Firstly, when I posted on "19 Jun 08 06:23 AM", I had not read your reply to Visu "18 Jun 08 11:33 PM" (this was due to the page break at post#400, but that is no excuse). :redface: If I had I would have tempered my intial post. Your response there and your extensive quotes are quite good.

Secondly, when I posted on "22 Jun 08 05:46 AM", I still hadn't read your reply to Visu.:blush::redface::down: If I had, I wouldn't have said what I did.

Thirdly, when I hurriedly dashed off my response on "22 Jun 08 02:35 PM", I [B]still[/B] hadn't read your fine post. I really stepped in it. :poop:

I have read it now and it makes your posts of "22 Jun 08 01:41 PM" and "22 Jun 08 03:14 PM" quite reasonable in response.

:sorry:Anyone have a sword that I can fall on?

My posts were too hasty and I hadn't been keeping up with the thread.

Uncwilly,

It is sometimes said that timing is everything.


I forgive you for everything

Let's go from here on, to a better policy for referring to creationists and creationism.

"The Great Divide: How to Resolve the War between Science & Religion"

[URL]http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#conference[/URL]

I have added underlining to some sentences.

Also, I had trouble maintaining links to references at the bottom when I copied this part of the article, so I removed the references list's footnote link formatting. Therefore, clicking on the footnote links within the text will take you to the actual article footnote at [URL="http://www.skeptic.com"]www.skeptic.com[/URL].

[quote=Shawn K. Stover]. . .

[B]A Pedagogical Approach[/B]

Learning and understanding concepts are functions of how new knowledge fits in with preexisting knowledge and beliefs. Misconceptions often arise when individuals alter information to fit their preconceived ideas about a particular subject.[URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note09"][COLOR=#336699]9[/COLOR][/URL] Furthermore, when related information is presented, a misconception can serve as an “anchor,” incorrectly linking itself to the new information. As a result, the misconception is “verified,” allowing it to gain credence.[URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note10"][COLOR=#336699]10[/COLOR][/URL]

“Conceptual change” teaching recognizes that an individual enters a classroom or other learning environment having already developed his/her own explanations for natural phenomena. While these explanations may be incompatible with accepted scientific theories, they can be difficult to change because they are so strongly rooted in the individual’s prior knowledge base.[URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note11"][COLOR=#336699]11[/COLOR][/URL] To promote conceptual change, misconceptions must be identified, and overwhelming evidence must be provided in support of accurate notions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the individual must [I]want[/I] to learn.[URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note12"][COLOR=#336699]12[/COLOR][/URL]

I submit that anti-religious rhetoric is counter-productive. It actually hampers science education. By setting up an “us verses them” environment, the New Atheists are forcing non-scientists — those with no training in hypothesis testing (and perhaps very little training in critical thinking) — into a false dilemma. Consequently, a concept like biological evolution, which may run counter to someone’s deeply held religious beliefs, will automatically be considered irrelevant to that person, and the individual will be unlikely to discard any misconceptions related to the concept. The individual will not [I]want[/I] to learn.

If, however, the perceived conflict between science and religion is sufficiently diffused, misconceptions may be identified, and conceptual change might actually occur. A colleague and I recently published a study on the influence of teleological thinking on student understanding of natural selection.[URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note13"][COLOR=#336699]13[/COLOR][/URL] It was hypothesized that non-science majors and freshman biology majors would express common misconceptions regarding biological evolution prior to explicit instruction on evolutionary theory. We created a multiple choice survey to assess creationist, teleological, Lamarckian, and Darwinian reasoning before and after explicit instruction. We concluded that, while they are quite common initially, teleological conceptions are superseded by Darwinian conceptions following instruction.

[U]Although previous research indicates that many students reject evidence supporting the theory of evolution because they perceive a conflict with their religious beliefs,[URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note14"][COLOR=#336699]14,[/COLOR][/URL][URL="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-09-24.html#note15"][COLOR=#336699]15[/COLOR][/URL] our study demonstrated an overall acceptance of the theory (but not an understanding of the mechanism behind it).[/U] Creationist scores were dramatically lower than other category scores. One potential explanation for the difference between our results and those of previous studies is the conscious effort we made to quickly downplay any suggestion that our students’ religious beliefs and evolutionary theory were incompatible. [U]By keeping the two magisteria separate, by showing respect for the beliefs of others, we avoided the false dilemma. As a result, students were open to alternative ideologies. They [I]wanted[/I] to learn, and, when sufficient evidence was presented, conceptual change actually took place.[/U]

Far too many of our citizens are scientifically illiterate. Consequently, pseudoscience and superstition have metastasized in popular culture. We cannot afford to further alienate the general public. If forced into a false dilemma, few will align themselves with science. If, however, we show a little respect for their naturally occurring religious beliefs, they may open up enough to be filled with the spirit of conceptual change.

