The Name of this Forum

[Wasted Sapience]

First of all, I'm certainly not out to change IIDB policy, especially not in the wake of the PD civil war which is going on. But isn't there a problem with 'Evolution/Creation?' Creation implies the divine origin of the entire universe, from the galaxies down to sub-atomic particles. Evolution only has to do with gene pools, a biological concept. In short, evolution only deals with a part of our origins, while creation implies everything related to it. This is part of the reason strawman versions of evolution are so popular among creationists -- we get lazy and use the world evolution too liberally (stellar evolution, chemical evolution, economic evolution). :banghead:

[Idolator]

"Evolution" just means "gradual change," although nowadays it especially means biological evolution.

Also, this is (basically) an atheist forum. The only reason we have E/C is because atheists are often interested in (refuting) the concept of creationism.

[Wasted Sapience]

"Evolution" just means "gradual change," although nowadays it especially means biological evolution.


Yes, but the creationists love to go Kent Hovind on us and claim that "evolution" is responsible for creating everything, like evolution is a magic, mystical force out in the forest somewhere. The theory of evolution is about biology and only biology. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with stars or geology or the oceans of hydrocarbons and oxygen which existed on the early Earth. I've never seen a creationist who could accurately describe what the ToE is (once I do I'll pay more attention to him). The term "Evolution/Creation" in all forms implys this mystical, magical force of evolution that no one is spouting except for creationists.

[espritch]

You have a point. Maybe we should rename it the "Science vs. Creationism" forum for accuracy. After all, the Creationists aren't just opposed to Darwinian Evolution. They also want to toss out Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology, Geocronology, Paleontology, and the Scientific Method.

[Wasted Sapience]

You have a point. Maybe we should rename it the "Science vs. Creationism" forum for accuracy.

Then we'd be putting creationism on the same level as science. ;)

I'd advocate Origins or Origins Debate as an alternative for our nation's schoolchildren.

[Wasted Sapience]

They also want to toss out Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology, Geocronology, Paleontology, and the Scientific Method.

Don't forget that pesky carbon dating. In the words of co-worker Gabe: "The theory of evolution, no matter how much stuff they come up with, it just can't hold water. I mean the methods they use to date rocks, they're just, UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And my old friend Joel: "Captain [an old knickname], tell me you don't believe in evolution. If I come back [to this school] next year, I'll introduce you to this guy who has a whole trunk full of stuff that refutes evolution. A whole trunk full of stuff... I mean, it's not like there was this explosion and then there was all this bacteria [waving his fingers to imply mysticism]." My best friend was also present at the time, laughing at the idea that humans evolved from monkeys and thinking that I'd change my mind if he ridiculed me enough.

[Hydra009]

Then we'd be putting creationism on the same level as science. ;)

I'd advocate Origins or Origins Debate as an alternative for our nation's schoolchildren.Nah, "Origins" has such a vague connotation (the origin of what? Humans? Species? Life? The Universe? Only the first two are covered by evolution, the later ones by abiogenesis and Big Bang theory, respectively) and the phrase is generally only used by creationists when they want to lump evolution with a variety of other theories and then attack it all at once as if it's some sort of religious origin story akin to Genesis.

That's a really bad idea, imo.

[Hydra009]

First of all, I'm certainly not out to change IIDB policy, especially not in the wake of the PD civil war which is going on. But isn't there a problem with 'Evolution/Creation?' Creation implies the divine origin of the entire universe, from the galaxies down to sub-atomic particles. Evolution only has to do with gene pools, a biological concept.Well, "Evolution VS religious beliefs to the contrary" doesn't have much of a ring to it.

And since creationism is the chief evolution-denier vehicle these days (ID being creationism with duct tape strategically placed over the liscence plate), it makes sense to use the dreaded C-word. But I wouldn't shorten it down from creationism to "creation", because that could cause theists to wrongly associate "creation" - the belief that God created the universe/Earth/life/humans - with "creationism" - the idea that the Flintstones is a documentary. Bad idea.

[Godless Dave]

I like "Science vs. Creationism" myself.

[Sven]

You have a point. Maybe we should rename it the "Science vs. Creationism" forum for accuracy. After all, the Creationists aren't just opposed to Darwinian Evolution. They also want to toss out Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology, Geocronology, Paleontology, and the Scientific Method.
Problem is: Today, Big Bang related stuff normally gets moved to S&S, where it's aptly dealt with. After a name change like this one, we would have to bother with this crap, too, without all the experts hanging around only at S&S.

[Albion]

How about Evolution/Creationism?

[inmeitrust]

The only reason I come to this forum is info on evolution and good links to biology sites. The creationism debate is so mind numbing I don't even bother. I'm glad some folks are fighting to keep magic out of science classes, because I don't have the patience or diplomacy skills to do so. Hence, I would love a science only forum on evolution (and other topics).

[Jet Black]

First of all, I'm certainly not out to change IIDB policy, especially not in the wake of the PD civil war which is going on. But isn't there a problem with 'Evolution/Creation?' Creation implies the divine origin of the entire universe, from the galaxies down to sub-atomic particles. Evolution only has to do with gene pools, a biological concept. In short, evolution only deals with a part of our origins, while creation implies everything related to it. This is part of the reason strawman versions of evolution are so popular among creationists -- we get lazy and use the world evolution too liberally (stellar evolution, chemical evolution, economic evolution). :banghead:

Well essentially this forum is intended to cover the topics related to evolution and creationism. There are quite often threads just about the latest finds or things that people want to know about evolution, that do not relate to creationism at all. I agree that the real debate is between creationism and science, but we have to put a dividing line in somewhere.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by espritch
They also want to toss out Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology, Geocronology, Paleontology, and the Scientific Method.
Don't forget that pesky carbon dating.
You mean 'carbon dating' as in 'Geochronology'?

