Wisconsin 1, Logic 0

Started by
307 comments, last by JesseLFraser 19 years, 6 months ago
Quote:Original post by Andrew Russell
lol. your reply was totally unexpected. I thought someone with the word "jesus" in their username would have a totally oppisite view on it.

Anyway, I am glad people are agreeing, carry on.


I thought you were a programmer. You do know what the term "xor" means, right?

---------------------------Hello, and Welcome to some arbitrary temporal location in the space-time continuum.

Advertisement
Quote:Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)

what he said.
- stormrunner
Quote:Original post by Cold_Steel
I think the teaching of anything religious that is not in a social context should not be allowed in schools.


Agreed. In fact, I find it seriously strange that there are still "Catholic schools" in Canada (and not really for other religions; in the Jewish communities you may find a Shul or two, but there are no Buddhist schools, no Islamic schools, no "Protestant schools", ...). I think it's a sin to (try to) impose a belief system upon someone else, especially if that person is yet too young (mentally immature) to evaluate the ideas logically.

Quote:Basically, I think it's fine to teach how Christianity or Judaism evolved and how it has impacted the world from a historical and cultural perspective, etc, but don't teach that God created the universe and control everything.


It's fine to teach them that some people *believe* that, too (Without passing judgement on that belief as is). And it would be more than fine to teach kids what it is that "Christians" or "Jews" are supposed to believe, so that they can call adults on their hypocrisy. Recognizing BS is an important skill, but noone seems to want others to learn it. Why? Because they BS, and they're afraid of being called on it.

Quote:if the religious people don't like that creationism isn't being tought, don't make their kids take the class, or that part at least.


I would like to be able to propose "don't make any kids take any particular class", but our society isn't anywhere near ready for that kind of change. While we try to get rid of the idea that kids need to be told what to think, we will have to accept the idea that they need to be told *to* think, at least temporarily.
Quote:Original post by mtw
Quote:Original post by Raduprv
BTW, just to make it clear, I believe in both creation and evolution. I believe that we did evolve, but our evolution was/is controlled by some higher force (such as God). When I say god I don't mean Jehova.

That's my thinking as well, except that last part. But I still think religious explanations should be kept out of public schools.


As long as you accept that your belief is only a belief and is neither scientifically verifiable, nor supported by the Bible (which pretty much requires you to believe that humans appeared fully formed within seven days after the existence of any other tangible thing, and that the whole mess is less than ten thousand years old) or probably by any other major religious texts (are there any radically different creation stories out there?), you're on perfectly solid ground. In fact, I salute the two of you for your free-thinking in that case, and I await the publications of your respective religious texts. [wink]
Quote:Original post by ontheheap
Creationism is depracated. The new thing is "Intelligent Design." It's more "scientific" that way.


:: notes ontheheap's location ::

In Recountistan, you see, supporters of the UPC need to constantly keep tabs on the Jesusland sympathizers, so they are up to date on all the latest terminology :D

Of course, if you really are on the heap, I should hope you know a thing or two about Intelligent Design. It sure would suck if your afterlife were a memory leak. :s
Quote:Original post by Andrew Russell
I'm just going to add my two cents.

Say you have a programmer trying to come up with a high quality design for some thing, where they don't know how the final outcome will work, but they know what they need it to do. A good method is to throw some random data at the problem and use a simulator to evolve the solution. Frequently used to come up with aero/hydro-dynamic shapes, artificial intelegence, and complicated circutiry.

What makes you think that a devine creator would use any other method?

I always knew God was a programmer [grin]


Yeah, and that bit about God's word never returning void is rather convincing too. In fact, I have here a little code snippet that my sources allege comes straight from the Big Guy's own CVS. Unfortunately it appears to be an earlier, incomplete version...

from ineffability import *from evolution_theory import approximate_copy# By my calculations it will take them about 7400 years to sort# that one out. Either that or about 15 billion. I haven't# decided on that yet. I'll get around to it eventually, but# there are more important design decisions to make, like the# energy density of empty space...def fiat_lux(*args):  """Create the Universe."""  heaven = object()  earth = []  day = light + darkness  day()  earth.append(firmament())  (below, above) = ([x for x in args if x < earth[0]],                    [x for x in args if x > earth[0]])  heaven = firmament # In the beginning I also created  # garbage collection, but I don't expect Adam and Eve will be  # interested in the technical details...  day(assert_goodness(light))  (seas, earth) = (''.join(below), [])  # Trust me, there are good reasons for all the reassignment.  # TODO: document ineffability module fully.  goodness = assert_goodness(seas, earth)  class fruit:    def __init__(self, seed_prototype):      self.seed_prototype = seed_prototype    def __call__(self):      return approximate_copy(seed_prototype)  class fruit_tree:    def __init__(self):      self.fruit_after_own_kind = fruit(self)    def __call__(self):      return approximate_copy(fruit_after_own_kind)  earth = [grass, lambda seed: herb, fruit_tree()]  goodness = goodness and assert_goodness(*earth)  day(goodness) # third  # TODO: Four More Days! Eh, I'm immortal, what do I care, really.  # Anyway, I do know I'll need this check at the end:  if None in globals.values(): raise ValueError, "God's word never returns void!"
Quote:Original post by Etnu
Quote:Original post by Andrew Russell
lol. your reply was totally unexpected. I thought someone with the word "jesus" in their username would have a totally oppisite view on it.

Anyway, I am glad people are agreeing, carry on.


I thought you were a programmer. You do know what the term "xor" means, right?


Exactly. He's mutually exclusive with Jesus.

Or maybe he just wants to flip Jesus' bits...

::ducks::

Edit: While I'm writing, I'd like to posit that there isn't really such a thing as "teaching Creationism", at least not independantly of the religious backing. Presenting a theory which leaves that much unspecified can't really be said to be teaching anything. "Why is it so?" "Because of a higher power" is not much different from "Why is it so?" "We don't know".

Edit again: Sorry about the multiple posts. How come the interesting threads only start after I turn away from Gamedev :( Anyway, it's too much effort to make a single post when there are several people to quote across multiple pages of the thread. :/
Quote:Zahlman
Recognizing BS is an important skill, but noone seems to want others to learn it. Why? Because they BS, and they're afraid of being called on it.

Well said. And applies in many more situations than this.

You know you have like... 5 posts... in a row...

And yes Entu, I know what xor means, I just didn't notice it at the time. My guess is that he'd like to be mutually exclusive of jesus.
Quote:Original post by Andrew Russell
Quote:Zahlman
(snip)

You know you have like... 5 posts... in a row...

If you hadn't interrupted, he would have gotten a 1-up.
You don't need to vote for the "lesser of two evils"! Learn about Instant Runoff Voting, the simple cure for a broken democracy!
I think various versions of creationism should be taulgt in history and/or history of religy class. Not in biology class. If it will be studied in biology class, it will not be biology.

And in biology class, reply to the question "How first protobacteria was created" is just "We don't know, believed that as result of random combination". This "we don't know" it's what makes difference between science and religy. Science can say "we don't know" *.
From my POV it's alot less extremistic than "sure we know! It's god created everything!"

Also, i totally agree that there's nothing in creationism to study, it all is in one phrase, "something created everything". All other ideas(in how many days, etc) is soliely related to specific religy. Some religies even believe that world is just dream(or nightmare?) of god and there's no "creation" in [Christianity/Islam/Judaism] sense.

*:
of course science put great effort in finding why, but there's always some "we don't know".
And for comparison, religy always tries to just close the question with minimal possible effort.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement