Cutting-Edge Research in Biology by ID Scientists (CC & ID Content)

[SadieMarie]

Well, one sugar doughnut and one croissant later I have finally finished reading this entire thread. I feel the need to contribute in some small way, so here goes nothing.

 

In my opinion there is one thing all human beings have in common. It is our discomfort with uncertainty and mystery. It drives science and religion, the need for explanations for everything, including ourselves. Dd16 and I are going to watch The Great Courses" Science and Religion" course together this summer. I find the interaction between science and religion, historically speaking, to be fascinating.

[elegantlion]

Well, one sugar doughnut and one croissant later I have finally finished reading this entire thread. I feel the need to contribute in some small way, so here goes nothing.

 

In my opinion there is one thing all human beings have in common. It is our discomfort with uncertainty and mystery. It drives science and religion, the need for explanations for everything, including ourselves. Dd16 and I are going to watch The Great Courses" Science and Religion" course together this summer. I find the interaction between science and religion, historically speaking, to be fascinating.

 

 

Ds and I were discussing similar issues this week. He's finishing his astronomy book. In the final chapter on galaxies, it discussed previous views on astronomy and very factually discussed where those scientists had been wrong, yet it did not negate the appreciation (reverence - maybe too strong of a word) of that scientist - if that makes sense. 

 

From the layperson's viewpoint, I see science as having no issue stating where they have been wrong, when the evidence supports such an idea. There are so many discoveries to come, it's exciting. Aristotle was a philosopher and a scientist. Again, as a person who is not an expert on him or science, religion, or philosophy, we still can argue Aristotle's philosophy, whereas technology has updated his science. Religion, again my personal un-expert opinion, tries to mix philosophy and science and call it faith. I can still appreciate the philosophy of religion without having to take its science as fact. It doesn't strain my faith in a creator at all if I believe we evolved as evolution says we did. 

[flyingiguana]

I'm also uncomfortable with the title of this thread. Why is it labelled CC?

 

I'm assuming most Christians would be offended by the idea that they need to reject scientific thinking in order to be considered Christian.

 

Seems that label should only be applied to threads that are actually about Christianity. Given the wide variety of Christian faiths, it may only apply to threads about, well, Christ.

 

There may be some pockets of the world where ID is considered a tenet of the faith, but it's a little presumptuous to assume that applies to the whole wide world.

[Mom-ninja.]

Yes, do you?

Based on your posts, you don't. Evolution does not mean what you think it means.

[TracyP]

nm

[Haiku]

For example, love is how we "understand" those closest to us (eg. our kids).  Love is not something that derives from our rational brain.  It is the product of instinct, emotion, etc. - all of which is subconsciously/unconsciously determined. 

 

Actually, what we humans have labeled as love has a completely biochemical basis. You are confusing what is the cause and what is the product. Emotion is not the cause of love; what we call love is the product of biological processes meant to ensure the continuation of our DNA. It is not some squishy, amorphous philosophical concept.

[eternalsummer]

Misleading, out of context. Please do your research. 

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/

 

"Research" for you is a pop-culture news article, rather than the actual scientific paper I linked to?  Curious.

 

It's not out of context.  That article cites the relevant portion of the paper in question;

 

"In a nutshell, Hawking seems to be saying this: instead of an event horizon, there is something else he calls an 'apparent horizon.'"

 

Here's the corresponding text from Hawking's paper;

 

"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes

from which light can’t escape to inï¬nity. There are however apparent horizons which persist

for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redeï¬ned as metastable bound

states of the gravitational ï¬eld."

 

So when he says "there are no black holes" - he means that how science previously understood black holes is invalid; hence the need for them to be "redefined".

 

These portions of the article are also worth mentioning;

 

"'This is a paradox that hasn’t been completely resolved,' said Juan Maldacena at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J."

 

"'There’s all sorts of cacophony in the field … The problem is no one can come up, so far, with something you can actually calculate. So it’s ideas and proposals and approximations and guesses,' he said."

 

"'It’s not so much that there’s a mistake, but somehow, some assumption that we believe about quantum mechanics and gravity is wrong, and we’re trying to figure out what it is,' Polchinski said."

[eternalsummer]

Actually, what we humans have labeled as love has a completely biochemical basis. You are confusing what is the cause and what is the product. Emotion is not the cause of love; what we call love is the product of biological processes meant to ensure the continuation of our DNA. It is not some squishy, amorphous philosophical concept.

 

That's just a label.  Understanding how love functions (ie. how we love) depends on how we experience love, not how we rationalize (label) it.  The truth is in feeling/doing.

 

Learning how to ride a bike is perhaps a simpler analogy.  You can read about the mechanics of riding a bike in a physics book, but that's not how you learn to ride a bike.  How you learn and then understand how to ride a bike is through the experience itself.

[In2why]

Actually, what we humans have labeled as love has a completely biochemical basis. You are confusing what is the cause and what is the product. Emotion is not the cause of love; what we call love is the product of biological processes meant to ensure the continuation of our DNA. It is not some squishy, amorphous philosophical concept.

 

Then how do we love people when we have no biological connection? Why do we have art and music?  How can a sunset bring us to our knees?  Cry after we make love occasionally? 

