Dov Henis Posted October 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Dear CraigD, Yes, are'nt we all humans on this planet Earth, wherever we are, the same in all respects and don't we all have the same circumstances, face the same kind of problems and can all avail ourselves of the same kind of help and services...and are'nt we ALL, ALL, ALL, for justice and brotherly love and mutual assistance in all matters and for mutual respect and consideration... As a member of a very small cultural minority group in the world, barely surviving in the midst of a fierce life-or-death regional and cultural struggle, I do not share your optimistic spirit and hopes and I have learned (also in several discussion forums ) that there is a natural unbridgeable mental gulf between the social concepts-comprehensions-sensitivities of members of majority and minority cultural groups. I attribute part of the natural unbridgeable gulf to faith-based cultural aspects and I am convinced that the most hopeful practical future option for humanity and humans on Earth is a rational science-informed-based humanism world regime. Thinking and dreaming, Dov Edella 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 However, there are many on this site who do not want an in depth scientific study of the scriptures to be carried out on this site. Would you say I'm right, oh humble Turtle? As I said earlier: Putting forward any facts about the current state of evolutionary theory is then pointless, both because it is not the issue [of this thread]and because the religious dogmatist/fundamentalist never fails to argue those facts on the basis of belief in some text irreproducibly claimed to come from a deity or deities. There is no such thing as 'in depth scientific study of scriptures' insofar as scientifically proving the bible - or any supposedly divinely inspired writing - comes from a supernatural creator.:surprise: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 There is no such thing as... scientific study of scriptures... Please re-consider. With a science-informed humanist convictions and attitudes I posit that EVERYTHING may and should be studied scientifically, and I have been urging that the AAAS recommend studying religion and religious doctrines in public schools' science classes. It's about time to introduce informative studies and discussions re evolution and history of religion and of religious doctrines to the young generation. I think and dream, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 There is no such thing as... scientific study of scriptures... Please re-consider. With a science-informed humanist convictions and attitudes I posit that EVERYTHING may and should be studied scientifically, and I have been urging that the AAAS recommend studying religion and religious doctrines in public schools' science classes. It's about time to introduce informative studies and discussions re evolution and history of religion and of religious doctrines to the young generation. I think and dream, DovWell, you chopped off the qualifiier to my consideration. ...insofar as scientifically proving the bible - or any supposedly divinely inspired writing - comes from a supernatural creatorI have no problem with presenting religion in school in the context of history class, e.g. how religious beliefs handle scientific ideas they don't like ala Galileo or the religious wars between Islam & Christianity. Attempting to use ontological proofs for god under the guise of science is, however, circular reasoning and vacuous. Thinking & dreaming too, Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 This might be a bit closer to what you initially wanted to discuss. Am I correct, Dov? Considering the very different viewpoints, and the animated states some of us have taken, how do you propose a scientific study. How much do you consider in this type of class? Who has the right to step up and suggest a curriculum for such a class? Obviously if Turtle were the science teacher (since he has made his thoughts well known) would attempt to show that there is no basis for the scriptures whatsoever. (In America, this would lead to nothing but court case after court case after court case, since the constitution states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThus any teacher who takes the stance that there is no scientific reason to believe in the Bible, will be using a law allowing them to speak about religion, to affect a religious belief.No one has yet sued a school for teaching that wars in Europe were caused by certain churches, as it is history and not really open for interpretation (for the most part these things are well documented and thus have solid proof). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Obviously if Turtle were the science teacher (since he has made his thoughts well known) would attempt to show that there is no basis for the scriptures whatsoever. Yet another error in your reasoning CW; I would not include the topic in my science class at all. It's not a science subject. Neither have I said there is no basis in fact in scriptures, whether its the bible, the koran, the vedas, etc., rather I have maintained these works are mixtures of history, myth, and literature. Yet again, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that because a work claims to have come from some spirit realm outside 'normal' experience, that this is a proof of such a claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 I simply meant if you were forced to teach it. If you didn't teach it, they would have grounds for firing you (assuming a law was passed stating they had to teach it). That was my assumption in saying what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Evolution in action: http://www.umaine.edu/waterquality/Agriculture/virus_crops.htm http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/339976 Ug, you are supposed to provide some comments about what the sites you post contain. Evolution in action isn't very descriptive. It is especially not descriptive of the first site which discusses genetic manipulation of plants by scientists. I am particularly fond of this field, having worked with a geneticist who did this type of work, and having worked for a company that made it's money off of such work (a seed sales company that does genetic research and alteration to "improve" upon it's product.)Genetic manipulation is not evolution. Evolution is a natural process. I really have to strongly suggest you do some reading on what evolution is and isn't before making misguided attempts to support it. The second site you suggest there is an abstract. I opened it a second ago and can't now. It simply suggests that there is a correlation between where some larger animals live and where some smaller animals live. They say the further away from the equator you go, the larger the animals tend to get.There are small animals that live in very cold climates (see lemmings) and some larger animals that live in climates near the equator (see elephants, whales, girraffes). Thus without a deeper amount of data to support a better worded conclusion, the site is of little or no value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Who's on firstI don't knowWhatNo, he's on second... :kiss: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 Cwes99_03: You are wrong, evolution need not be "natural", when performing confirmatory experiments, in a wide range of fields, human intervention is routine, both links demonstrate experimental confirmation of hereditary characteristics preserved over generations ie evolution. You have also been provided with a link detailing "observed instances of speciation", nowhere in the linked accounts is there any evidence that "creation" is involved in speciation. I'm tired of this, evolution is a fact and speciation is a fact (this thread isn't a philosophical discussion about the nature of "facts") if you insist on denying the in-your-face evidence, that's your affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 QUOTE=cwes99_03] This might be a bit closer to what you initially wanted to discuss. Am I correct, Dov?Considering the very different viewpoints, and the animated states some of us have taken, how do you propose a scientific study. CWS, - From the first posting of this thread: " The survey [of extent of evolution acceptance] points out that the US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised... In most of the world, this is a non-issue." - The discussion I hoped to evoke with this thread was " ...to place one specific critical 'politicization of science in the USA' under a magnifying glass...the AAAS, the Antiscientism Evangelist in the USA." - In my opinion the scientific study of religion, specific religions, and religious doctrines is a scientific study of human biological, social and historical aspects, and this is just a partial list. And I firmly expect that it is unavoidable that the time will come when this will be the accepted prevailing attitude the world over. And I'm also convinced that the sooner and faster this attitude spreads the better off you and I and all humanity will be. Hoping to live to see it beginning to take root,thinking and dreaming, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 ... As a member of a very small cultural minority group in the world, barely surviving in the midst of a fierce life-or-death regional and cultural struggle, I do not share your optimistic spirit and hopes and I have learned (also in several discussion forums ) that there is a natural unbridgeable mental gulf between the social concepts-comprehensions-sensitivities of members of majority and minority cultural groups. I attribute part of the natural unbridgeable gulf to faith-based cultural aspects and I am convinced that the most hopeful practical future option for humanity and humans on Earth is a rational science-informed-based humanism world regime. Thinking and dreaming, Dov Hey Dov,Quite the little thread this has developed into mate. :hihi: I'm curious what the average Israelis (or friends you talk with) think of all this. Is it a topic only in relation to the US? Do your leaders use religion as a basis for campaigning or arguing the merits of laws? It is quite the paradox that the US founders used the reason of the Renaissance as the basis of our union and in large part to specifically put an end to religious based rule. When Jefferson delivered a draft of the Declaration of Independence to Franklin for review, Jefferson had written "We hold these truths to be sacred..."; Franklin crossed out sacred and inserted "self-evident" in order to eliminate the religious connotation. It is my view Franklin