Is compromise possible in evolution debate?

An opinion column by two associate professors of sociology at UC San Diego, appearing in the AJC and the Washington Post, proposes a compromise in the evolution debate.

[TedHOhio]

In my opinion, not right now. The compromise in the article isn't a bad thing. But the efforts of groups like the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center would also have to agree to stop their marketing and legal actions to gain a scientific acceptance of patently Creationism ideas. I don't think compromise is in their vocabulary.

For decades science really ignored Creationists. They only get stirred up when the Creationists try to pass off their ideas in venues, such as science classes, that are wholly inappropriate for the subject matter. I think the 'scorched earth' response from the Scientist-side has been a reaction to the ever evolving threat from groups such as ICR, DI, AIG and so forth. And it is a threat to the science education. How many times do we have to read about science based in more 'theistic values' before we realize that these groups have no interest in compromise, only domination.

Look at it honestly. Does anyone actually think the "Academic Freedom" bill recently passed in Louisiana and written by the DI is actually about academic freedom? It's a shrewed marketing ploy and as long as those type of evolving tactics continue, science's scorched earth policy will remain.

[The Dude]

They (creationists) don't want compromise, they want indoctrination. This "debate" was never about science, it is about telling what people should believe and how they should think. It's a political tool, and always has been. They really don't care about science and never have.

That's why they never bothered with even trying to do "research" in ID. They know how ludicrous it is to claim to have "scientific evidence of God". But the DO know how gullible their intended audience are. So instead they lobbied politicians and school boards and spent all their money on PR campaigns. IDCreationism has no other purpose whatsoever.

[charlieb1950]

TedHOhio wrote:

In my opinion, not right now. The compromise in the article isn't a bad thing. But the efforts of groups like the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center would also have to agree to stop their marketing and legal actions to gain a scientific acceptance of patently Creationism ideas. I don't think compromise is in their vocabulary.
For decades science really ignored Creationists. They only get stirred up when the Creationists try to pass off their ideas in venues, such as science classes, that are wholly inappropriate for the subject matter. I think the 'scorched earth' response from the Scientist-side has been a reaction to the ever evolving threat from groups such as ICR, DI, AIG and so forth. And it is a threat to the science education. How many times do we have to read about science based in more 'theistic values' before we realize that these groups have no interest in compromise, only domination.
Look at it honestly. Does anyone actually think the "Academic Freedom" bill recently passed in Louisiana and written by the DI is actually about academic freedom? It's a shrewed marketing ploy and as long as those type of evolving tactics continue, science's scorched earth policy will remain.

TED,Now you are going to allow for a possible entity ,that we so called fundies call god?It will not work.As you have said on numerous occations that the so called entity,is like believing in santa claus.All of you armchair scientist will not allow for a possible super natural entity to exist.Yet you all cannot go back in time and explain why the universe came into being.All of you want to go back to the sudden creation of the universe from nothing.I have used the word popped into existence in error,i should have used the word sudden expansion from nothing ,into something.But the question is still the same.How do you get matter and energy from nothing?I am very sorry about the insulting remarks i made about you and your wife.I let you get under my skin,as i have gotten under your skin also,discussing these topix we are on.I hope you will accept my humble apology...sincerely yours..........charlie

[The Dude]

charlieb1950 wrote:

But the question is still the same.How do you get matter and energy from nothing?

Why don't you ask God?(shrug)

[PCD]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>TED,Now you are going to allow for a possible entity ,that we so called fundies call god?It will not work.As you have said on numerous occations that the so called entity,is like believing in santa claus.All of you armchair scientist will not allow for a possible super natural entity to exist.

Two things.

1. Science says nothing, up or down, about the existence of a god or gods, since it is the best tool we have ever had for the explanation of natural phenomena. God and/or gods are not natural phenomena, and so they can't be investigated by science. However,*claims* about a god or gods that take natural phenomena as evidence can be investigated and disputed.

Example. Devout Zeusians claim that all lightning is caused when Zeus, out of anger or frustration, throws lightning bolts down at us from atop Mount Olympus. A scientist may investigate the phenomenon of lightning and demonstrate that all lightning does not, in fact, originate from the top of Mount Olympus.

The Zeusian then has roughly three options: a) to deny the science, which is sad and stupid but all too common; b) to accept the science, but counter by saying that lightninng is caused by Zeus in exactly the ways that science describes lightning; or c) to acknowledge that, perhaps, Zeus does not exist after all.

