Canis lupus hominis

Posted in creationism | Tagged Lawrence Krauss | 29 Comments

29 Responses

1. on February 9, 2013 at 9:29 am massugu

   Good question. Teaching it in public school as “science” is certainly in violation of US Constitutional law. Forcing it on the children of non-Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim families could well be considered abuse.

   
   
2. on February 9, 2013 at 10:26 am Dave

   There was a long interview by Richard Dawkins with psychologist Jill Mytton which was excluded from the God Delusion documentary about whether or not teaching the concept of Hell is considered as child abuse.

   
   
3. on February 9, 2013 at 3:54 pm Anna

   I consider it neglect. We’re supposed to teach children how to think critically, after all.

   
   
4. on February 10, 2013 at 5:58 am chervilmeadow

   I can understand the frustrated tone of this gentleman, but I would take what he says a bit further concerning the teaching of obvious untruths to children. My personal view is that it is inappropriate to teach children that religious belief of any description is anything other than fiction. However, one can understand why so many people might say the sun goes around the Earth. When we speak of the sun “going down” and “coming up” we may tend to confuse ourselves.

   
   
5. on February 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm megrim43

   We have a new series on BBC called “Wonders of Life” which has the lush settings and animals of an Attenborough look at nature, but in fact is hosted by a physicist and deals with the physics and chemistry of the evolution of life in a very accessible way. A nice piece of education, at prime time when young people would watch. Would this kind of programme ever be seen in the US? Or would it offend too many people?

   Elizabeth

   
   
   • on February 10, 2013 at 7:06 pm massugu

     Definitely V-chip material in many US homes. But it’d be good fodder for PBS’s nature series.

     
     
   • on February 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm Anna

     I would eat it up! It pains me to see what has happened to the Discovery Channel & the National Geographic channel & the like. They almost never feature good documentaries anymore. I adore nature & science documentaries. I’ve watched every single one on Netflix I can find, lol.

     
     
     • on February 11, 2013 at 3:39 pm massugu

       Oh you mean like a history channel that stresses ghost hunting and UFOs; and a “Scifi” channel that specializes in grade Z monster-schlock films?

       
       
       • on February 11, 2013 at 5:24 pm Anna

         Yep. 8-/

         
         
   • on February 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm retrieverman

     It would be shown in the US, but like many things, they water down any parts that talk about “evilutionn.”

     
     
     • on February 11, 2013 at 7:03 am bearcoatpei

       A bit like this…
       

       
       
6. on February 11, 2013 at 8:54 am megrim43

   Lots of clips on YouTube, but this is the only one that seems to be a full episode.

   Sorry, but it`s full of “evilution” !

   Elizabeth

   
   
   • on February 11, 2013 at 4:43 pm massugu

     An excellent synthesis of physics, chemistry, cosmology and biology. Thanks.

     
     
7. on February 12, 2013 at 11:58 am daveldman

   What this guy is saying might be valid, if evolution was not a theory, and could actually be proven. I actually would never want my kids taught evolution, because it has no foundation. It constantly changes and “scientist” just tack on more years in attempt to explain things that don’t make sense to them. If you actually look at the earth and the life that exists on it, there is no way to say that the earth is more that 6-7k years old. That is not based on religion, its based on facts and actual scientific findings.

   
   
   • on February 12, 2013 at 1:32 pm Dave

     Good luck with your grand-children and great-grand-children working in sweat-shops.

     
     
     • on February 13, 2013 at 8:52 am daveldman

       What does that have to do with anything?

       
       
       • on February 13, 2013 at 9:33 am Dave

         The world’s economy is becoming increasingly dependent on skilled labour. If someone doesn’t have an education or the wrong kind of education, they usually end up on the dole and being taken care of by the government.

         Unfortunately, to get a job in a skilled-based economy, it also mean taking courses in biology, chemistry, geology, physics and other fields which reject the notion of creationism.

         
         
   • on February 12, 2013 at 3:08 pm Anna

     HAHAHAHAHA!!!

     Oh, I’m sorry, you were actually serious!

     *wonders where these facts & actual scientific findings that say the Earth only 6-7 thousand years old might be*

     
     
     • on February 12, 2013 at 3:21 pm retrieverman

       They don’t exist.