held a similar view to yours when you wrote, "rational science-informed-based humanism world regime."If the situation is as dire as you believe, then the kind of radical action Franklin and our founders employed may similarly have utility. Thinking and dreaming is all well and good, but extreme circumstance require extreme measures. What propositions have you to forward the spread of rational science-informed-based humanism to the world? :Alien: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 Hey Dov,Quite the little thread this has developed into mate. :omg: I'm curious what the average Israelis (or friends you talk with) think of all this. Is it a topic only in relation to the US? Do your leaders use religion as a basis for campaigning or arguing the merits of laws? Evolution is definitely not an issue in Israel. I guesstimate that its acceptance here is in the 75% -80% range. Basic relevant Israel info: - The whole population of israel is about the size of the population of metropolitans Madrid or Bangkok, i.e. circa 6.5 million. That's all. - Israel has circa half of the world Jewry. This gives you an idea of the size and distribution of the whole Jewish community in the world. Fact. - The legal and public status of the Jewish religion in Israel has been set by the governments and public with the aim of 'reviving the vitality of the Jewish cultural (including religious aspects) phenotypes destroyed in the holocaust in Europe and by the expulsions to Israel of the Jewish communities from Arab countries'. This status is described vividly inhttp://www.wzo.org.il/doingzionism/resources/view.asp?id=1833 . - I'm not aware of credible statistis about religiosity of Jews in Israel, but a good estimate is that circa 15% of the Jewish population here (approx 5.4 million) lives by religious tenets, and the rest are 1:1 emotional-respect-religious-traditions and origins-informed-understand-religious-traditions. I am one of the last group, of course. Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 - The legal and public status of the Jewish religion in Israel has been set by the governments and public with the aim of 'reviving the vitality of the Jewish cultural (including religious aspects) phenotypes destroyed in the holocaust in Europe and by the expulsions to Israel of the Jewish communities from Arab countries'. This status is described vividly inhttp://www.wzo.org.il/doingzionism/resources/view.asp?id=1833 . - I'm not aware of credible statistis about religiosity of Jews in Israel, but a good estimate is that circa 15% of the Jewish population here (approx 5.4 million) lives by religious tenets, and the rest are 1:1 emotional-respect-religious-traditions and origins-informed-understand-religious-traditions. I am one of the last group, of course. DovWhat an unusual sensation I have when reading Hebrew words. Maybe I'm mispronouncing them in my mind, but it's quite interesting. One sticking in my mind is Knesset, both for the "sound" of it, and because it is a single house parliament. While the US federal legislature is composed of 2 houses and most states as well, our state of Nebraska is unicameral like the Knesset.Back on topic. At the very least, it seems Israel shares elements of the division between religious and secular views, if not for different reasons. Is secularism in Israel founded in science, or some other base? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 What an unusual sensation I have when reading Hebrew words. Back on topic. At the very least, it seems Israel shares elements of the division between religious and secular views, if not for different reasons. Is secularism in Israel founded in science, or some other base? 1) Origin of Hebrew culture derives from Accadian culture and Hebrew language is of the proto-Semitic group. An educated Hebrew-speaking person can figure out words/sentences in several ancient semitic languages and can trace many Hebrew religious and other terms way back up to circa 4000 BC... 2) Secularism ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism ): * in philosophy, the belief that life can be best lived by applying ethics, and the universe best understood, by processes of reasoning, without reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts.* in society, any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society. ... In my opinion secularism cannot be founded on anything else but on science, and I think - but I'm not aware of a scientific survey - that this is the case in Israel, too. I think, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 Hey Dov, What propositions have you to forward the spread of rational science-informed-based humanism to the world? :cocktail: I did propose a start by way of a wide public information program, but all my efforts to materialize it ended up in frustration : http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=142 Frustrated, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FRIPRO Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 To bring back the title (subject) comments America Does Not Believe in Evolution! I am suprised that this string got off the subject. My latest e Book indicates that at least I do Refer to:UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN via EVOLUTION The WIT Particle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.