Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

I'm absolutely positive that I have already explained that ID is being taught in schools but as a RS/RE subject already...the government haven't changed stance on this at all.They are merely reiterating because someone set up a petition at the government site trying to get them to reconsider.

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

<snip> gives me faith <snip>

Faith? How odd.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Faith? How odd.

why?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Faith? How odd.

The word "Faith" is not the sole preserve of those that happen to put theirs into a deity that may or may not exist.

I have faith in my friends and my family but have no faith whatsoever in an all powerful supernatural being.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I'm absolutely positive that I have already explained that ID is being taught in schools but as a RS/RE subject already...the government haven't changed stance on this at all.They are merely reiterating because someone set up a petition at the government site trying to get them to reconsider.

Actually the reason why this is posted is that the government have made it clear that ID or creationism is in their eyes "not science".

Until now that definition has not been made clear.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Faith? How odd.

its interesting that noones mentioned the 'meme' yet, that explains a lot about faith and many other human idea's.

http://www.memecentral.com/
"Welcome to Meme Central, the center of the world of memetics.

Memes are contagious ideas, all competing for a share of our mind in a kind of Darwinian selection.

As memes evolve, they become better and better at distracting and diverting us from whatever we'd really like to be doing with our lives.

They are a kind of Drug of the Mind. Confused? Blame it on memes."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
"Meme
According to memetic theory, a meme (IPA: /me:me/, IPA: /me:m/ or IPA: /mi:m/) � a unit of cultural information, cultural evolution or diffusion � propagates from one mind to another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution.

Multiple memes may propagate as cooperative groups called memeplexes (meme complexes).

Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976.[1] He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.

Meme theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection similarly to Charles Darwin's theory of biological evolution through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an organism's reproductive success.

So with memes, some ideas will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and, for better or for worse, mutate. Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts.

The idea of memes has proved a successful meme in its own right, gaining a degree of penetration into popular culture rare for an abstract scientific theory."...

From 'The Fallacy of Memetics':

...the meme concept is bad science. It is the revival of the discredited theory of Lamarck in a new form. Because people will no longer believe that learnt behaviours can be actually embedded in our genes, we're now told that the development of human societies can be explained by a hybrid of DNA and memes. Yet, like the unconscious in psychoanalysis or utility in neo- classical economics, the concept of memes is completely unprovable. No one has ever seen a meme. You cannot examine one under a microscope. You cannot measure its impact on the social world. Lacking any credible scientific evidence, acceptance of the meme theory can only be a pure act of faith. Yet, on this flimsy assertion, we're called upon to reject all previous research into the development of human societies. Although social science may not appear as positivist as biology, at least many people working in this field have recognised the fundamental specificity of the human species. Unlike other animals, we not only possess consciousness, but also are capable of acting collectively to change our own circumstances.

Read the full essay at http://tinyurl.com/3bb25a. It starts about halfway down the page, which is published by the Hypermedia Research Centre at the University of Westminster.

Whilst the essay does no favours to my own faith position, it does point out the bizarre situation arch-memeticist Richard Dawkind finds himself in, spending a lifetime propounding atheism over faith, before coming up with a theory which is, in fact, a statement of faith.

I query the use of the word 'faith' in Blue's post because I am curious where he, and others, draw the line. When is faith appropriate, and when is it not? Is it appropriate for Dawkins to push a theory that is, when you get down to it, 'merely' a statement of faith?

[Xaccers]

I always took memes to be like fads, you know, like "Wicked" spreading across the globe just as "Bad" and "Cool" did before, or with fashion.

Faith in another human being is totally different to faith in to all intents and purposes an imaginary being.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I always took memes to be like fads, you know, like "Wicked" spreading across the globe just as "Bad" and "Cool" did before, or with fashion.

Interesting idea, but as a definition that's a long way short of the theory Dawkins is developing for memes.

Faith in another human being is totally different to faith in to all intents and purposes an imaginary being.

How so?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

How so?

TBR had 'faith' in Britain/the British. As in 'trusted them to do the sensible thing'. Quite different from a religious faith. For starters, it's an empirical fact that Britain exists.

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Whoohoo!

One less group of nuts to worry about - gives me faith that even though this country is screwed up were not as screwed up as the yanks!

Well done the UK!

Originally Posted by danielf

TBR had 'faith' in the British. As in 'trusted them to do the sensible thing'. Quite different from a religious faith.

I trust God to do the 'sensible' thing. How is it different?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

TBR had 'faith' in Britain/the British. As in 'trusted them to do the sensible thing'. Quite different from a religious faith. For starters, we all agree that Britain exists.

So faith in an entity is only vakid if 'we' all agree it exists?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Interesting idea, but as a definition that's a long way short of the theory Dawkins is developing for memes.

How so?

Originally Posted by Chris T

How so?

Have you seen the deity you worship yourself?
Are you able to show him unquestionably to others?
Or is your deity an idea in your head shared with many others who have similar ideas in their heads?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I trust God to do the 'sensible' thing. How is it different?

Erm, the main thing about your faith is believing God exists isn't it? That's rather different from trusting someone to do the right thing.

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

So faith in an entity is only vakid if 'we' all agree it exists?

Depends what you mean with valid. It's different is all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

How so?

Why are you asking me?! The outline popper posted from Wikipedia shows that memetics is a much deeper 'theory' than what you posted as your understanding of it.

I have no intention of defending memetics, I simply observe that based on the Wikipedia entry, there seems to be a lot more to it than you apparently thought.

Have you seen the deity you worship yourself?
Are you able to show him unquestionably to others?
Or is your deity an idea in your head shared with many others who have similar ideas in their heads?

I'm not certain how these questions are relevant to what I asked you.

Could you please explain to me, if you have faith in someone to do something, why you have that faith in them?