Scientists will generally subscribe to some version of b) or c). It is impossible, however, to be a scientist and hold to a), as most creationist/IDists do.

2. That said, I find it unusual to hold to standards of scientific rationality in almost all our (accurate) beliefs and observations in life, and then suddenly to throw these standards overboard in the consideration of one subset of beliefs that are "religious" or "spiritual".

charlieb1950 wrote:

Yet you all cannot go back in time and explain why the universe came into being.

Under that logic, you would never be able to convict a single criminal of anything, a parking ticket let alone homicide, because after all you "cannot go back in time" in explaining the crime.

Beneath contempt. If that's your evidentiary standard, I wonder how you get through a single day.

But of course, that isn't your *real* evidentiary standard. It's a grade school debating tactic.

On top of that, of course, is the fact that quite a few scientists have ventured explanations for the origin of the universe, and we are actively researching and testing these explanations.

So when we *are* able to explain the origin of the universe, I wonder where you'll move the goal post then? The only thing I don't wonder, of course, is that you and those like you will move the goal post somewhere, because you've been doing it since science began.

charlieb1950 wrote:

How do you get matter and energy from nothing? I am very sorry about the insulting remarks i made about you and your wife.

LOL. A priceless combination.

[Primewonk]

Throughout much of our (US) history many white folks thought it was just fine to own black folks. They based this on what they thought their particular version of a god wanted them to think. And again, throughout much of our history, many folks thought women were first property of their fathers, and then property of their husbands. And again, they based this on what they thought their version of a god wanted them to think. Today, hopefully, not many folks still think this way. It isn't that the supposed words of their version of god have changed, rather it is how they now interpret those words. They now "know better". They do not subscribe to those beliefs any longer. Today, we see this thought pattern again in the desire to suppress equal rights for our gay brothers and sisters - again based on what they think their version of god wants them to think. Just like we see it with the evolution/creation debate.

One could just as easily ask these religious fundamentalists why they do not challenge teaching germ theory in school. Why do they not insist that our medical schools teach that the way to treat leprosy is to use a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around the house? Why do they not challenge the ways we treat mental illness? Why not try and force schools to teach that the right way to treat this is by casting out the demons/spirits that are causing the mental illness? I think that today even they realize that this would be just plain silly, so they choose to ignore those parts of their bible.

Hopefully, within a few more generations, their current mind set will seem just as silly. Until then, sadly, I have to throw my vote behind the scorched earth policy. To stop them every single time they rear their anti-science heads. To beat them back every time. I did not evolve this far to be drug back to the dark ages.

[Darwins Stepchild]

PCD wrote:

<quoted text>
Two things.
1. Science says nothing, up or down, about the existence of a god or gods, since it is the best tool we have ever had for the explanation of natural phenomena. God and/or gods are not natural phenomena, and so they can't be investigated by science. However,*claims* about a god or gods that take natural phenomena as evidence can be investigated and disputed.
Example. Devout Zeusians claim that all lightning is caused when Zeus, out of anger or frustration, throws lightning bolts down at us from atop Mount Olympus. A scientist may investigate the phenomenon of lightning and demonstrate that all lightning does not, in fact, originate from the top of Mount Olympus.
The Zeusian then has roughly three options: a) to deny the science, which is sad and stupid but all too common; b) to accept the science, but counter by saying that lightninng is caused by Zeus in exactly the ways that science describes lightning; or c) to acknowledge that, perhaps, Zeus does not exist after all.
Scientists will generally subscribe to some version of b) or c). It is impossible, however, to be a scientist and hold to a), as most creationist/IDists do.
2. That said, I find it unusual to hold to standards of scientific rationality in almost all our (accurate) beliefs and observations in life, and then suddenly to throw these standards overboard in the consideration of one subset of beliefs that are "religious" or "spiritual".
<quoted text>
Under that logic, you would never be able to convict a single criminal of anything, a parking ticket let alone homicide, because after all you "cannot go back in time" in explaining the crime.
Beneath contempt. If that's your evidentiary standard, I wonder how you get through a single day.
But of course, that isn't your *real* evidentiary standard. It's a grade school debating tactic.
On top of that, of course, is the fact that quite a few scientists have ventured explanations for the origin of the universe, and we are actively researching and testing these explanations.
So when we *are* able to explain the origin of the universe, I wonder where you'll move the goal post then? The only thing I don't wonder, of course, is that you and those like you will move the goal post somewhere, because you've been doing it since science began.
<quoted text>
LOL. A priceless combination.