In the words of co-worker Gabe: "The theory of evolution, no matter how much stuff they come up with, it just can't hold water. I mean the methods they use to date rocks, they're just, UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And my old friend Joel: "Captain [an old knickname], tell me you don't believe in evolution. If I come back [to this school] next year, I'll introduce you to this guy who has a whole trunk full of stuff that refutes evolution. A whole trunk full of stuff... I mean, it's not like there was this explosion and then there was all this bacteria [waving his fingers to imply mysticism]." My best friend was also present at the time, laughing at the idea that humans evolved from monkeys and thinking that I'd change my mind if he ridiculed me enough.

Perhaps you need a better class of friends? I generally try to hang with people who think. And think about what they think.



As for the Forum title, its fine the way it is. Having 'Evolution' first establishes the sense of the title. Followed by 'Creation' naturally fills out the title in the sense of 'Evolution vs Creation'. I don't have any illusions the common association of Evolution with Abiogenesis stems from this forum title.

[Principia]

I agree with the OP. There was a previous forum heading change several years ago, spearheaded by RufusAtticus, that improved on its last banner. But I still think that this forum is misnamed. IMO, it should be just Biological Evolution and the Origin of Life. Inclusion of any reference to Creation or Creationism is just superfluous, because it invites a comparison where none exists. IDiots shouldn't come here to waste our time with that shit. They have never succeeded. They never will. Atheism is not about refuting all other crap pseudoscience or philosophy in the Universe. I don't understand why we give special attention to this one.

Furthermore, I think this forum needs a raison d'etre for its separate existence from Science and Skepticism. Everything in science is related to biology in some minute way... whether it is some obscure mathematics equation or some grand physics discovery or a really cool engineering construct. We promote science... yet we hold evolutionary biology out for special treatment. Why? Just because the Christians do it?

[Oolon Colluphid]

But I still think that this forum is misnamed. IMO, it should be just Biological Evolution and the Origin of Life.Nope, because we do origin stuff in general (too): bangs (Big) as well as explosions (Cambrian).
Inclusion of any reference to Creation or Creationism is just superfluous, because it invites a comparison where none exists.
How so? Perhaps, similarly, we might rename Existence of God(s) 'Materialism', 'Naturalism' or 'Atheism'...? We don't think gods exist, nor do we consider creationism valid. But we have these things in the forum titles to attract the attention of those who do believe these things and so get their posts to the right place.
IDiots shouldn't come here to waste our time with that shit.
"Theists shouldn't come here to waste our time with that shit."

But, they do. So we house them, and name a forum so as to corral the topics. :huh:

Perhaps you were in fact looking for this forum:
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/

They have never succeeded. They never will. Atheism is not about refuting all other crap pseudoscience or philosophy in the Universe.
"Atheism is not about refuting all crap religions in the Universe."

Creation is mentioned for the same reason gods are in 'EoG'. Because people believe in it.
Furthermore, I think this forum needs a raison d'etre for its separate existence from Science and Skepticism.
And that, mainly, is the volume of biology-related material, topics and posts, and the way that evolution in particular is attacked by one chunk of theists. Sure, they go after science in general, but it's centred on biology and palaeontology / geology etc.
Everything in science is related to biology in some minute way... whether it is some obscure mathematics equation or some grand physics discovery or a really cool engineering construct. We promote science... yet we hold evolutionary biology out for special treatment. Why? Just because the Christians do it?
In a word, yes. To toss you a slippery slope, we promote naturalism and non-theism -- why not merge all the fora?

And if we are to subdivide, we can't do it just along biology lines, because there is too much overlap -- in what we have to defend -- with geology etc. And it's not just evolution, it's origins stuff too. You know, the whole creationist kit and kaboodle. Them's what we deal with here, while S&S does the non creationist-attacked stuff.

So I do not see any advantage to renaming. It's not just the biology forum; it's the that-which-creationists-attack forum.

[ninewands]

