PaulS

I don't see yet how Haidt has made a case for intuitive morality (as yet). The cases he cites with children involve kids around 5 years of age. I would suggest they have had a lot of conditioning by then.

Annie, I get that feeling after a god holiday, so I can appreciate what it might be like after a lengthy time abroad. 'There's No Place Like Home' rings true sometimes. All the best. Cheers Paul

Not a question that's ever come into my mind personally, Myron. How do most of these people respond? I'm presuming it's because perhaps that's how they've always understood a marriage to be a male and female and thus typically a dominat and a submissive role, subsequently two males might pose a quandry for them.

Welcome Alamar, I hope you enjoy things here. Cheers Paul

I agree with that. The fact that species and the planet has evolved over billions of years is an indisputable fact. Some elements around the 'how' that occurred are subject to theory and improved science as we get better at it. In the main though, there is no scientific basis to teach young earth creationsim in place of evolution. I'm not sure where I stand on your concerns about a government 'religion'. I see a place for governments intervening and ensuring the wellbeing of all citizens, children included - that's why they're elected as representatives of the population. I don't have an issue with this extending into education, but as you rightly point out, what about if I think it is the 'wrong' type of education at some point. I'd like to think that the majority of the population would rise up (really?), but obviously if I think the bulk are misguided creationists and their mindset rules, that might not be of any use.

I like that idea, George.

Perhaps the term is a little strong, George. I can't think of a better term though for parents who deny their children intelligent education, thus possibly setting them up for failure and perhaps hardship should they eventually challenge the non-science they have been thought. I can't agree with you on the word 'theory', Joseph. Evolution is fact but like you say, some aspects of it change as we better our science, yet the overall concept remains the same. Concern over government control is a difficult one to address, I agree. I guess if we could just implement what I know to be fact we would all be okay!

If by 'control of the government' you mean our children are forced to learn facts rather than fiction, I don't see the problem. Possibly Dutch. For me, a video done by The Science Guy, Bill Nye, sums it up nicely - here's a piece from an article about it: In the video, which you can watch below, Nye doesn’t mince words about evolution deniers and so-called “Creationists,” saying that they “live in [a] world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.” He also calls evolution denialism a phenomenon unique to the United States and says that, although America is a nation possessing intellectual capital and a “general understanding of science,” the refusal of a segment of the population to acknowledge evolution holds us back as a nation. Nye continues: “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they’re at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.” He closes with a plea to adults not to allow their children to be held back by their parents’ ignorance: “. . .if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.”

It might not be a suprise that I don't agree with allowing private schools to teach whatever they want. I think in a way, denying children the proper teachings of science, is a form of child abuse really. The parents may well choose the school because of their religous convictions, but the kids don't really have a say in it. Do we want generations of children being taught that evolution is baloney? Is it going down the slippery slope of allowing all sorts of other teachings to enter the private education sector which otherwise wouldn't even be considered as 'education' elsewhere?

George, what do you think about allowing private schools to only teach creation and not evolution? (not sure if that is a legal choice in the US or not). I think that private schools should teach science too, regardless of their right to religous faith of their choosing. The kids don't have a choice and it becomes easy to turn education into indoctrination.

Steve, As far as I am concerned, absolutely nothing wrong with it if all three parties feel it works for them. Maybe I do have a bias, but I suspect that emotions such as jealousy may creep in and destroy the relationship, but then again jealousy can play a destroying role in couples too. If such a relationship genuinely works for such a group, then good for them. Technically I don't know if this would be polygamy though. Polygamy is where a man is married to two or more wives (and there is no marriage connection between the women), and polyandry is where a woman is married to two or more men (and there is no marriage connection between the men). I think what you are referring to is probably called Group Marriage in that you're suggesting the bisexual person is 'married' to more than one of the group (and obviously I'm not restricting the term marriage to the bit of paper but what the group may consider marriage for all intents and purposes).

I entertain that too, George. I mean at the end of the day, we don't know what we don't know, so maybe there is room for a creative force behind all that we do know. For me, because we can't answer just why the big bang occurred or more to the point, what instigated the molecules etc in the first place that formed the big bang, I think one has to leave room for 'something'. I have always wondered how an atheist could be so dogmatic that God doesn't exist, when we simply don't know what is behind our existence, behind the big bang - maybe God, maybe another answer.