[Haiku]

Then how do we love people when we have no biological connection? Why do we have art and music?  How can a sunset bring us to our knees?  Cry after we make love occasionally? 

 

I don't see any of this as being at odds with what I posted.

[albeto.]

Regardless of what scientists state or know, evolution is taught as fact in schools, museums and tons of books and those who doubt it are ridiculed and compared to flat-earthers.  Most people don't search out answers for themselves.  They believe what others in authority tell them.

 

Herein lies what I think to be the crux of the issue, and why epistemology is of the utmost importance. In a religious context, authority is everything. The claims of a religion cannot, by their very nature, be confirmed in an objective, rational way. If they could, one would not require faith to believe it. This is not a "slam" on religion, but a clarification. For this reason, the perceived authority of the one making the claim is paramount. Any joe-blow making any claim won't likely be taken seriously by many people (although he will be taken seriously by those who believe their experiences can best be explained through joe-blow's "insight"). 

 

The religious epistemology works by trusting authority to not steer someone astray when explaining their experiences. It works by trusting the person delivering the claim to not betray the faithful. That's why character is so important, that's why behavior is so important - it reveals character. 

 

The scientific epistemology works by critically and rationally (ie, not in faith) analyze known facts through such actions as experimentation, falsification, and it's critical that this process stands up to the scrutiny of others. Doubters are essential, for they are able to poke into any blind spots of any one researcher or research. These blind spots are then explored in detail, eventually revealing a trend in research. This trend is further analyzed, the details further isolated for experimentation. Personal character is irrelevant. Behavior is irrelevant. One need not trust the scientist to know the science is credible. 

 

The idea that these threads are introduced as "cutting-edge research" is not just a bit misleading, it's an outright lie. This kind of thread is as damaging to education as arguing the sun revolves around the earth. It's an embarrassment to those of us who are mocked and ridiculed for homeschooling because this is the face of homeschool - scientifically illiterate and stubbornly loyal to mythological explanations that have been debunked for centuries. 

 

I will admit a prejudice of mine here, and I will say right upfront that I'm not proud of it, I wish I could get rid of it, but my experience (heh) has taught me (therefore it must be true/sarcasm) that someone bold enough to offer this kind of argument in public is either unwilling or unable to objectively look at the facts and consider modifying his or her opinion according to new information. I think this because so long as one believes information is only as credible as the character of the authority presenting it, information has to come from a "safe place." This has been my intent for a while, finding that "safe place," from which to discuss such things, but again my experience (heh) has taught me (therefore it must be true/sarcasm) that one's "safe place" will reject that which threatens the security of that place. In other words, it's a useless endeavor.  Happily, discussions like this are public, and there are a number of people who are also genuinely interested in providing an accurate education to their children who will consider new information when it's presented. But that's my prejudice - that talking with a staunch proponent of YEC is useless. 

 

This leaves me with a few options that I can think of.

• Ignore the discussion altogether and distract myself with more pleasant things.
• Show the absurdity of such an erroneous belief through humor, partially in hopes of sharing with others the foolishness of such a belief, partially for relief.
• Speak up and join the conversation for the sake of those genuinely interested in knowing information.

The first is done more often than some people may realize. I'm glad that comments about my "only coming out in religious threads" are few and far between, because believe me, there are so many opportunities to challenge claims. Most of them are ignored. You're welcome. ;-)

The second violates the rules here, and is not conducive to the promotion of a pleasant gathering place for home educators wishing for a place to learn, share, and generally be a part of a community.

The third is why I am writing this. The idea that an educator would suggest that science is believed only because of what others in authority tell them is not only erroneous, but downright dangerous. One needs only to look at the the alarming increase of preventable and potentially deadly diseases like measles and whooping cough to recognize the value of the rational scientific method over the irrational method of finding someone who tells you what you want to hear to feel safe. This forum is dedicated to education, not promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific explanations.

 

 

As for the Bible, if investigated, it is a very difficult book to doubt.  It was written as many books over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors (many of them eye witnesses), including a prince, a fisherman, a shepherd, an army general, a king's food taster, a prime minister, a doctor, a king, a tax collector and many more.  Parts of it were written in the wilderness, in a dungeon, on a hillside, in prison, while traveling, on an island, on three continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), and yet the facts of the Bible all agree and it all tells the same story. 

 

It was passed down through the generations without mistakes for over 2000 years.  There are almost 25,000 ancient copies of the New Testament alone.  There are far more old copies of the Bible than of any other ancient book.  There are only 643 early copies of Homer's Iliad and only 10 old copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.  And these old pieces/copies of the Bible are really old, including pieces of the book of John that are only 50 years older than John's very first copy.  There are copies of the whole New Testament that are only 200 years old.  The oldest copies of the Iliad are 400 years older than their first writing and the oldest copies of the Gallic Wars are more than 700 years older than their first writing.

 

This is patently untrue. The stories contained in the bible were compiled over the centuries and were clearly inspired by different socio-political events and cultural influences. We can read evidence of these different religious beliefs, from the polytheistic religion found in the first five books, to the vastly different, and diametrically opposing mechanics of justification found in the Christian texts. 