I agree with the OP. There was a previous forum heading change several years ago, spearheaded by RufusAtticus, that improved on its last banner. But I still think that this forum is misnamed. IMO, it should be just Biological Evolution and the Origin of Life. Inclusion of any reference to Creation or Creationism is just superfluous, because it invites a comparison where none exists.
I disagree. The battle between fact-based science education in the public schools of the US is one of the most important battles being fought over church-state separation. It is MUCH more important than the fight over schoolchildren reciting the pledge or the one over a prayer at a football game.
IDiots shouldn't come here to waste our time with that shit. They have never succeeded. They never will.
Changing the name of the forum won't change that.
Atheism is not about refuting all other crap pseudoscience or philosophy in the Universe. I don't understand why we give special attention to this one.
Could it be because it is the opening battle, and one of the most important ones, over whether the most powerful nation on earth will remain rational and secular or descend into theocracy and become a third world nation armed with nuclear weapons?
Furthermore, I think this forum needs a raison d'etre for its separate existence from Science and Skepticism.
It has one ... preparing people to fight this battle in the school boards and in the courts.
Everything in science is related to biology in some minute way...
... only to the extent that the rest of science confirms or disproves part of biology. Biology, geology and, to a lesser extent, cosmology are all "pinnacle sciences." It can be said that physics and chemistry exist for the purpose of explaining biology, geology and cosmology scientifically. These three are the sciences of the very large scale (well, relative to atoms, anyway) and are, because of the nature of their subject matter, somewhat less well-grounded in the hard-core mathematical analysis of physics and chemistry. I know because I was an undergraduate biology major in the late 1960's. At the time all of taxonomy was straight Linnaean classification. While there was some very crude systematic thought involved in Comparative Anatomy, the cladistic revolution was still in the future ... or, at best, restricted to graduate school. Biology was, indeed, "stamp collecting."
whether it is some obscure mathematics equation or some grand physics discovery or a really cool engineering construct. We promote science... yet we hold evolutionary biology out for special treatment. Why? Just because the Christians do it?
Because we must do so in order to defend what little quality education remains in US public schools. Make no bones about it. The goal of the fundamentalists is to destroy public education in the US since they have lost control of it. They want to return us to the early 19th century model where those who could afford an education got one and those who could not ... well ... they were really good about attending church services on Sunday.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in public school classrooms is their chosen attack point in this battle, but stopping evolution is not their overall goal. If they win this battle they will continue on to attack geology, cosmogenesis, and eventually Civics, Government and American History, which is probably their ultimate goal if they can't get the entire system just to shut down. Once they control the subject matter of those courses they can indoctrinate schoolkids that "America was founded as a Christian Nation!" to their hearts' content and any history to the contrary will conveniently "disappear."

Although I really enjoy learning from the likes of Per, Martin B. and Joe Meert, my main reason for being here is to keep my finger on the pulse of the battle over science education and to learn how to debate creationists, should I ever need to do so (which I suspect I probably will, but that's a topic for another thread). Blindly re-hashing the latest issue on "Nature" with no regard to the "Culture War" that is going on is solipsistic, isolationist navel-gazing that would, in the final result, be "fiddling while Rome burns."

The favored tactic of the "forces of darkness" is to set up and knock down strawman versions of the Theory of Evolution. The only way we can defeat them is to make them fight against what the theory actually says. This forum is important just the way it is because it prepares secular-minded people to do just that.

[Principia]

Could it be because it is the opening battle, and one of the most important ones, over whether the most powerful nation on earth will remain rational and secular or descend into theocracy and become a third world nation armed with nuclear weapons? LOL. Now you give IDiots too much credence. If Creationism is the pivotal battle for rationality and secular goodness, then what do we make of separation of church and state? Come on. Evolution is hardly the first, or the last, clash between science and politics. Think global warming. Or stem-cell research. Or animal experimentation. Or HIV denial. The list goes on and on. Do we give each of them a separate forum?

You illustrate my point quite well in another way. Here you have focused on a topic that is best covered by those well versed in political theory. Yet, is this subject covered in CSS? Or do mods twitch their fingers and bump them here for us oh-so-politically-saavy science folks to debate over?

Because we must do so in order to defend what little quality education remains in US public schools.American children fall below international rankings on all scientific literacy, not just biological evolution. [Added in edit: Forget the children. If most American adults don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun in a year, this is because they don't get Evolution?] This argument is a red herring. I submit you focus on evolution because of the metaphysics, not because this is the only area BOEs can bone up on.

Although I really enjoy learning from the likes of Per, Martin B. and Joe Meert, my main reason for being here is to keep my finger on the pulse of the battle over science education and to learn how to debate creationists, should I ever need to do so (which I suspect I probably will, but that's a topic for another thread). Blindly re-hashing the latest issue on "Nature" with no regard to the "Culture War" that is going on is solipsistic, isolationist navel-gazing that would, in the final result, be "fiddling while Rome burns." You illustrate the fundamental problem that is rampant in the growing scientific illiteracy of today: apathy. To call a review of the contents of Nature solipsistic and isolationist is simply anti-intellectual. But it isn't your fault. People have discovered science for the sake of power, and lost interest in science for its own sake. Scientists are partly to blame because the popularizers of today are often polarizers.

So, I have a different perspective. I think this forum should be about the neat unknown scientific questions that leave one begging for more. I think atheists are in the preeminent position to show why science matters independent of any political concern. Engage the mind, and you might win their soul. Do that and we don't have to worry about losing them to the dark forces of IDiocy.

And that, mainly, is the volume of biology-related material, topics and posts, and the way that evolution in particular is attacked by one chunk of theists. Sure, they go after science in general, but it's centred on biology and palaeontology / geology etc.Anti-science is far grander in scope than Creationism. People who subscribe to astrology and visions of Mary in clouds have far more problems than believing that the Earth is 6000 years old. We need the combined efforts of all the sciences to deal with this issue, not subdividing our forces. I cannot tell you the number of times I wish a physicist or a chemist would comment on a point of biophysics, or when a computer scientist would analyze an evolutionary algorithm. Do they all gravitate to E/C? Why would anyone expect that sadistic trait to befall on all atheists?

