Cosh;
… that what is about to happen to Tory is somewhat unjust. He may, after all, end up as the first Conservative party leader anywhere in Canada to lose an election because he advocated relativism and multiculturalism. These are twin creeds that Liberals and public-school teachers are happy to profess when the subject is government or sexual morality, but just watch how quickly they are abandoned when someone challenges the science curriculum.
set you free:
Puhlease. 1) Religion is not science, and 2) your assertion that non-religious scientists are intellectually lazy is utter bullsh*t.
Try it on someone else. Intellectual laziness might be more closely related to unreasonable belief in the almighty tooth fairy, as opposed to a rational approach to the discovery of natural laws.
In any case, I don’t care much about that – reality has a way of coming out on top in the end.
What I find really surprising is the comment at the top of this article, re: John Tory losing an election based on a ‘multicultural’ policy idea. Firstly, because Tory’s idea is not multiculturalism, and anyone who thinks it is, obviously doesn’t have a reasonable concept of anything but the most vulgar form of multiculturalism. Secondly, because I think it is surprising because we find that the rabid so-called ‘conservatives’ are advocating throwing wads of money at a new program that will create a whole new aspect of an already troubled education system. Since when are conservatives all about new spending programs? Easy! When it is something THEY want.
It would all be humourous, if it wasn’t so predictable.
gary and jimbo:
My sympathies go out to you if you feel religion deceived you or threatens you in any way.
Either your teachers were bad or you didn’t listen.
anon:
Why do you keep equating religion with science?
Science is knowledge and the discovery of facts. For every discovered fact, another 10 questions arise.
Religion is the articulation of wisdom gained through human experience. It has never failed to provide me an answer, no matter how complex the question.
Two entirely separate levels of understanding. Where’s the conflict?
The universe was created and life on earth evolved.
What problem do you have with that concept? How does that statement threaten you?
If the big bang theory is taught in schools, I’d say creation deserves at least equal billing.
ET wrote:
”If they chose to reject that curriculum and registered teachers, then, they are not funded.”
I thought that those conditions applied to the “common curriculum”, not the religious studies? Or, does John Tory envisage that government bureaucrats will start dropping into the religious lectures unannounced, to police and grade their dogma? (That should make human rights lawyers happy.) If so, what’s to prevent the lecturer from changing the subject matter, or its tone, as soon as the government’s “religious studies auditor” walks through the door?
”AND – at the moment, without such funding, there is no way that we can observe or critique Muslim fanaticism in their current schools. So – your fear that ‘IF we fund, we won’t stand up to them’ – well, we aren’t funding them now, and we aren’t standing up to them now.”
That some Muslim schools might already be teaching islamo-facism is hardly a good reason for why the public should pick up their tab.
ahh – albatross – dumb as ever.
I’m an atheist; I’m not advocating ‘intelligent design’, ie, a metaphysical Designer.
I’m advocating complex adaptive systems, that are self-organizing information gatherers, processors and producers. Biological systems are complex adaptive systems that interact informationally with their env’t. I won’t go into the intricacies here, but CAS (complex adaptive systems) is a basic scientific theory.
You know, FBS aren’t just teaching their religion; they are teaching everything. What Tory wants is to bring their curriculum under the control of the Ontario educational system. It has nothing to do with promoting ‘creationism’ – what nonsense to think that it does’.
It is to bring these schools THAT ALREADY EXIST into the curriculum control of the people of Ontario. The schools would be required to teach the Ontario curriculum and to use registered teachers. I think it’s an excellent idea.
Murray – sexual selection has nothing to do with the theory of random mutation of genes and nothing to do with natural selection. Yes, there’s a lot of work being done that is moving away, thankfully, from the simplistic reductionism of Dawkin’s ‘selfish gene’ but that’s not what I’m talking about when I’m referring to complex adaptive systems.
Richard Ball – as an atheist, I disagree with your requirement for ‘a moral imprint from god’. Our species has evolved with a mind that is large enough to process interactions logically; that is, we have the use of analytic reason – that we can articulate using symbols (language).