       
       
   • on February 12, 2013 at 5:51 pm hemmingforddogblog

     “…there is no way to say that the earth is more that 6-7k years old.”
     Actually, if you understood the sciency stuff you would know about carbon dating!

     ” …if evolution was not a theory”
     *sigh* bangs head on desk.

     But anyway, I thank you and your family for providing the future workers and people of WalMart. Go back to your myths and fables.

     
     
   • on February 12, 2013 at 6:21 pm massugu

     Have you been to the Grand Canyon and looked at the strata? Did you or your loved ones catch the newest strain of the flu this year, despite getting a flu shot? Have you noticed that the weeds in the farmers’ fields have become resistant to Round-up? No, you’re right, thats not proof, but thats just because in scientific circles, evidence is the preferred term (scientists tend to leave “proof” to mathematicians, logicians and distillers of hard liquor.)

     Yes, evolution is a theory in the same way that any and all scientific findings are theories. That’s because unlike religion, science doesn’t deal in absolutes and faith. It deals in the best possible answers given the evidence at hand. Scientific theories, including that of evolution, themselves actually “evolve” (or as you say, ‘changes’) as new data is discovered. (thats why Einsteinian Physics replaced Newtonian Physics, and Copernican Cosmology replaced Ptolemaic Cosmology, do you deny those “theories” as well?) For cryin’ out loud, move into the 21st Century, even the Vatican accepts evolution as a vehicle of creation.

     But you talk of proof and in your world of black and white, proof is a valid concept. So “prove” to us that there is a God, one that interferes in the affairs of men, that plays favorites. It doesn’t have to be a big thing, maybe a film shot of a beneficent (or wrathful depending on your sect), bearded male entity peering down out of the sky and perhaps helping one human army defeat another–even though both sides worship him/her/it. What’s that you say you can’t? God works in mysterious ways and we just have to take it all on faith? No thanks, been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

     
     
     • on February 12, 2013 at 6:40 pm Anna

       AMEN! *laughs at own joke*

       
       
     • on February 13, 2013 at 8:50 am daveldman

       So, you are telling me the earth was formed slowly layer by layer. Where did that material come from? What formed it? No, I haven’t gotten the flu, but I also haven’t evolved into any other creature, either. Nor, has any other human. Scientist are the ones that are altering plants to do certain things. Based on that alone, if humans existed for millions(billions) of years, why have they advanced so fast over only that past couple thousand years? Time tables don’t line up.
       I’m ok with scientist finding new things. That is far different than something that is changing constantly. You can add new found information, however, when you speculate, and then change the facts to fit your speculation, that is not science, that is ignorance. The Bible and a belief in God don’t prove science, however science is proving what the Bible has already told us, more and more. I’ll admit, there is an element of faith involved to believing in a Creator, however it is far easier for me to have that than a faith in someone or something that is completely theoretical. You are saying you have faith in a guy in a lab. He is going to post whatever information he wants, because he gets paid to do so by a certain group. There are more modern scientists that have switched from evolutionists to creationists based on their findings, than visa/versa. The evidence is there. Take a belief in God out of the science equation, and just look at actual earth findings. The universe and earth are not billions of years old. 1+1=2, right. Always has, always will. If the top mathematician put out a statement tomorrow that said that he now believes that 1+1=5, what would you think? Facts cannot be changed, only new information can be added. Creation science doesn’t change, it has been the same since the beginning, and we are just adding new information as time goes on. If we remove your cynicism, you really aren’t making much of an argument. I would like to know what has made you bitter toward God.

       
       
   • on February 13, 2013 at 6:30 am bearcoatpei

     It does not constantly change at all. Like children, we learn more and more as we explore more and refine our skills/add to our experiences. Science is always what we know at that time and unlike religion, science doesn’t just rub it’s hands and decide that’s all there is to know and it’s now written in stone. Creationism is like a 5 year old child who insists their imaginary friend they made up is real and those fairy stories mum reads them at night are fact because they have been written down for several hundred years.

     Can you please link to these peer reviewed scientific papers that unequivocally prove the earth is under 7000 years old?

