot prove.
You wrote;
"There is only one preferred theory and it's the one that gives the most accurate, (not perfect), representation of nature, in the least possible number of steps."
Yes, but the whole hypothesis depends on an unknowable factor.
You wrote;
"So... the fact that "the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable" takes on a much stronger meaning IF there is only one observed universe... if you get my drift?"
I get your drift, you, like so many others, just tell your side of the story, ignoring any other competing evidence to make yourself sound more credible. You also took this quote out of context.
I did read your suggested material but found it dull and one sided, again competing evidence was ignored and you on your high horse felt compelled to insult the other theorists instead of considering their data.
Yes there is some small amount of data that suggests a multiverse.
Now you want me to believe that the multiverse theories should take a second seat to the other data. Well you can’t say your hypothesis hinges on a certain variable and then say that all opposing data to that variable is meaningless. You cannot prove a single universe therefore your hypothesis is flawed from the beginning.
Besides, if you are saying that the universe is predisposed for life, I AGREE.
If you are saying that nature is likely to produce life when the conditions are good, again I AGREE.
When you say the universe is a thinking intelligence I am not convinced.
And I do not need to study the material to see a simple gap in logic, just like I do not need to meet you to tell you are full of bull.
later
Frank,
Not sure what kind of comparisons you are making.
Unfortunately, there are many good people in Hell. We can't save ourselves with our own "goodness."
As for people in jail, are you telling me you went and polled every prisoner? If many of the convicts are supposedly Christian as you say, then the prison ministries are doing their work. How do you know the convicts didn't become Christian until after they are in jail?
As for "scientists" in jail compared with other criminals' jobs, you make another comparison that doesn't make sense. Criminal behavior is not dependent upon the person's job. There were many Nazi scientists who deserved the death sentence, but that has no bearing on their job. It was a much different factor that warranted them the death sentence.
Many people say they are Christian, but they may be basing that on a loose translation. By me going to church does not make me Christian. By me knowing things in the Bible, does not make me Christian.
Being Christian means one has accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour and made a life changing decision to follow Jesus. Does that make Christians perfect? No. It is a constant daily struggle not giving into temptations.
Do you understand?
Elvis
My comparisons here are mostly for effect, but they are accurate.
I did not take the poll; I saw a poll done in some religious magazine that I found in a bank while I was in Louisiana. It was more of a proportionate number reflecting the population as a whole being mostly Christian in this country. More Christians = more Christians in jail. What my point is, is simple, faith does not make a good person. That’s all.
And if those murdering vile people get to go to heaven just because they believe in some mythic guy then I don’t want to be there anyway. My friends and family are for the most part not Christian and I would rather spend an eternity in hell with them, than go to heaven with some of the people who have been “saved.”
Later
Frank,
You've got that wrong. Just because one "believes" in Jesus doesn't let you into Heaven. The devil believes in Jesus. You must accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and let Jesus be your Guide in life.
Those polls are also loaded. When you get 80% of the population saying they are Christian, yet only 20% attend church regularly, something is remiss. As I said, there are those who attend church twice a year and make the claim to be Christian. There are those who have parents who attended church who claim to be Christian. The more power to those who are Christian, but I suspect a great many who make the claim don't know any better.
You sound like you have a grudge against Christians. I'll pray for you. I pray that one day you will see what Christianity is really all about.
Elvis wrote:
"Being Christian means one has accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour and made a life changing decision to follow Jesus. Does that make Christians perfect? No. It is a constant daily struggle not giving into temptations."
While you are busy trying to earn your salvation, Elvis, you might pause to thank God who (alone) by God's grace makes you righteous for Christ's sake. Catch your breath, man, and feel the freedom you have in Christ. Maybe as a side effect you can loosen your brain up a bit to deal with the evidence for evolution.
Cheers,
Shaggy
Shag,
I believe it is that you have no brain to loosen. Catch your own breath. Being in God's grace is not free license to do whatever you want. Where is it that I said one earns salvation? God's Grace is free to choose. Again, that doesn't mean you do whatever the devil pleases you to do. If that is the case, you must question your own salvation.
