I read the comments too and completely understand your need to come up for air. I made the mistake of entering into a “conversation” with one of these guys. They are as doctrinaire and religious as people who have a religion, except that people who have a religion tend to be honest about it. Sigh.

I like your dh’s comment and agree with it. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I made the mistake of trying to “discuss” this with Black Sun, and ended up getting royally trolled. It’s my own fault, I fed the troll.
I don’t think he has any real viewpoint at all. He seems to make outrageous statements so he can play with the reaction.

That said, we must also remember that science is a self-limited field that imposes boundaries on what is properly called science. Everything of value in human knowledge does not have to be science or be connected to it.

That is how most of us view science (I think), and I doubt most scientists fret all that much about religious belief. I have not real problems with the theory of evolution, and I think the debate gets confused because most of us are really talking about abiogenesis as opposed to what most scientists talk about when mentioning evolution.

I don’t know, but when I used to get involved in the debate, it seemed like the two sides were speaking two different languages, and they weren’t really talking about the same thing.

What does bother me, however, is this idea of “scientism” which isn’t scientific, really. It is a philosophical worldview which seems to be gaining ground (or at least gaining attention) which, to condense the definition above, says this:

In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

That bothers me…and it is this group that is talking about parents teaching their children creation as if it were an abuse issue.

First, as the question of the girl who does not “believe…” It would be unethical to give her anything but the A grade she has earned by demonstrating her understanding the theory. Her choice not to accept the evidence presented for the theory is simply her choice. It harms no one.

Secondly, the word “belief” is improper when dealing with a scientific theory. Science is a field that does not appeal to the supernatural or to faith. To say that some scientists do or do not “believe” in the theory only confuses the issue further. That said, we must also remember that science is a self-limited field that imposes boundaries on what is properly called science. Everything of value in human knowledge does not have to be science or be connected to it.

Finally, I am strongly opposed to any idea that teaching one’s own children a particular world view or refusing to teach them another world view is somehow abuse. This belittles the seriousness of real abuse where it occurs, and it also makes claims that somehow a child can never grow to think for himself. I taught the biological sciences at the university level. From that experience, I I would say that I prefer students who had been taught to think over students who had been taught to parrot the theory of evolution. The first students (some of whom had not been taught the theory of evolution and some of whom had been taught it) were a joy to teach: they were curious and they understood how to really wrestle with a problem and make it have meaning. The second group were, for the most part, more interested in jockeying for points than with real learning.

But this is getting too long…

Good discussion here on PD, as usual!

You did not say in your original comment that drinking ages in Europe and the Middle East have changed. You stated that they didn’t exist:

There is no drinking age in most if not all European and Middle Eastern countries.

That is factually inaccurate. I am well aware of the fact that they have changed, just like they did here. And for the exact same reasons. Europeans are increasingly aware of the potential dangers and increasingly willing to interfere with the family to protect children (for better or for worse).

I never argued that alcohol was a sin and have never said anything but irresponsible drinking is the problem.

And interestingly, the Jews recognized the connection between maternal alcohol consumption and “strange children.” Sampson’s mother was warned against strong drink when told she was pregnant…perhaps because Sampson was to be a Nazarite, but perhaps because Jewish custom forbade alcohol consumption by pregnant women.

The Talmud says, “She who uses intoxicating drinks during pregnancy has strange children.”

In England, the connection was recognized after the “gin epidemic” when cheap gin led to a variety of defects in children. Restrictions on the sale of alcohol slowed the “epidemic” and society began to look at other things as a cause.

And in reference to this statement:

They don’t seem to be too terribly retarded.

The stats I’ve seen indicate that FAE/FAS is more prevalent in Europe. Sweden: 1/600 births, France: 1/300 births and USA: 1/750 births. Here’s a little more on the history:

http://depts.washington.edu/fadu/FASEur.html

But basically it outlines the same thing we see here: people are more aware of the danger and the laws are changing to reflect that…in Europe and America.

And if the issue is drunkenness, that is far more prevalent in Europe. At least where I was.

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth. PBS.org

And if you like the philosophic, I really enjoyed this article which looks at some of the strivings between realism and romanticism and looks at scientism as it was practiced in the USSR:

http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/aant2.html

We have a video about the Great White in which one of the scientists says, “We know more about the dinosaurs than we do about the Great White.”

And that left me with a question: Is it really that we know more or is it that we are unencumbered by their actual presence to disrupt what we think we know about them?

I have learned to stay out of the discussion, because it annoys me. Both sides have a tendency to treat the other not as if they were simply wrong, but as if they were intellectually inferior and incapable of reasonable thought.

I’m yet to find more than a couple of people that I could actually have a discussion with that did not include more insults than facts.

I personally happen to believe in evolution, albeit a Divinely-guided rather than Darwinian version. But when I teach it, I stress that it’s a THEORY that many but not all scientists BELIEVE and that some very interesting questions about it have been raised by ID proponents to which the evolutionists don’t yet have good answers. It’s not a fact and it absolutely drives me up the wall when it’s treated as one.

It is reasonable to require government-run schools to teach the principles of the theory of evolution but not to require students to accept that theory. Private schools and homeschools should be free to teach whatever they wish since they are privately funded.