[B]References[/B]
[LIST=1][*]Gould, S.J. 1997. “Non-Overlapping Magisteria.” [I]Natural History[/I] 106: 16–22.[*]Haack, S. 2003. [I]Defending Science — Within Reason[/I]. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.[*]Dawkins, R. 2006. [I]The God Delusion[/I]. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.[*]Kida, T. 2006. [I]Don’t Believe Everything You Think[/I]. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.[*]Boyer, P. 2004. “Why is Religion Natural?” [I]Skeptical Inquirer[/I] 28 (2): 25–31.[*]Lilienfeld, S. 2006. “Why Scientists Shouldn’t be Surprised by the Popularity of Intelligent Design.” [I]Skeptical Inquirer[/I] 30 (3): 46–49.[*]Cromer, A. 1994. “Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science.” [I]Science[/I] 265: 688.[*]McCauley, R. 2000. “The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science.” In [I]Explanations and Cognitions[/I], edited by F. Keil and R. Wilson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.[*]Ormrod, J. 1995. [I]Human Learning[/I]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.[*]Novak, J. 2002. “Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for Conceptual Change in Limited or Appropriate Propositional Hierarchies (LIPHs) Leading to Empowerment of Learners.” [I]Science Education[/I] 86: 548–571.[*]Posner, G., K. Strike, P. Hewson, and W. Gertzog. 1982. “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change.” [I]Science Education[/I] 66: 211–227.[*]Lee, O. and C. Anderson. 1993. “Task Engagement and Conceptual Change in Middle School Science Classrooms.” [I]American Educational Research Journal[/I] 30: 585–610.[*]Stover, S. and M. Mabry. 2007. “Influences of Teleological and Lamarckian Thinking on Student Understanding of Natural Selection.” [I]Bioscene[/I] 33 (1): 11–18.[*]Dagher, Z. and S. BouJaoude. 1997. “Scientific Views and Religious Beliefs of College Students: The Case of Biological Evolution.” [I]Journal of Research in Science Teaching[/I] 34 (5): 429–445.[*]Sinatra, G., S. Southerland, F. McConaughy, and J. Demastes. 2003. “Intentions and Beliefs in Students’ Understanding and Acceptance of Biological Evolution.” [I]Journal of Research in Science Teaching[/I] 40 (5): 510–528.[/LIST][/quote]

Evolution concerns the changes in life forms that exist; those who criticize it for not explaining how life arose originally may not understand that evolution has never claimed, or been intended, to cover that life-origin subject (or, perhaps, they're just using a straw-man argument).

However, a multitude of connections between originally-separate fields of science have come to attention: biochemistry, astrobiology, evolutionary dynamics ...

"Using Math to Explain How Life on Earth Began

How did self-replicating molecules come to dominate the early Earth? Using the mathematics of evolutionary dynamics, Martin A. Nowak can explain the change from no life to life"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-math-solve-origin-of-life[/URL]

I am now reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins and came across an interesting twist on how future generations might think about their past.[quote="The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins"]Could it be that one far-off day intelligent computers will speculate about their own lost origins? Will one of them tumble to the heretical truth, that they have sprung from a remote, earlier form of life, rooted in organic, carbon chemistry, rather than the silicon-based electronic principles of their own bodies?[/quote]Just how would a future intelligent computer ponder it's history long after the creators, humans, have ceased to exist?

[QUOTE=retina;148288]I am now reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins and came across an interesting twist on how future generations might think about their past.Just how would a future intelligent computer ponder it's history long after the creators, humans, have ceased to exist?[/QUOTE]Just how would a human ponder its history long after its predecessors, the cynodonts, have ceased to exist?

Paul

Carefully.

Ponderously?

Olivia Judson: Back to Reality
 

I apologize for injecting the sulfurous [in fact downright prebiotic] whiff of politics into this thread, but Olivia Judson has a nice anti-lament for the outgoing Bush administration in her latest NYT blog posting:

[url=http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/back-to-reality/?ref=opinion]Back to Reality[/url]: [i]President-elect Obama already has a long to-do list. But here’s another item for it: to restore science in government.[/i]
[quote]The most notable characteristic of the Bush administration’s science policy has been the repeated distortion and suppression of scientific evidence in order to fit ideological preferences about how the world should be, rather than how it is.

In his disturbing book “Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration,” the journalist Seth Shulman describes case after case of intimidation of scientists in government posts, the suppression of scientific evidence and the perpetuation of misinformation.

The fields affected range from climate change to public health. Although some incidents are small in and of themselves, the cumulative effect is horrifying. Shulman also catalogs a long list of established government scientists who, during the course of the Bush administration, resigned their posts in despair.