Set you free – the Big Bang was not a destructive act but constructive. What existed before the BigBang – in an atemporal and aspatial mode, was dense compacted energy – like a ‘point’. This energy suddenly ‘flipped’; it moved from being a dense compacted point to another shape – that is, the ‘point’ exploded such that its energy content slowed down and became operative within both spatial and temporal modes. That meant that it transformed into matter. It existed below the speed of light. This matter then evolved over 20 billion years into more and more complex modes of organization – from the first simple atoms, to the first simple cells, more complex cells and more complex organisms…All of them networked together.
So, the BigBang is an Act of Creation, a beautiful act that enabled all forms of matter to develop, both as individual units (atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, people), and as collectives..and as networked collaborations.
What guides this constant dynamic complex system? I consider that it is ‘mind’ or reason. No, not a metaphysical agent, not god, but an internal logic within the system itself. {Actually – that’s rather Aristotelian/Peircean..}.
“When has religion ever masqueraded as science?”
Is this a trick question, a rhetorical one or what? Intelligent Design is religion masquerading as science. Especially, ESPECIALLY, in the way the topic was put forward by John Tory. I provided the controversial quote in this thread.
Oh, and if you’re feeling a bit put upon, Global Warming as it stands today is also religion masquerading as science.
Really, it’s a silly question.
setyoufree:
I have no problem with the creation of the universe, but I sure have a problem with the imposition of the ‘magic man’ and a puff of smoke to make it happen – particularly a magic man with the properties suggested by organized religion. Further, all evidence points to the fact that the universe doesn’t need guidance or an explicit creator to achieve its current state.
I’m pretty sure that statement is going to balloon into all manner of nonsense that I don’t have time for, so I would suggest you start with your own research at this point. That is what everyone else does.
As for teaching creation in schools:
1) We don’t have enough time in the curriculum or money in the budget for more important items – and many other things should be added to the curriculum before personal spiritual beliefs (or even theology), even if we were talking about history/sociology class.
2) We don’t teach science in your church, and I fail to see why creation can’t be taught in church/sunday school the way it always has been, rather than at the taxpayers expense.
ET said
“AND – at the moment, without such funding, there is no way that we can observe or critique Muslim fanaticism in their current schools. So – your fear that ‘IF we fund, we won’t stand up to them’ – well, we aren’t funding them now, and we aren’t standing up to them now.”
So if we arent going to stand up to them why give them money?
Jason C….
I await your parties pronouncement on removing Catholic School funding, and if dont rely on the constitutional defence since those things can be changed. If you and your party really believe what you are saying then state now that your party will work out the ammendment to the constitution to remove the requirement to fund catholic schools….
Trust me I wont be holding my breath because the McGuinty government is doesnt have the cohones or principles to do it. Major major liars, the health tax being the best, but by far not the only, example.
At least the conservative poistion, as much as I dont like it, has some semblance of consistency to it. Hearing Greg sorbara, Dalton McGuinty (Catholic school educated all) defending the public school system is a rich.
You really want to make an issue of this, and I wish you would. Take the position you profess to believe in, promise a constitutional ammendment (no biggie, Ontario says it wants the change the feds say ok and it is done)
“At least the conservative poistion, as much as I dont like it, has some semblance of consistency to it. ”
That’s it, right there. Funding Catholics and not other belief systems is not consistent. Saying that it is in the constitution to fund only Catholics is silly — many things in the law get changed overtime. We are no longer just Protestant (i.e: public schools of the past) and Catholic. Times have changed. Women got the vote, people of colour got equality, gays got to marry (though I wish the definition of marriage had remained “between one man and one woman” — someone’s going to want to marry their cat soon, but I digress), hopefully other religions get funding for their schools. Other provinces do fund their schools with no dramatic rending of the social fabric. What’s the big deal?
The Tories just bungled the whole presentation, though. They let all the bigots come out of the closet and have a hate-on for an old bug-bear. They should have advocated a voucher-system or a tax break from the start.
This matter then evolved over 20 billion years into more and more complex modes of organization – from the first simple atoms, to the first simple cells, more complex cells and more complex organisms…All of them networked together.
My, that’s a nice story. No facts, but a nice story. Is that what they call facts these days? LOL
The Big Bang Theory corroborates the Book of Genesis – “in the beginning”. Before the Big Bang, people/scientists thought the universe always was – it had no beginning. Science has now proven the book of Genesis to be true – there was a beginning.
