Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it

[jetson]

What Popper said, was proven as well. And your assertion that the bible tells the earth is a disk, shows once again that you like to stick to popular pre-conceptions, without having done your home work.

Pot, meet kettle.  lol

[Godexists]

<snip>

The fact that you're a conspiracy nut theorist tells me, among other things, that you won't listen to reason and logic unless it soothes your ego.
Enjoy your delusions.

Oh sure. It seems quit clear who is delusional, and that you have no grasp about what you critizise.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/14/

The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemical correspondence between amino acids and their cognate codons (or anticodons), through selectional optimization of the code vocabulary, as a "frozen accident" or via a combination of all these routes is another wide open problem despite extensive theoretical and experimental studies.

[Godexists]

Godexists, I can't find any publication called "A Case Of a Creator".

http://books.google.com.br/books/about/The_Case_for_a_Creator.html?id=Wg66gWttf-cC&redir_esc=y

[Graybeard]

its nothing new that there is a lobby of scientists with a agenda  against creationist scientists....

Of course there is! They are there in the same way that there is also a lobby of psychiatrists against people with delusions.

The scientists are dedicated to broadening scientific fact; letting our civilisation grow, Providing real explanations.

Why not have a debate on whether there are witches? Why won't genuine historians take part in a debate with neo-nazis as to whether the Holocaust took place?

Why won't black historians pit themselves against some white supremacist?

I'll tell you why, genuine historians, black or otherwise, have better taste than to associate themselves with such trash.


Why would an honest scientist engage with a deluded creationist?

The "creationists" are stuck in the Dark Ages peddling lies, half-truths, and out-moded theories to the gullible so their acolytes can fleece them of their money on Sundays.

Have a look for a Dawkins video on "quote mining", see what lies and despicable acts your creationist friends get up to.

An Earth that was there before the sun?... O Really?
An Earth in 6 days? Yes... sure...
An invisible being poofing things into existence? ... Do people really believe that?
A sun that goes round the earth? tell me about it.
A god that stops the sun in the heavens? ... why, it happens all the time.
Men made from mud and women from spare ribs? Why not - have you never heard of stem cell research and cloning sheep? Any Bronze Age Peasant knew that.
Mountains high enough so you can see all the earth from the top? Well... some people can look right round spheres and see their own arse.
Disease that is caused by demonic possession? Of course...
A flood that covered the earth to the height of mount Everest yet did not dampen the feet of the Egyptians? Well, that seems reasonable...
No animal has significantly changed since the dawn of time? ... Let's throw away all those fossils.

I could go on.

[Gnu Ordure]

Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists?  And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 88 % of the public) believe in (either) spontaneous or slow Creation this is even more astounding. 

So your deduction is ?

That proper scientists don't want to waste their time debating with theists. Scientific issues are not settled by debates.

Most debates between atheists and theists are won by a far margin by theists.

Do you have some figures to back that up, please?

its nothing new that there is a lobby of scientists with a agenda  against creationist scientists....

Possibly, but you're claiming a conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientists across many disciplines. Which is simply paranoid - unless you have solid evidence to support such a claim. Do you?

Yet you reject science in some areas; specifically, where the Bible contradicts science.

Like as when it comes the explanation of stars and planet formation ? or the fact that the universe most probably had a beginning ? i could go on and on. But if you want to discuss this issue, you can open a new thread......

That dodges my point completely. Try again.

And so you have to cite pseudo-science and invent conspiracy theories and media bias in order to keep your religious beliefs intact. Which makes you look a bit silly, to be honest.

thats just your wishful thinking.

No, really, you do look silly. Trust me.

[Graybeard]

If I pointed you to anything more complex and thorough, you would not understand it.

Should you as a moderator not understand, that not my understanding of complex issues  is on quest here, but the issue of the topic ?  If you are unable to leave personal attacks aside, i must deduce that you have a poor case to defend.

