Are we what we Google?

This is rich--coming from the head of one of the most insular, and out-of-touch organizations in the world.

If it was not so sad, it would be hysterical.

The Catholic Church still regrets that technology destroyed their monopoly on interpreting scripture, through the printing press.

It's true that as communications technology becomes more sophisticated, it become easier to become enrapt in fantasy worlds. But the best alternative sure isn't in the fantasy worlds the Catholic (or any other) Church creates. It's in learning real things and developing real relationships.

The online world allows people to present whatever version of themselves they want. The person that you used to hang out with or grew up with, is often not the person you see in Facebook.

People also seem to write whatever they want online with little or no restraint. Protected by anonymity or lack of consequences, they can be cruel and rude. It's important for parents to encourage their kids to develop socially in "real life" and not let their online experiences define them as a person.

The politicized Roman Catholic Church even has its own country and stupidly, the US government even pays an man to be our "Ambassador to the Vatican.

The RCC is like the Republican Party in the USA and the ultra-conservative right-wing scripture proof-texting Bible thumpers who called themselves by the pagan created epithet "Christian."

Jesus' followers self-identified as "Believers." They didn't use the word "Christian" at all. You won't find "Christianity" in the Bible but you will find that Jesus' followers called their church "The Way." Even the former Rabbi Saul whose name was changed to Paul called it "The Way."

This from a Church that once executed scientists and held the famed Galileo under house arrest.

Yes, much better to go back to the days before technology when it was easier to hide child abuse by the clergy, and those who disagreed with Church policy were simply labeled "heretics" and exiled, or worse.

We're invited to post a web forum comment on the Pope's observation that life on line is a cause of anomie ...

You can tell the Pontiff has a sense of humor just by looking at the way he dresses, yo.

So back on topic - I follow Jesus on Twitter. @jesus .... I'm not sure it's the same guy, but it seems like him. Recent tweet:

"I've been on Twitter since 01-01-0000. My first 5 followers were Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Philip."

He does have 221,000 followers and he don't follow nobody ... so yeah, it could be him. I mean, I'm skeptical, but I gather he's cool with that. I mean, blessed are those who have not seen etc., but ...

Thank you for the daily bread, Lord, I am truly diggin on it.

Friedrich Nietzsche would have a mobile phone with Android Operating System on, because of St Andreas.

The internet is almost certainly having an impact on the established Roman Catholic church hierarchy, just as it is tending to shake every other insular command-and-control organization to its core. Short-circuiting the chain of command is not at all a bad thing in most cases, though solitude and disorientation are surely part of the inevitable, if temporary, downside. And it's not just "young people" who suffer through the disorientation. The pope, among others, needs to take a look around.

Science is religion's greatest enemy, and always was. Religion has one interpretation of existence and creation, science has another. Never the twain shall meet.

Religion is all about superstition and science is all about fact. Fact will eventually push religion on to the sidelines of culture, and the pope is trying desperately to avoid this outcome; but it is inevitable. Truth will out.

The Pope, who is insulated in his own little bubble at the Vatican,
dares to comment on things like marriage and the internet.

He is not married and does not have any first hand experience with the problems of marriage.

He must be afraid that communication on the internet will give people a more balanced idea of the world. He wants to be the most important source of information on how to live life.
He is not.

This is rich coming from this bloviator with a very high opinion of himself and his organization. Why does he not join the Amish of Pennsylvania? This moron thinks cellphones are bad for the soul? What the hell is a soul? How is the cellphone bad for the soul when ordinary phone is not? I wonder how un-ubiquitous the cell phones in his organizations. Before these idiots bloviate about things they have no knowledge of, it would help the situation in their feifdoms. I wonder how many Catholics will be giving up their phones, given that their chief bloviator has spoken. I would like to hear their thoughts on their chief bloviator's pearls of wisdom.

I agree that you can't just have relationships through technology. There are advantages (like finding people with similar interests or finding old friends) and disadvantages (fewer dimensions of interaction than communicating in person, shutting out the people around you). I disagree with the other comments about the Catholic Church's failings making the Pope's comments irrelevant.

This is rich coming from this bloviator with a very high opinion of himself and his organization. Why does he not join the Amish of Pennsylvania? This moron thinks cellphones are bad for the soul? What the hell is a soul? How is the cellphone bad for the soul when ordinary phone is not? I wonder how un-ubiquitous the cell phones in his organizations. Before these idiots bloviate about things they have no knowledge of, it would help the situation in their feifdoms. I wonder how many Catholics will be giving up their phones, given that their chief bloviator has spoken. I would like to hear their thoughts on their chief bloviator's pearls of wisdom.

Yonkers, New York
15 November 2010

Pope Benedict XVI sounds as if like King Canute of old who stupidly commanded the waves to stop, he has the power to stop Technology dead in its tracks.

Perhaps this Pope would prefer young people these days to spend more of their time obeying what Religion teaches, and, in particulr, commit their minds and hearts to learning what the Catholic Catechnism teaches, including that unnatural article on "Masturbation" which the youth must surely find hilarious.

Pope Benedict XVI is fighting a losing battle. The melancholy requiem bells have for decades been tolling for Catholicism in the "advanced" and wealthy secular countries of Europe where people have had the benefit of a good secular Education, emptying churches of their flocks.

Only recently he went on a 4-day visit to the U.K. for the [covert] purpose of getting the Anglican Church to return to the fold of the Catholic Church. The British people, 83 percent now "non-believers," or secular, are not buying. Long ago, Henry VIII severed relations with the Vatican and established the Anglican Church. That rupture is complete.

Then this Pope visited Spain which, likewise, is now a Secular state. Spain was once one of two bastions of Catholicsm; but the Spanish people had to launch a successful Civil War back in the Thirties to put an end to the Catholic Church as the major obstacle to their country engineering an escape from centuries-old Poverty. Spain has since joined the ranks of the First World.

Technology is the wave of the future.

Religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, are anachronistic remnants of millennias past when Homo sapiens was overcome by fear of Natural Phenomena and sought temporary comfort, solace and security in Religion.

Reason has since trumped faith in many parts of our World. There is no turning back.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Anything can be bad for the soul, including religion.

I’m responding to this question on a gadget, my laptop. Is that bringing “us” together or farther apart? If I see a strikingly good answer, I may post it on Facebook to my network of both friends and (FB) “friends,” and they overlap with each other. Any one of them might take both the question and that strikingly good answer into a face-to-face conversation that then goes deeper than the usual conversational ritual – into meaningful dialogue. Or not.

In other words, it all depends. The answer is both “yes” and “no.” I have met, counseled and officiated at the weddings of more than one couple who found each other via a gadget, and they now are married and still head over heels. I have met and counseled more than one couple who now are divorced over some other kind of information found on their gadget.

Is the pope disseminating his caution through the technology he is talking about? Is that bad or good for the soul? Is his caution paralleled by an equal encouragement, that technology can also be good for the soul?