I think many could roll with that, however they would have to ignore science in the main not to agree with evolution as a whole. I too Dutch, don't worry too much about a scientist who refuses to acknowledge the science of evolution working on a new flu vaccine, but I might become concerned if we have scientists who refuse to take into account evolutionary science which may very much play an important part in the further development of science and other diseases, vaccine, medical developments, etc. I wonder if there'd be huge differences in science between a young earth creationist and evolution when it comes to climate change? Could the misinformation of a young earth belief impact how they view global warming for instance? I just see it as an issue where the truth matters. We know evolution in the main is science like astrology proves the facts of our galaxy. To not challenge this non-science seems inadequate to me. Finally, I disagree that it's necessarily an anti-intellectual response which results in reluctance to accept evolution science, and more likely the individual's concern that it could lead to their house of cards falling down. Of course, many of us here would say that it doesn't have to be that way, but of course fear does prevent others from genuinely reviewing the truth sometimes.

Unless there isn't anything, in which case we won't know, will we!

I think the distraction here is the reference to 'believing' in evolution. It's not a faith system, it's not something in which you have a choice, it is science. To not 'believe' in evolution is to 'deny' science. You don't get a choice whether to believe the earth revolves around the sun or not, you don't get a choice to believe if the earth is round and not flat, and you don't have a choice whether to believe evolution is true or not. Now how does this denial of science matter. It doesn't in many cases as Dutch points out, but I think there is much concern when we trust scientists to use good science to develop theories and solve other problems or questions. What if the science starts to contradict their religous beliefs, what then? Can you expect such a scientist to place his or her religious bias aside to provide the most accurate outcome, or might their 'lack of belief' in certain scientific proofs taint their view and thus their outcomes. Would such scientists be trusted to provide unbiased scientific data say in areas of stem cell research? Abortion? What does it say to kids in school when scientists are ignoring science? And what about when we start theorising or discovering science we currently aren't aware of? Will religious scientists who ignore the science of evolution always be a drag on society because they don't want to accept the science that conflicts with their faith? I think it is important Dutch. Not enough to condemn those who refuse to acknoweldge the science of evolution, but enough to be concerned and aware of this defiency and ensure it doesn't interfere with the betterment of society.

G'day Dennis, Welcome. I find minds very open here and most importantly there is respect and regard for other people's views. I trust you will enjoy and find the forum useful. Cheers Paul

Is there alternate suggestions to what you often hear that the big eyes in this art are a result of earlier alien visitations?

Busy weekend ahead. Off to an interactive performance tonight, with my two boys and lovely wife, called Mad Dads (Mad Dads is an interactive modern fairytale for big boys and their children. It combines a scripted story with improvisation and audience participation to create a unique theatrical experience, specifically for Dads and their kids, but for everyone to enjoy). Should be interesting. We have the Waroona Show to attend tomorrow (kinda like what Americans might call a country fair) and Western Australia's largest boatshow is being held in my town this weekend so I might try to squeeze some time in to get to that. My wife's in a community fun run (walk) Sunday morning whilst I prepare for our BBQ lunch with friends. On Monday we welcomed our 9 week old puppy, Sonny (a black mini schnauzer) so no doubt every spare minute will be absorbed playing with and attending to his royal highness (is it this common for Dads to be rejected by their children so quickly!)

Welcome KemiJ, As you are probably aware of by now, many here have had a turn in their spirituality and have moved away from early indoctrination/teaching. I hope you enjoy this community and get something out of it. Cheers Paul

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at Dutch. Whilst I agree that belief in evolution may not be a useful measure (on its own) of people's openess to the scientific method, I think statement's like the creationist's one you quote are flawed in that whilst evolution may have been a theory nearly 200 years ago, it is demonstrated science today. Although it is disputed, there are no grounds to do so and in fact the scientific evidence is beyond all doubt. It's like arguing that the world is not round - it is! We possibly could seperate origin science from operational science (if I understand those terms correctly) and most non-creationist scientists would do so I think. I think the trouble is when you have people who refuse to acknowledge the science because it threatens their beliefs, then how can anyone move forward? It gets worse when you have these people trying to push their non-science into schools and communities. So in a sense, I don't see how non-creationists and creationists can simply 'all get along' by pretending neither group needs to be right.

That makes me wonder just how humans may evolve further. Maybe that's why in sci-fi movies aliens have little bodies & big eyes - they've been sitting all day in front of the computer

Too true.

Let's hope for the good then.

Are you asking yourself that yet, Myron?

There certainly are those George, but I'd like to think that they're the types who wouldn't do much face to face socializing anyway. Perhaps they have a higher quality of socializing given the protection the Internet offers. There are certainly cases of face-to-face groups cutting themselves from society to.