1. I was not posting as a moderator, if and when I do that, I do it in bold, green text.
2. There is no personal attack. I honestly believe that you would not understand anything more complex - you seem congenitally unable to grasp the difference between a folk-tale and science.
3. Your powers of deduction are worse than I thought.

[MadBunny]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,

How droll.

UNIVERSE
u·ni·verse? ?[yoo-nuh-vurs]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

Are you suggesting that there is something that exists outside of the universe?

[Astreja]

You have a lost case, so attack me personally. I understand......

Takk fyrir!  I shall take that as a high compliment.

(Springy G giggles, finishes Her diet cola, and notes in Her woo-woo journal "07 July 2012:  Seið acknowledged by recipient.")

[Godexists]

That proper scientists don't want to waste their time debating with theists. Scientific issues are not settled by debates.

So proper scientists are all naturalists and atheists, and a scientist cannot have faith in God, and be a theist ? what a sick perception......

http://nobelists.net/

Do you have some figures to back that up, please?

Juste see the debates of lennox and craig. these debates are good examples.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10018

its nothing new that there is a lobby of scientists with a agenda  against creationist scientists....Possibly, but you're claiming a conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientists across many disciplines. Which is simply paranoid - unless you have solid evidence to support such a claim. Do you?

absolutely.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html

That dodges my point completely. Try again.

you make the claim. You present the evidence. but in a new thread, please.

No, really, you do look silly. Trust me.

you bet i do.

[Emily]

GodExist, do you read the links you post prior to making the post, or do you just search google and find something you think might support what you are saying, without actually caring if it does, and hope that you get luckly?

That proper scientists don't want to waste their time debating with theists. Scientific issues are not settled by debates.

So proper scientists are all naturalists and atheists, and a scientist cannot have faith in God, and be a theist ? what a sick perception......

http://nobelists.net/

Not necessarily the point Gnu was getting at. Nice little strawman you built there. You have quite the army going.

A scientist can believe in whatever he or she wants too, including religious beliefs. As long as those believes stay in their personal lives and don't enter the laboratory.

For example: Michael Behe might be a real scientist. I mean, he has the credentials. But he also believes in irreducible complexity. To sum it all up he believes biochemical structures are too complex to come about naturally, and injects god, whether a personal god or something generic, to the cause of these 'complex structures', when in reality it's all a god of the gaps.

Newton had very strong faith in god. However if he attributed F=MA to god then he'd be completely wrong. If he wrote that god was the cause for gravity, while also having done a lot of studying up on gravity, then he's probably not be such a good scientist because he let his faith interfere with his findings.

Irreducible complexity that is believed by Behe is just poor science. He might've made some significant findings but to conclude that lifeforms can be broken down to something that is too complex therefor attribute that complexity to some higher supernatural creator is just a horrible conclusion because he hasn't scientifically shown that it is too complex, only that he thinks it is.

Scientific issues are not settled by debate. They are only settled by if a scientist can prove using the scientific method that their findings are correct. And I really doubt that anyone here would say that all scientists are naturalist and atheists. So perhaps you should stop with the strawmen arguments.

And really, who the hell cares if a scientist is an atheist, agnostic, christian, muslim, or believes that little gnomes and pixies in the earths crust at the bottom of the ocean is responsible for all of existence. They can hold a personal belief all they want too; but when the begin injecting their beliefs into the scientific community and passing off their findings as works of their god that when they should (and perhaps do) get laughed at.

And rightfully so.

Juste see the debates of lennox and craig. these debates are good examples.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10018

This doesn't prove anything. I will admit that WLC is very good at 'winning' debates, but that doesn't mean his position is correct. WLC has spent years finely-tuning his craft and skills as a debater.

Really who 'wins' a debate anyways? The viewer and listener decide the outcomes. That being if the viewer and listener are swayed by what one debater makes over the other. When it comes to Craig he is always the 'winner' because (from what I've seen) his position always comes to do, "God is {blah, blah, blah}." And how can someone beat someone else in a debate when it comes do to god? Someone might be able to say god doesn't exist, and then they have to 'prove' it somehow, but how can someone prove that which doesn't exist? Or we can get more specific and ask which god(s) don't exist.