The distortion and suppression of science is dangerous, and not just because it means that public money gets wasted on programs, like abstinence-only sex “education” schemes, that do not work. It is dangerous because it is an assault on science itself, a method of thought and inquiry on which our modern civilization is based and which has been hugely successful as a way of acquiring knowledge that lets us transform our lives and the world around us. In many respects science has been the dominant force — for good and ill — that has transformed human lives over the past two centuries.[/quote]

Some Islamic extremists assault Western society one way; some Christian fundamentalists, another.

Hmmm ... are there Judaic creationists or Judaic anti-evolutionists?

Answer, from [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism[/url] (not that Wikipedia is necessarily authoritative):

[quote]There are creationist movements based in religious traditions other than Christianity.

[B][[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&action=edit&section=21"]edit[/URL]] Hinduism and creationism[/B]

[I]Main article: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_creationism"]Hinduism and creationism[/URL][/I]
A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is as eternal and cyclic. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas"]Vedic texts[/URL] teach that humans have always lived in unchanged form on the over four billion year old earth.[[I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I]] An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pralaya"]pralaya[/URL]).


In general, many Hindus believe in evolution in some form,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-61"][62][/URL] with the God Brahma being the creator. Some Hindu religious and political organizations have been promoting creationism-evolution study.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-62"][63][/URL]

[B][[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&action=edit&section=22"]edit[/URL]] Islamic creationism[/B]

[I]Main article: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism"]Islamic creationism[/URL][/I]
[B]Islamic creationism[/B] is the belief that the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe"]universe[/URL] (including [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_race"]humanity[/URL]) was directly created by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God"]God[/URL] as explained in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an"]Qur'an[/URL] or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis"]Genesis[/URL]. While contemporary [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam"]Islam[/URL] tends to take religious texts literally, it usually views Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation accounts in the Qur'an are more vague and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions"]Abrahamic religions[/URL]. Several [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam"]liberal movements within Islam[/URL] generally accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth, the age of the universe and evolution.


Islam also has its own school of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism"]Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism[/URL], which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the universe is supported by the Qur'an. Many Muslims believe in evolutionary creationism, especially among [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam"]Sunni[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam"]Shia[/URL] Muslims and the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam"]Liberal movements within Islam[/URL].
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalid_Anees&action=edit&redlink=1"]
[/URL]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalid_Anees&action=edit&redlink=1"]Khalid Anees[/URL], president of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Society_of_Britain"]Islamic Society of Britain[/URL], at a conference, [B]Creationism[/B]: Science and Faith in Schools, made points including the following:[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-guardian0104-63"][64][/URL] There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran"]Koran[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection"]natural selection[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest"]survival of the fittest[/URL]. However, some Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.


But there is also a growing movement of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism"]Islamic creationism[/URL]. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an"]Qur'an[/URL] and the main points of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"]evolutionary[/URL] theory.


There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space"]expansion of the universe[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang"]Big Bang[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch"]Big Crunch[/URL] theories:[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-64"][65][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-65"][66][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-66"][67][/URL][INDENT] "Do not the Unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We created every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"[[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an"]Qur'an[/URL] [URL="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/021.qmt.html#021.030"]21:30[/URL]
]
[/INDENT][INDENT] "Then turned He to the sky (space) when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient."[[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an"]Qur'an[/URL] [URL="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/041.qmt.html#041.011"]41:11[/URL]
]
[/INDENT][INDENT] "And it is We Who have constructed the sky (space) with might, and it is We Who are steadily expanding it."[[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an"]Qur'an[/URL] [URL="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/051.qmt.html#051.047"]51:47[/URL]
]
[/INDENT][INDENT] "On the day when We will roll up the sky (space) like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about."[[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an"]Qur'an[/URL] [URL="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/021.qmt.html#021.104"]21:104[/URL]
]
[/INDENT] [B][[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&action=edit&section=23"]edit[/URL]] Jewish creationism[/B]

[I]Main article: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_evolution"]Judaism and evolution[/URL][/I]
Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_denominations"]Jewish denominations[/URL], including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Many Conservative Rabbis follow theistic evolution, although Conservative Judaism does not have an official view on the subject. Conservative Judaism however, does generally embrace science and therefore finds it a "challenge to traditional Jewish theology."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-67"][68][/URL] Reform Judaism does not take the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah"]Torah[/URL] as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological"]epistemological[/URL] limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that the even root word for "world" in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language"]Hebrew language[/URL] — עולם (oh•luhm) — means hidden. Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify this. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryeh_Kaplan"]Aryeh Kaplan[/URL]. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachmanides"]Nachmanides[/URL], who expounds that there was a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal"]Neanderthal[/URL]-like species with which [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve"]Adam[/URL] mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-68"][69][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-69"][70][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-70"][71][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-71"][72][/URL]

[/quote]

On the Role of Chance in Evolution
 

[url]http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/guest-column-a-dash-of-chance/?ref=opinion[/url]