So I do not see any advantage to renaming. It's not just the biology forum; it's the that-which-creationists-attack forum.And by having a biology instead of an E/C forum, you honestly believe that creationists won't come and attack us anyway? :confused:

[Principia]

I'll respond to one more point.

How so? Perhaps, similarly, we might rename Existence of God(s) 'Materialism', 'Naturalism' or 'Atheism'...? We don't think gods exist, nor do we consider creationism valid. But we have these things in the forum titles to attract the attention of those who do believe these things and so get their posts to the right place. It is a matter of organization, OC. Having organizational skills engenders trust that one has a sound mind. Frankly, I don't care too much about the other fora in Philosophy. But now that you mention it, they are a bit disorganized, aren't they. You have PEST (new), and CSS, which falls in it. You have Philosophy, with Non-Abrahamic and EoG, both of which fall in it. You have E/C and S/S, and I don't even know what the deal is with that.

One can almost sense the haphazard evolution of forum as they duplicate, mutate and specialize function with various selective pressures. But, let's put a little more thought behind them, eh?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Anti-science is far grander in scope than Creationism. People who subscribe to astrology and visions of Mary in clouds have far more problems than believing that the Earth is 6000 years old. We need the combined efforts of all the sciences to deal with this issue, not subdividing our forces. I cannot tell you the number of times I wish a physicist or a chemist would comment on a point of biophysics, or when a computer scientist would analyze an evolutionary algorithm. Do they all gravitate to E/C? Why would anyone expect that sadistic trait to befall on all atheists?
Sure. In which case, I'm not sure what you are proposing. There's certainly some conflation: the thread's about whether we've got a good name for the forum, but suggesting that we're splitting our forces implies that we ought to be merging fora, which is a different matter.

Many's the time, too, when I'm glad to see Dean or the other EoG / BC&H experts come along and demolish a Flood timeline or a First Cause argument. But renaming the forum to something biology-centred, while it might attract more biophysicists or computer scientists, might well actively put off historians and so on.
And by having a biology instead of an E/C forum, you honestly believe that creationists won't come and attack us anyway? :confused:
I've no idea where you got that idea from. Not from me, at any rate. Just take a look at that biology forum I linked: they've had our good friend Supersport, for example.

It seems obvious to me that there is a need for a separate forum dealing with "The origins and diversity of life--divine fiat or product of natural forces?--and the sociopolitical ramifications of the answer." And that "Evolution/Creation" is as good a name as any to summarise that.

Inevitably there is overlap with other fora. Bound to happen. But E/C is still united...

E/C is a bit like the 'easy listening' section of record shops (without the 'easy' ;)). 'Easy listening' covers light jazz, light classical, light pop, and so on. What links these things in uneasy (pun intended) alliance is the 'light' or 'easy' element. Similarly, E/C covers biology, other sciences, arguments for god, history/archaeology, politics, cultural references to 'origins issues', and the rest. What unites all these is the theme of origins, and attacks on scientific understanding of that.

Perhaps we should call it Origins?

Or just stick with E/C...

[Principia]

It seems obvious to me that there is a need for a separate forum dealing with "The origins and diversity of life--divine fiat or product of natural forces?--and the sociopolitical ramifications of the answer." And that "Evolution/Creation" is as good a name as any to summarise that. But that is exactly antithetical to a good science forum -- it lets the politics dominate the environment of the forum. It also goes against everything we do to court, e.g., theistic evolutionists, who believe that it is divine fiat to let life evolve. This was my argument last time I brought this issue up. I introduced "the origins and diversity of life." I believe RufusAtticus added the qualification of divine fiat and natural forces. The qualification is superfluous.

But if you leave out the qualification, all you have left is the title I am proposing now.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just 'Origins', then. <shrug>

[Principia]

Perhaps we should call it Origins?
I actually like that suggestion. It invites the multidisciplinary approach that you envision, science, philosophy, politics. It is also broader in scope than mere biological evolution.

[Oolon Colluphid]

But that is exactly antithetical to a good science forum
If you want a good science forum, go look for one. Perhaps there's a discussion board at the Nature website? The issues we deal with here are science-based, but far wider than just science. And as these things all interrelate it needs to be that way. Suppose it was just science. Where might we laugh (or not) at Richard Hammond's comments (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=207038)? Where would you put all the Dover trial discussions? The creation museum, trees and the flood (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206986), or my original post that founded SMOGGM?

[Principia]

You misunderstand. It needs to be a good science forum if it were about evolution. Otherwise, for other reason do we defend it? Because the alternative (like Hammond) is too funny and overly politicized to be true?

The entire premise of the forum based on the title is false. There is no answer aside from the science. Without the science we have nothing to make fun of.

[Principia]

If you want a good science forum, go look for one. I already have one, thank you very much. And as you may guess, this ain't it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Either I'm still not understanding, or you are still conflating issues. This is a good science forum (search on posts by 'Per Ahlberg' if you doubt it). It is also the catch-all place for anti-origins-science discussions -- the cultural and "sociopolitical ramifications" stuff. They cannot be sensibly separated, because mention of a new Nature paper can suddenly spin off into Project Steve or Dover or whatever... and I for one am not about to do any more thread splitting than necessary.