Torah scholars, long before there was a fossil record, read the first 6 days of creation to be on a different time scale (the sun and the moon show up on day 4). Torah sages do not think the age of the universe is 5767 – that is just the date since Adam. Kabbablists back in the middle ages calculated the age of universe to be 13 billion years or some number very close to what modern scientists calculate.
Yep, old hoss – those are facts. Check out any basic scientific outline of the Big Bang and the transformation from simple homogeneous matter to more complex modes of matter.
Check out the journal Science for various articles on astronomy and astrophysics.
And there’s lots of articles at NASA on the Big Bang.
Enjoy your research on these facts.
…those are facts. Check out any basic scientific outline of the Big Bang and the transformation from simple homogeneous matter to more complex modes of matter.
Except none of it has been proven.
ol hoss:
And, thereby, that’s why the word THEORY is always used.
Since none of us were here at the beginning of time, nobody can prove how it started.
All I know is that an explosion, a.k.a. the big bang fairy tale, seems an unfeasable was to start anything.
I prefer a creator because it’s something human can relate to … the ability to create.
Can’t fantom what magic man set off the big bang, though. Must have been a predecessor of Osama bin Laden.
anon said at4:44 PM
“…we find that the rabid so called ‘conservatives’ are advocating throwing wads of money at a new program that will create a whole new aspect of an already troubled education system.”
Not so. Education is a “zero-sum game”. It’s funded on a per student basis. The furor over JT’s remarks is part of a frantic attempt to prevent the hemmoraging of students out of the public system into the private one.
Can somebody please help me?
I’d like to create a small dead animal by setting off a stick of dynamite … you know, emulating the big bang theory?
All I get is guts flying all over the place.
Set you free,
That’s called “reducto ad absurdium”, it’s also reminiscent of the opposition to our planetary system having the sun at the centre and the theory of gravity.
Your basic argument style went out of style the second the Greeks came up with Empiricism.
“Can somebody please help me?
I’d like to create a small dead animal by setting off a stick of dynamite … you know, emulating the big bang theory?
All I get is guts flying all over the place.”
Then turn to your religion. Apparently its accumulated wisdom should be able to make that work. Facetious displays of ignorance speak poorly of your “accumulated wisdom”. 😉
“Except none of it has been proven.”
Well ol hoss, perhaps you can show us some of YOUR PROOF? OK, just as I thought, STFU!!!
set you free – the theories of subatomic particles, nuclear and particle behaviour – is really quite fascinating. The transformation from simple to complex modes of organization, the interactions between them, the role of heat and form – etc..
I’m sure you don’t really think that the universe began by blowing up an existential ‘thing’, so your example is – well, just silly.
Your requirement for a metaphysical Agent, an external Creator – begs the question. Who/what created this Creator? I’ve never found the various arguments for the existence of god (eg, Aquinas, Anselm) very convincing.
Why couldn’t the universe, which is essentially ‘organized energy’ be self-organized?
“Can’t fantom what magic man set off the big bang, though. Must have been a predecessor of Osama bin Laden.”
Care to answer my question about who created your flying spaghetti monster you call God?? See my note to ol hoss as well!!
“Can’t fantom what magic man set off the big bang, though. Must have been a predecessor of Osama bin Laden.”
Care to answer my question about who created your flying spaghetti monster you call God?? See my note to ol hoss as well!!
Creationism and evolution dont matter at all in this debate.
Quite frankly I dont remember evolution as a specific theory coming up in any of my high school classes. Might have been woven into the biology class….but if this is really about about 1 hour of class time out of a total high school then we really have lost perspective on this.
Problem will be if you have to rewrite entire curriculum to accomodate some of the more hairbrained implications. At the end of the day I dont know how you teach religous math unless it is…………
there were 4 zionist sodier opperssors conducting house to house searches when an IED goes off and kills one a injures another who dies on the way to the hospital. How many zionist soldier oppressors are left? And show your work………….
Lefties in this thread missing the point again.
John Tory is as much a conservative as Dalton the Sly. He’s a tax and spend socialist trying to bribe people with their own money.
Its just that at this time he’s trying to bribe people who send their kids to religious schools. With their own money.
A conservative usually is a strong believer in religious education. At church, not on the tax payer’s dime.
There is no conservative option in this election, there is, again damnit, only three shades of tax-and-spend pink.
The only reason for a conservative to vote PC this time is that John Tory hasn’t broken every promise he ever made. As yet, anyway.
