Posted: Jul 31, 2014 7:17 am
by Darwinsbulldog
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Given the manner in which creationist ideology - the REAL ideology at work here - has corrupted, perverted and polluted the South African education system for decades under the Apartheid regime, an unpleasant fact Agrippina alerted me to some time back, this is hardly surprising. It's a bit difficult to develop a proper understanding of the biosphere, if those responsible for teaching you about it are subjecting you to the mushroom theory of personnel management, as part of an ideological agenda imposed from on high by a ruling regime seeking to "legitimise" some fairly nasty policies. If JayJay is old enough for his education to have suffered from this blight, then he's going to have a hard time of it here, upon discovering that the certainties he was spoon-fed back then are actually bullshit and lies. Though I note once again, in a tangential diversion, how creationism and racism have a nasty habit of going hand in hand around the world.

I’ve told you a bit about my background a few times before but you ignored it-oddly seeing that you remembered a snippet Agrippa told you about my country. You purport to know all about me but forget or never take in what doesn’t support your story line. It’s true that part of my school education was under apartheid; a few years after the nationalist (apartheid) government came into power, they were triumphalist and indeed, old-earth creationist. I was the only English speaking child in my class and the only evolutionist. My “bible” was the Wells & Huxley “Science of Life” At the age of 11 I was fully aware of the political associations of the Evo-Creo. I didn’t pick a fight about it though, until after a school visit to the museum in Pretoria (Robert Broom, discoverer of Mrs Ples was the director then I think.) Then we had a hang of a screaming match when I found I could face down the entire class- or at least keep myself.

Since then I gradually came to appreciate that the presentation and understanding of evolution has been influenced and damaged by an atheist ideology. I first saw that in a phase when I was myself an atheist. So I have become increasingly estranged from the Evo side, to where I see posters like you pretty much like all those angry bovine crowd-minded little faces in the school dormitory. With bells on.
Edit: I see Broom died in 1951, before the school visit.

Science including evolutionary biology, poses no [direct] threat to religious beliefs. This is because science itself is non-realist. In other words, science does not have to be truth or reality to work. Religious beliefs however are 'realist" in that they posit a world driven by the supernatural, that is a deity or deities. [in before the Bhuddists, re-incarnation etc as supernatural phenomena]. So for the whole religious thing to work, deities or supernatural phenomena HAVE TO exist, or the whole thing falls down.
A theistic evolutionist for example, can posit that god does not interact with the mundane, but becomes the creator of universe and life. The mechanisms of evolution take care of the "day to day" stuff for the last 4 billion years without necessitating his intervention.
But despite science being perfectly capable of producing good models of phenomena, and making excellent predictions, even in the absence of any necessary appeal to realism, the religions will still insist on a reality of low probability, ie that a deity is in overall control.
The same methodological naturalist tricks that bring us good models of biological evolution can also be used on questions like the origins of life and the solar system, thus rendering the creator/god role to the status of non-interactive observer at best.
Finally, the methodologies used by religion and science are so different, and the products of such endevour so different, then one really begins to wonder why religion is not abandoned as a source of useful knowledge. This area, on the question of epistomological rigour, is where the conflict between faith and reason happens. rather than just "making shit up", science demands evidence, reason and mechanisms that are credible or at least consistent. Religious criticisms of the sciencey way of doing this is just confined to mostly irrelevant nit-picking and a failure to use the same level of skepticism about theological/religious information, knowledge or methods.