Does YHWH exist? No, he doesn't. How do I know? Simple: The bible, the only source of truly knowing YHWH's character. It's a book written that includes how YHWH acts with the physical world, how YHWH handles those who worship him and those who don't, etc. But the book is just completely wrong about a lot of things, such as the 'creation' of the heavens and the earth.

Big Bang Cosmology has proven that the big bang has happened. The universe does have a beginning, but that doesn't necessarily mean it had a supernatural beginner. Sadly cosmology has only gone so far back at the Plank Epoch, or the very first second after the big bang. It hasn't gone any further so what actually caused the big bang to 'bang' is still a mystery, but scientists in the field of cosmology are working on going further back.

But if that scientist concludes that god is behind this, and names that god YHWH then he's a fucking idiot, and it's now up to that scientist to prove it is, in fact, YHWH.

-Em

[Graybeard]

its nothing new that there is a lobby of scientists with a agenda  against creationist scientists....Possibly, but you're claiming a conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientists across many disciplines. Which is simply paranoid - unless you have solid evidence to support such a claim. Do you?

absolutely.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html

You were asked for something to support your claim. This is what you came up with:

One of the most powerful education organizations in the country is the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), which stands alongside the rest of the Darwin lobby in holding that neo-Darwinian evolution should be taught in a one-sided, pro-evolution-only fashion.

This is an extreme position, as it seeks to ban scientific criticisms of evolution.

Hello! Hello! I thought you were going to produce some evidence.

The creationists have no science! There is no science there, they are wrong. Why do you want children taught ignorance and superstition?

Why must the Bible be right? What's the big deal?

Do you think that the Islamic version of evolution should be taught in all schools? Or the Hindu version? Or the Norse version? Or several Native American versions[1]?

I will support you in this. Once a child has heard seven or eight creation and evolution myths, each told and explained with equal time and skill, they would never, ever accept the Judeo-Christian one as anything other than a fairy tale.

But don't take up real science time otherwise you will produce a nation of morons.

1.

An Algonqulan-speaking tribe, the Lenape (“the People”) were called the Delaware by European settlers because their settlements tended to border the Delaware River.  In the beginning there was only empty space. In that space the creator, Kishelamakank. lived. The creator was possessed by a vision of a world, with lakes. rivers, and mountains, forests and plants, and animals of all kinds, a world where there were emotions and wonderful experiences. To make the vision come to life, the creator thought about each of its elements, and these elements gradually began to take form. To help him with his creation, Kishelamakank created the great spirits of Rock, Fire, Wind, and Water who were also spirits of the four directions. Northern Grandfather, Muxumsa Lowanewank, was Spirit of the Rock. His role in creation was to provide solidity to the Creator’s vision. He is winter, but he is also responsible for all of the physical things in our world. Eastern Grandfather, Muxumsa Wapanewank, is spring and wind. He is the provider of mental powers, light, and creativity. Southern Grandmother,  Homa Shawanewank, is summer and the Fire that is the sun. It is she who gives us Spirit and the possibilty of inner growth and energy. Finally. Muxumsa Wunchenewank, Western Grandfather, is the great water spirit. He is Fall and rain and he is death, but he is also renewal and the water—blood—that gives us life. The creator was helped further by Father Sun, who gave warmth and light, by Mother Moon, who brought fertility, and by Mother Earth, who served as the vehicle for life itself.  All kinds of things now came into full being: plants. trees, crops. animals of all kinds—all living in harmony. Our Grandmother Moon. Nipahuma,  feeling lonely, asked the creator for a  husband and the Creator sent Thunder, Muxumsa Pethakowe, with whose help Grandmother Moon conceived and then gave birth on Earth to the Twins—the first humans, a man and a woman—who used their opposite natures to reproduce and who were always watched over at night by their Grandmother Moon. There were many opposites in creation, because the Creator had seen opposites in his original vision. So darkness opposed light, male was balanced by female, and because the spirit Manatu  opposed the Creator, evil worked against good. This was Manatu, who made evil to counter goodness; poisonous animals and plants to undermine useful animals and plants.  The Creator now made the Great Toad, the spirit Kichichax’kal, to live on Earth and to be in charge of balancing the waters. But the Toad was challenged and ultimately defeated by the evil horned  serpent. Maxa’xak. The Earth became a place of turmoil, so the Creator sent a great flood to cleanse his creation. (Oo look, another flood! It must be true!) But there was a good surviving spirit, Nanapush. who placed a few humans and animals in his shirt and climbed a cedar tree on top of a mountain to avoid the waters. He then made a raft of the cedar branches and he and his fellow survivors floated on the raft. (Oo look, An ark!) When the rains stopped, Nanapush decided to make use of powers given him by the Creator to create a new world. He sent various animals into the depths of the water that covered the old world to find soil for a new world. Various animals tried and failed in their dive. Finally, the muskrat succeeded and brought up soil in his paws. Nanapush placed that soil on the back of Taxkwax,  the Turtle, and the Earth immediately began to grow into the world we know, the world we call Turtle Island. Nanapush breathed life into the new elements that formed on the new Earth. A fine tree grew from Mother Earth and the first new man grew from a root of the tree. When the tree kissed Mother Earth, she sent a woman to be with the man. These were the first ancestors of the Lenape. Nanapush taught these Lenape how to live properly and then he turned himself into a rabbit and left for the spirit world.