Mutter, mutter…blast! OK, I give up – I just KNOW it won’t do any good, but here’s the “state of the art” methodological explanation, within the scientific consensus, in layman terms:
First, cosmological and biological origins are inverse problems. What this means is that we are trying to infer the existence of everything, at earlier times, from out present observations.
So, first the cosmos: my understanding is that a wee little imaginary bubble (like, a trillion-trillion-trillionth of a meter across), for no reason at all, suddenly popped out of nothing (this would be REAL nothing, not even space). This random quantum fluctuation (the technical term), for some unknown reason, decided to bulk up really fast – undergoing an ENORMOUSLY rapid period of “growth”. This inflation (the technical term) then mysteriously stopped, for no apparent reason. Then the monkeys started in on Shakespeare…that is, things progressed randomly. Stars were born and died. When enough of them had done this, stars with planets could appear.
Now for life: The planets could start cooking in their own juices. One such planet was our own. Out of its juices arose life. This life got complex. Here we are.
Now for the dirty linen: there are apparently puzzling inconsistencies in the standard cosmologies…observational evidences not in accord with the “standard model” (the technical term). I’m not going to lecture – the problems are not the point. The point is that observations are fitted to a model. It may be a good model. Many do think so. But it’s still a model, and we got issues. Film at eleven. Go figure.
Now, fishing the linen out of the soup (sorry, sorry!)…here is where ET and I strongly part ways: she posits (along with most of our colleagues) that life (the universe, and everything) is a complex adaptive process, hence growth and development are foreordained. She needs to do this because there is not enough time (billions and billions is NOT enough) for random undirected events to produce present life in all its glory. This is an acknowledged fact, and an indisputable truth, despite the public perception to the contrary. There is only one problem with the complex adaptive systems explanation – it’s exceedingly weak on evidence. While the logic and observations demand foreordained, directed, purposeful development, we have not been able to demonstrate it. Ladies and gentlemen: scientists are struggling with this problem, not heartily congratulating each other for a job well done.
ET said “I’m sure you don’t really think that the universe began by blowing up an existential ‘thing’, so your example is – well, just silly.”
Read my post above (the both of you), and then recall that the term “big bang” was coined in mockery by a famous scientist who believed that aliens are responsible for life on this planet.
tenebris – I thought that Hoyle, a proponent of the steady-state theory, made up the term ‘bigbang’ (he was against it). His theory of panspermia or bacteria/viruses coming into the earth’s atmosphere from space is hardly equivalent to any notion of ‘aliens’ (which implies an intelligent agent).
Second, regressive analysis is not unusual but quite normal. For example, you can analyze bone composition and understand the foods grown and used, the type of work done by the individual, and so on. You can analyze current physical and biological properties to explore earlier properties by examining the history of the appearances of these properties.
The bigbang theory doesn’t assume that matter ‘popped out of nothing’ but that energy was enormously compressed and dense – it wasn’t existing as a tiny bubble all isolate in space. But the energy of the universe was dense, compressed, rather like digital code – and suddenly, expanded and became…undense, rather like ‘text’, ie, matter.
No, I don’t agree that a complex adaptive system is ‘foreordained’. Absolutely not. There isn’t any linear path. But, there is increasing complexity of organization of this matter. I don’t accept randomness as causal, so, I don’t need to explain it away.
Yes, there is a LOT of evidence on complexity and nonlinear systems. Many scientific conferences, many journals, many books. Never mind the usual (Sante Fe Institute, New England Institute, CASYS) and people like Gell-Mann, Casti, Kauffman, Bak, etc. Just type in Complexity Digest – which is sent to me weekly. It lists many articles in scientific journals on complexity, conferences, web pages, etc etc. It’s an enormous field. The work is primarily in mathematics, computer science, physics, biology and economics. Fascinating stuff – and it’s hard data and evidence.
There’s a lot of conspiracy theories out there, too.
Most of them cannot stand the test of time.
ET, I’m punching above my weight here, but just for a giggle shall we consider entropy for a moment?
Following the Big Bang there has been an increase in order, culminating in us arguing on Small Dead Animals.
Can this even happen all by itself in an entropic universe?
I remember reading Penrose, he said the specification for the initial Big Bang was such a small pinpoint out of the available possibilities, the chances of it happening are 10^-x where “x” is bigger than the number of particles in the universe. Or something like that, I’d have to go read it again to quote it properly.