The pope (apparently) talked merely about “technology.” The added question talks about “our gadget-crazed world.” I think I know where the added question comes from – thumbs furiously working the miniature qwerty-pad on Blackberries or iPhones during meetings around a table, or at the family dinner table, or in the church pew or synagogue chair during worship. But there is an assumption in the added question.

Is our world really “gadget-crazed?” What data would actually make the case that our world has reached a level of use it can be called "gadget-crazed?" When people first learned how to use a quill or stylus and began writing on paper or papyrus, a new technology at one time, was there a flurry of it? As this new technology called “writing” spread, as more and more people took up quill and stylus, did anyone caution that it could be bad for the soul, or assert that too many people were becoming quill-crazed. Probably someone did. Did all this new technology – writing – bring people closer together or farther apart?

It all depends.

So let me just offer one encouragement about the new technologies, and even the gadgets, though pope I am not. My encouragement comes from one of the pope’s brothers of the cloth, long silenced by popes before Benedict XVI, but eventually granted permission to have his voice heard – at least his written voice.

Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in “The Phenomenon of Man” and other writings, attempted to see where the trajectory of evolution might be taking the world. As part of his poetic-scientific-prophetic vision, he saw evolving what he called the “noosphere” (a term he coined from the classical Greek word “nous,” meaning “mind”). Teilhard saw evolving a kind of “film” or “sphere” of consciousness, gradually spreading around

People, people....pay attention and focus please.

Let's repeat the question:

Does he have a point?, why or why not?

He must be into something, all this technology makes us have the attention span of a mosquito.......

Just my two cents.

I disagree with the other comments about the Catholic Church's failings making the Pope's comments irrelevant.

How is Mr. Ratzinger qualified to comment on this subject? Given that the RCC failings are partly because of lack of their qualifications in those failings, as well. SO it is quite relevant for people to conclude that the failings are a indicator that the RCC is not qualified to put its 2cents on this topic.

Herr Razinger would better spend his time fixing the "sense of solitude and disorientation" caused by the pervert priests he still hides from civil prosecution.

Tyrants hate any mode of communication available to their peasants to rise up against them. Ratzinger is no exception.

"I disagree with the other comments about the Catholic Church's failings making the Pope's comments irrelevant."
____________________________________

Why do you disagree? What is your opinion of the source?

Its really quite amazing how the voters in the poll agree 3 to 1 with the Pontiff but most of those commenting have only negative things to say about him and the Roman Catholic Church.

So, the new generation believes everything it sees online? How is this different from generations who believed everything they saw on TV, heard on the radio, or read in a newspaper or the Bible?

Posted by: Rongoklunk

"Science is religion's greatest enemy, and always was. Religion has one interpretation of existence and creation, science has another. Never the twain shall meet."

"Religion is all about superstition and science is all about fact. Fact will eventually push religion on to the sidelines of culture, and the pope is trying desperately to avoid this outcome; but it is inevitable. Truth will out."

--------------

No, no, no. You may be the enemy of religion, but religion is not the enemy of science. At least, Christianity is not the enemy of science.

Religion is all about values, morals, and the Golden Rule.

Religion runamok can be a very harmful thing, such as Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a religion that is intolerant of all other religions. It is so intolerant that its True Believers will not permit anyone to say it is a religion.

Science has nothing to do with religion.

Does the pontiff have a point? Do our online worlds make it harder to distinguish between reality and virtual reality? Is there something "unreal" about being human online?

Yes, the Chinese government has figured this out, and blocks their citizens from reading online content that would be harmful to their values.

There is no soul. Nothing can be bad for a nonexistent fantasy. The Church is always going to be against anything more interesting than itself. This is no different from the church railing on movies, radio, novels, or translations of the Bible into a language people actually speak. The Pope has no interest in anyone knowing anything except for him, and his priests, and no interest in people doing anything but going to church. We should not take his advice on entertainment.

Is technology bad for human psychological health? Maybe it can get to be too much sometimes, but those mobile computer phones let us discard maps, phone books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and Bibles, and let us have a ton of information at our fingertips. We just have to remember to keep looking up from them to see if real people would like to talk to us too.

"Evolutionism...is so intolerant that its True Believers will not permit anyone to say it is a religion."

Evolutionism is so intolerant that its True Believers will not permit anyone to say it is a light, flaky croissant smothered in mouth-watering brie! =p~ (heading to the grocery store!)

You know the advertising industry and all the technology companies pay to send positive messages about new trendy gadgets. But who speaks for the technologically backward and the economically disenfranchised?

The Amish buggy looks like a damn Christmas Card.

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg

Honestly my dear, I don't give a damn at what the RCC Pope ever says.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dime at what the RCC Pope says.

I was visiting my friend who lives in a high rise apartment building. After parking my car and going up to his apartment, I realized that I had left something in my car that I wanted, so I went back down to get it. When I got down to my car, I realized that I didn't have my car keys with me, and that I must have taken them out of my pocket in the apartment and laid them down somewhere. I took out my cell-phone and called my friend, in his apartment on an upper floor, and I asked if he could look for my keys; he looked for them and found them; then he said, "what if I click on the unlock button? do you think it might unlock the car from way up here?" So that is what he did.

I was amazed. This was an ad hoc use of modern technoloby, in a way never planned for, or intended, of the cell phone, and the remote car key, that saved me all trouble of going way back upstairs to get the keys and then coming back down again to unlock the car.

The Pope lives a pampered life, and I am sure, never has any occaision to see the great and wonderful benefit of modern technology. But, if you're not the Pope, it is kind of obvious.

Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a religion that is intolerant of all other religions. It is so intolerant that its True Believers will not permit anyone to say it is a religion.

Science has nothing to do with religion.

Posted by: blasmaic

Blasmaic, stop being silly. Every religion based on scientific theory is allowed to be intolerant of other religions that are not based on scientific theory. Such as Gravtationism, Netwtonian-laws-of-motionism, Quantum-mechanicsism, Schroedinger-uncertainty-principlism all are intolerant too. They will not accept dissent until you present evidence. Thats the way it will be. If you don't like it suck it up.

Coming to this pompous bigot from Bavaria, the less this fellow talks in public the better it is for his public image. Every time this bloviator opens his mouth too wide, he shoves a big shoe up his mouth.

"Religion runamok can be a very harmful thing, such as Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a religion that is intolerant of all other religions. It is so intolerant that its True Believers will not permit anyone to say it is a religion."
____________________________________

This is seriously one of the funnier things I have ever read on the internets, and I look at the internets a lot. Thanks for the laugh.

6/10, though... too obvious! capitalizing "True Believers" is what gave you away... try again! You've got real talent as a troll I can see it!

What the poop says may have meaning for the other oldfarts in his religion, people who never learned to type with their thumbs and so forth.

But it sure will distance him from the generations who know and use the technology comfortably as a real part of their daily life.

As long as the catholics keep choosing decrepit senior citizens for their leader, the fewer young people will be paying attention.

