I agree.

Do religious Democrats have any representation? Not all liberals believe in evolution. There are a lot of conservatives that believe we're stewards of the earth and should provide for the poor according to their -- yes, guess what -- religion. What about them? Where do they stand in public opinion?

That's what I thought. I'm not sure who are the "hatred people" but I think this book is "easy money" for the author and will be read by people with preconceived ideas about conservatives and who they are. Those ideas will be further cemented because they are now backed by science(?).

American's are extremely individualistic. I think these efforts to pigeonhole them are dangerous.

I am not responsible for pollution. I am not responsible for the harm it does........Wait..Wait.......I don't believe it causes as much harm as scientists say it does. Yes, That's the ticket!

I am getting so tired of the labels "liberal" and "conservative," and even more tired of individuals who loudly label themselves as such.

What I want to see are politicians who embrace LOGIC, FLEXIBILITY and COMPASSION.

Do religious Democrats have any representation?

Yes they do, cowboygrandpa would be one on here frequently.

They, by in large, tend not to fall into the denialist camp though. Religion and science can co-exist. For some reason, some religious folks think it's necessary to deny reality in order to be holy (or holier than the next guy).

It's not about faith in God, it's about their own feeling of self-superiority and exceptionalism. The more reality one can deny, the more cognitive dissonance one can swallow, for the sake of some dogmatic misinterpreted literalism.... the the more righteous it makes them (in their minds). That's the core of religiously based denialism, to them it's a 3-way competition between reality and their dogma's superiority over the other guy. The more capable of delusion a person is, the more legitimate it makes their religion apparently.

Religion isn't the problem, it's clinging to corrupted dogma and doctrine fashioned by none other than men who worship their egos above their gods.

HN - Seconded.

Religion and science can co-exist.

No. Science is based on reason and evidence. Religion is the antithesis of science as it is based on faith. Even scientists who are religious will tell you their beliefs are based solely on faith. Here's an equation.

"God", or the concept of ... has nothing to do with "religion".

Spirituality, transcendental experience and the like, have nothing to do with religion.

Philosophical notions and underpinnings of god can be quite beautiful. But that says nothing about the irrational, illogical, ramblings of dogmatic faith.

The difference between god and religion, is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

Enough said.

I am a liberal and my parents and brother are both Republican conservatives. I am college educated with a good hard core science degree. They are mostly unchangable. They have the same beliefs that their Grandparents had. Yes they are very quick to go to the doctor for the medcine that cures all their ills. They turn on the lights and TV's and use the tech that science has forged for them, but they still do not belief in science. I find that hard to understand. If you love all the things science has gave you but refuse to bekief in it you have to be a dumb hypocritic. If you do not belief in science go back and live in your cave. I told them one day if the stems cells cure for any of the diseases those that are so opposed to it should have it withheld. aka George Bush. You can not have it both ways. I am opposed to this science but oh it saves my life I will be the first in line.

The difference is that I believe scientists wrong until proven right, and my standard of proof is pretty high. Not every scientific study is correct.

Your statement seems to indicate that you'll never believe in scientific studies.

If you want absolute proof of any scientific theory you'll never get it. Scientific research is a process. We're still learning things about gravity. Would you say that gravity is an unproven theory?

There is a simple reason for this and this study also confirms what I have always suspected.

First, if you will note, the Conservatives really start their downward plunge around 1981... Which is also the same time the Fundamentalist Reconstructionist Dominionist took over the formerly Liberal Southern Baptist Church. It seems that the Fundies took over the Republican Party at the same time.

Second this proves that the Republican Party now, is totally not the same party as in the days of the great Republicans like Eisenhower s time.

Indeed, the Fundamentalist have taken over and the proof is this article. Its a total shame that a great party Like the Republicans have been trashed by the Fundamentalist Reconstructionist Dominionist to where it is now the Republican't Party.

Shame

And thats my Opinion

No. Science is based on reason and evidence. Religion is the antithesis of science as it is based on faith. Even scientists who are religious will tell you their beliefs are based solely on faith. Here's an equation.

You misinterpret what I'm saying. Did you not read the rest of my post? It's the blind adherence to religious dogma, not religion itself, that is in conflict with science. Religious belief obviously cannot apply in science, but simply because something does not apply in science does not mean it cannot coexist without conflict.

Spiritual belief does not require denying reality. Dogma does that. Dogma is not religion in itself. One can remain open about their spiritual beliefs in the same way that one must remain open about scientific discovery.

Religion and science can coexist, and have for several centuries. Many of the greatest scientists have had deep religious beliefs as well. True they have different philosophical foundations, but they are not mutually exclusive as a result. Pope John Paul II in his apologies to science for the mistakes of the Catholic church said it best, "faith cannot overrule reason." "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."

A religious scientist is either a poor churchgoer, or a poor scientist, or both. They certainly would be inconsistent in how they perceive the world. A person does not go to work and apply scientific method to everything they do and then go home and rely on dogmatic faith for the rest. This is inconsistent, and if this person spent any real time thinking about their place in the world they would have a difficult time reconciling. Religious scientists are fence-sitters and are in denial of at least one of their views (if not more). This would be like an airline pilot who professes that planes fly by magic.

Now, mind you, science doesn't squash spiritualism, but the dogmatic adherence to doctrines of faith is a no-go for a true scientist who builds his full understanding of the world in a scientific way.

The difference is that I believe scientists wrong until proven right, and my standard of proof is pretty high. Not every scientific study is correct.

Scientific study and discovery is not this black and white. As the previous poster mentioned it is a process. Constant misuse of the word "theory" instead of "hypothosis" with regards to scientific study is akin to this line of thinking.

The biggest problem with trust in science as it relates to political leanings is the fact that politics has become front and center to scientific discussion. Science should be neutral and excluded from political discussion.

Up Uranus, That was the smartest thing I have read on newsvine in days.

They certainly would be inconsistent in how they perceive the world

Not necessarily, one can set aside their spiritual beliefs for the sake of reason. That's the point.

Many religious scientists have made discoveries which were in conflict with the dogma of the time, and you know what they did? They accepted the proven reality over the dogma and supersition and presented it as such.

Indeed, one can corrupt the other - as also seen - but it's possible to coexist without being compatible or symbiotic.

Now, of course today the "Christian Scientist" in the capitalized form is little more than a charlatan and apologist. But it's possible that one can hold faith and reason simultaneously without have faith overrule reason... as Pope John Paul II said.



Science should be neutral and excluded from political discussion

.

Well, if you want politics to be based in reason and reality - science NEEDS to be included. It should, though, remain neutral - and it does for the most part. The problem is when certain factions co-opt science for a political agenda, and then the opposing factions create false science or distort science for their political agenda.

Unfortunately though, that isn't going away anytime soon. Science has been the center of numerous political controversies since the dawn of reason.

The compatibility of science and religion would not be a problem if religion were recognized for what it is: metaphor, and not literal truth.

Just so's ya know: My wife is a prominent research scientist in a Tier 1 university, so I have both a great deal of exposure to scientists and my own biases in favor of them. But, that said, I am both proud of my wife and see a great deal od what is being discussed in the article.

We have a friend who runs functional MRI's on the brain. Basically he does things to stimulate a tiny portion the brain (such as showing a person a picture of a chocolate bar) and then watches to see what part of the brain "lights up." He was telling me about a pilot study he was running in which he showed subjects a picture of a man lying face down in the street with a small amount of sidewalk and nothing else showing. There is no indication in the picture of what happened or if or how severely the man is injured or even if he is dead. My friend than asks people to write a "description" of the scene. Firstly, the picture causes different parts of the brain to light up between self-described "conservatives" and "liberals." This indicates that there are extremely basic differences between how conservatives and liberals perceive exactly the same thing. But most telling is the description. My friend says that if the description is longer than 23 words the person is a self-described conservatives. Liberals tend to express concern for the individual and wonder about help for him, but beyond that have not much to say. Conservatives, on the other hand, go on and on about drugs and drive-by shootings and gutters and a majority equate the person in the picture with a long dark scenario. Often conservatives will include as "facts" things that were not in the picture to bolster their description. My friend says that while his students assign tags to the descriptions, it is the length of the description that is immediately telling. (And BTW the purpose is nothing political. He is studying the structure of the brain. Political orientation is just one of the hundreds of data points that are collected. And there are numerous correlations. But he was struck by this one in that the perceptions are so very different and the descriptions themselves are so different.)