Oh, and John Tory wears pink undies!!! Can’t stray from the subject at hand!
I just want to know if Adam & Eve had belly buttons?
@Gary at September 8, 2007 3:11 PM
“Who created the creator???? Until anyone can answer this question, with FACTS, your belief systems are garbage!”
Gary, I hope you don’t think you are being either original or clever in asking this question. There are philosophers and theologians who have thought deeply about this subject; if you are truly interested in knowing, I suggest you do some digging.
For starters, creation is within the context of time/space which is finite and temporal. The Creator stands outside of time/space and therefore has neither beginning or end.
“Everything that begins to exist has a cause” — this is our uniform experience in life. If you hear a loud noise outside, a big bang, you will ask, “what caused that bang?”. If I were to suggest nothing caused it, it “just happened”, you would not accept that explanation because it defies all of our experience. And yet that is what scientists expect us to believe of their Big Bang.
Since neither matter nor time existed prior to science’s Big Bang, whatever caused it must be outside of time/space, i.e., eternal.
If a song comes in to existence, it has a cause. A poem, a building, a universe.
God is uncaused because He never “began to exist”; He is eternal.
You might want to start by taking a look at the concept of contingent vs. necesssary beings.
ET: “It lists many articles in scientific journals on complexity, conferences, web pages, etc etc. It’s an enormous field. The work is primarily in mathematics, computer science, physics, biology and economics. Fascinating stuff – and it’s hard data and evidence.”
It’s all man-made definitions and constructs … hardly hard data and evidence of anything … except, maybe, humans trying to understand what’s going on.
Send me enough money and I can prove a turnip is a drowning polar bear … a few more millions, and I can get a consensus amoung “scientists”.
Never before has so little been said using so many words. This discussion is an exercise in undefined terms, semantic ambiguities and complete misunderstandings of scientific findings, culminating in one massive straw man after another. You know things are getting out of hand when the first moron starts talking about thermodynamic entropy and it’s obvious they have no idea what they’re talking about.
What a pointless exchange.
ET:
Just to add … how can you prove or disprove the unmeasurable?
You call it fairy tales, I say it’s wisdom.
Can you prove my belief is wrong?
No, because it’s in the realm of abstract thought.
There are many unmeasurable concepts.
Let’s just start with a simple one.
Dignity. Prove to me that it exists.
I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.
“God is uncaused because He never “began to exist”; He is eternal.”
Which is exactly why the nonsense about us being “created in his image” can’t possibly be true. Every religious interpretation of God rests on the assumption that his thoughts and actions would be somewhat analogous to ours, yet if that were the case, God would most likely be quite insane.
In the end, all you’re really saying is that you believe in an invisible, eternal force, which has absolutely zero interest in mankind as a whole, and even less for us as individuals. And you want us to give money to some guy in funny robes, and repeat meaningless words on a daily basis, so that this invisible force can continue to ignore us.
Gee. Sounds like a great idea! What could go wrong?
Since neither matter nor time existed prior to science’s Big Bang, whatever caused it must be outside of time/space, i.e., eternal.
Or you could go with the accepted explanation – that the phrase “before the big bang” is meaningless because the big bang created time. No need to invent an invisible guy with a white beard who lives for all of eternity, when a much simpler explanation is that the concepts of space and time have no meaning without a universe to exist in.
Well ol hoss, perhaps you can show us some of YOUR PROOF?
My proof is self-evident. Just as rights enumerated in the the Constitution of the U. S. of A. are self-evident. Leftists don’t believe that, but you know leftists…
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Creation and evolution should take up max 2 hours in a entire High School Biology curriculum.
Assuming the theory of evolution must be taught, and it should as it is the leading theory of the way life started and changed then there is nothing wrong with presenting others, assuming they were properly presented.
But I will say again we are arguing over 2 hours out of probably 6 hours x 180 days x 4 = 4320 hours of class time…a very small number
Nonetheless, I look forward to Catholic educated Dalton and Catholic educated Greg promising the constitutional ammendment to bring in one public school system oh and uber catholic Warren (he references it all the time) putting together the strategy for it.
It is easy, Ontario government rquests this of federal government, they sign and voila the part of the constitution relatng to Ontario funding is changed. Quebec did it, no muss no fuss.