     
     
     • on February 13, 2013 at 9:14 am daveldman

       I like learning more, I just have a problem with the information changing. I want what my kids learn to be consistent. Facts don’t change, you can only build facts onto facts. No other areas of education change WHAT they teach. They may use different methods, or add to the knowledge base as time goes on, but the basic information is always there.
       I could give you lots of “peer reviewed” documents, but on either side, that really doesn’t mean anything.
       “Despite the advantages, peer review is simply incapable of ensuring that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every area of science is a record of one mistake after another. Indeed, virtually every major scientific and medical journal has on numerous occasions published findings that are later discredited. Somtimes such mistakes are eventually weeded out in the course of time. However, some often persist for many years.”
       You too, cannot provide me with “peer reviewed” papers that are not reviewed by a biased audience. I could make a claim that water is not hydrogen and oxygen, but rather it is nitrogen and carbon, and give it to a bunch of people who think the same way, but that doesn’t make it fact. The facts are that it is H2O.

       
       
       • on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 am retrieverman

         If there were some evidence somewhere that totally disproved evolution and the young earth, the scientist who discovered it would easily make it into peer review. Scientists are always trying to disprove each other. That’s really what science is mostly about. Trying to disprove previous findings. That’s why things change so much. Unlike a religious document, which is supposedly inerrant and written by God, scientific findings are up for scrutiny.

         There is no anti-creation conspiracy. The creationists simply don’t have the evidence at all.

         End of story.

         
         
       • on February 13, 2013 at 10:41 am massugu

         “Facts don’t change” yep, but how we interpret facts does change based on new discoveries. Is there a basic, underlying reality out there somewhere? Undoubtedly, but are we ground dwelling, simian omnivores, evolved from tree dwelling fructivores, equipped to easily sense, interpret and understand that reality? No–we, each of us, “see through a glass darkly.” Yet we do so desperately desire a simple, straight forward explanation for the underlying complexity of the reality that we so dimly perceive. Thus we’re willing to invent and/or accept mythologies and “isms”. These are sets of stories and/or man-made rules–literally said to be carved in stone, that if followed are claimed to provide all the answers to everything–in other words, absolutes! (I instinctively distrust any person, organization or creed that claims to have all the answers.)

         Change is constant and inevitable. You may try to hide from it but its still there. Oh, and by the way, making mistakes is how we learn. He who is unwilling to make mistakes will make no progress. I leave this discussion (these are my last words on this posting–I promise) with a few salient quotes, to wit:

         On change:
         ‘It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched (i.e., we must change) or go bad.”
         C. S. Lewis

         “Action and reaction, ebb and flow, trial and error, change – this is the rhythm of living. Out of our over-confidence, fear; out of our fear, clearer vision, fresh hope. And out of hope, progress.”–Bruce Barton

         Which is a nice segue into the following quotes on mistakes:
         “Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.”—Confucius

         “I have learned throughout my life as a composer chiefly through my mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions, not by my exposure to founts of wisdom and knowledge.”—Igor Stravinsky

         “Mistakes are the portals of discovery.”–James Joyce

         And one quote just generally relevant to this discussion overall:
         “I would rather know an uncomfortable truth than believe a beautiful lie.” –AronRa

         
         
8. on February 13, 2013 at 10:37 am daveldman

   I’m not a scientist, and am guessing that all of you aren’t either. So, I will let people who are smarter than me do the talking. I just know that I want base what I learn on what really is. I challenge you all to really look at what you are calling facts and see if they really make sense. My guess is, the further you dig, the more likely you will discover that there is no way all that we see and know happened by accident. You just can’t make a logical argument for happenstance. Read through this article.

   http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

   
   
   • on February 13, 2013 at 12:06 pm Jessica

     Actually, what’s happening is that your brain is making you compulsively organize random input into categories so that you can process it more easily.

     But just because you’re uncomfortable with something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

     And actually yes, I am a scientist, a behavioral ecologist in fact. And most of the people commenting on this are scientists too in the sense that, even lacking publication or alphabet soup after their names, they assess the world as objectively as possible and alter their interpretation to fit the world, not the other way around as you are so fond of doing.

     The problem with creationists is they have a fundamental misunderstanding that EVOLUTION IS NOT A BELIEF. It’s simply the best explanation of natural phenomenon that we currently have. You don’t have to believe in it, it’s right there, in front of you, happening all the time.

     And of course you aren’t going to evolve, evolution happens across populations, not within individuals.

     Also, your article is crap, and it’s certainly not written by people who are smarter than you are.

     
     

Comments are closed.