[MadBunny]

People have a tendency to see what they want to see.  Blackhawk helicopters for example.



Do you know why your mind automatically makes this assumption?  Because that's the way the human mind works.  We naturally try to fill in gaps.
It's such a problem that we have to use something called 'rational thinking' to get around it.  With rational thinking, comes the scientific method.

The problem that I see in this thread is that a lot of people are conflating a philosophical argument with a naturalistic one.
By a *lot of people* I mean mainly 'Godexists'.

Naturalism: [1]
4. Philosophy .
a.  the view of the world that takes account only of natural  elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b.  the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

Given that you can't show evidence of anything beyond the natural, and that doing so would by definition have to occur in the natural universe, the ball is in your court to show any other reasonable alternative.

1.	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalism

[Godexists]

The creationists have no science! There is no science there, they are wrong. Why do you want children taught ignorance and superstition?

Creationists pressupose the bible is right, and search for scientific evidence to back it up.

Intelligent Design promoters however have a oposite proceeding : they  check the scientific evidence, and search for the best, and most compelling explanation for given phenomena.

There is on the one side the scientific data. And there is the explanation for given data. Some deduce evolution, others creation. The difference is only the interpretation. 

Do you think that the Islamic version of evolution should be taught in all schools? Or the Hindu version? Or the Norse version? Or several Native American versions[nb]An Algonqulan-speaking tribe, the Lenape (“the People”) were called the Delaware by European settlers because their settlements tended to border the Delaware River.

Why should it be only the evolution theory, if creationism is much older anyway ? Why is it wrong to present to children the different world views, and they can make up their mind by themself ?

[Zankuu]

Why should it be only the evolution theory, if creationism is much older anyway ? Why is it wrong to present to children the different world views, and they can make up their mind by themself ?

For one it's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't evolution or Christian creationism. There are thousands of creation myths, that's why Christian creationism doesn't need to be taught alongside evolution in a science classroom, it needs to be taught with all the other creation myths.

[Godexists]

For example: Michael Behe might be a real scientist. I mean, he has the credentials. But he also believes in irreducible complexity. To sum it all up he believes biochemical structures are too complex to come about naturally, and injects god, whether a personal god or something generic, to the cause of these 'complex structures', when in reality it's all a god of the gaps.