 

An interactive map of biblical contradictions can be found here: 

 

 

http://bibviz.com/

[albeto.]

Then how do we love people when we have no biological connection? Why do we have art and music?  How can a sunset bring us to our knees?  Cry after we make love occasionally? 

 

A biological connection isn't the only inspiration for feeling empathy. Proximity (neighbors) and group (tribal affiliation) are also registered in the brain as a kind of distant kin. Humans are social creatures, and the individual is safer when the entire group is safe. Having a protective feeling towards this group helps keep it safe. Empathy alerts us to vulnerabilities within the group. This can be explained through biology. You can learn more from this short summary: Robert Sapolsky: The Uniqueness of Humans.

[albeto.]

Well, one sugar doughnut and one croissant later I have finally finished reading this entire thread. I feel the need to contribute in some small way, so here goes nothing.

 

In my opinion there is one thing all human beings have in common. It is our discomfort with uncertainty and mystery. It drives science and religion, the need for explanations for everything, including ourselves. Dd16 and I are going to watch The Great Courses" Science and Religion" course together this summer. I find the interaction between science and religion, historically speaking, to be fascinating.

 

I would take this a bit further. Humans are social animals. We're also enormously deep thinkers. The body evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to promote brain growth over other morphological defenses like thick fur, scales, or camouflage, and over other morphological strengths such as speed or powerful jaws. We've evolved to cooperate and modify our environment to suit our needs in complex and creative ways. Part of what made this possible is the brain's natural impulse to draw a connection between two seemingly unrelated events. Recalling the standard imagery of the caveman in the tall grass hearing a rustle behind him. The caveman whose brain automatically correlates the sound of grass rustling to potential danger is the caveman who is likely to turn around and perhaps see the tiger stalking him. The caveman's brain who doesn't make this correlation is killed in a surprise attack. The genetic code for correlating two things as possibly important is passed from generation to generation. Other primates make these connections, too, but humans have developed such complex thinking skills that we have come to infer agency, particularly invisible, magical agency behind events. 

 

In other words, I don't think this process is inspired by discomfort with uncertainty and mystery, but inspired by cognitive impulses. It is because we can see such complex patterns and make complicated predictions (ie, death, what happens to our sense of self, our self-awareness at death) that we developed a desire to explain these things. 

[eternalsummer]

One needs only to look at the the alarming increase of preventable and potentially deadly diseases like measles and whooping cough to recognize the value of the rational scientific method over the irrational method of finding someone who tells you what you want to hear to feel safe. This forum is dedicated to education, not promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific explanations.

 

First, there is more to education than science and logic.  Second, if we're going to judge a system based on social outcomes, then secularism is in deep trouble.  Look at the record levels of obesity/diabetes; record levels of mental illness; record levels of family disintegration; record levels of incarceration; record levels of debt; etc.

 

It reminds me of the rest of the MLK Jr. quote I cited earlier;

 

"Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.â€

 

And this, from another great scientist;

 

"Infidelity is in fact as injurious as superstition; but since it is usually created by the progress of science, its suppression is more easily accomplished by still further progress...

 

We have been for a long time considering the effects of superstition, and the false tendency of the mind which favors it. It will not be necessary to dwell so long on the effects of infidelity, although they are extremely injurious; but since it originates from the spirit of inquiry, it carries with it the germ of its own downfall, and therefore it gains neither so endurable nor so extensive a rule as superstition.

 

We have already seen that infidelity consists in a tendency to reject that part of spiritual things which men believe in from a direct inward sense, and which is not proved by reason; it is caused by the numerous instances in which scientific discoveries refute opinions which have been received without investigation.

 

In the course of inquiry, many opinions are likewise refuted which were adopted in former investigations; but mind rectifies its own errors: not to mention that during a long period of time, it is the errors of superstition particularly that mind must remove. It is natural that this should create a doubt against that manner of thinking, which has so frequently been found in error.

 

Doubt is soon changed into distrust; and this creates, with many people, an excessive tendency to reject everything, added to which, there arises an exalted idea of the power of mind, which is really good in itself, but is apt to degenerate into arrogance.

 

The independent feeling which is created, by being delivered from so many natural bonds, degenerates also with others into a wild license, which despises every restraint; and according to the degree of this degeneracy, there arises a rejection of all religion, a fancied wisdom which exalts itself above all ideas of virtue and duty, although it would willingly subject weaker minds to their influence...

In so far as infidelity gains the upper hand at any particular time, it thereby approaches its own destruction. Morality is undermined, and consequently little valued. All the secret ties which unite families and states are loosened; everything sacred is scorned; and the spirit of persecution becomes associated with it, as it was formerly with superstition; but this condition bears with it the germ of its own downfall, and if the mental powers are not able to overthrow it, it ends in great revolutions and regenerations of the social system, which, as is well known, are accompanied by such throes that they must be considered as the tremendous punishment of degeneracy." -Hans Christian Oersted

 

Note that by "infidelity" he means literally a lack of faith.

[AlmiraGulch]

 

As for the Bible, if investigated, it is a very difficult book to doubt.  

 

No.  No it's not.  Not even a little bit. 