Renaming the forum to something more science-centric is one thing, but if we then stick with the title for its contents, it would mean that a chunk of what we currently discuss here would belong somewhere else. But given the overlap, that seems pointless. We might, perhaps, have two fora, a combined all-science ('n' skepticism) one and one for the cultural, political etc ramifications of science. But then (eg) discussion of Coulter would draw some bozo quoting some egregious straw man nonsense, which would lead to discussion / evisceration of that... which would bring the topic back to science.

Nah, whichever way you cut it, we've got a good science forum that also covers the rest. As they say of TV, if you don't like the programme, change the channel (ie ignore that thread).

Perhaps

[Oolon Colluphid]

I already have one, thank you very much. And as you may guess, this ain't it.
See ya then. :( :confused: :rolleyes: :wave:

[Principia]

Renaming the forum to something more science-centric is one thing, but if we then stick with the title for its contents, it would mean that a chunk of what we currently discuss here would belong somewhere else. I thought we both agreed 'Origins' was the appropriate title? It broadens the scope.

In either case, my issue is not sticking with the science. You still have that strawman stuck in your noggin. My issue is that the title of the forum betrays the scope of the forum. It sets up a false dichotomy and invites a comparison that is not sustainable. If you want to defend evolution, you don't do it on any other basis other than scientific. On the other hand if you want to bash Creationism, just about everything goes. So which is it? Apparently, atheists like the latter, they just do it under the pretense of the former. Arguing science under false premises hurts science just as much as the Creationist do.

But then (eg) discussion of Coulter would draw some bozo quoting some egregious straw man nonsense, which would lead to discussion / evisceration of that... which would bring the topic back to science. And, so you still haven't justified a separate existence for E/C apart from S/S. Aside, apparently, from wanting to make a direct appeal to Creationists to post here. Why one ever want that is beyond me.

Nah, whichever way you cut it, we've got a good science forum that also covers the rest. As they say of TV, if you don't like the programme, change the channel (ie ignore that thread).You may be watching TV, and getting comfy in your armchair. I happen to be activist. And this aspect of the forum is simply unacceptable as I see it. Do you simply tell creationists to go away too?

[Oolon Colluphid]

I thought we both agreed 'Origins' was the appropriate title? It broadens the scope.
Yes, and agreed. It'll need a bit more input than just us though :).
In either case, my issue is not sticking with the science. You still have that strawman stuck in your noggin.
Apologies, though it wasn't me bemoaning the lack of a "good science forum".
My issue is that the title of the forum betrays the scope of the forum. It sets up a false dichotomy
I'm not sure the dichotomy is a false one, and unless I'm mistaken, Doug Futuyma for one agrees with me (there's a quote somewhere about 'creation and evolution between them exhausting the possibilities'... I'll track it down if necessary). But still, in much the same way that the forum's called 'Science & Skepticism' not 'Science and Antiscience', it might be worth dropping the creation bit and going for Origins. 'Science of Origins'? SO? (My wife thinks I'm married to the bloody computer as it is -- "Did you kiss it goodnight?" on coming to bed late :o -- without calling it SO!)
and invites a comparison that is not sustainable. If you want to defend evolution, you don't do it on any other basis other than scientific.
However, we do not necessarily attack creationism on scientific grounds: the 'bad theology' line can be just as appropriate.
On the other hand if you want to bash Creationism, just about everything goes. So which is it?
Personally? Both. "Is this the right room for an argument?" Yes!
Apparently, atheists like the latter, they just do it under the pretense of the former.
Nifty phrasing, but what do you mean? Yes, we like bashing creationism. Yes, we want to defend science. Seems to me it's you who's setting up a false dichotomy.
Arguing science under false premises hurts science just as much as the Creationist do.:confused:
And, so you still haven't justified a separate existence for E/C apart from S/S.
I wasn't aware I was trying to, particularly. I was justifying a not-science-only forum, and a separate forum for defending science. I've often wondered what S&S is for, separately, and now I think of it, I remember that my first ever post, waaay back, was in S&S (and I was directed to E/C ;)). Seems to me that 'E/C' is a subset of S&S, and the only reason I can think of for the separation is that E/C generates such a large amount of material on its own that the S&S stuff would be swamped. Note, in that regard, that there is at least one whole board (http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi) dedicated to the subject.
Aside, apparently, from wanting to make a direct appeal to Creationists to post here. Why one ever want that is beyond me.
To argue. To show them they're wrong. To practise arguing against them for when they turn up in other contexts. To show the lurkers how such arguments are wrong.

Being good at science is not the same thing as being good at defending science from charlatans. This is where we get good at the latter, and learn some of the former along the way.
You may be watching TV, and getting comfy in your armchair. I happen to be activist. And this aspect of the forum is simply unacceptable as I see it.
I'm still -- still, I'm afraid -- unclear what exactly you think is wrong. It can't be the "not sticking with the science" issue, because I'm trying to get that straw man out me noggin. So what actually is the problem?
Do you simply tell creationists to go away too?
You should know perfectly well that I do. ;) :o

[Principia]

Yes, we like bashing creationism. Yes, we want to defend science. Seems to me it's you who's setting up a false dichotomy.Yet, we all know that defending science has no bearing on Creationism (i.e. the 'divine fiat' in the title). One is a purely empirical matter, the other a metaphysical matter. The juxtaposition of the two is purely nonsensical. You might as well call the forum 'Evolution and Creation' and improve it tremendously. The phrasing of the subtitle implies a false dichotomy. There is no choice on a scientific basis. Creation is not a scientific theory.