And that's a good thing. Religion will just "age itself" out of here, it's doing a better job of removing itself from humanity than any atheist.

"They will not accept dissent until you present evidence."

Posted by: Secular

----------------

But they blindly assert that science will explain all the gaps eventually. That represents a blind faith in science, and it is belief absent of evidence that we identify as religiou faith.

The apostle Paul wrote, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen."

Evolutionism is a religion, and a highly intorant and dangerous one at that. Even the ayatollahs of Iran know how dangerous and powerful religious zeal can be.

Practicioners of Evolutionism deny that they are practicing a religion at all -- therefore they are, in their own estimation, incapable of dangerous, intolerant conduct.

The world's most famous atheists, Adoph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, showed what is possible from humans when science is permitted to rule. For all their faults, religious leaders know the capacity for evil that humans possess.

I think the Pope has a point -- and I'm Lutheran. In the '90s when a friend withdrew from everyone, it was because he was seeing someone new. Now when they withdraw, they're still in touch but don't want to take the time for personal contact.

Blasmaic, we have been at this before. Unlike religion, evolution is based on evidence. It is utter nonsense to claim "Evolutionism is a religion, and a highly intorant". If you have evidence to show that any of the conclusions of evolution are false then it would be analyzed and if t withstands the peer reviews the whole thing will be tossed out. What the scientists do not do is entertain any and every harebrained speculation, which is devoid of any evidence. Evolution has been established with an extra ordinary amount of solid evidence. Every harebrained irreducible complexity problem had been shown to be after all not so irreducibly complex. That is the difference between religion and science.

First of I have also showed you Adolph Hitler was not an atheist he was CATHOLIC. Science is not an animate thing much less a decision making organism. Science rules only in the form of natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. They are good nor bad, they are just what they are. It is not Einstein fault that he discovered theory of relativity and the mass energy equivalence. It is a human decision how to use the findings, it is not science's fault. By the way, speaking of evidence when there was overwhelming evidence supporting Quantum Mechanics it did not matter that Einstein was not convinced, the scientists embraced Quantum Mechanics. In the same manner if you have evidence against evolution present it, otherwise my advice to you is "SHUT UP".

You said "For all their faults, religious leaders know the capacity for evil that humans possess", and from Moses to Mohammed they have shown how much evil they can inflict too. If you count the numbers MO and his cohorts have killed, it will easily surpass the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler put together.

Secular: Really, if you count the numbers? Doubt it very much.

Macro evolution is NOT proven. NO ONE has observed it, although it could be true, we don't know for sure.

However, not all truth is provable. You should know that by now if you are mature human being.

Evolution may explain how we came here, but it does not address WHO put us here, GOD..... HE could have used any method or paradigm to do so.

With out guidance any sort of macro evolution could not have occurred . We are too complex for mere random "natural selection" to result in the life we have here on earth.

My advice: BE QUIET and listen for GOD and you will find HIM.

Evolution may explain how we came here, but it does not address WHO put us here, GOD..... HE could have used any method or paradigm to do so.

Ans Santa brings all the toys on X'mas morning too.

With out guidance any sort of macro evolution could not have occurred . We are too complex for mere random "natural selection" to result in the life we have here on earth.

Says who?

My advice: BE QUIET and listen for GOD and you will find HIM.

Posted by: Counterww

And my advice to you is SHUT UP and read up on science and learn.

"Ans Santa brings all the toys on X'mas morning too."

Now we're getting to the truth. Secular was deprived of Christmas toys as a child and therefore espouses a philosophy that denies the existence of Santa.

It's funny that everyone references the Scopes Trial as an example of evolution winning over religion, but history shows that it is a victory borne of deceit. The celebrated find of Evolutionism in the 1920's was the discovery of Piltdown Man in England. Scientists knew Piltdown Man was a fraud from very early on, but it took decades for them to publicly reject it. During the Scopes Trial, Piltdown Man was science's greatest proof of evolution.

Forever I have been reminding atheists that more good has been done in the name of God than in the name of anyone else. If you need proof of God's existence, look to the many good works of both charity and justice that have been accomplished by God's believers -- Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, Buddist, Hindu, and so many others.

Ninety-eight percent of the world's humans believe in some form of religion. Religious belief is as natural and normal a part of the human experience as sexual attraction. And scientists and True Believers like yourself become religious followers of Evolutionism just as naturally as artists who fall in love with their models.

Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a religion that is intolerant of all other religions. It is so intolerant that its True Believers will not permit anyone to say it is a religion.

Science has nothing to do with religion.

Posted by: blasmaic

Blasmaic, stop being silly. Every religion based on scientific theory is allowed to be intolerant of other religions that are not based on scientific theory. Such as Gravtationism, Netwtonian-laws-of-motionism, Quantum-mechanicsism, Schroedinger-uncertainty-principlism all are intolerant too. They will not accept dissent until you present evidence. Thats the way it will be. If you don't like it suck it up.

Coming to this pompous bigot from Bavaria, the less this fellow talks in public the better it is for his public image. Every time this bloviator opens his mouth too wide, he shoves a big shoe up his mouth.

Forever I have been reminding atheists that more good has been done in the name of God than in the name of anyone else. If you need proof of God's existence, look to the many good works of both charity and justice that have been accomplished by God's believers -- Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, Buddist, Hindu, and so many others.

Ninety-eight percent of the world's humans believe in some form of religion. Religious belief is as natural and normal a part of the human experience as sexual attraction. And scientists and True Believers like yourself become religious followers of Evolutionism just as naturally as artists who fall in love with their models.

The numbers are not as high as you make it out to be, may be about 90% are deluded. Even if your are granted that it is natural as sexual experience does not mean it is true. It is all explained by evolutionary history, why humans naturally gravitate to belief. Oh but then you do not subscribe to science, but only to mythology.

"It is all explained by evolutionary history, why humans naturally gravitate to belief. Oh but then you do not subscribe to science, but only to mythology."

Welp now Secular, that's where you're mistaken. It ain't all explained by science. Your belief that it is is your religious belief. When you say "90 percent are deluded" you're saying that everyone on earth except you is insane. You're a zealot.

blasted and counter are so very typical of christianists who can't think for themselves.

Hitler was a religious fiend. Religion means more than just christianity, religious fervor comes in all sizes, some of it political. We've seen many people in recent days claiming islam is a political movement, can anybody doubt the believers are any less religious than christians?

And piltdown man - yes, a fraud. It took some time, but it was revealed eventually. If we are to take this example of scientific fraud as evidence that all science is fraud, then we must surely give equal attention to the fraud the christian church once espoused, that of the sun-centered universe.

And then there's the argument appealing to numbers. 2 billion christians can't be wrong. Well, there are nearly 8 billion humans on this planet, and even if we stipulate your outrageous claim that there are 2 billion christians, that means there are 6 billion humans who are not christian. If we must appeal to numbers as our only proof, we must give equal weight to the fact that most of humanity doesn't believe in your christian gods.