It has been my experience that conservatives tend not to make the effort to try to understand science at all. The issue of global warming is mentioned. If the subject of a conversation moves to global warming, I have narrowed it down to two questions that I ask the person: 1) can you explain to me what scientists mean when they say that climate is chaotic while weather is linear? and 2) a gallon of gasopline weighs about 6 ponds. How much is the weight of the pollutants that are produced by burning a gallon of gas in an average car? If the person cannot answer both the questions with some degree of accuracy, then it is truly a waste of time to discuss it with them. They made up their minds without understanding even the most basic issues and will not change it regardless of what evidence is produced. And worse than that, they have nothing to contribute to a discussion, so it is a waste of my time.

But the conservative distrust of science is self-destructive. It means that the conservative point of view will never be taught in classrooms or universities. It means that the jobs in science will go to "liberals" almost exclusively, since they are the ones who got the education. And it means that this Luddite convention of distrust of science and the belief that the opinion, with no supporting data, of a high-school dropout is just as valid as the research of a scientist with huge amounts of supporting data.

I am reminded of a poem written by a East German dissident in the 50's:

King Xanthos of Thassos,

From birth blind,

Decreed as an unnecessary luxury

Those that men call Lamps.

We have watched as research funding has plummeted under a GOP House (where all revenue bills must originate.) In fact, 2010 R&D in this country, expressed as a percentage of GDP, has fallen to the lowest point since WWI (1903 to be exact.)

shuklack

You're missing the point

Many religious scientists have made discoveries which were in conflict with the dogma of the time, and you know what they did? They accepted the proven reality over the dogma and supersition and presented it as such.

All of religion(s) ... ALL of them. All, are founded on a warped sense of reality. I'm not talking about specific doctrine or dogma. I'm talking about the very foundations of which these beliefs are formulated and processed within the human psyche.

The point isn't that some scientists are able to conform their beliefs ... the point is they have no choice.

There's a reason this stuff went from:

"Revelation ... > ... Inherent word of god ... > ... Inspired word of god ... > ... Er, okay, maybe some stuff was wrong ... > ... Okay, okay, these are really just parables ... > ... Oh fine, yes, it's all just metaphor."

Science is simply a tool. A method to better understanding the natural world we find ourselves in. Nothing, not a thing about science is predicated or compatible with religion. Of course this says nothing about spirituality, but that's not what you said. You said science and religion are compatible ... they simply are not.

Being intellectually honest about this doesn't make us "militant ... or atheists" ... or any other bull@!$%# term people like to use. It just makes us honest.

@journal,

It would be helpful if you actually read the article before ranting. There was no book involved. It was a peer-reviewed study published in the American Sociological Review (where authors are NOT compensated.)

Bad-mouthing things that you do not understand does not reflect at all on the things that you do not understand. It reflects only on how little you yourself understand.

Nothing, not a thing about science is predicated or compatible with religion

Again, I never said it was.

I said it can coexist.

Not everything must be compatible in order to coexist, and religion is not set in stone. It can, and has, changed with scientific reality. The factions within religion, who cling to dogmas despite reason and reality, are truly what cannot coexist with science. But religion itself is as maleable as the societies we live in. If anything, it's a reflection of it......

To say a scientist cannot be religious is like telling an electron it cannot behave like a wave.

A religious scientist is either a poor churchgoer, or a poor scientist, or both. They certainly would be inconsistent in how they perceive the world. A person does not go to work and apply scientific method to everything they do and then go home and rely on dogmatic faith for the rest. This is inconsistent, and if this person spent any real time thinking about their place in the world they would have a difficult time reconciling. Religious scientists are fence-sitters and are in denial of at least one of their views (if not more). This would be like an airline pilot who professes that planes fly by magic.

I'll observe that you have equated "religious" with "church-goer." While in many to maybe even most cases, there is a direct relationship there, I don't think you can say the two categories are mutually synonymous.

As an agnostic, I find that I can't say why time exists, how something could have come from nothing, etc. and thus I leave the door open to something akin to a Diests beliefs. However, I wouldn't classify myself as a church-goer at this point for the explicit reason that most of the dogma taught in churches is incongruent with what I see in the real world - and even contradictory even within itself for that matter.

Or to put it another way - I could see a person with religious convictions being able to function within the scientific method, but I'd have to agree that which is taught to the average church-goer would seem to directly contradict a scientific approach to the world.

As an agnostic,

This is a non sequitur. All atheists are agnostic, and vice-versa. I've never met an atheist in my entire life that says they know there is no god.

No one has that position. It's a social fabrication invented by the religious in order to put a secular view of the world on the same illogical playing field as a theist. Basically, just so people can bicker amongst themselves and say trivial things like: "an atheist is just as dogmatic as a theist" ... or ... "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

It's all complete garbage. It's the reason we need to stop using the term atheist all together as it's a complete non-starter. Saying I'm an atheist says nothing about my politics, my spirituality, my philosophical view on the world, my ethics, etc...

I'm no more of an "a"theist," as I am an a"unicornist.

If you're interested, maybe look up "teapot" atheism. That analogy is quite good at explaining this concept.

Shuklack

You and Chad are talking on two different planes. Of course religion can coexist with science because it currently does. I believe what he is talking about is where people trying to equate religion as a science. As an attempt to explain the why. Which you, Chad and I know is completely ridiculous.

I believe what he is talking about is where people trying to equate religion as a science. As an attempt to explain the why. Which you, Chad and I know is completely ridiculous.

Well, that's what I thought he meant, which is why I addressed that in my first response to him.

But he kept going.... so, I felt it needed yet more clarification lol. And honestly my next point was going to be the same that you just said "they can coexist because they do right now".

This is not an argument, it is mere contridiction....

Ummmmmmm, hate to bust your bubble but PLENTY O' CONSERVATIVES fully accept and understand scientific theory and accept THAT as gospel, pardon the pun. And PLENTY of them work in the scientific/ biotech/healthcare fields. I am one. And NO, we're not all here sitting and praying for an Almighty do drop out of the ceiling.

Be glad to give you the rundown on how the cytogenetics of a patient with AML plays a role in his long term survival and the best treatments used for his cancer, if you want to go down THAT road.

Chris - I have some questions regarding the study your friend is doing. How are the subjects selected? What percentage of subjects describe themselves as conservatives or liberals? Is the self-identification process an either-or selection, several choices or open ended?

Saying they can "coexist" is like saying healthy tissue can coexist with cancer.

Yes, of course they can coexist, as they do. And, as they have for years. Just like my Grandmother, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in the early 90's. They gave her a few months to live, she ended up "coexisting" with the disease for another 6 years.

While the provided analogy is obviously hyperbolic in theory, it's actually quite cogent in practice.

I have known many scientist who claim religious affiliation, but none who have FUNDAMENTALIST religious beliefs. I don't consider that these peoples' religion conflicts with their scientific studies because their religion exists in the unknown areas of science, rather than denying science as do the fundamentalists. These scientists accept the Bible as a mixture of truth and fiction and use their rational brains to distinguish the difference. Their belief in any god has a healthy aspect of humility that comes from their willingness to admit that their religious beliefs are not based on evidence, but rather a chosen belief.

JusticeMan

And if the liberals understood that not everyone has to see things their way.

Science isn't the liberal paradigm. Science is humanities best understanding of the universe and its processes, and it is constantly being reassessed to maximize accuracy.

Liberals are often as guilty of magical thinking as conservatives are, but political conservatives do themselves a great disservice when they hitch there wagons to the Christian Fundamentalist crazy-train.

In response to Chad.... what don said.

But which, in the hyperbole, is the cancer? Because it is religion that must make room for reality, not the other way around.

{sigh}

But which, in the hyperbole, is the cancer? Because it is religion that must make room for reality, not the other way around.

Yes. I'd say it's time we get on with it, you?

Chris,

Alabama is not a Tier One university. :) Just sayin.

This is a non sequitur. All atheists are agnostic, and vice-versa. I've never met an atheist in my entire life that says they know there is no god.

The problem is the usual definition of "God" is something so incredibly vague and nebulous that it can't be tested in any meaningful way. I don't lend credibility to something if it can't be tested, observed or controlled for, and you'd think most religious folks would be eager to have irrefutable proof that their god existed.

conservatives dont believe in science because a few decades ago, the republican party figured out that it can drive wedges smack dab in the middle of the population with issues like religion, abortion, gay rights and so on.

and as science and reasoning begin to demonstrate the side they took is wrong, they must denounce both.

ever notice that there is always a conspiracy behind any channel that tries to tell conservatives they are wrong? science? 95% isnt a consensus. higher education? intellectual elites. news and media? liberal bias.

its never about doing any sort of introspection of the criticisms they receive. it is always about tearing down their critics.