So the only other reason for including that subtitle is to cast this forum as a purely reactive endeavour, like ninewands suggests: We discuss evolution because we think that it is an all important sociopolitical matter. I disagree with that stance, too, because it seems to suggest that atheists have nothing going for them except to react against every kooky theistic idea. But maybe that problem is too entrenched in IIDB to be fixed in the short run. So I think we'll just have to agree with 'Origins' as the best measure for now.

Do you simply tell creationists to go away too?

You should know perfectly well that I do.So you switch channels everytime a Creationist comes here and mouths off? Why are you moderator?

[Worldtraveller]

By the time I registered on IIDB, the E/C forum already existed separately. I don't know if it was ever part of S&S.

I can imagine keeping it as is in terms of splits, though, because the E/C controversy (contrived as it is) is a big topic, and the sheer volume of posts here is nearly 50% greater than S&S, which in practice covers a wider range of topics.

Big bang topics do go in S&S, or at least should, but they are often brought up here in the (out of) context of evolution and abiogenesis.

I'm not opposed to changing the title. If we did, I'd suggest narrowing it a bit to Evolutionary Biology and Origins of Life, as was suggested earlier. EBOoL.....I kinda like it. :D

It won't change anything though, we'll still get the occasional creationist, ID proponentsist, and others who will come here to air their views.

Cheers,
Lane

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yet, we all know that defending science has no bearing on Creationism (i.e. the 'divine fiat' in the title).
To be honest, I've never given the subtitle much thought. (I almost never see it, as my IIDB 'Favorites' link brings me straight here ;).)
One is a purely empirical matter, the other a metaphysical matter. The juxtaposition of the two is purely nonsensical. You might as well call the forum 'Evolution and Creation' and improve it tremendously. The phrasing of the subtitle implies a false dichotomy. There is no choice on a scientific basis. Creation is not a scientific theory.
Unfortunately, you may have missed the fact that not everyone agrees with that. Indeed, most of those we get here think believe creation is an empirical matter. They're wrong, of course -- and that's why we're here.
So the only other reason for including that subtitle is to cast this forum as a purely reactive endeavour, like ninewands suggests: We discuss evolution because we think that it is an all important sociopolitical matter. I disagree with that stance, too, because it seems to suggest that atheists have nothing going for them except to react against every kooky theistic idea.
Yet we have a forum for discussion of the central kooky theistic idea: that there's a god. Is that a purely empirical matter, or a metaphysical one? Presumably we have the EoG forum as a purely reactive endeavour, and participants discuss the existence of god(s) because they think that it is an all important matter. This too seems to suggest that atheists have nothing going for them except to react against theism. Disagree?
But maybe that problem is too entrenched in IIDB to be fixed in the short run.
What's to fix? We have other fora for the non-reactionary topics (MF&P, PA&SA etc). Come to think of it, what could be more reactionary than a forum called Biblical Criticism and History?!

If there were nothing to react against, we could indeed just get on with studying biology and palaeontology. As it is, there is, so we do it. What's more, who here hasn't learnt a hell of a lot of biology and palaeontology from arguing with creationists?
So I think we'll just have to agree with 'Origins' as the best measure for now.
I'm not convinced there's anything broken which therefore needs fixing, but I've alerted the Admins to this discussion anyway.
So you switch channels everytime a Creationist comes here and mouths off?
Heh. Course not. But I do nevertheless tell some of them to bugger off and come back when they've obtained a clue, which was what you asked.
Why are you moderator?
The power :devil1: . And the salary :Cheeky: .

Actually, it's cos I feel a little proprietorial about the place, as I've been here so long, and so want to keep it neat and tidy.

[Jet Black]

I would go for Biological Origins of Life, Evolution and Nature. Then whenever a creationist posts something stupid, I could type:


FALSE

Jet Black [BOoLEaN] Mod

and when Per ahlberg posts I can say


TRUE

Jet Black [BOoLEaN] Mod

[Jet Black]

thought EBOoL has a nice ring too;

The spammer was smited:

JB [EBOoL] Mod

[Oolon Colluphid]

It won't change anything though, we'll still get the occasional creationist, ID proponentsist, and others who will come here to air their views.
Obviously. I assume Principia would agree with this. Therefore... what are we discussing? The forum title gives the wrong impression? Does anyone care (within reason)? I mean, the content would stay the same, and nobody would misunderstand from the title what the content would be about. So... what's the point?

[Jet Black]

well I suppose it does give the impression of controversy, where there isn't really one. I've always argued that it is Creation vs Science.

[Jet Black]

hey, here's an original one, how about we call it "the Origin of Species"

[Principia]

I think JB gets my drift. We appear to endorse the 'teach the controversy' meme that IDiots are spreading. Creationists should not come into this forum thinking (as lee_merrill most recently exemplifies) that denial of evolution automatically forces us to choose Creation. It is false. The title, as I understand it, is pure Creationist bait. And we spend all the time debunking it for them. So why keep it around?

As for the reactionary atheist perspective, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. For me, atheism is an umbrella for many interesting perspectives without having to juxtapose it to Christian/theistic ideas. Isolating subtopics that are magnets for debates seems like being too desperate for attention. So yeah, I disagree with BC&H, and EoG, and others. Nevertheless, as you advise, I turn the dial on those fora.

