"The Crusade Against Evolution"

[Tatsuboshi]

Ye gads...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?tw=wn_tophead_8

Just... scary stuff. I'm too disturbed to comment at the moment.

[jimkopelli]

Anyone got a spare railroad timber to lay on the tracks of that movement?

[crule81]

Religion is a touchy subject. It's annoying that I can rarely discuss it with anyone without the fear of offending him or her. I get the impession, however, that posters on this forum are more open debate.

Although I don't necessarily believe in "intelligent design," perhaps it should be debated in school. At least it's not pure "Adam and Eve" creationism. One of my best friends, who is an Ivy League engineering graduate, believes the Genesis story literally. Dinosaurs and other fossils were placed by God to test the faith of people. It is interesting how someone who is exposed to science and logic on a daily basis could hold completely un-scientific and illogical beliefs. At least the "intelligent design" proponents make an honest attempt to reconcile scientific theory with their religious beliefs. Sometimes, the best support for one theory is the absurdity of the competing theories.

If public schools are required to teach creationism or "intelligent design," they should also be required to have a religion class that teaches students to analyze the Bible critically, like any other piece of literature. I had such a class at my private (secular) high school. The problem is that SJ parents with Ned Flanderish leanings would raise hell as always.

[indczn]

Just another reason politicians should not be allowed to influence education. That movement is purely political.

[Arioch]

Hmm.. I say that intelligent design should have a place in the classroom but that it should be looked at from both sides. Whats good and whats bad about it.

However the same should also count for Darwins evolution. I have heard of certain things that suggest that Darwins theory of evolution has a few holes in it.

To my reasoning Darwins theory is incomplete. It is not completely correct. Wether intelligent design is or is not the right theory is another question. I believe that the following reasons are the real reasons why we still use Darwins theory holes and all.

1 Throu my own independant study on western thought (mostly through philosophy and more European then American) I have come to several conclusions. One of which is that modern scientific thought (through influences dating back a few centuries) is based on a atheist perspective. Which is slightly illogic and not scientific at all. A more logic approach would be agnosticism. The belief that there may or may not be a God (since science has a hard time proving that God or anything else for that matter does not exist). But in anyway this colours scientific perspective so that everything is looked at from the premise that there is no god.

2 Another part is complacency. We have been using it for long enough that if someone came out tomorrow with absolute prooof that Darwins evolution was wrong he would probably get a same reception as Galileo from the church. Large paradigm shifts do not come easy.

3 And finally the most compelling argument is that it can be used. Since it can be used to generate scientific models models and such it has become too usefull for certain parts of the scientific community.

[Jkrs]

No theory is ever entirely correct. Darwins' theory has been updated somewhat from its original version as the available data changed. For instance, Darwin maintained that evolution held a fairly steady pace and attributed sudden, dramatic changes in species to gaps in the fossil record. The current version contains the idea of punctuated equilibrium, where a change in the environment causes existing species to adapt rapidly/new ones to develop from them until a sustainable equilibrium is reached again.

Any theory replacing Darwins' theory (plus updates) still has to explain the mass of existing data at least as well, and incorporate the various areas it has difficulty with. If you can't generate predictive models from a theory, it's useless for the purposes of scientific research.

[Tatsuboshi]

Okay... I have some time to coment now.

I think that time in pre-college science classrooms should be given to those topics that are the most reliable and have given the most benefit to the scientific community. Until ID somehow (most likely magically or miraculously) becomes an important part of real world science, it has no place anywhere in fundamental educational curricula.

They're using this idea of "Darwinistic materialism" to scare people into thinking that learning about evolution is somehow harmful. It insults the intelligence of humanity, and it disgusts me.

[int]

Anyone got a spare railroad timber to lay on the tracks of that movement?

I left it in my other pants - along with my flogging stick and ramming bumper.

It'll derail itself, I'm sure.

[booyalab]

The way I see it, Evolution and Intelligent Design have more philosophical than scientific bases. Neither can be proven empirically and both are ultimately derived from faith in how you think it all began. I think evolutionists are just as guilty of trying to suppress any exposure young people have to opposing viewpoints as creationists are. If anything, kids should be taught awareness of the opposite side's argument so they can be better prepared to argue their own side.