[AlmiraGulch]

I'm having so much trouble keeping my mouth shut. Sigh.  I think I will have a TimTam too.  What is your favourite?  I like the mocha ones.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

I'm a classic girl myself :)

 

I once had a client in Australia send me Tim Tams at the end of a project.  She must have really liked my work.  

[albeto.]

How about something within the realm of mortal, conscious thinking and lifespan?   ;)

(Since your point was about what people can or can't think...)

 

 

 

 

Arguing what happens after death is pretty challenging and I'm entirely too lazy to attempt it.  lol    

 

Perception and self-awareness do fall within the realm of mortal, conscious thinking. It happens during our lifespan, and is an increasing (and fascinating, imo) field of study. The effects death may have on it logically requires the application of the biological effects of cell death on the brain. Many religious beliefs claim this process is somehow altered for humans, and that the connections made through biological means (neurological connections that provide a sense of consciousness) are somehow made outside biological means, through a spiritual power for example. The thing is,  we have enough knowledge of the mechanics of physics with regard to cellular biological operations and cell decay to know organic bodies follow a specific pattern inspired by a now predictable series of cause and effect. To claim this is somehow negated in humans and instead replaced with a force that has yet to be identified or explored is to reject the claim that science can accurately explain what happens to humans after death. 

[albeto.]

First, there is more to education than science and logic.

You're arguing against an idea that no one is talking about. I am suggesting that rationally defending a scientific claim requires science and logic.

 

Second, if we're going to judge a system based on social outcomes, then secularism is in deep trouble. Look at the record levels of obesity/diabetes; record levels of mental illness; record levels of family disintegration; record levels of incarceration; record levels of debt; etc.

As there has been no actual objective evidence to support the claim that secularism leads to increased obesity, diabetes, mental illness, family disintegration, incarceration, and debt, this comment is irrelevant (well it was irrelevant to the thread anyway, but bunny trails do happen).

[SadieMarie]

I would take this a bit further. Humans are social animals. We're also enormously deep thinkers. The body evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to promote brain growth over other morphological defenses like thick fur, scales, or camouflage, and over other morphological strengths such as speed or powerful jaws. We've evolved to cooperate and modify our environment to suit our needs in complex and creative ways. Part of what made this possible is the brain's natural impulse to draw a connection between two seemingly unrelated events. Recalling the standard imagery of the caveman in the tall grass hearing a rustle behind him. The caveman whose brain automatically correlates the sound of grass rustling to potential danger is the caveman who is likely to turn around and perhaps see the tiger stalking him. The caveman's brain who doesn't make this correlation is killed in a surprise attack. The genetic code for correlating two things as possibly important is passed from generation to generation. Other primates make these connections, too, but humans have developed such complex thinking skills that we have come to infer agency, particularly invisible, magical agency behind events.

 

In other words, I don't think this process is inspired by discomfort with uncertainty and mystery, but inspired by cognitive impulses. It is because we can see such complex patterns and make complicated predictions (ie, death, what happens to our sense of self, our self-awareness at death) that we developed a desire to explain these things.

I am just talking about what is (IMO) and you are talking about the reason that it is.

 

I have always felt (believed, intuited...lol) that individuals have different levels of comfort with uncertainty. Those with the least comfort are going to be drawn to religion because religions generally claim to have THE TRUTH in some fairly complete form. And as you say we are programed, so to speak, to want/need these explanations.

 

The body of scientific knowledge will never be complete. It will just grow. So there is more, what I would call, uncertainty, or things yet to discover. I envy scientists because they are the ones at the forefront of those discoveries. They are DOING THE DISCOVERING and I can only be part of the audience really. Dd and I just saw the documentary "Particle Fever". Have you seen it? I highly recommend it.

 

Part of the reason it interests me is because I am solidly agnostic. I can't get to belief and I can't get to atheism. And I do not feel the need to get to either, or that I am missing anything by not doing so.

[albeto.]

I am just talking about what is (IMO) and you are talking about the reason that it is.

 

Fair enough. :-)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

First, there is more to education than science and logic.  Second, if we're going to judge a system based on social outcomes, then secularism is in deep trouble.  Look at the record levels of obesity/diabetes; record levels of mental illness; record levels of family disintegration; record levels of incarceration; record levels of debt; etc.

 

It would probably discourage you to learn that many societies that experience lower rates in those categories are more secular than the United States. 

[lewelma]

I'm having so much trouble keeping my mouth shut. Sigh.

 

 

Then please don't fight it anymore.  You always have such wonderful information to add to these discussions.

 

Thanks for your kind words.  One of the reasons I don't get involved is that I like to help people with their science plans, and I worry that my advice will be less acceptable to some people if they feel that I am argumentative on an issue close to their hearts.  The other problem I have is that most people do not have enough background knowledge of population genetics (the mathematics of evolution) for me to actually explain evolution in a way that will sway them.  I did read the ID site and started in on the original article, but honestly to completely figure out what is being said would take me many many hours.

 

I am enjoying the conversation, especially the slant towards the theory of knowledge.

 

Ruth in NZ

[eternalsummer]

You're arguing against an idea that no one is talking about. I am suggesting that rationally defending a scientific claim requires science and logic.