Of course its not a God of the Gaps . Because Behe undestands the functioning of blood clotting, or the Flagella, he deduced rationally a intelligent designer as the best explanation for given phenomena.

 

Irreducible complexity that is believed by Behe is just poor science.

please explain, why.


 

He might've made some significant findings but to conclude that lifeforms can be broken down to something that is too complex therefor attribute that complexity to some higher supernatural creator is just a horrible conclusion because he hasn't scientifically shown that it is too complex, only that he thinks it is.

the ultimate conclusion and deduction of given phenomena is always based on  personal faith. Darwin did not show that we have a common ancestor, he just thought it is so.

Scientific issues are not settled by debate. They are only settled by if a scientist can prove using the scientific method that their findings are correct.

That doesnt apply to historical sciences, only empirical ones.



 

And I really doubt that anyone here would say that all scientists are naturalist and atheists. So perhaps you should stop with the strawmen arguments.

I did not say that. A other debater came up with this nonsense.

And really, who the hell cares if a scientist is an atheist, agnostic, christian, muslim, or believes that little gnomes and pixies in the earths crust at the bottom of the ocean is responsible for all of existence. They can hold a personal belief all they want too; but when the begin injecting their beliefs into the scientific community and passing off their findings as works of their god that when they should (and perhaps do) get laughed at.

I agree. Fortunately, that is not the proceeding applied by intelligent design proponents.

This doesn't prove anything. I will admit that WLC is very good at 'winning' debates, but that doesn't mean his position is correct.

If you think so, you should present the rebuttals to his arguments.....

Really who 'wins' a debate anyways? The viewer and listener decide the outcomes. That being if the viewer and listener are swayed by what one debater makes over the other. When it comes to Craig he is always the 'winner' because (from what I've seen) his position always comes to do, "God is {blah, blah, blah}." And how can someone beat someone else in a debate when it comes do to god? Someone might be able to say god doesn't exist, and then they have to 'prove' it somehow, but how can someone prove that which doesn't exist? Or we can get more specific and ask which god(s) don't exist.

At this topic, you do not need to prove a negative ( aka why god shall not exist ), but present good reasons for naturalism. Have any ?

Big Bang Cosmology has proven that the big bang has happened.

No, it has not. It is well accepted amongst the scientific community, since its the best theory they were able to come up with, but there are several flaws and unanswered questions.......



 

The universe does have a beginning, but that doesn't necessarily mean it had a supernatural beginner.

If it had a natural beginner, then the Big Bang would not be the starting point of the physical universe......

[jdawg70]

The creationists have no science! There is no science there, they are wrong. Why do you want children taught ignorance and superstition?

Creationists pressupose the bible is right, and search for scientific evidence to back it up.

Intelligent Design promoters however have a oposite proceeding : they  check the scientific evidence, and search for the best, and most compelling explanation for given phenomena.

There is on the one side the scientific data. And there is the explanation for given data. Some deduce evolution, others creation. The difference is only the interpretation. 

The difference isn't the interpretation - the difference is the predictions made.  You can interpret crap in any way you seem fit, but if your interpretation involves any kind of prediction then you have a testable case to validate or invalidate your interpretation.

Do you think that the Islamic version of evolution should be taught in all schools? Or the Hindu version? Or the Norse version? Or several Native American versions[nb]An Algonqulan-speaking tribe, the Lenape (“the People”) were called the Delaware by European settlers because their settlements tended to border the Delaware River.

Why should it be only the evolution theory, if creationism is much older anyway ? Why is it wrong to present to children the different world views, and they can make up their mind by themself ?

For the same reason you probably have for teaching alchemy - you find it irresponsible to present incorrect information to children as if it were an accurate reflection of what we know about the world.