Elvis,
Where did I say that grace gives you free license to do whatever you want? Immoral behavior is immoral behavior no matter what one's status is before God. Christians, remember, are simultaneously saints and sinners. There is no logical reason to leap to the notion that grace licenses one to sin as one pleases. However, it remains the case that your righteousness before God has no dependence on what you attempt to do toward that end; God has already done it in Christ.
Now, to the point, what does understanding scientific data have to do with immoral behavior? Little if anything, though certainly people have used scientifically gained knowledge for immoral purposes. Understanding and accepting as scientifically valid the data and provisional conclusions of evolutionary biology is not an immoral act. On the other hand, willfully playing ignorant and arguably thus abdicating one's responsibility to be a steward of God's creation might qualify.
Cheers,
Shaggy
Matt, you miss the points on engineers.
First, it was not too long ago that the U.S. produced more engineers than either India or China. We've lost that lead.
Second, it was not so long ago that the U.S. produced more Chinese engineers than China, and more Indian engineers than India. Those countries now have overtaken us in educating their own engineers.
Third, the numbers engineers in China and India is rocketing. It may be that we produce more U.S. engineers per capita -- but I doubt it. India is only four times the size of the U.S. Have you compared the numbers straight up? What you're refusing to look at is the dramatic rise in science education in India and China, and the concomitant rise in their technological prowess.
One can make excuses till the cows come home about statistical comparisons, but when the excuse-making is done, we're still whipped.
America's anti-science sentiments, especially as exemplified by ID and other forms of creationism, does no favors for our nation and its security.
Here, go read it in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news...ec03/
196593.asp
Elvis said,
"When you get 80% of the population saying they are Christian, yet only 20% attend church regularly, something is remiss. As I said, there are those who attend church twice a year and make the claim to be Christian. There are those who have parents who attended church who claim to be Christian. The more power to those who are Christian, but I suspect a great many who make the claim don't know any better."
I thought going to church isn't what made you a Christian; I thought it was acceptance of JC that made one a Christian. So, if 80% of the population accepts JC as their Lord and Saviour, then 80% of the country is Christian, or are you trying to pull the old No True Scotsman Fallacy on us?
Frank,
You are wasting your time with Island I'm sad to say. Having also discussed his ideas with him in the past, I came to realize that he makes unwarranted assumptions and refuses to look at the possibility of having done that. To think that the universe produced us on purpose (thereby imputing some sort of intelligence to the universe itself) in order to make sure that it continues to expand is completely unsubstantiated, although he thinks that the fact that the universe is expanding somehow proves that the universe somehow wanted it that way. I've tried to explain to him before that the universe is under no directive to expand or support life or anything else, except to be (since it apparently is in existence) but he refuses to listen.
GTC
Thanks for the warning 
I have noticed that the less faithful who post here seem to be more open to the idea of a God than the faithful are to the idea of anything except for God.
It’s this kind of close minded, circular argument spouting Christian soldier that turns off the intellectual community from the whole idea of anything faith based being allowed in public schools.
Later
GCT,
You need to take a look at the context of the paragraph. Going to church does not make one Christian. However, when one is Christian, one wants to go to church. That is the point to explore.
Do you have a spouse? If so, do you want to be with your spouse, or is your spouse only there whenever you have a need? You are there for your spouse through thick or thin (I pray that this is the case for you).
The same love, respect and more are for Jesus. When one loves Jesus and has Jesus in their heart, one wants to be with Jesus. Yes, that can be anywhere. However, one also wants to be with other Christians for fellowship and worship with Jesus. Where does that happen? In church.
Frank,
I believe you have that reversed. It's the community who considers themselves intellectuals that are close minded who label outstanding Christians as being closed minded. There are more intellectual Christians than you are willing to admit.
Elvis
I am not commenting on all Christians, just what I have observed on this site, looking back at the posts almost every one of the less than totally faithful have admitted the possibility of a supreme being of some sort. It is the totally faithful that seems to ignore the possibility of no God.
This idea probably sounds offensive to you, but that is the actual problem. How can you claim an unbiased opinion when the idea of there not being a God makes you physically ill?
If you believe in God because you feel his presence in your heart, fine, good for you. If you try to say that you came to your belief from looking at all of the evidence, I doubt that to be true.
I for one am open to the idea of a God.
I would love for there to be a God! Knowing that there was an eternal reward for people who acted a certain way in life would be right up my alley. Blind eternal justice also appeals to me. I am a rules person at heart and because I have led a life of discipline anyway I doubt I would much trouble accepting any rules with such incentive.
That being said, I will not alter my behavior, which I know to be good, just because some other people want me to. No matter what I do or how I conduct myself, at the end of the day there is only one person I have to answer to, me. I know right from wrong and for me Christianity is an outdated, pointless set of life long rules that most people who follow the faith can’t seem to adhere to anyway.
Here are some of my thoughts on Christianity…
What I like about modern Christianity:
1)The music, the spirit of giving, the comradely. Christianity is a potential source for many of these things, especially during the holidays.
2)The idea of working toward being a better person. Christianity attempts to give people good moral values, although I find the Christian values somewhat outdated. (Especially Catholic)
3)Keeps the masses busy. People need to be kept busy or they get themselves into trouble and they need to be reminded why they should be good.
4)Keeps the masses in line. Most people need to think that someone is watching them to act with integrity. Who better to watch than an all seeing, never sleeping God?
5)Their attempt at tolerance, respect and compassion. (These are good rules to live by.)
6)Most of the lessons of the modern church are good lessons for most people.
7)It’s fun to debate knowing more about history and the Bible than most Christians.
The things I do not like about modern Christianity
1)Despite Christianity’s attempt at tolerance, it lacks respect for people outside their faith. The “My way is the best way.” attitude is very strong among Christians. Some people simply do not want to be Christians, I can’t think of one reason why the rules of 2,000 year dead, desert nomads should apply to me.
2)The unrealistic rules of conduct that most versions of Christianity place on their followers tend to turn many people of faith into hypocrites.
3)How the written word of scripture can be so easily twisted to do evil. To be fair it’s really not even twisting the words, it’s just focusing on different parts of the Bible. (Please don’t get me started)
4)Christianity sometimes leads people into “magical” thinking, and away from a more realistic world view. It also gives an altered and wrong view of history, which is a pet peeve of mine.
5)The way Christianity separates people because of its lack of tolerance towards non believers.
6)The “I’m saved equals I’m special” attitude that Christianity breeds can be dangerous. Hitler used this quality to persuade his country to start a world war. It could be argued that Bush is doing the same right now.
All in all, at least currently, modern Christianity is more positive than negative, but never forget, it has limitless potential for evil, as we have witnessed in the past.
Later
Frank,
I have noticed the same thing as you. Keep up the good comments.
Elvis,
Many people feel that the notion of church is outdated with a personal god. One (as you said yourself) is always with Jesus, so therefore the concept of church becomes superfluous. Plus, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that Christians want to be with other Christians in fellowship and worship, especially with the spouse analogy. Going by that analogy, then married people would want to meet with other married people in fellowship (we'll leave the worship part out in the spouse example.)
Your comments still smack of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Frank,
That second half of your list (what you don't like), unfortunately, there are those few who do act like that, but that is not what Christianity is all about. I hope you don't stereotype and judge all Christians by those few. People have the potential for evil, not Christianity. Do you understand?
GCT,
Not sure what you are trying to say. If you are trying to infer adultery, then you are wrong. If the No True Scotsman Fallacy thing fits into what you think I am describing, then so be it. There are those who claim to be Christian who may not totally understand what being a Christian is really all about. Get the point?
Elvis, the point is coming in loud and clear.
You believe a certain way. You believe Christians must believe a certain way, else they are not Christians. If one accepts Christ but does not believe the way you do, they are not a true Christian (TM). Personally, I find your outlook on this to be bigoted and arrogant. Who are you to say that you know exactly what Christianity is and isn't? Do those who accept evolution fall outside of your definition of a true Christian (TM)? Do you consider the former pope (who saw no necessary conflict between evolution and Christianity) to be not a true Christian (TM)? It's easy to explain away those that act badly in the name of Christ by simply saying, "Well, they aren't true Christians (TM)," but it's not necessarily true and it's a cheap cop-out.
Commenting by HaloScan