[jimkopelli]

Why is it so hard for people (and educators, and politicians) to admit that they just don't know? That they are supporting what they think is the best option, but that they still aren't sure?

[Google Monster]

Doesn't every subject have some type of scientific meaning to it?

[Tatsuboshi]

The way I see it, Evolution and Intelligent Design have more philosophical than scientific bases. Neither can be proven empirically and both are ultimately derived from faith in how you think it all began. I think evolutionists are just as guilty of trying to suppress any exposure young people have to opposing viewpoints as creationists are. If anything, kids should be taught awareness of the opposite side's argument so they can be better prepared to argue their own side.

So they can debate the perspectives of "evolutionists" and creationists in philosophy. In the meantime (or until then), they should get on with learning something useful in science class. Which at the present time, whether the creationists like it or not, in regard to origin of species, is evolution.

[booyalab]

yes, but not necessarily based on the scientific method. Actually, I guess you could say anything you believe is ultimately based on faith. hmmmmmm

[booyalab]

The way I see it, Evolution and Intelligent Design have more philosophical than scientific bases. Neither can be proven empirically and both are ultimately derived from faith in how you think it all began. I think evolutionists are just as guilty of trying to suppress any exposure young people have to opposing viewpoints as creationists are. If anything, kids should be taught awareness of the opposite side's argument so they can be better prepared to argue their own side.

So they can debate the perspectives of "evolutionists" and creationists in philosophy. In the meantime (or until then), they should get on with learning something useful in science class.

that's true, in fact I think evolution vs. I.D. should be a class unto itself, maybe in conjunction with a manditory critical thinking class.

[booyalab]

In my 10th grade biology class when we were taught evolution, I remember my teacher being a real dick and whenever some students -obviously from christian homes- would merely challenge any little thing he said he wouldnt elaborate on the evidence to satisfy their question, he'd just blatantly attack their religion. The curriculuum was really out-dated, too. It's a common misconception that people are the most advanced form of any species (each animal existing today is thought to be the most evolved for it's particular survival needs) and that lie was actually in the textbook.

[Almaviva]

The thing about evolution is that it is obvious, if you accept that certain traits are heritable, and the idea of mutation, both of which are undeniable. Take a bunch of bugs of various sizes, put them in an environment where the large ones survive, and you get bigger bugs, and bigger offspring. Repeat.

It's not a big stretch to believe that nature can do what dog breeders have done over the last few thousand years. It's not a big stretch that over tens of millions of years with trillions of creatures and diverse niches, nature can produce differences much larger than people have been able to produce between miniature poodles and St. Bernards.

Then you've got things like the fossil record, genetic similarities in correlation to where species diverge in the fossil record, things like marsupials filling various niches in Australia, Darwin's finches, speciation in labs, and so on and so on.

Evolution is the obvious explanation to all this. To deny it requires some serious mental blockage and desire for miracles. (Which many many people have, of course.) There's just no other explanation that doesn't require magic wand waving, and where you can test predictions in a lab or by objective observation.

To me, people seem so much *like* chimpanzees than I have a hard time seeing how anyone can not think we're clearly biologically related.

[booyalab]

Of course, on the flip side there's those pesky laws of thermodynamics...and then there's your ad hominem arguments which are sometimes a sign of ill-preparedness about the topic being discussed...and then there's the fact that you're not distinguishing between MICRO and MACRO evolution. Microevolution is the indisputable one that is evidenced by dog breeders and where you can 'test predictions in a lab or by objective observation'. MicroEvolution is simply adaptation, which would be able to co-exist with creationism. Macroevolution is antithetical to the tendency towards disorder that is exhibited in nature more often than a tendency towards complexity.

[Miss Padfoot]

Micro- and macroevolution are really the same thing. Macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of microevolution. If you put a bunch of micro-evolving species on a planet with an environment receptive to life, and leave them there for a few million years, you get macroevolution. There's really no line at which you can draw a line between them and say, "Okay, because of the latest allele change, this species is now macro-evolving." There is speciation, of course. I don't know if that's been observed.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, that only works in a closed and isolated system.

[Almaviva]

I use ad hominem arguments when they're fun. I'm not trying to be maximally convincing, just stating my opinion.