Hey, PCD! Que pasa, mi amigo. Been a long time. Good to see you back. I see you have met charlie, one of our latest crop of creationists.

[Bluenose]

My 2c:

If these people confined their talk to their churches then whilst I wouold still disagree with them, perhaps the sort of compromise proposed might have some validity.

However, for so long as the creationist attempt to put forward their idiocies as science I will forever be in the scorched earth camp.

I am afraid that when I read this article the thought it raised most in my mind was that this was a perfect example of why the social sciences are often regarded in such a poor light by those in the hard sciences. These people are suggesting an approach akin to that used in some schools where the teacher won't correct little Johnny's spelling because it might "hurt his self esteme". It is rubbish there and this talk of compromise with the fundiots is rubbish also.

The fundies are not interested in objective reality so they forfeit their right to be considered reasonable people. Whack a fundie today!

[jrob]

I don't see how any compromise is possible. To explain my thoughts on the issue let me give an extreme example.

Bluenose (not picking on you; you're just the poster directly above me) says his car is red. I say his car is black. Assuming one of us is right, if we compromise and say it's burgandy now we're BOTH wrong.

Since the simple fact is that evolution is true, compromising with IDiots does not make them "sorta" right. It makes us wrong.

[Chaz]

Compromise is really in the hands of the creationists (sadly). Evolution is not going to go away just because they close their eyes and yell at it.

Creationists will either have to accept that religion and evolution can coexist perfectly well (something they should of figured out over a hundred years ago), or simply pull their idiotic assertions out of the public eye and the academic arena. Evolution is not an argument, it is a scientific theory, and as such the naysayers of it will continue to fabricate new arguments as long as they have the will to draw breath. But the fact of the matter is that there is no reason why religion and evolution must conflict in any way whatsoever. Until creationists acknowledge this, there will continue to be conflict.

[Bluenose]

jrob wrote:

I don't see how any compromise is possible. To explain my thoughts on the issue let me give an extreme example.
Bluenose (not picking on you; you're just the poster directly above me) says his car is red. I say his car is black. Assuming one of us is right, if we compromise and say it's burgandy now we're BOTH wrong.
Since the simple fact is that evolution is true, compromising with IDiots does not make them "sorta" right. It makes us wrong.

Actually, my car is blue. <grin>

[brenda6]

Compromise most certainly is possible, however many people will not make the effort or take the time to really look beyond what it is THEY INDIVIDUALLY know to be true.

I have offered a REAL compromise with the creation of the word girasas.

Evolution simply put can be known to state that:

Human forms developed out of animal forms.

and that

More complex forms developed out of less complex forms.

in a more all encompassing statement.

I can assure you that religious minded will understand this if you introduce the concept of a higher kingdom of nature "DESCENDING" into their human bodies in a natural cycle whereby the human is forced out of its body and habitat into a cycle establishing that they will return to a globe for habitation when they make their DESCENT into an existing animal form on a globe in this chain of 7 globes described in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

See the writing I have done elsewhere on this subject as described above, if interested, or at least recognize that this is new and challenging and does permit compromise and joint investigation.

[jrob]

Brenda,
Helena Blavatsky was a nutjob. Thanks to her we've gotta put up with all this new age mumbo jumbo.

(Sorry for the slam. I'm not usually that rude, but I've been whacking IDiots all weekend. And to be frankly honest, your "seven globes" crap is just more of the same nonsense.)

[PCD]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, PCD! Que pasa, mi amigo. Been a long time. Good to see you back. I see you have met charlie, one of our latest crop of creationists.

Bueno, amigo! Que ondas? There's a joke in NYC about a stretch of Indian restaurants that are so tiny everyone assumes they all share the same kitchen. I often think of that when I read these creos - it's like they all share the same, reaaaallly jumbled brain. Hope ya'll are good and everything's everything!

[Darwins Stepchild]

PCD wrote:

<quoted text>
Bueno, amigo! Que ondas? There's a joke in NYC about a stretch of Indian restaurants that are so tiny everyone assumes they all share the same kitchen. I often think of that when I read these creos - it's like they all share the same, reaaaallly jumbled brain. Hope ya'll are good and everything's everything!