[Jet Black]

I think JB gets my drift. We appear to endorse the 'teach the controversy' meme that IDiots are spreading. Creationists should not come into this forum thinking (as lee_merrill most recently exemplifies) that denial of evolution automatically forces us to choose Creation. It is false. The title, as I understand it, is pure Creationist bait. And we spend all the time debunking it for them. So why keep it around?

As for the reactionary atheist perspective, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. For me, atheism is an umbrella for many interesting perspectives without having to juxtapose it to Christian/theistic ideas. Isolating subtopics that are magnets for debates seems like being too desperate for attention. So yeah, I disagree with BC&H, and EoG, and others. Nevertheless, as you advise, I turn the dial on those fora.

well I suppose the issue of BC&H and EoG stems from the fact that most atheists are surrounded by religion in one form or another, and wish to discuss their perspective on it.

I agree with your assessment, that we shouldn't really be suggesting that it is an either/or proposition

[sugarbeth]

I always thought it should be "Understanding Evolution" myself.

[ninewands]

LOL. Now you give IDiots too much credence. If Creationism is the pivotal battle for rationality and secular goodness, then what do we make of separation of church and state? Come on. Evolution is hardly the first, or the last, clash between science and politics. Think global warming. Or stem-cell research. Or animal experimentation. Or HIV denial. The list goes on and on. Do we give each of them a separate forum?
You fail to see that it is all interrelated. What you are thinking of as "Church-State Separation" is, in fact, a separate issue. It is concerned with the attempted direct invasion of the halls of government by those who would enforce their own religious beliefs against others by color of law.

The socio-political issues that are discussed here in E/C have to do with a small portion of that battle. Namely whether or not science education in the US (at present) will continue to be fact-based. While this is a much smaller fight that the overall CSS war, it is an extremely important part of it because it is the fight for the future.
You illustrate my point quite well in another way. Here you have focused on a topic that is best covered by those well versed in political theory.
Read my entry in the "Credentials and Experience" sticky. You will see that I have degrees in biology. engineering and law. If I am not equipped to fight this battle then who is?
Yet, is this subject covered in CSS? Or do mods twitch their fingers and bump them here for us oh-so-politically-saavy science folks to debate over? American children fall below international rankings on all scientific literacy, not just biological evolution.
You make my point for me.
[Added in edit: Forget the children.
"Give me the child until the age of 7, and I will give you the man."

- Ignatius Loyola

The "other side" gets it ... you apparently do not.
If most American adults don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun in a year, this is because they don't get Evolution?]
See above. If science education is not maintained as a strictly fact-based enterprise, general science literacy will NEVER be attained.
This argument is a red herring. I submit you focus on evolution because of the metaphysics, not because this is the only area BOEs can bone up on.
Pardon my wording if it offends you, but what the fuck is a BOE? As far as "metaphysics" is concerned, the only "metascience" I recognize the validity of is mathematics.
You illustrate the fundamental problem that is rampant in the growing scientific illiteracy of today: apathy.
You have no bloody idea who you are talking to ... I have been called lots of things in my life, but apathetic is not one of them.

It might interest you to know that out of my apathy I am in the process of founding a non-profit organization to defend and improve the quality of science education in one of the largest and most conservative (both politically and religiously) metropolitan areas in the US.

You apparently want to sit around contemplating your navel and reading Nature. That's fine ... but ask yourself who is apathetic and who is fighting the fight. If you ever want to get your hands dirty trying to make a difference, let me know.
To call a review of the contents of Nature solipsistic and isolationist is simply anti-intellectual.
You might be interested to know that I read Nature regularly, as well as SciAm and Science. The fact that more people don't appalls me. The fact that in 1999 the Benjamin Franklin Foundation published a study showing that in 61% of American households no one had read a single book in the previous year appalls me. The problem is not one of scientific illiteracy (although that doesn't help any). The problem is lack of curiosity.
But it isn't your fault. People have discovered science for the sake of power, and lost interest in science for its own sake.
You are so full of yourself you can't be bothered with the world outside your door, aren't you? I could turn inward like you if I wanted to, but I want my grandchildren to be interested in the world around them. I want them to be more than my generation of self-absorbed baby boomers turned out to be. I am profoundly embarrassed by the lack of general science literacy I see around me and even MORE embarrassed about the lack of curiosity about the world and nature that is exhibited by those who live around me.
Scientists are partly to blame because the popularizers of today are often polarizers.
I'll mention you think that the next time I see Neil Tyson, Bill Nye and Martin Gardner. What are YOU doing to popularize science?
So, I have a different perspective. I think this forum should be about the neat unknown scientific questions that leave one begging for more.
Fine ...
I think atheists are in the preeminent position to show why science matters independent of any political concern.
Not if the theists destroy science education first.
Engage the mind, and you might win their soul.
Protect the mind and feed it truth and you might grow it into something that can think independently enough that it will realize there is no soul. In the process it will be freed to live THIS life to the fullest.
Do that and we don't have to worry about losing them to the dark forces of IDiocy.
Ever the optimist, I see ...
Anti-science is far grander in scope than Creationism.
I agree, but I didn't pick the battleground.
People who subscribe to astrology and visions of Mary in clouds have far more problems than believing that the Earth is 6000 years old.
I agree, but you gotta start somewhere and keeping those who push fantasy stories from teaching their lies as science is as good a place as any. Along the way we can teach them the scientific method and how to analyze the evidence for themselves. Astrology and visions of Mary in a gutter drip are not being foisted on our children by those they accept as figures of authority. Creationism is.
We need the combined efforts of all the sciences to deal with this issue, not subdividing our forces. I cannot tell you the number of times I wish a physicist or a chemist would comment on a point of biophysics, or when a computer scientist would analyze an evolutionary algorithm. Do they all gravitate to E/C?
Don't ask me, ask Wolfie, or Jet Black, or Febble, or Dr. GH, or RBH ... I might be able to analyze an evolutionary algorithm if you laid the source code in front of me, but I wouldn't guarantee it ... RBH works with them on a daily basis, he's more qualified.
Why would anyone expect that sadistic trait to befall on all atheists?
What "sadistic trait?" :huh:
And by having a biology instead of an E/C forum, you honestly believe that creationists won't come and attack us anyway? :confused:
I'm sure they would ... why would you want them invading S&S (that's where pure biology subjects are discussed, you know?) instead of a forum created specifically to draw their fire AWAY from the other subject-matter fora? :Cheeky:

This forum is exactly what it says it is ... "The origins and diversity of life--divine fiat or product of natural forces?--and the sociopolitical ramifications of the answer."

[ninewands]

As they say of TV, if you don't like the programme, change the channel (ie ignore that thread).
I do this quite often ... based, in large part on who the OP is ...

[Principia]

ninewands, sorry, I have no easy lines drawn on who is on the 'right' side of this 'fight' for 'truth' or whatever you'd like to call it. For me, even atheists can be promoting for the science for the wrong reasons, and imo some of them are to blame for exacerbating the politicized anti-science climate. I don't know enough about your offline endeavours to pass judgement, but what you have written today shocks me. So you are pro-science education. Great. I am simply wary that you bring a tremendous amount of metaphysical baggage. You think reading Nature is navel gazing. You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't teach any children that nonsense. To be able to appreciate scientific literature critically is a crucial goal of any decent scientific education. And reading the literature is a first step to learning how to contribute to science properly. So I am not sure what you aspire to do with your organization if you can't even get the first steps towards science appreciation right. Get that: you are for scientific literacy, which you'd rather call navel gazing.:huh: You can fight all you want, but I am going to call the collateral damage you cause as I see it.

[TomboyMom]

I agree with the OP and have for a long time, as it plays into creationist's picture of two world views, Biblical Creationism and Evolutionism, which includes everything from the Big Bang to atheism. However, I cannot capture a good alternative, so haven't raised the issue.

[Wasted Sapience]

You mean 'carbon dating' as in 'Geochronology'?



Perhaps you need a better class of friends? I generally try to hang with people who think. And think about what they think.

Never heard the term 'geochronology' before, now I know something new. We don't always choose our friends based on viewpoints. Believe me, it's hard to find people with my viewpoints in the Midwest.

[Godless Dave]

Maybe just "Biological Evolution" would be a good name.

[GenesisNemesis]

The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism?

[ninewands]

You think reading Nature is navel gazing.
No ... I think ONLY reading and contemplating the literature is navel-gazing. Those of us who have already achieved some degree of science literacy have, in my opinion, a duty to see that others, especially trailing generations, do not fall back into the Dark Ages. If a commitment to trying to make things a little better is "metaphysical baggage" then I guess you are right. I am loaded down with it.
Just don't teach any children that nonsense.
What I would teach children is that they should be absolutely dumbstruck by the beauty and majesty of the natural world and that with a minimal amount of mental effort they can understand a LARGE part of it.
To be able to appreciate scientific literature critically is a crucial goal of any decent scientific education.
I agree, but who will be able to read and appreciate the literature when it no longer exists? As I said above, I feel a sense of duty to try and prevent things from getting worse. I may not be able to make things quantitatively better, but I can do my part to keep them from getting worse.
And reading the literature is a first step to learning how to contribute to science properly.
The first step to learning how to contribute to science is to understand the scientific method. I was first taught "the method" in the ninth grade, several years before I knew Nature and Science existed. However, both of my parents were educated and scientifically minded so we subscribed to SciAm from about the time I was ten, but any journals in our house were all medical journals. Even so, I learned that if one is curious and not afraid to exercise one's brain you can learn damn near anything.

The youth I'm around today don't seem to have that "I want to know badly enough to dig it out for myself if I have to," attitude. That's what I want to change. I am not anti-intellectual, I want to see critical, analytical thinking become commonplace.
So I am not sure what you aspire to do with your organization if you can't even get the first steps towards science appreciation right. Get that: you are for scientific literacy, which you'd rather call navel gazing.:huh: You can fight all you want, but I am going to call the collateral damage you cause as I see it.
I get the feeling you haven't really understood a damned thing I've written, but that is your privilege.

[cajela]

I agree with the OP and have for a long time, as it plays into creationist's picture of two world views, Biblical Creationism and Evolutionism, which includes everything from the Big Bang to atheism. However, I cannot capture a good alternative, so haven't raised the issue.Likewise. :wave:

[Jobar]

The only change I'd make to the forum name- Evolution/Creationism. That way anyone who googled 'creationism' would stand a shot at finding us.

And although most creationists are pretty much hopeless cases, we've seen a few who eventually realized what utter bullshit they're calling truth. Think of Magus55.