Another favorite argument, that people 'feel the presence' of your god, your jesus, that this must surely be solid evidence of their existence.
If we are to accept this as proof for their existence, then we must also accept as evidence that most people do not feel this presence, and this proves they do not exist.

This is how evidence works, children.

The attempt to equate evolutionary theory with 'evolutionism', as a religion, is a sad attempt by people who have no real argument. They are either trying to bring science down to the juvenile mind processes that produce religion, or trying to bring their religion up to the adult mind processes that produce science.

Either way, it is an admission of failure, it is a 10 year old child claiming touched-you-last, a kiddie asking mommy if he can play on the freeway because johnny's mother lets him play on the freeway.

You two are so pathetic you don't even know how pathetic you are.

blasmaic

Evolution is not an ism, it is not a religion, it IS settled science; if you choose not to accept that it is settled science, then that is your choice, but it does not change the scientific consensus on the meaning of evolution.

Technology and all our gadgets are a mixed blessing (and I note we do not say a mixed curse).

On the blessing side I offer this encouragement and perspective about the new technologies, and even the gadgets. It comes from one of the pope’s brothers of the cloth, who was long silenced by popes before Benedict XVI, but eventually was granted permission to have his voice heard.

Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in “The Phenomenon of Man” and other writings, attempted to see where the trajectory of evolution might be taking the world. As part of his poetic-scientific-prophetic vision, he saw evolving what he called the “noosphere” (a term he coined from the classical Greek word “nous,” meaning “mind”).

Teilhard saw evolving a kind of “film” or “sphere” of consciousness, gradually spreading around and upon the face of our world. He suggested it would be as significant for humanity as the biosphere is.

It seems to me that our technologies and gadgets are often times a medium for the development of that noosphere. They are beginning to take Teilhard’s vision into an electric (and electronic) incarnation. They are beginning to create a global, chaotic network of electronic synapses. These are analogous to the electric synapses of our individual brains.

Is that bad? Or good? It all depends. And upon what it all depends is the deeper question, and the ultimate answer to the question here asked: "Are we what we google?"

Well, I'm less certain that Hitler was completely an atheist, and whether he was or not, I believe the Germans who accepted genocide of Jews were naturally prejudiced against Jews by their faith.

Stalin in the Soviet Union and Pol Pot in Cambodia were practicing atheism when they killed millions of their political opponents. Regardless of his religious convictions, Hitler was practicing eugenics when he authorized the systematic killing of the mentally and physically handicapped, healthy people with undesirable political viewpoints, and Jews.

Anyway, what we know for sure is that religion is known to be a powerful force for good or evil. We also know that believers in Evolutionism reject the notion that they are practicing a religion. When they deny that they are practicing a religion, they are denying that they possess the ability to commit horrific atrocities. That's just part of what makes them so dangerous.

This is not news to me; I warned you people that this day would come back in the days of fountain pens, paper clips, staples and staplers, rubber bands, and, that evil of evils - the typewriter.

Slippery slopes, people; slippery slopes.

Nobody believes in evolutionism Blasmaic, unless it is you.
Since you approach all knowledge with a 'believe in' strategy you are completely incompetent to understand how other people use evidence to know the things they know.

Of course, we can't expect you to understand this. The reason you pick on evolution so much is that you do have a sufficiently vague idea that evolution explains to a more satisfactory level the state of life in its current state on this planet, and all you have is some bronze age primitive myth you are desperately clinging to.

And really, the fact that the more intelligent scientists accept evolutionary theory as valid troubles you greatly. That people who are more intelligent than you think you are fool troubles you even further.

You are a fool, Blasmaic, sorry to be the one to have to tell you this.

Long after you're gone, long after your religion fades into the same barbaric past which all other extinct human religions have descended, people will wonder that anybody like you could exist.

Anyway, what we know for sure is that religion is known to be a powerful force for good or evil. We also know that believers in Evolutionism reject the notion that they are practicing a religion. When they deny that they are practicing a religion, they are denying that they possess the ability to commit horrific atrocities. That's just part of what makes them so dangerous.

Blasmiac, you need to acquaint yourself one big thing, science is just an exercise in understanding the natural phenomenon. This is done by observation, postulating hypothesis, collecting data and then analyzing to see if the data supports the hypothesis. And on goes this process over and over again to establish a corpus of knowledge that is called theory of "whatever". Now what science is not is, it is not a guidance to how a person should live a good moral life. It is not a guidance to social policy. For that we have ethics and other social studies. Evolution as a branch of science, no more informs us about ethics than does Physics or Chemistry or Astronomy does. If folks like you and Hitler, or Stalin or Pol Pot want to use then it is not the fault of science or Evolution. If you want to use a screwdriver to nail something, do not blame the screwdriver's designer, blame your own ignorance or stupidity.

Anyway, what we know for sure is that religion is known to be a powerful force for good or evil. We also know that believers in Evolutionism reject the notion that they are practicing a religion. When they deny that they are practicing a religion, they are denying that they possess the ability to commit horrific atrocities. That's just part of what makes them so dangerous.

Blasmiac, you need to acquaint yourself one big thing, science is just an exercise in understanding the natural phenomenon. This is done by observation, postulating hypothesis, collecting data and then analyzing to see if the data supports the hypothesis. And on goes this process over and over again to establish a corpus of knowledge that is called theory of "whatever". Now what science is not is, it is not a guidance to how a person should live a good moral life. It is not a guidance to social policy. For that we have ethics and other social studies. Evolution as a branch of science, no more informs us about ethics than does Physics or Chemistry or Astronomy does. If folks like you and Hitler, or Stalin or Pol Pot want to use then it is not the fault of science or Evolution. If you want to use a screwdriver to nail something, do not blame the screwdriver's designer, blame your own ignorance or stupidity.

"Blasmiac, you need to acquaint yourself one big thing, science is just an exercise in understanding the natural phenomenon."

Why do believers of Evolutionism always say a skeptic must learn more? Do they believe themselves intellectually gifted or superior to everyone else?

Evolutionists sound like Moonies at the airport. Anytime you disagree with them they always say you need to learn more.

At least the airport Moonies and Hairless Krishnas know they're practicing a religion. Evolutionists can't even tolerate the suggestion that their evangelical missionaries in public high schools should not be feeding at the government trough.

Blasmaic:
"Evolutionists sound like Moonies at the airport"

I for one am not an evolutionist. I am more of a meteorology-ist. It's a science as well, not completely understood, several sizable gaps, UNPROVEN as a matter of fact. Just a lot of theories and conjecture and a black art called 'modeling' that we rely on our priests to decipher. Yes, I admit I worship meteorology, and by that I mean I watch the local weather guy every morning to see whether I should carry an umbrella. Turns out that much more often than my old method, he gets it right. Of course my old method consisted of calling dial-a-prayer and asking them, they hardly ever got it right.

Yes I worship science that way. 'cause even though God can control the weather, he sure doesn't give us much of a heads-up about it.
Same with evolution dude. It's not complete, it's not perfect, but it sure gives us more understanding about our biology than 1st Corinthians ever did or ever will.

And I, for one, don’t care if you learn more or not about science, you obviously don’t understand what has been taught to you thus far... But I’m getting ready to go to a ‘science-y’ medical practitioner for a checkup… do you think should I go to a priest instead?
Religion is the belief and worship in things not of this world. Evolution is merely science’s attempt to understand how things fit together in this universe.
Your religion takes away / has no need for investigating the universe since you’ve already got all the answers. Unfortunately the only answer you have; “God did it” is not all that informative.

“Do they believe themselves intellectually gifted or superior to everyone else?”
Not everyone, no.
It is the religious that hold the claim to ultimate, infallible and immutable knowledge.

gladerunner,

I would agree that schoolchildren have more use for meterology than they do for evolutionism. There are so many good science topics that children can learn without ever having to talk about the messy, unproved, controversial, and morally vacant topic of evolution.

Of course the New Testament does say, "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." I guess Christianity's God is morally vacant when it comes to who gets the rain.

I'm not sure why you ascribe so many unusual beliefs to me though. I would never send you to see a priest if you needed a doctor, but the truth is that the doctor might send you to a priest when she's run out of ideas or you've run out of insurance. If you act like your fellow traveler, Secular, then the priest might refer you to an Exorcist.

"It is the religious that hold the claim to ultimate, infallible and immutable knowledge."

I agree. That's exactly what I'm saying about Evolutionists who believe beyond what the science can prove. They're practicing religion, and too often waging a holy war on anyone who calls them on it.

blasmaic

If you choose to ignore the consensus of science on the validity of evolution, you are free to do so.

But it devalues your credibility on just about every other opinion you have, that you base your beliefs on a hostility towards science.

Blasmaic:
"That's exactly what I'm saying about Evolutionists who believe beyond what the science can prove"
Well, that would make you wrong. I've got a couple of choices here. I can believe that a cosmic creator-magician uttered some words and everything we have ever known instantly came into existence out of the nothingness that surrounded this inexplicably infinite being, followed by some really bizarre behaviors involving incest, talking animals, vengeful spirit entities, and feats of magic that have not been duplicated in thousands of years, coupled with some bizarre rules and regulations that seem to either be either based upon or take advantage of bronze-age superstitions.
Or, we investigate fossil records, DNA strands, and chart similarities and differences between extinct species and contemporary living things.
First and foremost, a blind belief in either does nothing to help pay my bills or make my children behave better.
In other words, in the grand scheme of my life, neither theory does much to help me get through the day.
Evolution explains how things might have happened, it is certainly incomplete. I do not pray to Darwin or the other scientists; I do not expect them to offer me eternal life or cosmic justice. I have no hymns, rites, rituals, or moral codes based on evolution theory.
My earlier point was that evolution is no more a religion than is meteorology or medicine.
In the ancient times, your priests and prophets assumed and asserted that all weather phenomena and ‘natural’ disasters were attributable to an angry, vengeful god. This superstition still prevails in some of the more ignorant religious sects, such as blaming gay behavior for a hurricane in the gulf.
It’s silly and ignorant superstition that most societies and even religions now admit is flawed thinking.
Until science came along, at a snail’s pace, we were slowly awakened to the fact that many, most of those things that we attributed to ‘acts of god’ were in fact explainable and predictable based on actual information resulting from investigation in this dimension, in this universe. I do not know if evolution will ever be ‘proven’ to your level of satisfaction. I do know that no matter how hard I pray, I cannot alter the weather or magnetism or gravity.
Evolution is not a religion any more than meteorology, medicine, calculus, geography or Library science.

gladerunner you present a false delimma.

Between Young Earth Creationism and Evolutionism, there are a myriad of possible combinations of belief.

My personal belief regarding evolution is that it is a very troubled science, and its need to be taught in local public schools is marginal. Evolution is characterized by weak science, outright fraud, foolish controversy, and hate.

I consider myself the protector of real science, not someone who is hostile to it. When cornered on the truth about evolution, most honest people will eventually say "it's all we've got" to explain the scientific origins of life. That assertion I accept, but I reject the notion that evolution is described and understood so well that it should be given the status that some would afford it.

Evolution science can only beat Young Earth Creationism. Evolution is a pair of dueces, in a game where most people require jacks or better to open.

BLASMAIC:
"Evolution is characterized by weak science, outright fraud, foolish controversy, and hate"
You have just defined religious concepts such as 'creationism' or 'intelligent design'
Evolution is indeed little more than the filing cabinet in which things we have collected seem to fit. However, very little, if anything doesn't fit.
What would you teach as the 'scientific origins of life'?
Seriously, what do you want taught? I certainly don't want my kids to be subjected to anything less than the best scientific explanation in science class . Show me your Jacks... Whadda ya got?

I read a couple of books a while back on string theory… admittedly this science is ‘weak’. However, the first book written several years before the second, was NOT for all its early, coarse, primal, and many eventually-rejected conclusions, scientifically useless. In fact it was quite the opposite. It turns out that because of the earlier theories being tested, retested and questioned that scientists were able to expand the scientific investigation even further. Science, unlike religion is never doggedly, fixedly satisfied (individual scientists may be, but that's an ego problem, not a science problem) with today’s conclusions.
Even when we really, really understood steam engine technology, and boy-howdy we were really, really good at it AND it was working well for us, we did not rest on our scientific laurels.
By the time Edison produced a commercially viable light bulb, he had a pile and a half of stuff that had proved ineffective. But had he not tried those other compounds, had he not tried even harder to improve upon his earliest results, we might be stuck with light bulbs that burn for a few minutes only, and not nearly as brightly. Instead he gained and catalogued a wealth of knowledge about what DOESN’T make a good filament. That is not useless information.
Just because evolution doesn’t seem right to you, or complete, or strong enough, doesn’t mean we’re NOT at least on the right path. Nor does the current state of the science meant that we are done studying it and other alternatives.
In all my youthful science classes I had no problem understanding the most basic concept of science, it was never in my mind, or even taught to be the absolute immutable ‘truth’, it was at any point in time merely a point in a journey toward larger understanding.
Seriously, tell me what you want taught in a science class about the origins/evolution of life. You claim to be a supporter of ‘real’ science, so please, pray tell, do tell us what that real science is.

blasmaic,

"Between Young Earth Creationism and Evolutionism, there are a myriad of possible combinations of belief."

Perhaps, but beliefs are not science.

"My personal belief regarding evolution is that it is a very troubled science, and its need to be taught in local public schools is marginal."

You are free to believe whatever you wish, no matter how little sense it makes.

"Evolution is characterized by weak science, outright fraud, foolish controversy, and hate."

Again, you are free to believe whatever you wish, even the above.

"I consider myself the protector of real science, not someone who is hostile to it."

Are you sure that "real science" needs your protection?