Hey, I really like your new tag line. Indeed, Katydid does rock.

Obama...well, I will give you that he is a heck of a lot better than the other guy.

[PCD]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, I really like your new tag line. Indeed, Katydid does rock.
Obama...well, I will give you that he is a heck of a lot better than the other guy.

*sigh* I'm still an Obamaniac, even if it's irrational!!

[brenda6]

jrob wrote:

Brenda,
Helena Blavatsky was a nutjob. Thanks to her we've gotta put up with all this new age mumbo jumbo.
(Sorry for the slam. I'm not usually that rude, but I've been whacking IDiots all weekend. And to be frankly honest, your "seven globes" crap is just more of the same nonsense.)

And because you write off H.P.B., I don't get a listen? Don't you think I might have been educated here, worked here, applied myself towards my studies and discovered something that you in your easy dismissal might have missed?

I'm offering you a look into the workings of the mind you call "nut job." Perhaps if you took a look instead of contented yourself with small talk you might find the same thing that I did - which is a kingdom of nature needing a body and by natural law TAKING those of the lower kingdom to meet their own needs.

Ascension of the animal kingdom occurred simultaneously with the descent of man. They didn't have what they needed, obviously sovereignty, and so went elsewhere to "fight their way through a lower kingdom themselves" in order to have a short sojourn as "king" upon their planet. Once we get rid of the lower kingdom, it is all ours for a time, until a repeat of this process causes the same thing to happen to us that we wrought upon the animals.

Get to know the higher kingdom. You might find you love them or at least are intrigued by them, their lives and abilities.

[charlieb1950]

I hate to be the one to tell you all,but,the chasm is too wide ,for compromise.WE creationists say we were made in the image of god and that god must have a human form.The evolutionists say that IF there is a god,by way of evolutionary thinking he would either be apelike,somekind of organism,so small that we cannot see him.unless the evolving process allows for him to evolve into another higher form of form,at the same rate of time that we are supposed to evolve,thus making us equal with him.We creationists say that god created eveything living thing as it is now.No evolving!The evolutionists say that the universe just happened for no particular reason at all,and that everything after that happened by random chance with no direction.In other words no plans.They say god is a myth,a santa claus and words to describe him i would never dare say.Creationists say that god created the universe by just uttering.That he is beyond the universe,in other words outside of his creation,which makes sense to me.Creationists say also that god would have to have been outside the universe,when he created it.Which makes sense to me also.and that he is also able to enter the universe at will.Thats why we have miracles.he does answer some prayers,but not all prayers.Because he knows what prayers to answer,that are really needed in some paricular way.No we cannot compromise god with an educated guess or conjecture.We will continue to debate.

[Nuggin]

There's no reason for science to lower its standards to compromise with Creationists when Creationists can't find a compromise within their own ranks.

There are literally thousands of Creation myths - all with equally invalid sources of data.

Until EVERY religion which has ever existed in the history of the world can come to some conclusion as to the "true" Creation myth, there's no reason for science to surrender to just one particular group - no matter how arrogent they are.

[TedHOhio]

Nuggin wrote:

There's no reason for science to lower its standards to compromise with Creationists when Creationists can't find a compromise within their own ranks.
There are literally thousands of Creation myths - all with equally invalid sources of data.
Until EVERY religion which has ever existed in the history of the world can come to some conclusion as to the "true" Creation myth, there's no reason for science to surrender to just one particular group - no matter how arrogent they are.

I remember reading about the "Big Tent" approach put forth by the Discovery Institute. Basically it's "All us Creationists need to come to a common agreement in order to get rid of Evolution. Then we can battle amongst ourselves for who is really right!" The problem is they went with the lowest common denominator, which certainly doesn't help their pretend unity.

It is pretty hilarious to watch them fighting each other. There is already a lot of dissension in the ranks, particularly how unhappy the Young Earth Creationists are because the DI won't acknowledge support for their age of the Earth position. Having DI Senior Fellow Michael Behe admit that he accepts the theory of common ancestry and seeing a great deal of support in microbiology and biochemistry caused even more dissension.

I am waiting for the reactions of another Senior Fellow of the DI, Michael Medved, who recently said: "The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."

They remind me of political enemies who come together to win an election and then fall apart after a little time. Luckily science isn't an election!