Come on Dalton, Greg and Warren….lets see some consistency to your position. And apple polisher Jason could write the ammendment and win big kudos for saving the government…
You promise the ammendment and I’ll vote Liberal, assuming I believe you’ll keep your promise and after the last election of signing contracts and pormises on helath taxes and coal plants I just dont know.
Anyway, the change is functionally easy to do, unless the Liberal party sees Ontario as Catholic’s and everyone else.
ural – hard data is objective data; that fact that the measurements of it are carried out by men doesn’t make this data ‘man-made’. No, millions of dollars wouldn’t enable you to equate a mammal with a plant.
phantom – entropy merely means the dissipation of the morphological mode of organization of energy; that energy doesn’t disappear; it is rapidly taken up and moulded into another morphology. The best way to deal with the finite nature of forms, aka entropy, is to evolve ever more complex forms that can ‘hold’ more and more energy and do it faster than the more simple forms. The simple forms can ‘grab’ and mould energy but not as much as the more complex forms.
ol hoss – sorry, but self-evident ‘proofs’ may be OK in sociological situations but I don’t think they can be accepted when dealing with physical matter.
set you free – if something can’t be measured, then, it can’t be proven or disproven. And by ‘measurement’ – this can be qualitative and not merely quantitative. But if you can’t evaluate something – then, it is outside of proof.
You accept it on faith. That moves it out of the realm of science.
Faith based axioms aren’t equivalent to ‘abstract thought’; after all, mathematics is abstract thought but its axioms are certainly provable. Faith-based axioms are exactly as named – axioms resting on faith.
Dignity is not an abstraction nor is it a faith based axiom. It’s a psychological value, emerging from the psychological awareness of the reality of an individual self, that self’s requirement for ‘being alive’; that self’s requirement for emotional support and acceptance and treatment of the individual – as ‘alive, requiring emotional support and being accepted’.
ol hoss – sorry, but self-evident ‘proofs’ may be OK in sociological situations but I don’t think they can be accepted when dealing with physical matter.
Well, taking that chance that ET wrote this, or that there really is an ET, I would point out that the theory of evolution is put together with evidence as viewed through a subjective lense. Subjective interpretations are self-evidence.
ol hoss – I think that you are misunderstanding the meaning of ‘subjective’. It doesn’t mean evidence examined by a ‘subject’, ie, some individual, whether scientist or not. It means data that is not available for objective verification.
So, if I say that the beak on a particular species of bird has changed in size over a period of years – that’s an objective measurement. Because that beak can be measured with a scale of reference that is ‘outside’ of me. Anybody can use the same scale and measure those beaks and the result will be the same measurement.
But if I say that I ‘feel insulted’ – that emotion is subjective; it can’t be measured with an objective measurement.
Measuring a beak is objective. What you rationalise from that measurement is subjective.
Oh my goodenss it looks like we are in a freshman philo class.
ET is right, objective measure and then do your measurements supports a theory. Of course there are interpretations of the evidence. But if we cant agree that mesurements exist there is no discussion worth having.
However, I will say again that we are talking about 2 hours max of instruction in over 4000 in a high school curriculum.
Even with evolution and big bangs etc etc you ultimately end at points science cant answer becasue they dont have models to explain how it all got going in the beginning.
It does enter the realm of the unknowable at that point, current understandings of physics etc break down in the seconds prior to the big bang. So the answer is we dont know….if you want to fill that unknown with God at that point it is as valid as anything else for the moment.
But other thingspretty well fit in with high level theories. Age of the universe etc etc.
One need not invalidate the other. The religous fear that science writes God out of the equation and therefore the basis for morality, which is not the case. You can make a case for morality without God. It becomes easier though if you can point to some immutable being that has handed down the rules like a cosmological referee.
But once again. Not required, certainly in public education. Nothing taught in HS should invalidate personal belief in a God. Certianly not 2 hours of instruction, that makes a pretty thin belief system.
stephen – excellently put. Exactly.
ol hoss – nope, you still don’t know the difference between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. Because I use those objective beak measurements doesn’t mean that my use of them is ‘subjective’. Subjective means unrelated to any objective measurement. It doesn’t mean ‘analysis done by an individual’. That’s the mistake you are making – to define ‘subjective’ as an analysis done by an individual. Using objective measurements, we, as individuals, can know precisely how much of X ought to be in the medication used to treat Y. Our analysis isn’t subjective; it’s objective.