"When cornered on the truth about evolution, most honest people will eventually say "it's all we've got" to explain the scientific origins of life."

How many "honest people" have you "cornered on the truth about evolution"?

"That assertion I accept, but I reject the notion that evolution is described and understood so well that it should be given the status that some would afford it."

It apparently is not "described and understood so well" by you.

"Evolution science can only beat Young Earth Creationism."

How, exactly, does "evolution science", "beat", "young earth creationism"?

"Evolution is a pair of dueces, in a game where most people require jacks or better to open."

Are you serious?

Why are we pissing around trying convince Blasamiac about the merits of Evolution. Instead of discussing the topic of teh article about the pompous bigot from Bavaria.

Why are we pissing around trying convince Blasamiac about the merits of Evolution. Instead of discussing the topic of teh article about the pompous bigot from Bavaria.

Secular,

"Why are we pissing around trying convince Blasamiac about the merits of Evolution. Instead of discussing the topic of teh article about the pompous bigot from Bavaria."

Because this is America; even believers deserve an education.

"Seriously, tell me what you want taught in a science class about the origins/ evolution of life. You claim to be a supporter of ‘real’ science, so please, pray tell, do tell us what that real science is."

Physics, chemistry, and math would be my choices, in reverse order. There are extraordinarily valuable things public school students can learn other than evolution, which is constantly changing and attempting to get its story straight. Teach evolution at the college level. Local public school children can learn something better established.

"By the time Edison produced a commercially viable light bulb, he had a pile and a half of stuff that had proved ineffective."

Excellent example. The light bulb was patented by Edison in 1880. Fifty years later in 1930, electric lighting was almost everywhere. In 1859, Darwin published "The Origin of the Species." In 1953, almost a century later, scientists admitted that Piltdown Man was a fraudulent hoax.

"Are you sure that 'real science' needs your protection?"

Yes, I'm certain that real science welcomes my support.

blasmaic,

"Yes, I'm certain that real science welcomes my support."

When was the last time that you talked to "real science"?

PSolus,

Real science isn't a person you can talk to, silly. I think you knew that.

Funny, I thought some wag like yourself would seize upon my characterization of Piltdown Man as a "fraudulent hoax." Is there any type of hoax that is not also fraudulent?

blasmaic:
" In 1953, almost a century later, scientists admitted that Piltdown Man was a fraudulent hoax"

That's about the fifteenth time you've brought up Piltdown in as many weeks. Are we supposed to be shocked, alarmed and disgusted by the fact that someone once tried to hoax the system?
Hoaxes are common on every realm, every subject, every marketplace. A few hoaxes do not negate the whole. If so, then Christianity would have been relegated to the philosophical dustbin centuries ago.

“. . . which is constantly changing and attempting to get its story straight”
As is biology, botany, meteorology, physics, chemistry, etc. The very nature of science is investigation, the pursuit of expanding knowledge. The fact that we now know that certain chemical compounds are carcinogenic is a prime example of why we should continue to teach what we know as much as we know it and at the same time encourage further questioning and investigation.
In my youth, in a middle school science session we were discussing metals. The teacher passed around a sample of mercury, it went hand to hand around the class. We of course now know that this was not as safe and benign as thought back then, so the science of chemistry is constantly changing as well. Toss it out of the curriculum?
Science, good science, is indeed constantly changing. Tossing out any science because it is complex, incomplete and often correcting itself, would be to toss aside ALL science.
But then again this is all beside the point. I believe you are really against evolution being taught in public schools because you see it as being inconsistent with your religious beliefs. That has nothing at all to do with science, real or otherwise. Which is odd since your religion, if my assumptions are correct, is full of inexplicable oddities, magic, non-science, colossal leaps of faith, inconsistencies, fraudulent AND non-fraudulent(?) hoaxes and creatures and datelines that defy natural and physical laws. Even more irrational and unsupported notions and concepts than you claim evolution has. Yet your belief system does not need to be tossed aside as a pile of hokum, it is just supposed to be taken/taught as fact.

In your real-science lesson plan… what about geology? Surely the study of rocks is benign and rather consistent. Oh, except for those pesky fossils…. What do you propose to tell little Johnny about the fossils?
What other science subjects need to be tossed? And what are your thoughts on Literature class? What works should we NOT expose our precious babies to?

blasmaic,

"Real science isn't a person you can talk to, silly. I think you knew that."

I know that; I'm not sure that you know that.

Your comments about "real science" indicate that you do not really understand science.

"Funny, I thought some wag like yourself would seize upon my characterization of Piltdown Man as a "fraudulent hoax." Is there any type of hoax that is not also fraudulent?"

Your fascination with the "Piltdown Man" is not worth addressing, except as evidence of your lack of understanding of science, and of human nature.

"I believe you are really against evolution being taught in public schools because you see it as being inconsistent with your religious beliefs. That has nothing at all to do with science, real or otherwise. Which is odd since your religion, if my assumptions are correct, is full of inexplicable oddities, magic, non-science, colossal leaps of faith, inconsistencies, fraudulent AND non-fraudulent(?) hoaxes and creatures and datelines that defy natural and physical laws."

I don't talk about my religion. I talk about Evolutionism.

Like I said earlier, evolution is so weak, it can only beat Young Earth Creationism. That's what you attack, but I've never compared the two. Well, I have likened evolution science to a pair of dueces and said that the only thing it can beat is Young Earth Creationism. Evolutionists need people who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, because they are the only people who can make them look smart.

There are so many other excellent subjects to teach students than the messy, controversial, and morally vacant subject of evolution.

Just imagine all the horrible things said to people who criticize Evolutionism that will not be said if evolution is replaced in the science curriculum with something better (and damn near everything IS better).

"Your fascination with the 'Piltdown Man' is not worth addressing, except as evidence of your lack of understanding of science, and of human nature."

Well, Piltdown Man is the fraud that comes to my mind first.

When I looked at the Wikipedia page for Piltdown Man, it linked to other hoaxes that I have never heard of before... Nebraska Man, The Cardiff Giant, and, more recently, Archaeorapter. I've also seen a 60 Minutes report on the Indonesian Hobbit people that some locals said still lived there, but no one can find them.

Evolution is a troubled science with a sordid past.

It's at this point when I like to remind people that for evolutionists, deception is as natural as the camoflage of a camellion's changing colors.

And of course, here's a book report on the famous studies of peppered moths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/books/the-moth-that-failed.html?scp=5&sq=peppered%20moth&st=cse

Imagine where young students could be with an extra year of math or physics instead of evolution.

blasmaic,

"Imagine where young students could be with an extra year of math or physics instead of evolution."

Are you hoping that they will then come to fear evolution theory as you do?

It probably won't happen; they'll probably just do as I did as a "young student" - read about evolution theory on their own.

You cannot suppress knowledge, or the search for knowledge.

"I don't talk about my religion. I talk about Evolutionism"
Which is not even a religion.

