Creationism being toppled in Uk schools

[Olliekse]

[Ry]

they dont teach anything is school anyway

[Olliekse]

they teach you how to be a conformist sheep thats for sure.

[atlantaiconoclast]

Few people know that the first man to write a paper theorizing about natural selection, was not Darwin, but Alfred Wallace. So why don't more people know about this man? Because he pissed off the scientific establishment of his time, by positing a non-materialist theory about creative design guiding evolution. He wasn't proposing that the god of the Bible was behind evolution, but he was positing that a higher intelligence or non-material force was behind it. Its unfortunate that most people associate religious fundamentalism with the concept of creative design.

[Ry]

"higher intelligence or non-material force" is equally stupid and code for god.

[atlantaiconoclast]

I think its stupid for scientists to dismiss anything that doesn't fit their materialist models . Do you know anything about quantum physics? The entire universe is mostly a nothingness. Even the matter portion is a fluctuation between waves and particles. You would do well to listen to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. He is a biologist who has produced statistically significant evidence for the reality of non-local consciousness. But you, like Richard Dawkins, refuse to even consider it because of your materialist bias. You aren't being intellectually honest Ryan, if you aren't willing to look at the evidence. When I say, a creative non-material force, or a higher intelligence, I am talking about non-local consciousness. The brain does not make consciousness, rather, consciousness makes the brain. \

What is the evolutionary (in terms of a trait that increases survival) purpose behind consciousness? You can't find one. This is the hard problem of science that won't go away. Materialism can't explain it.

[Olliekse]

trying to find answers to the questions of consciousness and the universe in general is pissing in the wind. There is not an answer, and our brain's are not capable of understanding it. It is what it is, people will die never knowing.

[Phys]

"higher intelligence or non-material force" is equally stupid and code for god.

I think you missed the point Ry was making here. Biology, Chemistry, and Physics are science classes. Science should be taught in science class.

positing that a higher intelligence or non-material force was behind it.

When you get into the "why", that is for philosophy classes more to the point, cosmology.

[atlantaiconoclast]

What are you talking about? The theory of evolution is all about explaining WHY the various forms exist. You are using circular reasoning when you say that science must exclude anything that does not fit the materialist model, and that to do otherwise, is unscientific. There is nothing in the scientific method that excludes the possibility of a non-material force being behind evolution. Alfred Wallace first gave birth to the theory of natural selection, but he also saw things in evolution that could not be explained solely by natural selection.

http://www.sheldrake.org/research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more info that runs contrary to the dominant materialist model
I challenge the pseudo-skeptics here to look at the empirical evidence, and please explain away the findings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; his scandalous TED presentation on ten dogmas of modern science

http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/tedx ... anned-talk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more info about the talk's controversy

[Phys]

No. You are playing semantic. Science answers the "how".

Why is there something rather than nothing? is philosophy.


It just is!