And, as stephen points out, since we don’t know about ‘before the BigBang’- then, if you want to posit ‘god’ etc – by all means. And I completely agree with stephen – you don’t need ‘god’ to have morality.
Ladies and gentlemen, I must ask you why is Christianity singled out as the lone evil force pushing Creationism? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc and ad nauseum all believe in Creationism…so why are Christians singled out?
ALL religions teach myth…Buddhists and Christians are decidedly meek, while Jews will generally leave you alone if you leave them alone. Muslims are instructed to kill or enslave everyone. So, why the hate of Christianity?
The Catholic School Board is publicly funded NOW and they presumably teach both evolution AND creationism…why is nobody screaming about THAT? ALL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED is that the OTHER RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS that are currently NOT TEACHING evolution would be funded and forced to teach evolution. Tory and the PC’s just fumbled badly in expressing this.
The PC’s should have said…”all are funded or none are funded”. But, while politicians are sly, they’re not very smart.
As for the Big Bang, I believe that we have now discovered enough dark matter to conclude that there is enough matter in the universe that it will eventually STOP EXPANDING due to the force of gravity and then COLLAPSE BACK ON ITSELF and proceed with ANOTHER BIG BANG…in a perpetual cycle. The small, dense packet of matter that exploded was just the ultimate compression of all matter in the universe collapsing back on itself.
The latest Big Bang is likely one of who knows how many that have occurred since time immemorial. The beginning of the universe was just the beginning of THIS PARTICULAR UNIVERSE.
Or so goes one theory.
Subjective means unrelated to any objective measurement.
That’s exactly what an interpretation of a fossil is when used to prove the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, in turn, is used to prove the interpretation of the fossil.
All in the mind, nothing objective about it.
eeyore – the theory of cyclical big bangs has been developed before. I agree with you – fund all schools – or no schools. And as you point out, certainly the Catholic schools would teach religion – and the religious theory of evolution, so – what’s the fuss about the other schools?
ol hoss – sheesh – you simply don’t get it. Again, the facts or data exists, as itself, outside of the individual agent. When an agent views those facts – that doesn’t mean a subjective interpretation!!!
When you measure a fossil – and, can objectively determine its age, its lifestyle (carnivorous, herbivore, fish, mammal, plant etc) and the date of its existence and, can also determine when it became extinct and what types of organisms followed..these results aren’t subjective interpretations!!! They are objective measurements!
I think you need to do some research on the terms, and also, on the data base of evolutionary science. You seem to be under the impression that any reasoning done by an individual is entirely subjective because it is ‘inside’, ie, in the individual. That’s not what ‘subjective’ means! It means opinions derived without recourse to objective data.
Hoss’ argument seems to break down to “anything not in the bible is subjective”, based on the idea that only God can make objective observations and conclusions. Which is, of course, rather silly, and quite wrong.
Seems like poster got off topic here; anyway, the discussion is more interesting.
I see no incompatibility of religion and science, they’re just different, looking at our existence through a different lense.
A “literal” interpretation of a sacred text, like the Bible, is not a requirement for salvation.
ET – v.v. big bang theory. What went bang? There is a limitation of science, it tends to be temporal and linear. It cannot answer the question of how matter was formed from nothing. Religion answers matter was created, which if matter is thought of in terms of energy, it has always existed.
My point is simply that science cannot explain everything. That’s OK. I’m frankly more interested in the spiritual/philosopical pursuit of the question, why on earth am I here.
What was once speculation, then theory, is now fanatical dogma, enforced by the jackbooted commentors like this person:
“I remember story time from elementary school. Creationism, among other mythologies belongs there. Not in a science class. Do people really want to handicap their children like this?”
Crick, one of the co-discoverers of DNA ended up rejecting evolution. He could not reconcile it with his findings. So like Hoyle, he supported the idea of panspermia.
Are these men ‘handicapped?’
Or is Frank J. Tippler, a noted physicist and author at Tulane University who believes in Creationism and has put forward his own unique theories (most of which I can’t agree with, way too wierd – ie. A downloadable afterlife). Yet is paid 40% less because he won’t deny his beliefs in a Creator?