 

Now you're backpedaling.  You most certainly did.  You said;

 

"It's an embarrassment to those of us who are mocked and ridiculed for homeschooling because this is the face of homeschool - scientifically illiterate and stubbornly loyal to mythological explanations that have been debunked for centuries."

 

And;

 

"This forum is dedicated to education, not promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific explanations."

 

You're clearly casting aspersions on religious instruction.  You should know that both Harvard and Oxford began as Christian universities.

 

As there has been no actual objective evidence to support the claim that secularism leads to increased obesity, diabetes, mental illness, family disintegration, incarceration, and debt, this comment is irrelevant (well it was irrelevant to the thread anyway, but bunny trails do happen).

 

You don't think there's objective evidence between, say, no-fault divorce (women's lib) and elevated divorce rates?  For that matter divorce correlates with many other distortions and they have been scientifically observed; "There is a mountain of scientific evidence showing that when families disintegrate children often end up with intellectual, physical, and emotional scars that persist for life.... We talk about the drug crisis, the education crisis, and the problems of teen pregnancy and juvenile crime. But all these ills trace back predominantly to one source: broken families."

 

"Health problems reflect ways of living. The way of life associated with 'such social pathologies as the breakdown of the family structure' lead to medical pathologies. Schwartz and Stanton conclude: 'The United States is paying dearly for its social and behavioral problems,' for they have now become medical problems as well."

 

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm

 

 

 

It would probably discourage you to learn that many societies that experience lower rates in those categories are more secular than the United States. 

 

Nope, you're comparing apples and oranges.  It's more accurate to compare/contrast America when it was less secular to America today.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope, you're comparing apples and oranges.  It's more accurate to compare/contrast America when it was less secular to America today.

 

lol

Well, when the US was arguably its most religious, we had extremely high rates of genocide and slavery.  I am not sure you want to compare those apples.

 

And no, it is not apples and oranges to look at other secular societies for comparison.  If they are secular and are having fewer issues in the categories you listed, then it is rather difficult to try to make a claim for a less religious society in the US being the reason for our higher rates in those areas. 

[eternalsummer]

One needs only to look at the the alarming increase of preventable and potentially deadly diseases like measles and whooping cough to recognize the value of the rational scientific method over the irrational method of finding someone who tells you what you want to hear to feel safe.

 

I almost overlooked this.  The Daily Show did a segment on vaccine refusals recently.  You might be surprised where that "irrationality" is showing up;

 

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g1lev1/an-outbreak-of-liberal-idiocy

[SadieMarie]

Nope, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's more accurate to compare/contrast America when it was less secular to America today.

What time frame would you choose though? Because I am not convinced that the America of today is worse than the America of twenty years ago, or thirty years ago, or fifty or seventy-five. When I hear or read of people longing for some past America it seems like it is usually some sort of idealized version. When did his more wonderful, less secular, America exist? Where would you want to take us back to?

[eternalsummer]

lol

Well, when the US was arguably its most religious, we had extremely high rates of genocide and slavery.  I am not sure you want to compare those apples.

 

And no, it is not apples and oranges to look at other secular societies for comparison.  If they are secular and are having fewer issues in the categories you listed, then it is rather difficult to try to make a claim for a less religious society in the US being the reason for our higher rates in those areas. 

 

Genocide?  Whoa.  I don't think you know what that word means.

 

And let's see - your logic is "because slavery, everything we did in the past is suspect, even tho it held together; and our current secular society is better even though it's falling apart"?  That doesn't make much sense.

 

Those other societies you're referring to have vastly different demographics and different economies; that said, you do see some of the same problems.  For example, obesity;

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-obesity-europe-idUSBREA1N14N20140224

 

Debt;

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/global/european-debt-crisis-tracker.html?_r=0

 

Mental illness;

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/04/us-europe-mental-illness-idUSTRE7832JJ20110904

 

Family breakdown;

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-in-family-breakdown-epidemic-8432992.html

 

They also have unique problems of their own.  For example;

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130502/DEFREG/304290022/Russian-Attack-Raises-Questions-Over-Sweden-s-Readiness

 

If they can't defend themselves then everything else is moot, eh?

 

I'm also curious why you're unwilling to talk about the United States.

[eternalsummer]

What time frame would you choose though? Because I am not convinced that the America of today is worse than the America of twenty years ago, or thirty years ago, or fifty or seventy-five. When I hear or read of people longing for some past America it seems like it is usually some sort of idealized version. When did his more wonderful, less secular, America exist? Where would you want to take us back to?

 

The science is clear.

 

"The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007—from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling—a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children"

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg/693px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg.png

 

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/maps_diabetesobesity94.pdf

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/unmarried-motherhood-increases-sharply/2013/05/01/ef77c4ba-b26e-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

 

http://pringturner.com/book/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Chart-1-2.png

 

etc.

 

As you can see, things have been getting sharply worse in a relatively short period of time.

[Anne in CA]

There is a very good thread explaining evolution very clearly on the forums. There seems to be some confusion on what it means. It's an excellent explanation and I learned so much from it.

 

 

I'm on my phone or I'd find the link.

It was on the curriculum board and it was AMAZING!  I learned so much about evolution and everyone was so gracious and respectful. I was thinking of trying to find it myself later today.

 

Previous to that thread I knew very little about evolution, and this sort of thread does not help. Like minded people are not allowed to explore ideas, instead there is a tit for tat that includes many unintentional/ deliberate misunderstandings and causes a lot of bad feelings. 

 

Some of the people with more knowledge on this thread do not realize how horrible ps science education can be. I got NONE. I tried really hard with my kids but they take Sheldon more seriously than me, lol. 

 

Also, due to some strange circumstances in my life I have good reasons to doubt creation by evolution. I KNOW there is a God. I am not big on most theology currently held by most Christian churches on many subjects, but I could never deny there is a god. That would be silly given the things that have happened in my life that cause me to believe. 

 

My cousin (who holds a physics degree from a VERY prestigious university) tells a story of one of his physics professors explaining not be be excited over a find the biology department had dated as one of the oldest people in the world. The physics professor explained that the biology department had deliberately used equations that would give them the time they wanted instead of equations that would tell the truth. That is the sort of thing that makes me  untrusting of "science".  I don't think it is opinions changing facts, but  I think it is hopes changing facts, and my dh's tech career tells me that the smartest people in the world do indeed ignore facts they don't like even during research. 

 

Evolution does not change my faith on way or another, except for this. Whether or not Genesis is real or figurative, the Bible claims that eternal life was always God's plan. Evolution is a series of deaths and rebirths, so my theology would change radically if I believed that God created everything over billions of years, or if God used the earth for different things and had a big "do over" with a tree and a garden and a snake and a theif.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Genocide?  Whoa.  I don't think you know what that word means.

 

And let's see - your logic is "because slavery, everything we did in the past is suspect, even tho it held together; and our current secular society is better even though it's falling apart"?  That doesn't make much sense.

 

Those other societies you're referring to have vastly different demographics and different economies; that said, you do see some of the same problems.  For example, obesity;

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-obesity-europe-idUSBREA1N14N20140224

 

Debt;

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/global/european-debt-crisis-tracker.html?_r=0

 

Mental illness;

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/04/us-europe-mental-illness-idUSTRE7832JJ20110904

 

Family breakdown;

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-in-family-breakdown-epidemic-8432992.html

 

They also have unique problems of their own.  For example;

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130502/DEFREG/304290022/Russian-Attack-Raises-Questions-Over-Sweden-s-Readiness

 

If they can't defend themselves then everything else is moot, eh?

 

I'm also curious why you're unwilling to talk about the United States.

 

You are going to argue that what was perpetrated against Native Americans was NOT a form of genocide?

 

Are there "secular" nations with lower obesity rates? Yes. (Although you initially made this claim, I am not seeing a connection between that and religion.)

Are there "secular" nations with lower rates of mental illness? Yes. (Same.)

Are there "secular" nations with lower rates of personal debt? Yes. (Same.)

 

I also don't see where I am unwilling to discuss the United States. You make a claim that the US has rising rates of (insert whatever bothers you here) due to being less religious.  When I point out that other nations which are more secular have lower rates of (insert whatever bothers you here), you actually reply with "Those other societies you're referring to have vastly different demographics and different economies...."  If the differences in (insert whatever bothers you here) between nations can be affected by demographics/economics. then have can you boldly make the claim that the US is suffering in those categories due to being less religious?

 

I do thank you for defeating your own argument for me. It saved me some effort.  In the future you may want to think through your positions a bit more.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The science is clear.

 

"The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007—from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling—a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children"

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg/693px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg.png

 

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/maps_diabetesobesity94.pdf

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/unmarried-motherhood-increases-sharply/2013/05/01/ef77c4ba-b26e-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

 

http://pringturner.com/book/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Chart-1-2.png

 

etc.

 

As you can see, things have been getting sharply worse in a relatively short period of time.

 

Higher rates or are more people now seeking services than before? 

 

And from 1987-2007 can you show a conclusive metric that shows the US is significantly less religious as a society than before?

 

 

[eternalsummer]

You are going to argue that what was perpetrated against Native Americans was NOT a form of genocide?

 

Are there "secular" nations with lower obesity rates? Yes. (Although you initially made this claim, I am not seeing a connection between that and religion.)

Are there "secular" nations with lower rates of mental illness? Yes. (Same.)

Are there "secular" nations with lower rates of personal debt? Yes. (Same.)

 

I also don't see where I am unwilling to discuss the United States. You make a claim that the US has rising rates of (insert whatever bothers you here) due to being less religious.  When I point out that other nations which are more secular have lower rates of (insert whatever bothers you here), you actually reply with "Those other societies you're referring to have vastly different demographics and different economies...."  If the differences in (insert whatever bothers you here) between nations can be affected by demographics/economics. then have can you boldly make the claim that the US is suffering in those categories due to being less religious?

 

I do thank you for defeating your own argument for me. It saved me some effort.  In the future you may want to think through your positions a bit more.