The bottom line is ... there's no science in 'Faith'' so how can there be any faith in "science"!

And ... it's easier to control ... if you can steer one away from logic .... and towards faith!

Typical left-wing twaddle. You don't agree with us, so you're stupid.

And while we're at it, why not lump it all into one label. Of course the anti-evolutionist idiots are the same as the global warming skeptics.

FWIW, "scientific consensus" is itself anti-scientific. Science is based on facts, not groupthink: if you can measure, test, and repeat, it's science. If you think it might be so, it's an educated guess. So evolution: fact. ANTHROPOGENIC global warming: untested hypothesis.

I perceive, conservatives as not science-phobic as much as opposing any belief system that stops their flow of monies and planet gobbling capitalism. It has nothing to do with religions but merely their pursuit of a few pieces of silver.

Jesus isn't their God; money is, and they'll place it all on the chopping block, even the fate of Earth and mankind, for this religion.

chad-1841583

As an agnostic,

This is a non sequitur. All atheists are agnostic, and vice-versa. I've never met an atheist in my entire life that says they know there is no god.

I'm sorry Chad, but I'd be hard-pressed to agree with you. As an example, I'd say that Dawkins is pretty freaking adamant that there is no god and I'd be pretty hard-pressed to say there is or isn't. It would appear that you are trying to use the term "know" interchangeably with "belief" unreasonably in this instance. Of course no human can "know" the existence of god. Consequently, we are talking about belief. Therefore, I think the terms atheist and agnostic exist sparately and independently for a good reason and you are letting your personal convictions lead you to try imply that Athieism/Agnosticism are splitting hairs.

Someone who hold a very strong BELIEF that this is no god is an athiest. Someone who sees no compelling argument either way and thus doesn't have a specific belief for/against is an agnostic. In my (less than humble) opinion those two positions are not mutually INclusive.

And while we're at it, why not lump it all into one label. Of course the anti-evolutionist idiots are the same as the global warming skeptics.

Well when the same sort of sophistry (strawman arguments, dogmatic denialism painted as "skepticism", distortion) is used to argue against both, it's hard not to lump them together - I must admit.



Someone who hold a very strong BELIEF that this is no god is an athiest.

I do not hold a disbelief in God. I just think God as described in religion is very very very unlikely. I do believe quite strongly that what people interpret as God is a misinterpretation of something else. I call myself an atheist though, not an agnostic... because I lean far closer to one side than the other - and I do believe that everyone has God wrong. So I believe that God, as he/she/it is perceived by much of humanity, does not exist.

What is with the 'believe or not believe" in evolution? Evolution is a provable fact, not a faith. You can agree with it or not, but saying believe in evolution lowers it to the level of religion, which it isn't provable.

• All atheists are agnostic, and vice-versa. I've never met an atheist in my entire life that says they know there is no god.



I have seen plenty of people on these boards say they absolutely do not believe in any god. I don't know any athiests personally, however I do always like to read the comment sections of stories about religion, and there are many people who will proclaim about how stupid it is to actually believe in god in this day and age.

Without science we are just hairless, murderous, greedy, and horny apes. Come to think of it that does sound like many Teabaggers I know.

Conservatives just can't comprehend the fact that science can change with updated data.....unlike their religion.

The blind belief in science is just as faith based as any other religion. To be a true scientist requires skepticism. Nothing is proven until it has been tested, tested, and tested again, and then it's still probably not proven. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand science.

People who say that something is so merely because a few scientists say it is are no more accurate than someone who points out a verse in the Bible as proof of anything. Science is always about questioning assumptions.

"For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities, and what is perceived as the 'liberal culture.' So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes 'us' conservatives is that we don't agree with 'them.'"

Proof positive that the authors of this article just don't get it or are purposely leaving out a main component of conservative angst:

Who pays for science? And what result are they looking for? When science is accountable to the public (called capitalism) I tend to trust it. Much of today's science however, is accountable/beholden-to government (Climate Science as an example, is anyone being paid to research possibilities of GW being something other than man-made?). Get the government and politics out of science and maybe conservative minds will become less skeptical.

P.S. are universities (where most gov. or non-capitalistic funded research happens) really just "percieved as liberal? Come on, the polling of college campus professors and staff is off the charts liberal!! Its not even debateable where their loyalties lie.

As with any continuum, there is a pretty fine line between atheism and agnosticism, but there are clearly many people who are solidly in either camp. Since we cannot know for sure about the existence of God, then it could be argued that everyone is an agnostic, but clearly there are people in either direction who feel increasingly "sure" about their conclusions.

Tod: " is anyone being paid to research possibilities of GW being something other than man-made"

Of course there is, but that money comes from the very capitalism that you trust. Capitalism is about profit, and profit comes from convincing the public that your product is harmless. There is a great deal more incentive to deny global warming than to accept it.

Notfivo,

Not if the resaerch is paid for by those who want/pay for a certain result, and don't look outside of their own "religious beliefs. Make no mistake, many of the things that are percieved as supposed science, are nothing more than faith in a particular dogma.

Notfiveo - If my reading comprehension still holds up, I believe there was a statement in the article to the effect that conservatives desire certainty. Thus the idea that scientific understanding could evolve with new data could potentially be as source of distrust. I suspect at some level the gut instinct in that situation is to perceive some deceitful motivation where there is none.

Newton - arguably one of history's greater scientific minds practiced alchemy. The idea of him being a scientific mind and an alchemist are not mutually exclusive - he didn't have all the facts on the chemistry side. I suspect if he was given a modern chemistry primer, he'd have abandoned alchemy. Science evolves and if one's "beliefs" don't evolve as well, then the problem isn't with science.

jimP - I think you may be getting the process and the results of science mixed up. What we have faith in is the process of science, which is exactly that repeated testing that you advocate. The results of science are only as good as the process that produced them, and so we have a great deal of conficdence in some results and less so in others.

Much of today's science however, is accountable/beholden-to government (Climate Science as an example, is anyone being paid to research possibilities of GW being something other than man-made?).

Yes companies in the traditional power industries are financing quite a bit of "research" into that. Wouldn't it be interesting to see who is better funded and/or independent in their scientific approach? Publically funded climatologists or privately funded skeptics?

I do not hold a disbelief in God. I just think God as described in religion is very very very unlikely. I do believe quite strongly that what people interpret as God is a misinterpretation of something else. I call myself an atheist though, not an agnostic... because I lean far closer to one side than the other - and I do believe that everyone has God wrong. So I believe that God, as he/she/it is perceived by much of humanity, does not exist.

Very interesting take, Shuk. I DON'T know for sure that there is a "god". If he/it exists I don't believe it's as some white bearded heavy set man sitting on a throne with a book in one hand and a thunderbolt in the other. I would be inclined to believe this "god" would exist as a force. Of course, there are forces out there beyond anyone's control. These forces create stars, solar systems, collisions of galaxies and even seismic activity on our OWN planet. The hairy question remanins: is there any "god" behind these forces? No one knows.

Who pays for science? And what result are they looking for? When science is accountable to the public (called capitalism) I tend to trust it. Much of today's science however, is accountable/beholden-to government (Climate Science as an example, is anyone being paid to research possibilities of GW being something other than man-made?). Get the government and politics out of science and maybe conservative minds will become less skeptical.

Funny that you discount science because of what you think might be a conflict of interest, because the 'science' against climate change comes mostly from groups like the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is funded largely by interested parties like Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute was the same group who argued in favor of the tobacco industry and released "science" that went against the largely accepted knowledge that smoking is harmful. In fact, one of the top lawyers employed by the Heartland Institute who argued in favor of big tobacco is now the CEO of the Institute.

That's what we talked about in a below thread. Skepticism is invited, but when so-called "skeptics" don't cast the same critical eye upon their own conclusions and sources of information, their "skepticism" is revealed to be little more than agenda driven dogma and denialism.

The blind belief in science is just as faith based as any other religion. To be a true scientist requires skepticism. Nothing is proven until it has been tested, tested, and tested again, and then it's still probably not proven. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand science.

The difference is science doesn't require your belief in it to work. You don't have to "believe" in chemistry to get gunpowder to explode by lighting it on fire. You don't have to "believe" in gravity in order to fall when you jump off a building.