[jaimehlers]

The fact that we can make predictions using science which can be tested and if necessary, proved false, is part of why science is so strong.  That's why Christian beliefs are not particularly compatible with scientific methodology, because they can't be tested.  Even a Christian scientist must be willing to set aside his belief in God while he actually operates in his field, because if he tries to claim that God was responsible for the results he got in an experiment, he would be expected to prove that, and he couldn't in any way that was rationally convincing to anyone else.

[Bellatrix]

This thread is intense. Godexists you sound like my catholic uncle; scary. He's to smart for his own good. He's very persuasive in the way he uses half truth's about science when trying to convince, mostly me how god is the only answer.

Funny thing is I attend catholic school in New York City & it's an on going joke that my atheism is just a passing phase. My uncle just heard about this and has been harassing me ever since.

I'm spending the summer in North Carolina and my dad is talking about moving here next year! I've never encountered such fundamentalism and to top it off they think Catholicism is pure evil.

Okay now to the point and question which I hope is somewhat relevant to the thread. How does a person like me and others of just average intelligence know where to obtain honest information about science when a person like me could easily be mislead by people like my uncle and or Godexists?

[Graybeard]

The creationists have no science! There is no science there, they are wrong. Why do you want children taught ignorance and superstition?

Creationists pressupose the bible is right, and search for scientific evidence to back it up.

Yes, and that is the problem.

To a man with a hammer, all problems are nails. Even when it is shown that the "Biblical Scientist" is wrong, they still persist in trying to prove the Bible to be true. They have only one solution.

The real Scientist will seek many possibilities and not let his own feelings influence him. To a real scientist, the outcome is unimportant; what is important is understanding things as they are, not as he wants them to be.

Intelligent Design promoters however have a oposite proceeding : they  check the scientific evidence, and search for the best, and most compelling explanation for given phenomena.

No, they do no original research. They go round nit-picking established theories. They use "irreducible complexity", which, you must understand, means,

"It is hard and I don't understand it, therefore God must have done it."

At one time, people did not understand why the planets orbit the sun and don't just fly off into space. These people said, "It is God's work." But then Newton and others came along, and now we know why planets don't fly off into space: it has nothing to do with God.

If we had not thought about the problem properly, and believed only the Church, we would never have had space exploration and all the inventions that have come from that project.

There is on the one side the scientific data. And there is the explanation for given data. Some deduce evolution, others creation. The difference is only the interpretation.

No. One side is trying to find out how things work; Biblical Scientist are pushing their own agenda - "The Bible is True."

Why should it be only the evolution theory, if creationism is much older anyway?

Something that is old is not necessarily correct, is it?

Why is it wrong to present to children the different world views, and they can make up their mind by themself ?

First of all, we should tell children the very best explanation.

Now, imagine teaching a child three different ways to spell, "superstition"
(i) sooperstishen
(ii) soupastitien
(iii) superstition

He goes out into the world and, at some stage has to write a book about superstition. What would you think of a book where the main word is spelled wrongly? You would think the author is an idiot, wouldn't you? You wouldn't believe him. Should he be allowed to teach others how to spell?

As I said, I have no problem with teaching creation myths, as long as it is clearly explained that they are myths and not real. Creation Myths are ancient people's ideas of how things worked before they really knew the answer.

Now I have told you this, please tell me, "Why is it important to show the Bible is right?"

[Godexists]

As I said, I have no problem with teaching creation myths, as long as it is clearly explained that they are myths and not real.

How are you so sure about it ?

Now I have told you this, please tell me, "Why is it important to show the Bible is right?"

It is important to find the truth. The journey to find it is individual. its important to present the various and diverging world views, and let people make up their own mind.

[pianodwarf]

Creationists pressupose the bible is right, and search for scientific evidence to back it up.

Intelligent Design promoters however have a oposite proceeding : they  check the scientific evidence, and search for the best, and most compelling explanation for given phenomena.