 

No, it's disingenuous for you to call it genocide, to imply that it was somehow deliberate (a moral fault) when the vast, vast majority of deaths of Native Americans were due to infectious diseases.  From wikipedia;

 

"Epidemic disease was the overwhelming direct cause of the population decline of the American natives.^[41][42] After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, the death of 90 to 95 percent of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases such as smallpox and measles.^[43]"

 

Secular nations may have lower rates than the United States of various distortions, but contrast these same nations with themselves (apples and apples) over time and you see significant recent increases.  You don't seem to have an answer for that, or for the comparable elevated incidence in the US.

[eternalsummer]

Higher rates or are more people now seeking services than before? 

 

And from 1987-2007 can you show a conclusive metric that shows the US is significantly less religious as a society than before?

 

 

 

A 35x increase in mental illness is not just due to higher seeking of services.  1 in 5 boys have been diagnosed with ADHD.  Millions of them are on drugs.  That is a problem.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/features/key-findings-adhd72013.html

 

"The percentage of Americans who declared "no religious preference" on the 2012 General Social Survey, a large-scale national survey, was more than twice the percentage of Americans who declared no religion in 1990"

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/13/study-americans-less-religious-than-ever-before

[Matryoshka]

 Second, if we're going to judge a system based on social outcomes, then secularism is in deep trouble.  Look at the record levels of obesity/diabetes; record levels of mental illness; record levels of family disintegration; record levels of incarceration; record levels of debt; etc.

 

Um, if we're going to start blaming secularism for things like obesity and higher divorce rates, what explains these maps?  It does not look to me at all that the more secular areas of the country have higher rates of these problems.  I'm not saying more religious areas necessarily have more of these problems either - but I'm sure not seeing a more secular = more obesity/divorce/incarceration correlation. (or any of those other vices - how many maps do you want?)

 

[eternalsummer]

Um, if we're going to start blaming secularism for things like obesity and higher divorce rates, what explains these maps?  It does not look to me at all that the more secular areas of the country have higher rates of these problems.  I'm not saying more religious areas necessarily have more of these problems either - but I'm sure not seeing a more secular = more obesity/divorce/incarceration correlation. (or any of those other vices - how many maps do you want?)

 

 

Incarceration and obesity/diabetes rates also strongly correlate with demographic factors.  Hispanics and African Americans, for example, are much more likely to be obese and in jail.  Those areas also have higher poverty rates, and poverty also correlates with, you guessed it, obesity and incarceration.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706101

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:U.S._incarceration_rate_by_race_2.gif

 

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/

 

http://mtbi.asu.edu/downloads/Document8.pdf

 

 

---

 

Also, the increasing degeneracy of American culture transcends religion and politics, just as the prevailing conservatism of the 30s, 40s, and 50s did.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A 35x increase in mental illness is not just due to higher seeking of services.  1 in 5 boys have been diagnosed with ADHD.  Millions of them are on drugs.  That is a problem.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/features/key-findings-adhd72013.html

 

"The percentage of Americans who declared "no religious preference" on the 2012 General Social Survey, a large-scale national survey, was more than twice the percentage of Americans who declared no religion in 1990"

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/13/study-americans-less-religious-than-ever-before

 

Actually that could be due to people actually seeking, and having access to, services. 

 

As far as I know ADHD has no religious component.  I mean, you aren't seriously arguing that if people were more religious we would not have as many boys diagnosed with ADHD...are you?

 

But let's think about the conclusion you are trying to reach based on the survey you linked.  We are seeing an increase of 35x in "mental illness", but the increase in those who claim "no religious preference" has increased 2x (the number saying they are atheist has remained the same.)  Those two numbers deviate enough to lead one to believe something else is driving the "increase" in mental illness.  And I am also going to ask - are you seriously making claims that the increase in mental illness is due to people being less religious?

[eternalsummer]

Actually that could be due to people actually seeking, and having access to, services. 

 

You're just speculating (question begging).

 

As far as I know ADHD has no religious component.

 

There is a link between mental illness and broken families, and there's a link between a degenerate, secular culture and family breakdown.  Also, since "women's lib" less women are being full-time mothers to their kids.  Kids are being neglected and it should come as no surprise that it messes them up in the head.  It's not as simple as you might like it to be, but the connections are there.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Incarceration and obesity/diabetes rates also strongly correlate with demographic factors.  Hispanics and African Americans, for example, are much more likely to be obese and in jail.  Those areas also have higher poverty rates, and poverty also correlates with, you guessed it, obesity and incarceration.

 

---

 

Also, the increasing degeneracy of American culture transcends religion and politics, just as the prevailing conservatism of the 30s, 40s, and 50s did.

 

Then why in the blue blazes do you still try to blame the issues on a lack of religion?  I also believe that as group, Hispanics are more religious than Americans as a whole, which yet again goes against your core argument.

[eternalsummer]

nm 

 

Edited June 8, 2014 by Moderator
This line of argument is jumping the shark. Thread is now locked.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

1.) Nonsense.  The reality is that there is greater access to mental health services (although still not enough) than in previous decades.  If you think the mental health services (and associated stigma) available in the 1930s = now, then I cannot help you.

 

2.) Please don't refer to families that look different than yours as "broken."

