Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ysbreker

Who would you vote for?

Recommended Posts

So, basically, Obama's been winning all the primaries ever since Super Tuesday. Do we have our next Democrat candidate? Interestingly enough, on the Republican side, Huckabee has been giving McCain a rough time, stealing his victories at the jaws of his enemy.

The last thing I want, and what the world needs, is an American president who chooses not to believe in evolution :fart:

Man, I just have to repeat: :fart:

Also, McCain is a brand of French fries over here. So he's the French fries candidate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last thing I want, and what the world needs, is an American president who chooses not to believe in evolution :fart:

Man, I just have to repeat: :fart:

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they already have one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so sad that evolution has become something you have to "believe" in. So many people also misunderstand the word theory by saying "it's just a theory".

There was an article recently in Wired in which someone suggested we all start calling it the The Law of Evolution, just like The Law of Gravity. That seems like a really good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it really a law? To me, a law seems to indicate something you can put into a formula of some kind. Evolution is more like a... system. But whatever. There's also the Law of God, so in the end it's all wordplay. But if it works... well, it might be worth a shot.

But yes, it's immensely infuriating that people don't believe in science, like it's something you have to choose for. It's like saying 'I don't believe this microwave is going to heat my sausage roll'. Well, you might say that all you want, but it's going to work anyway. It's science. Not gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that when people say they don't believe in science, they meant they don't believe in the microwave; I think they meant that they don't take science has the ultimate explanation of the world.

And that's the main problem between the 'religious' and 'scientific' community : they will never agree because they don't envision 'explaining the world' as having the same sense. Religion explain why, and expects science to do the same. Science explains how, and expects religion to do the same. And none of them will ever be able to provide what the other expects, religion because it is based on faith (believe without/against proof) and science because it doesn't think their is an intention behind natural phenomenon.

Anyway, I don't know why but the expression "believing in science" tingle my brain as weird and contradictory... anyone having the same feeling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, we all have our Hooker Sense tingling at the idea of 'believing in science', trust me.

That notion you put forth is most likely true. But the concept is fallacious, because in the natural world, 'why' always follows from 'how'. The two are intimately connected. We first observe (how) something (is happening), and then we discover why it's happening. Of course, that only works if you don't assume that there's human thought behind everything, or conscious thought in any case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think how and why are getting confused. Rodi, your sense of 'why' is what the religious call 'how', i.e. the mechanics of the events. Religion is intended (at least in any serious perspective, excluding the vast majority of religious, who don't understand their own theologies) as a 'why' in the sense of humanistic meaning (which is why I prefer to term the dichotomy as one between "what does happen" [science] and "what should happen" [religion], making religion just a term for an ethical system).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not what religious people are saying at all. They are in effect saying that this and that happened scientifically. If only they just saw it as an ethical system, then at least there would be consensus that it's just an opinion. But they're making it holy and try to shoehorn it into the development of life, and that's what's causing so much of the problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, hence:

(at least in any serious perspective, excluding the vast majority of religious, who don't understand their own theologies)

I'm of the opinion that in order to bridge that divide divinity and worship must be entirely separated from ethics (and indeed removed entirely), but that's a sort of humanist wet dream and so instead I try to grant what I see as the pros of religion and hope they start to act with more awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering they currently believe that religion first developed precisely as a response to our ethics (religion helps back our personal sense of 'right' and 'wrong' in an otherwise chaotic and unjust universe) I think it would be more helpful to merge them with a better understanding of why we have it in the first place.

Anyhoo, there are scientists working hard to discover concrete evidence of evolution, and they think they've finally proven it with that moth. (The one that was discredited by the creationists.)

So yes, the Law of Evolution would be better, I guess.

Of course DARWIN was religious and he saw evolution as part of God's design, so there's no reason why the two can't co-exist... it's only if you're a fundamentalist that there's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is always revisionist, in the long term. Despite what individual adherants may think, their religion has undergone many edits over the centuries. I'm sure evolution and the scientific method will eventually be included in the world view of every faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt it, considering the two systems (faith vs science) are practically at opposite ends of the scale. In any case, it'll be a hard pill to swallow. I'm not betting on it happening anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, it will take a long time. But just look at the whole Copernicus/Gallileo thing for a past example.

On a more angry note, the thing that gets me is that god supposedly created the Earth, and indeed the whole universe. OK fine. He also supposedly created this book that, if taken as literal, flat out contradicts what the Earth itself tells us. Given the choice of believing a book or an entire universe, both created by the same god, I'm going to believe the evidence in the fucking planet. You know, evidence like geology and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to politics though: I just finally watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and it fired me up against that miserable Bush. Bah humbug. Stupid war in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×