No, actually ID promoters do the same thing as creationists.  This is not surprising, since ID is simply creationism repackaged.  The only reason "intelligent design" exists today is that religionists were making an attempt to get creationism taught in public school science classes.  When this was ruled unconstitutional, creationists changed the name to "intelligent design", made a few superficial cosmetic changes to the concept, and took another stab at it.  Fortunately, courts have recognized the subterfuge and haven't fallen for it.

There is on the one side the scientific data. And there is the explanation for given data. Some deduce evolution, others creation. The difference is only the interpretation.

Objects unsupported fall toward the earth.  This is an observed fact.

Interpretation one: There is a force at work that causes objects to be attracted to each other.

Interpretation two: The earth is rapidly and constantly expanding like a balloon, meaning that when you release an object, the object is actually stationary, and the earth's surface rushes up to meet it.

Rather than explain further, I'm going to leave this analogy here and see whether you can figure out what I'm getting at.

Why should it be only the evolution theory, if creationism is much older anyway ?

The truth or falsity of a doctrine has nothing to do with its age.  The Steady State Theory is older than the Big Bang Theory, but that does not mean that both theories should be presented side-by-side as equally valid.  At best, learning about the Steady State Theory probably has some historical interest.  For modern-day scientific inquiry, it's essentially worthless.

Why is it wrong to present to children the different world views, and they can make up their mind by themself ?

What a great idea!  Let's start with fourth-grade biology classes.  On the one hand, we can teach the children that strychnine is an extremely deadly poison, and that drinking even a small amount of it will kill you.  On the other hand, we'll also teach them that Jesus said that anyone who believed in him would be able to drink strychnine safely.[1]  Then we'll give all the children in the class a vial of strychnine and let them decide for themselves whether to drink it.  How's that sound?

1.	Mark 16:18

[jaimehlers]

No, actually ID promoters do the same thing as creationists.  This is not surprising, since ID is simply creationism repackaged.  The only reason "intelligent design" exists today is that religionists were making an attempt to get creationism taught in public school science classes.  When this was ruled unconstitutional, creationists changed the name to "intelligent design", made a few superficial cosmetic changes to the concept, and took another stab at it.  Fortunately, courts have recognized the subterfuge and haven't fallen for it.

Thus why we have this "teach the controversy" nonsense that Godexists alluded to.  Third verse, same as the first.  They couldn't get creationism taught in the science classroom; they couldn't get people to believe that intelligent design wasn't just creationism repackaged.  So now they're trying to get people to accept that it's okay to teach 'alternatives' to established and tested science.

[jetson]

...So now they're trying to get people to accept that it's okay to teach 'alternatives' to established and tested science.

And what makes it nonsense?  The simple fact that nothing in creationism, in ANY of its flavors, can be scientifically tested or falsified.  It always, always, always ends up at....wait for it...God did it.  Saying God did it is the ultimate statement of incredulity on the part of anyone honestly searching for understanding.

It's pathetic.

[bertatberts]

This thread is intense. Godexists you sound like my catholic uncle; scary. He's to smart for his own good. He's very persuasive in the way he uses half truth's about science when trying to convince, mostly me how god is the only answer.

Funny thing is I attend catholic school in New York City & it's an on going joke that my atheism is just a passing phase. My uncle just heard about this and has been harassing me ever since.

I'm spending the summer in North Carolina and my dad is talking about moving here next year! I've never encountered such fundamentalism and to top it off they think Catholicism is pure evil.

Okay now to the point and question which I hope is somewhat relevant to the thread. How does a person like me and others of just average intelligence know where to obtain honest information about science when a person like me could easily be mislead by people like my uncle and or Godexists?

By:
Believing those who are seeking the truth.  And doubting those who have found it.

Seek unbiased information, anything that starts to be biased in any way disregard. And look again.

Take nobodies word for anything. Trust only in yourself and you own critical mind.

[DumpsterFire]

I sure am getting sick.......

I have good advice in such a case : don't participate at this topic, and you'll get well again.

This cowardly dismissal of all but the very first line of my post is the closest I have yet come to dropping my first -1 on somebody. Not that it would matter much to you, apparently.