I think Chad and Shuklak are both correct on several points. My issue with science co-existing with religion is not that I feel a scientist has no room to believe in both but when rule #1 is, "A God exists and we must worship him", then the foundation of studies becomes corrupted by automatically creating a parameter that any discovery must allow for rule #1. This is how the world became 6,000 years old and The Flintstones went from an amusing cartoon to a fairly close depiction of the early times.

As an athiest (former hardcore christian), I can't buy that Joseph of Arimathea could have been Barney Rubble's bowling partner. The potential of researching a new discovery is limited by rule #1...you cannot subjectively study something that might interfere with your beliefs unless you are willing to accept that what you find might create a schism between what you know and what you believe.

Or even more to the point - as our understanding of the physics and chemistry improved, our gun-powder improved (e.g.: higher power to weight, smokeless, etc.). Thus demonstrating the science was headed in the right direction.

My issue with science co-existing with religion is not that I feel a scientist has no room to believe in both but when rule #1 is, "A God exists and we must worship him", then the foundation of studies becomes corrupted by automatically creating a parameter that any discovery must allow for rule #1.

RMJ - You are assuming that Religion and Christianity/Judaism/Islam are synonymous. This is arguably not true. (Of course if you were to substitute "Christianity" in your statement, then I'd be hard pressed to argue with you ;> )

you cannot subjectively study something that might interfere with your beliefs unless you are willing to accept that what you find might create a schism between what you know and what you believe.

Which is the core of science; being able to accept new evidence even if it goes against what you believed was true previously. It's how science works, and it depends upon the possibility of being disproven and accepting such if/when it happens.

I think religion itself is capable of the same thing, it's capable of accepting reality that might go against previously held notions. It has done it in the past. It must if it wants to survive.

Profit stays when your product is harmless, Do you really think a company will purposely lose it all to civil lawsuits. Its not a perfect system, but its a heck of a lot more accountable than government funded/researched projects.

Why the drop? Gauchat suggested that the character of the conservative movement has changed over the past three and a half decades

True enough, they're called "neocons" now, but they are far from being the same as actual conservatives. And they would include all of our past Presidents since Kennedy. The real conservatives are now called Libertarians and/or Classical Liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

RJM,

What if rule #1 is uniformitarianism? That all life on this planet macro-evolved from a single cell? What happens when the evidence begins pointing somewhere else (as it has been ever since the advancement of micro-biology?

Its not a perfect system, but its a heck of a lot more accountable than government funded/researched projects.

It was government funded projects that put us into outer space and on the moon. It was government funded projects that gave us nuclear energy (and weapons).

Government is the only entity that can accomplish such high risk and low profit motive projects.



What if rule #1 is uniformitarianism

Actually rule #1 for the science illiterate should be 'Evolution does not equal Abiogenesis.'

DBmoron,

Science went towards better gunpowder, more money from a better product. The only place government and science have mixed well is NASA (responsible for many of our current hightech products), and that has become very suspect of late. The private sector seems to be running with that ball, and I say let it.

"As an athiest (former hardcore christian), I can't buy that Joseph of Arimathea could have been Barney Rubble's bowling partner."

Kind of a goofy, irrelevant illustration, don't you think? What Christians have you been talking to anyway?

I would normally say that it was their environment, but then how do you explain people who just seem to have been born mean or angry and were just as bad as very young children as they are today?

So, I think most people are molded by their experiences, but the rest are either born as @!$%#s or Democrats.

We distrust "science" because "science" is no longer unbiased. Our "new" science has political agendas and has been proven to hide or "misidentify data". Once you find that science is no longer unbiased and has been caught in lies then you stop trusting. That is a normal human reaction.

If you have a teacher that is proven to be misleading students and proven misquotes and misinformation then you no longer trust that teacher. When you have a cashier constantly making mistakes (whether intentional or not) then you no longer trust that cashier. When you have a meteorologist constantly giving wrong weather information and you are tired of going to the beach expecting sunny skies and warm weather only to find it cold and raining then you no longer trust the weatherman.

"Science" has been hijacked so now we no longer trust science. When we again see science that does not have a political or financial gain in the ultimate determination THEN I might be able to trust science again. But when we have "scientists" come up with "results" that if found out to be "not climate related" would lose their funding is it any surprise they have been proven to hide data that would disprove their "theory"? Their results DETERMINE THEIR INCOME!! THAT is not science. THAT is an agenda. Until we have "science" that looks ONLY at science at the results are not "predetermined" then we no longer have a science that can be trusted.

Where is the logic in mocking those who blindly follow their faith, but the mockers are just as willing to blindly follow science? Science continues to redefine their findings because new information comes out all the time. Isn't the the point of science though, to question everything in the pursuit of more knowledge?

jimP - I think you may be getting the process and the results of science mixed up. What we have faith in is the process of science, which is exactly that repeated testing that you advocate.

jock59801

Actually, no. I said exactly what I meant and I meant exactly what I said. With no false modesty, I would say that I know more about science than most, by far. I've made most decisions based on the scientific method for 4 decades now.

In fact, the article itself accuses liberals of magical thinking:

"Liberals have wanted to believe that if the system were just fair, then everybody would agree with us," he said. "That's a liberal fantasy. Actually, it turns out that liberalism is not the only way of being. ... Liberals should realize that not everybody's like them, and liberals' instincts in politics could be exactly what you don't want to do."

Anyone that thinks the word "fair" is in any way scientific is sadly mistaken. Science doesn't care about "fair". It describes what is. In your case, I will easily agree that you may have faith in the process, but most don't. So-called liberals and so-called conservatives in the mainstream are polar opposites of each other but they both believe what they're told to believe. In other words, consensus about a matter of science among non-scientists is irrelevent, in most cases.

Leaving the political definitions of liberalism and conservatism aside, scientists by their nature would tend to be more conservative thinking because skepticism is part and parcel of the scientific method and skepticism is a trait of classical (not political) conservatism.

Using the implied political definitions of those two words, extremists of either side utilize very little scientific thinking. Want proof? Just look to see how many will admit being wrong, ever. Science requires the ability to admit that one is wrong from time to time.

Yes, I describe myself as conservative but frankly I'm far more socially liberal than the standard platform. My complaint with liberals, in general, is that, just like the article says, they think theirs is the only way.

If they distrust science so much they should just go back to banging the rocks together. No computers, vaccines, automobiles, cell phones etc. ,live like the Amish. The invisible guy in the sky will take care of them and everything else.

and that has become very suspect of late

How so? If you throw out these sort of hyperbolic insinuations, please back them up or leave it out.

The private sector seems to be running with that ball, and I say let it.

Not really, actually. Not for actual research and science. Tourism, maybe, and that is more akin to a rich man's pet-project than actual industrial interest.

We distrust "science" because "science" is no longer unbiased. Our "new" science has political agendas and has been proven to hide or "misidentify data". Once you find that science is no longer unbiased and has been caught in lies then you stop trusting. That is a normal human reaction.

Some scientists lie, and it's science that outs them. There is nothing new about any of that. Science is still unbiased. People aren't.

Who said anything about abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). Of course athiestic evolutionists do not believe that, but many evoltionists are now finding it very hard to ignore design.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
Enough said.

Not really, much more can be said: "Religion gives you Mother Teresa, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Science gives you A bombs and Napalm." So lets give up the sophmoric comparisons, eh, and have a real discussion.

Tod: ", but many evoltionists are now finding it very hard to ignore design."

Nobody ignores design. Obviously organisms are well designed for their environment, and evolution provides a perfectly logical and proven explanation for that.

but many evoltionists are now finding it very hard to ignore design.

Really? Many of them are just moving in droves toward intelligent design? Do you just make things up and hope they stick?

Sure, lots of religious folks rationalize evolution as a process initiated by God because he initiated all of nature, and thus part of his "plan." But I never heard of a trend away from evolution being anything other than a natural process (no divine intervention required) nor any proof showing it is anything more than a natural process.

Or as Jock above said Nobody ignores design. Obviously organisms are well designed for their environment, and evolution provides a perfectly logical and proven explanation for that: 

Who said anything about abiogenesis (spontaneous generation).

Well, you threw up the single cell origin as if it's the only hypothesis regarding early life that fits into evolution theory. It's not. It's possible I misinterpreted you, but you seemed to imply that was "rule #1" when it definitely is not.

Amen pro!!

Schucklack, Your faith has blinded you to the reality of what much of science has become.

Tourism, rich man's project, your sattelite tv, cell phone, car and plane flights. Who cares they have more accountability than the government!!

JimP: " My complaint with liberals, in general, is that, just like the article says, they think theirs is the only way"

Lots of people think that, JimP. I seriously doubt it is more a problem among liberals than conservatives. We are all human.