Thermodynamics is one of the dumbest arguments in the book, unless you believe in a form which rules out refrigerators. (For starters 1. Human beings do not have lower entropy than cockroaches, by any physical definition. 2. The Earth is not a closed system, with energy coming in from the sun.)

The differences between kangaroos and, say, marsupial wolves seem to be about right to me relative to the time they diverged compared to, say, when shih-tsus and mastiffs diverged.

Some people say that evolution can't cross between "kinds", and what they really mean by "kinds" is "that which hasn't yet been done in a lab". It's just the whole "God of the gaps" thing.

Yeah, there are always going to be holes in the minutia in our understanding of everything. Because we can't scientifically model the exact number of neutrinos that come from the sun (yet) doesn't mean we don't know for sure that nuclear fusion is going on in there.

[Lucas]

Micro- and macroevolution are really the same thing. Macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of microevolution. If you put a bunch of micro-evolving species on a planet with an environment receptive to life, and leave them there for a few million years, you get macroevolution. There's really no line at which you can draw a line between them and say, "Okay, because of the latest allele change, this species is now macro-evolving." There is speciation, of course. I don't know if that's been observed.


Exactly. The neo-darwinians hold that macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution on a different scale.

-Lucas

[booyalab]

If you can induce from the absolute evidence of micro-evolution that macro-evolution is also asolutely happening, you can come to the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics occurs on a broad scale because it can be proved empirically on a small scale among closed systems. One of the other conditions, besides an open system, necessary in order for complexity to be produced in an environment is a control mechanism that must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating energy conversion mechanisms, which must also be present. This shows that the 'open system' is very much dependent on the cooperation of the individual closed systems that are involved.

[Almaviva]

If you can induce from the absolute evidence of micro-evolution that macro-evolution is also asolutely happening, you can come to the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics occurs on a broad scale because it can be proved empirically on a small scale among closed systems.

Do you know anything about thermodynamics? Ever studied it? Know what a Carnot Engine is? I ask because I've never heard of anyone using thermodynamics as a point against evolution who actually knew anything about it.

Basically, okay, heat doesn't flow from cold stuff into hot stuff in a closed environment. Another way of looking at is is sort of equivalent to the fact that in a closed system, the amount of useable energy can only decrease. (The concept of the Carnot Engine puts a limit on the efficiency that you can use differences in temperature to do work.)

The question now is: Okay, so what in the world does this have to do with evolution? The idea of "entropy", in the thermodynamic sense, doesn't correlate very well with the intuitive idea of "organization". Physically, if I gain 10 pounds of bodyfat, I've now reduced my entropy. Thermodynamics doesn't say this can't happen because I'm introducing other energy sources into my system. (E.g. pizza and beer.) The total available energy in my body plus the waste I excrete *is* less than the total energy available in the combination of the food I ate though. And I gain useable energy by converting something with lower entropy (food) into something with higher entropy (poop.) And there are things (e.g. bacteria) that can get energy by converting my poop into even higher entropy poop. Ultimately plants take this final product, plus really low entropy Sunlight, and convert it to something I can eat. The sunlight allows this to happen, since it's external energy into the system. Plants have a lower entropy than the minerals, carbon dioxide, and water they're made from, but a higher entropy when you factor in the sunlight.

So if a seed grows to become a flowering plant, even though there is an intuitive increase in complexity, AND a physical increase in useable energy, nothing in therodynamics prevents this. (Which is good, because if thermodynamics disproved the existance of plant growth it would be a pretty idiotic theory.)

Another problem with this argument is that the intuitive idea of "complexity" has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Grass, for instance, has a lower entropy than a cow. Which is why a cow can build up its tissue by eating grass without the use of sunlight. So a baby cow assembles itself into a big cow using the raw materials in its food, producing something that is more "complex", but with less available energy.

As far as I can tell, people using "thermodynamics" as an argument against evolution are never interested in actually learning about what it actually means. They're looking for an excuse to justify the theory that they know beforehand to be true, rather than trying to look at evidence and see which theory fits better with what we know.


One of the other conditions, besides an open system, necessary in order for complexity to be produced in an environment is a control mechanism that must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating energy conversion mechanisms, which must also be present. This shows that the 'open system' is very much dependent on the cooperation of the individual closed systems that are involved.