What say you to the hoaxes and ever-changing nature of all the other sciences? Why do you only squeal about evolution? It is no better or worse than any other scientific explanation for anything? WHY ONLY EVOLUTION?

I know you haven't said much about your religion, but it is relevent for two reasons:
1. In my debates and discussions about the topic of evolution, it, without exception, eventually comes down to religion.

2. The title of this forum area is 'On Faith' not 'On Science' If you are going to debate a topic in a public forum called 'On Faith' you should reasonably expect that your own belief systems will be questioned, or at least assumed based on your position on a topic.
If we are not correct in our (stated as such) assumptions, then by all means please feel free to point that out. I can only debate what I see/read, not what you may be trying to hide. I'm not interested in playing guessing games.

blasmaic,

"When I looked at the Wikipedia page for Piltdown Man,..."

Are you not aware that simply stumbling upon a random article in Wikipedia does not automatically make you an expert in everything that the article discusses?

If you had spent more time studying evolution theory as a "young student", perhaps you would not fear it as you do today.

"Are you hoping that they will then come to fear evolution theory as you do?"

Why would I fear evolution science? It's odd that you must characterize those who reveal evolution science's weaknesses as somehow fearful.

Which of the evolution frauds that I posted about do you assert is fictional or misconstrued?

Which of the sources I used do you say is controlled by the right-wing, Wikipedia or The New York Times?

"you should reasonably expect that your own belief systems will be questioned, or at least assumed based on your position on a topic."

None of my criticisms of evolution science or Evolutionism are sectarian. I talk about these subjects from a purely objective basis. You cannot assume that I have some religious belief contrary to evolution science simply because I expose its weaknesses. Doing so does reveal how you behave as a religious believer in Evolutionism.

The truth is, you NEED me to be a Young Earth Creationist, because that is the only thing evolution can beat. The media loves to portray opponents of evolutionism as those who believe the bible literally. Why must Americans be forced into such a false dilemma?

blasmaic,

"Why would I fear evolution science?"

You tell us.

One reason that people fear something is that they do not understand it.

Another reason is that it challenges, or threatens, their long held beliefs.

I'm sure that there are many others.

Which one is your reason?

"Which of the evolution frauds that I posted about do you assert is fictional or misconstrued?"

I did not assert that any of them were fictional or misconstrued.

Why did you infer that I did?

Was it fear?

"Which of the sources I used do you say is controlled by the right-wing, Wikipedia or The New York Times?"

I did not write that any of the sources is controlled by the right-wing, Wikipedia or The New York Times.

Why did you infer that I did?

Was it fear?

"Was it fear?"

No.

I have no reason to fear science and I don't.

Do you fear that my words may cause others to prefer that children learn more math, physics, and chemistry in lieu of evolution?

When the choice is evolution or Young Earth Creationism, the vast majority will choose evolution.

But when the choice is evolution or something better at local public schools, then the choice becomes less clear.

Nonetheless, the general public is presented with the false delimma of evolution or creationism.

Why is that so?

Blasmaic:
“You cannot assume that I have some religious belief contrary to evolution science simply because I expose its weaknesses”
Sure I can… Because your passionate rebuke of evolution only makes sense if it is in conflict with a theory that you yourself espouse. A theory with which you have not been the least bit forthcoming.
By itself evolution is no more ‘wrong’ than any other science. No one that I am aware of has ever said or taught that it or any other field of science was complete or absolute and immutable.
It is not so much what you are saying that leads me to certain conclusions, it is that which you do not say.
I’ll try to be more direct in an effort to avoid meaningless tangents and guessing games and to get to a relevant discussion.
Do you believe that a god or supernatural deity created life as is, or at least pretty close to as is, and that plants and animals are pretty much the way they always were?
Do you discount the entirety of evolutionary thought or just parts? For example, can plants/animals through genetic mutation, pass on advantageous mutations to offspring?
Is it only the ‘life evolved from nothing’ option that stokes your passionate disdain?

“Doing so does reveal how you behave as a religious believer in Evolutionism”
Once again, since I have actually looked the word ‘religion’ up in a dictionary, and see no possible way that any but the most extreme, irrational fanatic among us would ever ‘worship’ the science in that way, I discount your posit that evolution is a religion. That being said I will also add that whether or not it is a religion adds no meaningful information to the actual discussion. It’s like the whole ‘Christian Nation’ debate. I don’t really care as much about the terminology as I care about the underlying motives of those that espouse it.
That is why I keep asking you questions like “What do you, as a science teacher, tell Johnny when he asks you about a fossil?” or if he asks: “If all dogs came from wolves why does my pug not look or act anything like a wolf?” And finally, when Little Johnny asks you, the science teacher: “But where did all the animals come from?” What is your answer?
Taking evolution out of schools is not going provide answers to these real questions that are asked by real kids. If you want me to agree with your new curriculum, then I need to know how they will be answered, REGARDLESS of what god/gods/painted trees you might actually believe in.

“You cannot assume that I have some religious belief contrary to evolution. . . “
If I am incorrect then please, explain the error. Otherwise I will continue to follow my hunch as it has not actually been directly challenged.

"But when the choice is evolution or something better at local public schools, then the choice becomes less clear"

Please describe/explain "something better" That is all we are asking.

blasmaic,

"No.
I have no reason to fear science and I don't."

Are you sure?

"Do you fear that my words may cause others to prefer that children learn more math, physics, and chemistry in lieu of evolution?"

No; that is simply a nonexistent choice that you believe is real.

"When the choice is evolution or Young Earth Creationism, the vast majority will choose evolution."

Why do you believe this?

"But when the choice is evolution or something better at local public schools, then the choice becomes less clear."

Why do you believe this?

"Nonetheless, the general public is presented with the false delimma of evolution or creationism."

Why do you believe this?

"Why is that so?"

Are you saying that you do not know why you believe what you have stated?

“You cannot assume that I have some religious belief contrary to evolution science simply because I expose its weaknesses”

"Sure I can… Because your passionate rebuke of evolution only makes sense if it is in conflict with a theory that you yourself espouse. A theory with which you have not been the least bit forthcoming."

You got me.

You can assume.

You cannot however correctly assume I have some specific religious belief or any religious belief because I simply expose evolution science's weaknesses.

If so, then what are the religious views of the New York Times and Wikipedia, my sources for the evolution frauds I cited?

Your complete inability to counter anyone but a Young Earth Creationist reveals how weak evolution science is.

"Please describe/explain 'something better' That is all we are asking."

Well I don't know who "we" is, but I'll explain again.

Almost every science is better to teach than evolution science -- math, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, you name it.

Fifty years after Edison patented the light bulb, much of urban American was using electric lights. Ninety years after Darwin published, Piltdown Man was accepted as a fraud.

It's all better than evolution science.

"That is why I keep asking you questions like “What do you, as a science teacher, tell Johnny when he asks you about a fossil?” or if he asks: “If all dogs came from wolves why does my pug not look or act anything like a wolf?” And finally, when Little Johnny asks you, the science teacher: “But where did all the animals come from?” What is your answer?"