First off, my "handle" on this site has always been the same, I didn't just make it up for this article.

Secondly, I am an atheist and I know there is no God. If I didn't, I wouldn't be an atheist, I would rather call myself an agnostic, who doubts the existence of God.

I may personally know there is no God, but I cannot PROVE there is no God, no more than I can PROVE there is no Santa Claus. But lawyers "prove" things in court based on reasonable "doubt", so that's the same way I prove it to myself. I don't need the evidence of his or her non-existence, when I have intelligence and common sense to lead the way for me.

I have to jump in to support Chad when he says that all atheists are agnostics.

The lack of belief in a theistic creator is NOT the same as proclaiming "there is no God". It is a LACK OF BELIEF. This is a constant misunderstanding of the actual definiton of atheism. God COULD exist. I don't know. When it comes to the possibility of humans understanding or having knoweledge of "the divine" I am completely agnostic (see dictionary definition). I am also an atheist. A true atheist is also an agnostic by definition. Someone who identifies as an atheist and NOT an agnostic has a poor understanding of the concepts being discussed.

His a-unicornist analogy is perfect.

Of course unicorns MIGHT exist, I just don't spend time contemplating their possible existence or arguing for implausible scenarios where they may exist. That would be ridiculous. The same goes for an supernatural deity of the theistic type.

I have yet to encounter one solid piece of a posteriori evidence that has made me contemplate having such a beliefs. (By this I mean belief in unicorns, santa clause, elves, gnome, God, etc, etc). Why is "God" the special exception??

Just want to say, this is the best discussion I have read in a long, long, LONG time on a news message board. Good work people!

JimP: " My complaint with liberals, in general, is that, just like the article says, they think theirs is the only way"

I could make the same sort of generalization about most conservatives.

Jock, Have you ever studied all of the mechanisms found in just the simplest of cells.

No sane scientist looks at them and thinks "that was well designed for its environment". Its far too complex, and filled with 10's of 1000's of "which came firsts", "whys" and "hows". When the only explanation for something is so obviously design (a single cell is about 100,000 times more complex than a pocket, but no one deny's a pocket watch was designed), an obvious hypothesis is a designer.

Who cares they have more accountability than the government!!

They do? You keep saying that, but how are they more accountable?



No sane scientist looks at them and thinks "that was well designed for its environment. .

Well, actually scientists say just that, because that is the only thing that can be quantified. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation.

Pocket watch I meant

Jock, you know that most people claim that the reason society holds conservative politicians to a higher ethical standard because they claim moral superiority? (They're right to do so, by the way)

Well, part of the liberal platform is a claim to a higher standard of intellectual integrity. Others make no bones that they live a faith-based life but the Left claims a higher standard of logic. They, just like the above example, should be held to a higher standard because they claim a higher standard. This makes it more of a problem among liberals, for the same stated reasons. I'm merely showing folks the flip side of the coin.

Product Schucklack, they produce a product. Bad product, bad idea, no sale. Government just Carter's it: Bad product, bad idea well we just did'nt throw enough money at it.

I am a Science teacher in California, we pay more per student than any state or country for that matter and we're ranked 3rd from last. I know what I'm talking about.

lolfattynerdswhoknew

JimP: " My complaint with liberals, in general, is that, just like the article says, they think theirs is the only way"

I could make the same sort of generalization about most conservatives

You are quite correct. The difference is that they don't claim to be anything else. Liberals make the claim to an open mind.

Oh great, the watchmaker (false) analogy.

Is this your first time in a discussion on this topic with people not of your beliefs, Tod?

Because I can't count the number of times this false analogy has been exposed as a fallacy.

It's a self defeating argument.

Here goes: If complexity requires a designer, then who designed the designer?

Next you say: Well, the designer always existed.

Then I say: Then your argument is defeated, because it's possible that nature always existed.

Then you say: But nature is complex so then it must have a designer.

And we come full circle. Your argument defeats itself straight out the gate.



I am a Science teacher in California, we pay more per student than any state or country for that matter and we're ranked 3rd from last. I know what I'm talking about.

Are you seriously comparing public education to government funded scientific research/exploration? That's not even apples to orange, more like elephants to asparagus.

Product Schucklack, they produce a product. Bad product, bad idea, no sale. Government just Carter's it: Bad product, bad idea well we just did'nt throw enough money at it.

Not all science can be directed to produce a profit. Purity of purpose fails there just as much as it would in the government. Continuing knowledge and further understanding of our world can not be an entirely profit driven enterprise,

You are quite correct. The difference is that they don't claim to be anything else. Liberals make the claim to an open mind.

The problem is conservatives use a completely different definition of "open-minded" than the rest of us. Being open minded means you can accept the possibility that you're wrong as long as there's evidence.

It doesn't mean "accept the possibility that any idea can be correct no matter how absurd it sounds."

This article is terrible. Sure, lets say the all conservatives hate science. Several of my friends have very conservative views and graduated with hardcore science degrees. I don't think they would agree.

Sure, I've encountered conservative that tell me science is a bunch of hogwash... even had one guy say I was going to hell after he overheard my success in a science fair during my youth. But don't lump people into labels.

The country is divided enough as it is and half the country thinks the other half is a bunch of idiots. If we put even a small amount of the energy we use to demonize each other into cooperative progress, think of where we would be.

What idiot "designed" the human appendix? I'm certain it wasn't god because god doesn't exist. I am also certain that all notions of god are the result of wilfull self delusion, which is commonly known as "faith".

Religion and science have been in conflict since the days that the christians burned the library at Alexandria, continuing through the Pope's incarceration of Galileo because he dared to agree with Copernicus that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and goes on today with debate over evolution, stem cell research, and climate change.

The only sensible way to resolve the conflict is to invoke the doctrine of Nonoverlapping Magisteria which was proposed by Stephen Jay Gould. Basically it holds that science should deal with factual matters which are subject to proof and religion may deal matters of faith which are not, and never the twain shall meet. (I'm not sure what Mr. Clemens would think of this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonoverlapping_magisteria

Tod, the first cells were nothing like the complex eukaryotic cells we have today. That took billions of years to evolve.

I am a biologist and I have been studying evolution for 30 years. I know all the arguments. And "gee I don't see how that could have happened" is not a good one.

Tod, the first cells were nothing like the complex eukaryotic cells we have today. That took billions of years to evolve.

What I can't believe is that he actually invoked - so obviously too - the watchmaker analogy. Most Creationists have learned to hide their long debunked nonsense in other sorts of terms (the jumbo-jet tornado for example). I was actually taking him kind of seriously up to that point.

I really hope you didn't fill your student's heads with that logical fallacy.

Lots of jabber going on about "evolution". Something needs to be made clear:

Micro-eveolution (what, Darwin studied, change within a species) is a bonafied, testable theory.

Macro-evelution (Uniformatarianism, change from on species to another with an evoltionary tree all the way back to a single cell) has been an hypothesis since the days of Darwin and continues to be. Yes there are many who are questioning its validity. I won't say they are flocking to design, but they are not on baord with the official dogma any more. (Gould and Behe are 2 of the most prominant)

lolfattynerdswhoknew

The problem is conservatives use a completely different definition of "open-minded" than the rest of us. Being open minded means you can accept the possibility that you're wrong as long as there's evidence.

It doesn't mean "accept the possibility that any idea can be correct no matter how absurd it sounds."

That's a bit overly broad, don't you think? This argument is something I can consider a case-in-point. Most of you here are more interested in spouting your argument long enough, loudly enough, or adamantly enough that someone will agree with you than you are in any kind of discussion or debate. In other words, almost none of you can or will admit the possibility that you could be wrong. That means that you probably are. Science is about asking questions and realizing that every answer only asks more questions.

By the way, being openminded means that a person can accept the possibility of being wrong whether there is evidence or not. A person can be wrong with absolutely no contrary evidence whatsoever.

Lots of jabber going on about "evolution". Something needs to be made clear:

Tod - You cannot have one without the other.

The only difference between the two is time. Micro occurs in the short term, and Macro is the culmination of all the Micro over the long term.

Also "(Uniformatarianism, change from on species to another with an evoltionary tree all the way back to a single cell)" is NOT the definition for Macroevolution. What you just did is called a "strawman argument".

You said you teach science?

So let met get thsi straight Shuck: your circular argument is better than my circular argument.

Im sorry Jock, but in all of your 30 years of supposed micro-biology, how many billion year old cells have you studied the way we study today's cells?