A punishment put forward by the establishment for having differing ideas and opinions. But unlike most, at least he’s afforded a reduced living, outside his books.
That’s totalitarianism. It puts the AGW crowd to shame.
And then you’ve got Gary, et al. Who are genuinely angry at God and man. Who don’t really have a clue what they’re talking about, but are nonetheless full of venom, villifying anybody with a different opinion.
“Who created the creator???? Until anyone can answer this question, with FACTS, your belief systems are garbage!”
and,
“Care to answer my question about who created your flying spaghetti monster you call God?? See my note to ol hoss as
well!!” (note the number of ‘screamers’ on the end – an observable meltdown?)
As Tenebris has so honestly put forward – the state of science as it has to do with cosmology, etc is highly volotile.
Currently, the idea of the ‘Singularity’ being the cause of the ‘big bang’ is wildly divisive – as the singularity exists outside of space/time and therefore cannot be explained – it can rightfully be compared to the concept of God.
Oh, no! Not the ‘G’ word!
And then there’s metaphysics, which never enters into these arguments, However, it is recognized as science with many exciting new theories being put forward by such people as Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of morphogenic fields.
Are we missing part of the conversation? Could genuinely spiritual observations down through the ages be real? And, if not, why not?
There’s also a number of people commenting on the Bible, which they obviously have not read. For example, in Genisis, Cane was banished to the land of Nod. This place is populated by people who obviously did not come from Adam. As well, in a description of a people called the ‘Nephilim’ it is apparent that they were around for a very long time – “the men of old, the men of reknown.”
The Bible is not fully understood. Yet, there are idiots here who have made up their minds. Rejecting what they do not know and have not read and contemplated.
Half of the conversation that has been ignored here is what evolution ultimately leads to for the individual creature – nothing. Most atheists believe that once your times up there’s nothing after. Yet, applying their own scientific logic would mean – for nothing to exist it must be observed, and since nothing cannot be observed, because the observer is something, nothing cannot exist.
It seems to me that school should teach students how to think, rather than inculcating them with unknown absolutes. ‘What if’ is a great starter to any conversation about the unknown. And has been the impetus to our current understanding of anything. Why should competitive theories and ideas be stiffled and ridiculed? What right does any group have over knowledge and ideas?
Which all comes back to John Tory.
The current public school teaching of secular humanism is every bit as religious as any other teaching.
Furthermore, given that Dalton McGuinty went to publicly funded Catholic school, and was ostensibly taught Creationism – doesn’t his and his party’s position reek of elitism and bigotry?
I didn’t like Tory’s idea at first and still have a problem with it. The largest problem he is having is with the Conservative base and it has to do with funding potentially dangerous madrassas.
However, bringing these Islamic schools under the Ontario curriculum and observation is the correct answer. Because they will exist anyhow, albeit without important controls put into place.
And then you’ve got Gary, et al. Who are genuinely angry at God and man. Who don’t really have a clue what they’re talking about, but are nonetheless full of venom, villifying anybody with a different opinion.
“Who created the creator???? Until anyone can answer this question, with FACTS, your belief systems are garbage!”
and,
“Care to answer my question about who created your flying spaghetti monster you call God?? See my note to ol hoss as
well!!” (note the number of ‘screamers’ on the end – an observable meltdown?)
Genuinely angry at God? What God?? That’s been my message in case you can’t read, hence my ridicule of people still being held slaves to ANY religion. Time for people to wake up. If you must believe in it, PLEASE keep it in your church or home. It has NO business in a science class, although it may be a talking point worth an hour or two in a social studies class. Unfortunately for you I do have a clue what I’m talking about. Christianity is nothing more than a theft of other belief systems. The virgin birth for instance has been done before. Hercules and Budda come to mind. Oddly enough, Jesus was supposed to have been born in December. Funny how that matches with the pagan winter solstice huh? I can go on and on but it won’t matter because you know the “truth”. I also have no time to wade through all your teams misunderstandings of basic science(like how carbon 14 has a strange affinity to break down at a CONSTANT rate so we can precicely date those pesky fossils) and misrepresentations of it’s findings(like ignoring everyting about a T-rex that shouts carnivor and focusing on a pair of eyes that aren’t looking perfectly straight ahead) Talk about being CLUELESS. Pot meet kettle. So once again, you have been exposed for a blowhard and I will not reply until I see some substance!