Answer A: Johnny, put that book away, this is math class.

Answer B: Johnny, put that book away, this is astronomy class.

Answer C: Johnny, put that book away, this is chemistry class.

Answer D: Johnny, put that book away, this is physics class.

Answer E: Johnny, this is health class. We talk about where babies come from, not where dogs and wolves come from.

Since when has a teacher been at a loss to deflect an impertinent question? Evolution science can be taught as a requirement or elective at the post-secondary level.

What you consider "passionate rebuke" is hardly that at all. You are apparently inside some sheltered, insulated cacoon.

PSolus,

What's your question? Just asking why I believe what I believe to every statement I make makes you look silly.

BLASMAIC:
“Piltdown Man was accepted as a fraud”
Again, SO WHAT?
All sciences have been occasionally, if not frequently littered with hoaxes, Evolution no more than any others, take medicine for example. How many pills, potions, poultices and mechanical gadgets have been foisted up by medical ‘experts’ as medical breakthroughs that proved to be nothing more than snake oil and vibrators? In the 50’s we even had MD’s providing testimonials for tobacco products.
For centuries con men thrived saying they were weather scientists that could make it rain.
Hoaxes disprove nothing. By their very definition they are ‘fraudulent’ meaning ‘deliberately misleading’ and ‘not true’ in other words they are completely removed and separate from actual facts and knowledge.

You have completely failed to make a reasonable, rational, compelling case that shows that evolution science is any more or less incomplete than any other science. It begs the question “Why just evolution?”
Are you as vehement about string theory?

Again, exactly what parts of evolution theory are you at odds with?

“Your complete inability to counter anyone but a Young Earth Creationist reveals how weak evolution science is”
No, it speaks to my understanding (admitted lack thereof) of the opposing argument. Which so far just says “It’s weak” “other sciences are better” and “There was a hoax” I can only counter what has been laid out. I have asked again and again for a more descriptive rebuttal and for more information. Al I get is 'Piltdown man! Piltdown man!' and in so many words… ‘Evolution is just stupid.’ That’s not an argument/case that would pass even in a middle school debate contest. You’re arguments are indistinguishable from, and in fact are exactly the same as those used by new-earthers, so why should I treat them any differently?

“Fifty years after Edison patented the light bulb, much of urban American was using electric lights.”
And a few decades later, ENRON, an energy (electric) company went bankrupt due to fraud.
Fraud does not disprove science, it only proves the corruptibility and the gullibility of people, hardly a revelation.

I get it, you don’t want evolution taught in public schools, I got that from the get-go. I never doubted it. I’ve really just wanted to understand why you think this way, and whether there is possible compromise, middle ground…. To do that I’m going to need a lot more than ‘it’s not perfect’ since I already agree with you on that.

So what harm is done by teaching evolution? If we are teaching as best we understand it, and admit that it is subject to question/review and update, LIKE ALL OTHER SCIENCES, then how are our precious children being harmed?

blasmaic,

"What's your question?"

Why do you believe all of those statements that you made?

"Just asking why I believe what I believe to every statement I make makes you look silly."

I'm guessing that you didn't answer the questions because you feared that your answers to the questions would make you look silly.

So, why do you believe those things?

Does the bible tell you to believe them?

Does your god tell you to believe them?

Does your pastor/minister/priest/rabbi/imam tell you to believe them?

Do angels tell you to believe them?

Do demons tell you to believe them?

"'Piltdown Man was accepted as a fraud'
Again, SO WHAT?"

The frauds you cite in tobacco, rain-making, medicine show products, and even Enron were all frauds forwarded to take advantage of peoples' needs (sometimes desperate needs) and capture their dollars.

Frauds in evolution science are fraudulent acts perpetrated to create popular belief in a scientific theory that lacks evidence.

It's not just Piltdown Man, either. It's Nebraska Man, The Cardiff Giant, and, more recently, Archaeorapter. I've also seen a 60 Minutes report on the Indonesian Hobbit people that some locals said still lived, but no one can find them.

And of course, here's a book report on the famous studies of peppered moths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/books/the-moth-that-failed.html?scp=5&sq=peppered%20moth&st=cse

These are dramatically different types of frauds than you listed. One type parts fools and their money (and occasionally hooks them nicotine, alcohol, and opiates). Evolution science fraud deliberatly misleads all of society, and causes our entire civilization to waste resources, educational effort, and precious time.

"You have completely failed to make a reasonable, rational, compelling case that shows that evolution science is any more or less incomplete than any other science. It begs the question “Why just evolution?”"

I'm unaware of any science with less credibility than evolution science. Cold Fusion was a fraud that lasted about a week. There just isn't anything else that comes close to frauds approaching the magnitude of those found in evolution science. Even room temperature superconductivity was just a hope in 1989, never a promise.

Why should we pay to have children learn stuff that's just plain wrong? They can learn evolution later at college if they choose to, and by then their critical thinking ability is better developed.

Imagine all the wonderful science topics that can be taught in place of evolution! Real laws of science hold true for eternity. Silly hoaxes just make students look like stooges later in life.

PSolus, I won't be responding to you until you control your impulses to harass and bully me.

blasmaic,

"PSolus, I won't be responding to you until you control your impulses to harass and bully me."

Did I get uncomfortable close to the truth?

By the way, the best way to not respond to a commenter, is to simply not respond to that commenter, instead of responding to that commenter by announcing that you won't be responding to that commenter.

TKO

BLASMAIC:
"The frauds you cite in tobacco, rain-making, medicine show products, and even Enron were all frauds forwarded to take advantage of peoples' needs (sometimes desperate needs) and capture their dollars."
And the handful of frauds you cite were to achieve fame/notoriety. That's different from dollars how?
Fraud is fraud, it has no bearing on actual scientific investigation. Piltdown man was controversial from the beginning, and eventually tests performed by EVOLUTIONISTS proved that it was a fraud.
Piltdown man does nothing to renounce or denigrate actual findings that do shed light on the connections variations and ancestries among various species.
You still have no argument other than 'it's not perfect' which is pretty lame.
You have not argued why teaching that mutations and traits are indeed passed from parent to child and that over time, the result is an evolution of traits is a bad thing. Fruit flies demonstrate this, the Russian fox experiments demonstrate this, even household pets show how specific traits spread through a population. Even an ear of corn shows successful genetic evolution from a mere grass to its current states.
Why would you NOT teach a science class that traits evolve over time/generations? What is so thin and weak about the very science we use to feed millions of people off a few well planned acres? Why not teach why the turkeys that you buy in the grocery have ridiculously larger breasts than you find in turkeys in the wild? These are day to day, common, observable and indisputable forms of evolution that have been understood and practiced long before Darwin was even born. I fail to see your problem with this. I fail to see how you can walk through a pet store or grocery store and still dismiss evolution as little more than hoax, metaphysics or a religious belief rather than science.