And by the way guys, like Behe and many others I am not here argueing for an almighty God (though, yes I do believe). I am simply stating that supposed science on the subject of origins (macro-evolution in particular) is coming up against some pretty serious obsticles.

So let met get thsi straight Shuck: your circular argument is better than my circular argument.

Please explain, how is it circular? If you are saying complexity NEEDS a designer, then the designer (being complex) NEEDS a designer as well. If you say that the designer does not need a designer, then that automatically defeats your argument that complexity NEEDS a designer. It negates your argument of necessity.

What macro evolution is, it is the culmination of micro evolution over a period of time..... LOOK IT UP on something other than the Discovery Institute's website. Get the facts, not the propaganda.

There is a short youtube video you can watch called "Evolution for IDiots" which explains Micro and Macro evolution quite well using a visual example. There are many other videos which explain it in very simple logical straight-forward terms. No jibber jabber about it. It just shows you the difference and what it means. You don't seem to know what it means, being a science teacher and all, I find that appaling.

Schuck

"Tod - You cannot have one without the other.

The only difference between the two is time. Micro occurs in the short term, and Macro is the culmination of all the Micro over the long term."

Well Schuck, My father used to have a saying "your ignorance is showing son"

do some research, because the your comments could'nt be farther form the truth!!

her'es the bottom line: When I look at a cell or a sysyem or any organism I see design, and I think designer.

You look at the same thing I look at the same design I look at and you think random chance. (not sure wwhy you felt it neccessary to go into a ridiculous circular diatribe about the universe). Which of us is more logical?

Concerning science, government and the private sector (which was the relevant anology I illustrated with California schools) you trust government, I trust the private sector.

I think I am on more stable ground.

I am well aware of what the prevailing dogma is on Macro vs. Micro. If you read my post on the two I clearly stated that one is a bonafide theory and the other is hypothesis, meaning the evidence is Not there for the one becoming the other (that is the exact arena that Evolutionary scientists are begining to struggle with in the real world, not on the Discovery channel) .

As far as the cute little A and B philosophy blather about the universe. I'm really not interested in playing. As I said before I see designer and you see random chance, both arguments end up with philosophical difficulties on the origin of the universe (which is and entirely different subject)

Tod: " meaning the evidence is Not there for the one becoming the other"

Um, yes it is. Scientists are indeed studying this closely, and hitting it out of the ballpark.

" As I said before I see designer and you see random chance"

Bullcrap. Evolution has nothing to do with random chance. If you don't understand the science, then maybe you shouldn't be so sure of yourself?

Tod, humans have a tail bone.

Please take no offense, but Tod. You're exactly what this article is talking about. Someone who doesn't understand the very science they debate, but speaks as though they do.

It's completely understandable if you don't understand the intricacies of the full range of evidence for the complete Scientific Theory of Evolution, but to attack and ridicule that which you don't understand is the essence of the problem.

Can I also just say that MSNBC really needs to stop collapsing posts. I understand that it needs to be done if people are posting inflammatory or hateful rhetoric, and the community should take action if that's the case, but man. Comments are being collapsed more and more these days for points that people simply don't agree with, and not because they are hateful or off topic, and that's simply not right. This entire conversation has been collapsed (and it contains several poignant conversations and dialogue) ... all because someone simply didn't agree with the first comment?

"Um, yes it is. Scientists are indeed studying this closely, and hitting it out of the ballpark"

One of the premier evolutionary scientists our day (Stephen Gould) has been forced by lack of evidence, to come up with an entirely new hypothesis ("puncuated equilibrium") whose entire premise is based on the fact that we have no transitional fossils (which is called evidence, the evidence that Darwin clearly stated, "has to be found" or his hypothesis is worthless, remember his finches micro-evolved, due to changing environmental conditions, and guess what? They changed back when conditions changed). To just say that if just given time they will macro-evolve into an entirely new species is a huge leap unles uou have EVIDENCE.

Gentlemen, get out of your outdated text books, and over what your goofy college science professors told you, and look into all aspects of the field. There are major issues with the evidence needed to make the leap from hypothesis theory when it comes to macro-evolution. Micro is a testable, observable science. those of you who can't see the difference between the two, or somehow believe that just because macro seems a logical next step from micro don't understand how science works. You have to have evidence, if you don't, just saying it makes logical sense does'nt cut it, thats called theory. Show me some indisputeable (please don't pretend Aercheoptrix is indisputeable, or blather on about tailbones and appendix)"

"It's completely understandable if you don't understand the intricacies of the full range of evidence for the complete Scientific Theory of Evolution, but to attack and ridicule that which you don't understand is the essence of the problem."

Chad,

I have a degree in Earth Science and masters in Environmental Science, but hey please do explain to me the "intricacies" I am so foolishly missing, and who exactly am I attacking?

You have to have evidence, if you don't, just saying it makes logical sense does'nt cut it, thats called theory.

The fact you don't understand the difference between "just a theory" and a Scientific Theory can only leave me scratching my head. And you're a scientist?

"Evidence"?

My god ... I can think of few scientific principles that have more evidence to back up its claims than evolution. It's really quite dumbfounding that it is even a "controversy".

But only in the states ... in reality. This article shouldn't be why Republicans are so afraid of science ... but Americans.

"The fact you don't understand the difference between "just a theory" and a Scientific Theory can only leave me scratching my head. And you're a scientist?"

Seriously Chad, now you're just being a jerk. What in all that I wrote would leave you to believe that I don't know what a scientific theory is? Observable,tested positive evidence, and pier reviewed makes a Theory. without those criteria you are dealing with an hypothesis. You seem to be trying awfully hard to convince yourself that you have it all figured out and that I am a small minded imbicscile. Get over your self, and have a civil conversation.

"My god ... I can think of few scientific principles that have more evidence to back up its claims than evolution. It's really quite dumbfounding that it is even a "controversy".

But only in the states ... in reality. This article shouldn't be why Republicans are so afraid of science ... but Americans."

Still waiting for all that evidence, do share captain of all wisdom and truth. Give me just on transitional fossil, just one!

Concerning my views on why conservatives are leary of science, read back to the beginning of my posts, or not. But don't pretend you have any clue about what I know or do not know, because you are really not reading my posts through any kind of rational lense.

Tod, couple of things:

1.) I'm simply using your words.

You said: "You have to have evidence, if you don't, just saying it makes logical sense does'nt cut it, thats called theory."

Usually, it's only people who don't understand what constitutes a Scientific Theory that throw the term around like it's merely a "best guess" ... or just a hypothesis. So, if that's not the camp you reside in, don't use the term like that. And don't get mad at me for calling you out when you do.

2.) You seem to be obsessed with transitional fossils ... here's where I can see you don't know what you're talking about. As far as "evidence", the most beautiful and most complete evidence for evolution (and our relation to our fellow creatures) actually comes through the molecular/genetic level. Fossils have nothing to do with it ... you could destroy every fossil we have and we would still have ample evidence to support evolution. As far as "giving you evidence" ... what is this, a classroom? this is a news thread bud, do some research if you're interested.

But since you asked, here's an exercise:

Without evolution, please explain to me the pelvic structures in whales. All tetrapods (including whales) have pelvic bones. In most animals the pelvic bones are needed in order to move the lower or rear set of limbs for the purpose of locomotion. In whales, these limbs don't exist, although vestiges of these limbs still remain (please explain them as well).

Despite this lack or need for them, whales still have pelvic bones. The question is, why would a whale, which basically lacks lower limbs and doesn't need pelvic bones to move, have pelvic bones that are homologous to creatures that do need pelvic bones to move? Similar homologies exist for snakes and legless lizards.

I'm not sure if this argument is still going on, but i feel like saying a few things about evolution.

First I would like to state that there is no hard distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The difference is dependent on the definition of species, which was never properly defined.

Second, there are plenty of transitional fossils (technically all fossils, all species, are transitional). We have identified at least 5 unique extinct hominid population with many fossils of each population in storage. We have discovered 7 transitional species detailing the creation of tetrapods from fish. There are 6 transitional species detailing the rise of birds from dinosaurs. There are 8 transitional species detailing the rise of cetaceans from land mammals... There are plenty of transitional fossils. (transitionalfossils.com is the site I pulled my information from)

Third, Evolution has been confirmed by the observation of positive mutations in experimental populations.

Evolution is a fact. Turns out, the sun is the closest thing to the center of the solar-system too. Deal with it people.

Punctuated equilibrium is a very interesting theory that I think works mathematically. However, punctuated equilibrium is just another theory to explain the fact of Evolution and is not necessarily correct. It is not ID or creationism. ID and creationism are just silly.

