Threads related to Colorado mountaineering accidents but please keep it civil and respectful. Friends and relatives of fallen climbers will be reading these posts.
Forum rules
Please be respectful when posting - family and friends of fallen climbers might be reading this forum.
mtnkub wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:25 pm
Hm, I would much object to equating christianity (a religious belief system) with intelligent design (a pseudo-science with a largely anti science sentiment and intent).
Fair enough. They definitely aren't the same thing, but they certainly aren't mutually exclusive either. Lots of people that are members of both groups, myself included.
If you are christian, you likely believe in a creator. If you are an intelligent design supporter, you want your religious beliefs to be taught in science class.
In the latter case, please get off my lawn (and maybe contemplate Mark 12:17).
I am actually fine with macroevolution being taught in public schools, since that is what the majority of scientists advocate. What I'm not fine with is the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Sean Nunn
"Thy righteousness is like the great mountains." --Psalms 36:6
nunns wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:02 am
I am actually fine with macroevolution being taught in public schools, since that is what the majority of scientists advocate. What I'm not fine with is the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Personally, I am actually positively in favor of exposing public school students to various religious ideas. Just not in science class.
(And everyone is allowed to question Darwin scientifically; but that doesn't mean that pseudo-science fringe ideas have a rightful place in high school science class).
nunns wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:02 am
I am actually fine with macroevolution being taught in public schools, since that is what the majority of scientists advocate. What I'm not fine with is the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Personally, I am actually positively in favor of exposing public school students to various religious ideas. Just not in science class.
(And everyone is allowed to question Darwin scientifically; but that doesn't mean that pseudo-science fringe ideas have a rightful place in high school science class).
Sorry but I'm not going to bite on that last line there. It would just result in 100 posts back and forth and neither one of us changing our minds.
Sean Nunn
"Thy righteousness is like the great mountains." --Psalms 36:6
the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Sean Nunn
Well that's a gross misrepresentation of the general thinking of the scientific community. Of course it can be questioned, all scientific theories can and should be tested continuously, and evolution is no exception. The fact is, evolution by natural selection has largely stood up to 150 years or so of such tests. No other explanation for the diversity of life on earth has survived similar scrutiny. Anybody who tells you differently is either misinformed or trolling you. If you believe intelligent design should be taught in public schools, I would imagine you get trolled a lot.
the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Sean Nunn
Well that's a gross misrepresentation of the general thinking of the scientific community. Of course it can be questioned, all scientific theories can and should be tested continuously, and evolution is no exception. The fact is, evolution by natural selection has largely stood up to 150 years or so of such tests. No other explanation for the diversity of life on earth has survived similar scrutiny. Anybody who tells you differently is either misinformed or trolling you. If you believe intelligent design should be taught in public schools, I would imagine you get trolled a lot.
the trouble in my mind is that science is held as THE ONLY interpretation for anything and everything, and if you disagree with the findings of the new priests of the new religion of scientific explanation, then you should be burned at the stake. why does it matter? because the narrow lens of science excludes so many other possible ways of interpreting the world, and i don't even include religion in those possibilities.
the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Sean Nunn
Well that's a gross misrepresentation of the general thinking of the scientific community. Of course it can be questioned, all scientific theories can and should be tested continuously, and evolution is no exception. The fact is, evolution by natural selection has largely stood up to 150 years or so of such tests. No other explanation for the diversity of life on earth has survived similar scrutiny. Anybody who tells you differently is either misinformed or trolling you. If you believe intelligent design should be taught in public schools, I would imagine you get trolled a lot.
the trouble in my mind is that science is held as THE ONLY interpretation for anything and everything, and if you disagree with the findings of the new priests of the new religion of scientific explanation, then you should be burned at the stake. why does it matter? because the narrow lens of science excludes so many other possible ways of interpreting the world, and i don't even include religion in those possibilities.
Traditionally, scientists have done a little less burning-at-the-stake than many other groups. Seeking enlightenment beyond the realms of science maybe worthwhile. But so is sticking to science in science class.
the idea that (unlike every other theory in the history of science) no one can question Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Sean Nunn
Well that's a gross misrepresentation of the general thinking of the scientific community. Of course it can be questioned, all scientific theories can and should be tested continuously, and evolution is no exception. The fact is, evolution by natural selection has largely stood up to 150 years or so of such tests. No other explanation for the diversity of life on earth has survived similar scrutiny. Anybody who tells you differently is either misinformed or trolling you. If you believe intelligent design should be taught in public schools, I would imagine you get trolled a lot.
the trouble in my mind is that science is held as THE ONLY interpretation for anything and everything, and if you disagree with the findings of the new priests of the new religion of scientific explanation, then you should be burned at the stake. why does it matter? because the narrow lens of science excludes so many other possible ways of interpreting the world, and i don't even include religion in those possibilities.
Nobody here said science has all the answers as far as I'm aware, nor that it is the only interpretation for anything and everything. It's actually not really an interpretation of anything, just one way of thinking and organizing information. There are certainly other ways to do that. Science can't even tell us what's true; what it is very good at is telling us what is not true. There's nothing wrong with identifying and calling things out that are demonstrably false, or in the case of the current discussion, which of two competing ideas has more evidence to support it. No good scientist would say intelligent design (or any other religious, spiritual, or other "non-scientific" idea) is false. What they would say is "show me the evidence that it's true". We're all free to believe whatever we want to believe, for whatever reasons we want to believe it.
mtn_hound wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:43 pm
Well that's a gross misrepresentation of the general thinking of the scientific community. Of course it can be questioned, all scientific theories can and should be tested continuously, and evolution is no exception. The fact is, evolution by natural selection has largely stood up to 150 years or so of such tests. No other explanation for the diversity of life on earth has survived similar scrutiny. Anybody who tells you differently is either misinformed or trolling you. If you believe intelligent design should be taught in public schools, I would imagine you get trolled a lot.
the trouble in my mind is that science is held as THE ONLY interpretation for anything and everything, and if you disagree with the findings of the new priests of the new religion of scientific explanation, then you should be burned at the stake. why does it matter? because the narrow lens of science excludes so many other possible ways of interpreting the world, and i don't even include religion in those possibilities.
Nobody here said science has all the answers as far as I'm aware, nor that it is the only interpretation for anything and everything. It's actually not really an interpretation of anything, just one way of thinking and organizing information. There are certainly other ways to do that. Science can't even tell us what's true; what it is very good at is telling us what is not true. There's nothing wrong with identifying and calling things out that are demonstrably false, or in the case of the current discussion, which of two competing ideas has more evidence to support it. No good scientist would say intelligent design (or any other religious, spiritual, or other "non-scientific" idea) is false. What they would say is "show me the evidence that it's true". We're all free to believe whatever we want to believe, for whatever reasons we want to believe it.
mtn_hound wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:31 pm
No good scientist would say intelligent design (or any other religious, spiritual, or other "non-scientific" idea) is false. What they would say is "show me the evidence that it's true".
that's just it. scientists only accept scientific evidence as true evidence. that's my objection. and i see it on this forum A LOT.
and there's a contradiction in your point. you say that science is good at telling us what's not true. and then you say in order for you to believe an argument, one must "show you the evidence that it's true".
Last edited by disentangled on Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mtnkub wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:28 pm
Seeking enlightenment beyond the realms of science maybe worthwhile. But so is sticking to science in science class.
mtn_hound wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:31 pm
No good scientist would say intelligent design (or any other religious, spiritual, or other "non-scientific" idea) is false. What they would say is "show me the evidence that it's true".
that's just it. scientists only accept scientific evidence as true evidence. that's my objection. and i see it on this forum A LOT.
and there's a contradiction in your point. you say that science is good at telling us what's not true. and then you say in order for you to believe an argument, one must "show you the evidence that it's true".
That's not actually what I said. You added "In order for you to believe an argument", which is a requirement that I intentionally omitted because it isn't what I think. I can only speak for myself, but saying "show me the evidence that it's true" is the start, not the end, of a discussion (not of an argument).
mtn_hound wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:56 pm
I can only speak for myself, but saying "show me the evidence that it's true" is the start, not the end, of a discussion (not of an argument).