My point was that there have been plenty of previous threads, always started by theists, with the OP ostensibly seeking info on a subject for which very little hard evidence exists (abiogenisis, origin of the universe, etc.). Invariably, as in this case, the true intent of the asker is not to honestly consider examples of supporting evidence/logic presented by others. The motivation of these threads is always a pathetic attempt to paint atheists into a corner, declare "Goddidit!", and refuse to acknowledge any and every bit of evidence presented to the contrary. Repeatedly spouting the same thing over and over again (while wallowing in willful ignorance) does not make it true. Has anyone checked to see if GE is actually Jakec in disguise?

Its the same old argument from ignorance/incredulity that goes: I don't understand this, therefore god. But again, so what? I posit that what took place 14+ billion years ago (and the impetus behind it) shouldn't be nearly as concerning as the stuff that actually affects our daily lives now. So all these things that you simply can't understand lead you to believe a god is behind them, but what makes you so certain its Yahweh? Why not Allah, or Vishnu, or Odin? Somehow you are sure those gods do not exist, right?

Why does a being capable of creating everything in existence require worship by us lowly humans? That is roughly the equivalent (on a developmental scale) of a scientist demanding to be worshipped by the bacteria in a petri dish. Why would such a god get its panties in a bunch when consenting adults of the same sex want to be together? Why would it delight in the smell of burning goat flesh? I doubt you have the intellectual capacity, but have you truly considered the implications of living for eternity? What exactly do you think you will be doing forever?

So you conclude from the fact that there are still a lot of things science can't explain that there is a god, but that's not enough for you. It has to be your god, who supports your exact beliefs, as well. My, how very convenient.

edit: clarity

[MadBunny]

For example: Michael Behe might be a real scientist. I mean, he has the credentials. But he also believes in irreducible complexity. To sum it all up he believes biochemical structures are too complex to come about naturally, and injects god, whether a personal god or something generic, to the cause of these 'complex structures', when in reality it's all a god of the gaps.

Of course its not a God of the Gaps . Because Behe undestands the functioning of blood clotting, or the Flagella, he deduced rationally a intelligent designer as the best explanation for given phenomena.

Here you go, this is about as basic as it can get.


 

Irreducible complexity that is believed by Behe is just poor science.

please explain, why.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

Read for yourself.

[jedweber]

Irreducible complexity that is believed by Behe is just poor science.

please explain, why.

Behe first published his "irreducible complexity' argument in 1996, and many of his examples have since been explained in evolutionary terms, and some of his major claims have been refuted.

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community (3) (4), and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design. (5) (6)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

There are links to sources in the wikipedia entry, and far more extensive references here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

I think you should look at some of the vast body of peer-reviewed research on this subject before asserting that Behe's claims have withstood scientific scrutiny.  Because they haven't.


 

[Gnu Ordure]

That proper scientists don't want to waste their time debating with theists. Scientific issues are not settled by debates.

So proper scientists are all naturalists and atheists, and a scientist cannot have faith in God, and be a theist ? what a sick perception......

Emily answered this point for me.

Do you have some figures to back that up, please?

Juste see the debates of lennox and craig. these debates are good examples.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10018

So you don't have any figures; why not just admit that?

its nothing new that there is a lobby of scientists with a agenda  against creationist scientists....Possibly, but you're claiming a conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientists across many disciplines. Which is simply paranoid - unless you have solid evidence to support such a claim. Do you?

absolutely.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html

That isn't evidence of a global conspiracy. Or any kind of conspiracy.

That dodges my point completely. Try again.

you make the claim. You present the evidence. but in a new thread, please.

I claimed that:

Yet you reject science in some areas; specifically, where the Bible contradicts science.

So if that's incorrect, tell me which parts of science you vehemently disagree with which have nothing to do with the Bible.

[mrbiscoop]

Let's not just stop with intelligent design.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/uploads/Teachboththeories3.gif