LOL @ Tod-2791955. You really thought you could pull it off in here? Really?

Gadzooks,

I'm talking in a bubble.

Gentlemen, the difference between us is this:

I have spent time studying both camps (and to be honest most who are writing and questioning Macro-evolution are not I.D. guys). You have obviously only spent time (multiple college proffesor diatribes I'm gusessing) in the uniformatarian bubble.

Get out of your bubble, and look at the big picture.

And Chad, seriously some of the greatest difficulties with Macro-definition are coming from our advancements in microbiology (Behe comes to mind). Read up!!

Greg, are you really going to pretend that MSNBC viewers have unquestionable intelligence. Any other bubble boys want to chime in. Come on, all you really have to do is pretend like you have all the answers, without giving any evidence.

I'm talking in a bubble.

Yes, you are, but admitting that is half the battle, so at least you're on the right track.

Behe?

Wait ... are you serious?

So, your argument is that there's a gaining majority within the scientific community arguing against evolution ... and the main example you find is one of the most prominent creationists out there?

Hmm, okay. Must make sense in that bubble of yours.

Not unquestionable, just seen your kind talking up the same comments about ID. Please you insult my intelligence.

Micheal Behe is not a "creationist", he has become a, I.D. guy (there is a difference, and he became so after writing "Darwin's Black Box"). He is simply questioning so called "established science" and doing it very effectively from a bio-molecular standpoint (google a name or concept and you think you know everthing there is to know huh?). Gould is'nt either, and he would be in your face if ever accused of such. He has simply stated the facts: there are no transitional fossils (his field). And due to his findings, he came up with a brand new field of study based on lack of evidence ("puncuated equilibria", known to some as "the hopeful monster theory")

Chad you don't seem to know the difference between Micro and macro-evolution, Hypothesis and theory (yes I'm talking about the scientific kind), I.D. and creationism and the broad scope of problems facing the multiple fields of evolution.

Lots of different bubbles to read up on, and lots of varying viewpoints represented within each bubble. If you believe that all Macro-evolutionary scientists are in perfect harmony over the ins and outs, the hows and whys, the when's and from where's, you are NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!

Greg, I have'nt so far read that you have any to insult, so again, please do share your unfathomable wisdom, and please try to go beyond a dopey google search.

Tod,

I'm well aware of all the established talking points and circular reasoning behind I.D. claims ... but make no mistake about it. There is no distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design. None. And to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest to not only you, but everyone on this thread.

There's a huge difference between questioning established science (which is the basis of all good science) vs injecting false claims and pseudo scientific principles. Who here has ever said anything about full consensus within the scientific community about anything? Now you're just injecting strawman arguments ... and you know it.

Saying that "evolutionary scientists are not in perfect harmony over the ins and outs, the hows and whys, the when's and from where's, you are NOT PAYING ATTENTION" is completely misleading the point. And dare I say again, you know this.

You're telling me to read up on opposing points of view? The ironic thing here (me being an atheist and all) is that I can actually point to a Christian who would tell you the exact same thing as I. Francis Collins would look at your arguments and simply shake his head. This is a deeply religious man who takes his convictions very seriously, but he would lay waste to your entire summation .... and he's on your side.

I should also point out that Behe is Catholic. Don't you find it odd that ALL evolution opponents carry religious affiliations?

All of them.

Doesn't that give you the slightest bit of pause? How come secular or unbiased scientists never come out and say: "you know what guys ... this macro evolution stuff just doesn't hold up." How come, when individuals solely follow where the evidence takes them without letting preconceived notions of truth get in the way, they always end up in relatively the same spot? How come, even deeply religious Christian scientists (like Collins) who are able to parcel and separate their faith from where the evidence takes them, still end up in relatively the same spot?

Is this not odd to you at all?

Let's take it a step further. How come the I.D. proponents in other countries have a completely different "designer" in mind when they tout their "evidence" in full view of the public?

Isn't that odd? For some reason ... unbiased scientists who put the science and evidence first (regardless of what country they reside) all come to similar conclusions within said evidence. However, those scientists that can't seem to get beyond ancient myth and superstition, all seem to gravitate towards Intelligent Design. Yet, their "designer" carries different levels and caveats of evidence to support their conclusions?

If anything, this is more of a social study into just how deep the cancer of faith can reside within certain individuals. Some never get over it. Some (like Collins) are able to fragment it so it doesn't fog the evidence. And others simply follow the unbiased evidence to its logical conclusion.

Sorry for the rant, but it sometimes just amazes me how far incredibly bright individuals (such as yourself) can take this stuff. We haven't even gotten into Unintelligent design yet (the things not only found within our biological makeup, but the universe itself, that completely fly in the face of a "designer") but that's for another time I suppose.

Thank you Chad, finally got your agenda out there I see. Everything you just wrote hinges on this pre-supposition, does it not?

Doesn't that give you the slightest bit of pause? How come secular or unbiased scientists never come out and say: "you know what guys ... this macro evolution stuff just doesn't hold up."

"Secular and unbiased" are now equal, and according to you have the only "intelectual" viewpoint. You are argueing for your "faith". I have been arguing from the very definition of science. I have not proposed any religion,
"myth or superstition", only an honest look at the evidence.

Unintelligent design huh? How does that fit in with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Creationists tend to be young universe and young life catostrophists. I.D. guys have no where near the dogmatic beliefs that Creationsts like Morris and Gish do.

I will give you a website (yes it is a "creationist" website, and although these 12 quotes have been validated, they've put together over a 100 more. A small handfull of which have been scrutinized as out of context) That being said, they ARE very revealing quotes from many ofyour supposed "secular and unbiased" intelligencia. I'm not a "creartionist" per say, but I am not going to throw out all their ideas just because they don't fit my philosophy. I am not afraid of any truth they reveal, nor am I afraid of any truth an I.D or secular humanist might reveal.

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

You however, seem to be completely ruled by your philosophy. who cares what a scientists faith is" Do they properly apply the scientific method to their filed of study?

Thank you Chad, finally got your agenda out there I see.

"Finally"?

You'd do well to scroll to the top, I've never concealed nor denied my position on religious faith. If anything, I'd say I was quite clear and blunt long before you and I engaged in discussion.

"Secular and unbiased" are now equal?

You're going to have to do much better than that if we are to keep this conversation rolling. "And," is simply a grammatical conjunction and in no way implies that two articles are overlapping. I in no way shape or form said "secularism" equates to "unbiased".

Unintelligent design huh? How does that fit in with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

As Shulack pointed out earlier with your "watchmaker" analogy, you really need to update your I.D. rhetoric. 2nd law of thermodynamics ... really?

I will give you a website (yes it is a "creationist" website)

{facepalm}

Really?

So, as a atheist, I'm perfectly content on offering varying perspectives (insert Francis Collins here), yet you can't even find it in your ability to look beyond your bubble of creationist websites? And I'm the one with an "agenda" here?

Below is from Collin's BioLogos Foundation. These are your fellow Christians explaining to you how unintelligible your "gotcha question" on Thermodynamics is:

A common argument against evolution is that the theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics that claims disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. This law has plenty of everyday examples. Buildings break down over time, and food spoils if not eaten soon enough. In both cases, the amount of disorder increases with time, but the opposite is never true. Buildings don’t strengthen themselves, and no amount of waiting will cause rotten food to become edible again. But because evolution results in an increase in the order and complexity of species — which is a decrease in entropy — some critics claim evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Defining the System

However, this objection is grounded in a misunderstanding of the second law, which states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing.

With biological evolution however, the system being considered is not the universe, but the Earth. And the Earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input — most notably the light of the sun. Therefore, energy input from the sun could give rise to the increase in order on Earth including complex molecules and organisms. At the same time, the sun becomes increasingly disordered as it emits energy to the Earth. Even though order may be increasing on Earth, the total order of the solar system and universe is still decreasing, and the second law is not violated.

Misapplication of The Second Law

To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.

A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems. In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible. A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form. However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.

There are many examples of order arising from disorder in nature. Research conducted by Ilya Prigogine¹and others on systems far from equilibrium has shown that order can spontaneously arise in systems that are driven in the right way. It turns out that living systems are characterized as being far from equilibrium.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also has interesting implications for cosmology, as it requires that universe began in a highly ordered state.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics also has interesting implications for cosmology, as it requires that universe began in a highly ordered state"

Agreed!!

"Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler"

And yet somehow we have life/order (highly complex life no matter how far back you go) which, unless you subscribe to the idea that E.T. seeded the planet, came from non-life/dis-order. While you're at it you may want to ask yourself: why are some serious intillects actually proposing E.T.'s contribution? Answer: they recognise a seriuos lack of evidence or viable mechanism for complexity.

Yes I offered up a Creation website. The only writings there are compiled quotes from Secular humanist evolutionists. So what?

and finally:

"Even though order may be increasing on Earth"

The only way the sun/energy ever increases order on earth is if there is life already there for it influence!

p.s.

Anyone who has watched as their child has developed in the womb, would never apply the 2nd law to existing life. The issue is; how did it get here, and once here, are there mechanisms (designed or random) that explain what is becoming increasingly mathematically unbelievable complexity?

Postulating a master-race of aliens that seeded the Earth with life doesn't further the explanation at all. Just like god or an intelligent designer, it's an infinite regression and only adds more questions than it answers.

If anything, the alien hypothesis only highlights how illogical the supreme "designer" hypothesis is .... who the hell designed the designer (or in this case, alien)?

Shuklack has pointed out your logical fallacy on multiple occasions, but you seem content on ignoring him:

If you are saying complexity NEEDS a designer, then the designer (being complex) NEEDS a designer as well. If you say that the designer does not need a designer, then that automatically defeats your argument that complexity NEEDS a designer. It negates your argument of necessity.

If you can't explain the above circular reasoning ... your summation has failed. It simply fails. There's a reason why I.D. is not considered science my friend ... the premise only begs the question while answering not a thing.

My E.T. comments were to highlite how intelligent men ignore evidence of design and kick the can down the road. Of course its absurd.

My point to Schucklac was that both sides have philosophical/logical and physical issues when you go back to the origins of the universe (literal 6 day creationists especially). The answer for those in the I.D. camp is simple; God is infinite, omniscient, and has been ever-present (end of circle!). Faith is involved in both. because both require an unknown mechanism for beginnings I'll follow the evidence whereever it leads, and right now that evidence leads to a designer.

You are an atheist secular humanist. As such, if you even consider that there might be a higher power, you assume He is like you; restrained by the physical laws of the universe. The Bible, at least, declares that to be a completely false attribute of God. You need to explain the insurmountable problems with origins, not me.

The answer for those in the I.D. camp is simple; God is infinite, omniscient, and has been ever-present (end of circle!).

Okay, but why then, do you try and claim I.D. as a "scientific" position. You're admitting that a godlike figure (who we would consider a first-cause creator) is infinite and ever-present. Therefore, beyond the natural realm of science. But, you keep arguing from a position of science ... which is it?

If god is unnatural, untestable, and therefore "untouchable" by science, I find it a little intellectually dishonest (on your part) to then submit "scientific" evidence of complexity to try and pad your unscientific concept of god.

You're focusing much too much on my propensity towards atheism. Remember, I'm an "atheist" in regards to religion ... not "god". If someone could point me in the direction of evidence for god, I would happily follow. Who wouldn't want access to that information?

But, there simply is none. And if there was ... well, which one? Yours? Why yours? Why not the thousands of other gods who long predate your Christianity?

Complexity?

Well, we've been down this road before. Pulling the: "Well, god is eternal and beyond our comprehension" card is a copout ... and it certainly isn't scientific. If your view of god is -- to simply say there are things we can't yet explain, therefore god must have did it -- well that's an incredibly small and narrow view of god if you ask me. You would have fit in perfectly well a few generations ago when we didn't understand weather, or germs, or ... well ... anything.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, "If that's how you wanna invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance, thats getting smaller, smaller and smaller as time goes moves on, and as we learn more things."

Chad,

I have my faith, and certain aspects of it I do not invoke science to believe (which, if you had actually read up on the many problems with every field of science that delves into evolution, you would see they also excercise considerable faith) If science ever disproves my faith, then I will re-assess. But as I have mentioned before, I came at this issue from a secular viewpoint. The evidence pointed me away from macro-evolutionary secularism.

The difference; I will keep my mind open and chose not to insult the intelligence of those who don't "believe" as I do.

I extensively read both sides before I had any faith. Intellectually I am in the I.D. camp, that quest opened other spiritual/intellectual/philosophical pursuits. You seem to believe they are mutually exclusive, believe on, but might I suggest you do so without pretending you are not subjectively doing so from inside your bubble.

If someone could point me in the direction of evidence for god, I would happily follow. Who wouldn't want access to that information?

"Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by McDowell would be a good start. I found that a supposed God who knows that end from the beginning, should be able to tell what the future holds (and should never be wrong). The predicted existence and future of the nation of Isreal, for one, has impossible odds as do 1000's of clearly written future predictions.

Tod,

This will be my last post. Its been stimulating, but I think we've both taken the discussion to its logical conclusion.

I understand that you have faith. I wish you would have focused a little less on my atheism and used that as a screen to judge my personal bias. I can assure you, the fact that I am without deity really plays an insignificant role in this conversation.

The point I was making all along is that yes, you support I.D.. You've seen all the evidence to the contrary, and at the end of the day, the illusion of design and the vastness of complexity is much too great for you to ignore. I can completely understand and respect that.

The problem I have, is that the "I.D." movement (in America), is nothing more than a Christian ideological branch of creationism. Maybe if you guys had a few deists, or even a theological-specific atheist in your camp ... one that said look guys: "We're not coming at this problem from any predisposed angle of truth or revelation", maybe then I could be sympathetic to your cause. Couldn't you find one single deist with no personal dog in the hunt that can support I.D.? There are none.

And the bigger problem, much like religion, is that the entire I.D. movement is predicated upon the cultural inheritance of it's proponents.

I.D. "scientists" in Iran, for example will pull out all the same "evidence" ... yet they are coming at it from a completely different designer than you are. There's a problem here ... science isn't a cultural phenomenon. At least it shouldn't be. Science should follow evidence to its logical conclusion. Science should not be swayed in one direction over another by people's personal biases dependent on inherited cultural influencers, like faith.

Again, I don't understand the controversy? Is the ENTIRE scientific community in some big conspiracy to deny a "designer"? And why? Why on earth, if that's where the evidence pointed, would the scientific community not gravitate towards that evidence? And why is it that the ONLY foundational sciences that are systematically rallied against, are ones that challenge people's personal beliefs on inerrant truths?

At any rate Tod, as I said, its been fun. I appreciate you taking the time to engage.

Chad, a careful study of worldwide origins stories/history amazingly points to a resounding theme: 1 man 1 woman, big mistake, time resulting in a large population which is destroyed by flood where a man, his family and the animal kingdom were spared on a large boat, and re-populated the planet. My point, when it comes to origins, religous philosophies don't differ as much as you might think.

The problem I have, is that the "I.D." movement (in America), is nothing more than a Christian ideological branch of creationism. Maybe if you guys had a few deists, or even a theological-specific atheist in your camp ... one that said look guys: "We're not coming at this problem from any predisposed angle of truth or revelation", maybe then I could be sympathetic to your cause. Couldn't you find one single deist with no personal dog in the hunt that can support I.D.? There are none.

Chad, you are not reading up. Many of the guys I've read are not Christian, or believers in any God for that matter (you're mixing I.D. and Creationists again) They are simply different than many of their counterparts (Gould, Panspermia nuts and others) who find the move to, design coming from a designer, an anethema. They simply are allowing their minds to go with the evidence, even if it is a designer. David Berlinski is argueably one of the most prominent I.D. guys, yet he is clearly not promoting any religion or God.

Its been fun.

The last time I fully delved back into this issue (re-researched new material) was about 4 years ago. Perhaps it is time for me look back into the latest findings from both camps.

What a nut

"everything (their) way." Just a stupid liberal here fixing your poorly educated error.

It's not a coincidence that Silicon Valley and other engines of creation are also the most liberal places on earth.

Things WOULD be better if more people could be that productive.

Actually, it is.

California is very socially conservative, tho it is liberal politically. You forget when the whole state banned gay marriage. Why? Because it's largely hispanic Catholics.............

A dream world? You mean like the bozos on stage running for president who don't believe in evolution and think the Grand Canyon was created 6,000 years ago depite mountains of geological evidence to the contary?

You mean THAT kind of dream world?

Am I confused or is "Silicon Valley" a small subset of the State of California. (If correct wouldn't that negate any statements about California as a whole being applicable to the example?)

Nice talking points. You are exacty what this article is about, never backing up your rants with facts and plenty of name calling that the uneducated can relate to.