I doubt you can make a link between "degenerate" culture and, well, anything as there is agreed upon definition.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, your idea of my "core argument" is a simplistic strawman of your own creation.  There are many factors involved, as I've repeatedly mentioned.  Degeneracy/secularism is clearly one of them.

 

The cultural paradigm since the 1960s has been "if it feels good, do it" of the "Me generation".  You don't see how that could lead to increases in consumption, deviancy, and disintegration?

 

Related;

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html

 

You have not repeatedly mentioned the other factors.  Those only came up when you used those as a defense when it was pointed out that many secular societies had lower rates in these areas.

You have also presented zero evidence that secularism is a cause of anything.

[SadieMarie]

The science is clear.

 

"The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007—from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling—a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children"

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg/693px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg.png

 

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/maps_diabetesobesity94.pdf

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/unmarried-motherhood-increases-sharply/2013/05/01/ef77c4ba-b26e-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

 

http://pringturner.com/book/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Chart-1-2.png

 

etc.

 

As you can see, things have been getting sharply worse in a relatively short period of time.

Where is the link to secularism? Capitalism unfettered by common sense regulation, corporate personhood, the policies spawned by the war on drugs, and changes in farm subsidies under Nixon, just to name a few, are more direct/reasonable explanations for the many of the problems described in your links. Would you blame religion for child labor then? Would you blame religion for the widespread lynchings of African Americans in this country. We were a much more religious country then so I guess it is the fault of religion. I think a fairly good case can be made for religion being responsible for women not being allowed to own property or vote though lol. "The science is clear"!? Where is the science? Correlation is not causation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

It is rare that someone makes a ninja edit this patently offensive.

"Also, since "women's lib" less women are being full-time mothers to their kids. Kids are being neglected and it should come as no surprise that it messes them up in the head."

[eternalsummer]

1.) Nonsense.  The reality is that there is greater access to mental health services (although still not enough) than in previous decades.  If you think the mental health services (and associated stigma) available in the 1930s = now, then I cannot help you.

 

2.) Please don't refer to families that look different than yours as "broken."

I doubt you can make a link between "degenerate" culture and, well, anything as there is agreed upon definition.

 

 

Using your own logic, did the access to mental health services increase 35x in the last ~2 decades?

 

If not, then, how would you say it?  "I do thank you for defeating your own argument for me."

 

You may not like the term "broken" but that's exactly what they are, and it's the innocent kids among those suffering the most.  I'm more concerned with their welfare than your political correctness.

[eternalsummer]

You have not repeatedly mentioned the other factors.  Those only came up when you used those as a defense when it was pointed out that many secular societies had lower rates in these areas.

You have also presented zero evidence that secularism is a cause of anything.

 

When you compare apples to apples as I have done, suddenly you don't have a case.  It's no surprise then why you insist on comparing/contrasting unrelated fruit.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Where is the link to secularism? Capitalism unfettered by common sense regulation, corporate personhood, the policies spawned by the war on drugs, and changes in farm subsidies under Nixon, just to name a few, are more direct/reasonable explanations for the many of the problems described in your links. Would you blame religion for child labor then? Would you blame religion for the widespread lynchings of African Americans in this country. We were a much more religious country then so I guess it is the fault of religion. I think a fairly good case can be made for religion being responsible for women not being allowed to own property or vote though lol. "The science is clear"!? Where is the science? Correlation is not causation.

 

There isn't even a strong correlation, much less a causation.

 

Considering that I was just informed that what happened to Native Americans wasn't genocide, I doubt any of your points will strike home.

[eternalsummer]

Where is the link to secularism? Capitalism unfettered by common sense regulation, corporate personhood, the policies spawned by the war on drugs, and changes in farm subsidies under Nixon, just to name a few, are more direct/reasonable explanations for the many of the problems described in your links. Would you blame religion for child labor then? Would you blame religion for the widespread lynchings of African Americans in this country. We were a much more religious country then so I guess it is the fault of religion. I think a fairly good case can be made for religion being responsible for women not being allowed to own property or vote though lol. "The science is clear"!? Where is the science? Correlation is not causation.

 

A religious society stresses many moral attributes that suppress deviancy and degeneracy.  Look, there's a reason they've been so consistently selected for.  Correlation doesn't preclude causation either.

 

It is rare that someone makes a ninja edit this patently offensive.

"Also, since "women's lib" less women are being full-time mothers to their kids. Kids are being neglected and it should come as no surprise that it messes them up in the head."

 

You get offended easily.

[albeto.]

Then why in the blue blazes do you still try to blame the issues on a lack of religion? 

 

I'm going with Fox News on this one. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When you compare apples to apples as I have done, suddenly you don't have a case.  It's no surprise then why you insist on comparing/contrasting unrelated fruit.

 

You yourself stated that demographics and economics play a role in each of societal issues you pointed out.  How you can then try and blame secularism simply baffles me.

[eternalsummer]

There isn't even a strong correlation, much less a causation.

 

Considering that I was just informed that what happened to Native Americans wasn't genocide, I doubt any of your points will strike home.

 

Up to 95% of Native American deaths were accidental.  For you to suggest otherwise is patently false, and it's no wonder you haven't provided a substantive response - because you can't.