Why is a control mechanism necessary? Surely you're not taking something from physics here to conclude this? What about if I let salt-water evaporate, and cubical crystals spontaneously form? Isn't that a more complex system that arises without a controlling mechanism?

---

The whole idea of separating macro-evolution from micro-evolution is a little weird. Why would you do this, scientifically? Let's take a point of view of looking at two competing theories:

Theory 1: Only "microevolution" is possible. There is a point beyond which mutation and natural selection can't change a living thing's descendents any further away from its ancestors. (And we'd now need another explanation for the diversity of species on the Earth.)

Theory 2: The diversity of life all comes from common ancestry.

Now what is some evidence that supports Theory 1 over Theory 2? Is there any? Yes, you can find some small points where Theory 2 has difficulties. But for the thinking to be scientific, you need Theory 1 to explain things better than Theory 2.

Here is some evidence for Theory 2:

- Darwin's finches. A bunch of a birds that exist nowhere else in the world that are similar, but have beaks that serve different functions, and can't reproduce with one another. Evolution over tense of thousands of years explains and predicts things like this.
- Marsupials in Australia in several niches, which exist nowhere else in the world. This despite the fact that, say, rabbits are better adapted for the environment than anything that exists. Why do these marsupials come from only Australia? Why aren't there rabbits or closely related mammals there? Evolution suggests a clear and obvious answer: Some species made it over a land bridge, and evolved into what lives there today. The geological evidence supports this, and the timeline is consistent.
- There are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record. One example is the reptile with feathers "archaeopterix" or something like that.
(Some argue that the number of transitional fossils found isn't as high as expected, leading to theories like "puntuated equilibrium", but nobody in this field disputes the fact that these fossils exist. Just on the exact mechanism for the frequency.)
- Genetic difference in the genomes of living things can be explained by the time from when they diverged from common ancestors. Species that show fossil records of having diverged from a longer time ago have more different DNA.
- More to the point, creatures with similar functions that diverged more distantly in time have more different DNA. For example, there are species of frogs that are more different from each other genetically than humans are to bats. Evolution explains this because frogs are so old, their species have had more time for "genetic drift." Whereas, geologically, humans are fairly close to bats. (And we have the same number of bones in our arm as its wing, etc.)
- We have vestigial parts that serve us no good, but correspond to parts that are useful to other animals. An example is our appendix which is useless to us (even harmful!) but is something useful to rabbits. Another example is our tailbone and the occasional person born with vestigial tail or gills.
- Before being born, our embryos go through stages where they resemble other animals, such as having gill slits for a while and tails at another point. Evolution can explain this.

Now, the question is: where's the evidence that points clearly to theory 1 as being an elegant solution?

What people who argue against evolution do is to try and point out subtle problems with our understand of it. And there are subtle unknowns. We don't know everything. But when all you've got are subtle nitpicks, and baloney arguments (like the often used "theromodynamic" one, then this is a clue to a scientific minded person that there's nothing there. (See the "Baloney Detection Kit" chapter in Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World".)

[Johnny]

Yeah, there are always going to be holes in the minutia in our understanding of everything. Because we can't scientifically model the exact number of neutrinos that come from the sun (yet) doesn't mean we don't know for sure that nuclear fusion is going on in there.

It's great to assert that nuclear fusion is going on in there as long as the little holes in our understanding don't line up to bring something through (e.g., a new discovery) that changes our understanding and offers a new way to explain what's going on.

I'm not against teaching the theory of evolution in schools and offering a model that brings you and I, the animals, the plants, the earth, the sun, et al, together...that everything was connected at some point and then changed. We do this when we are born, grow and separate from our parents. It's obvious! My difficulty is that when we talk about the theory of evolution, we have to talk about it on a level that is so far removed from the day-to-day that it makes the discussion almost entirely irrelevant. It would be more fun if we could find a way to make the theory of evolution as entertaining as discussions on the dinosaurs, given the relevance they possess today.

:sombrero:

[Division56]

Well the way to do that is obvious. Make evolution into a conspiracy put forward by the terrorists to destroy the moral fabric of the country. ;)

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

This is why public schooling is ridiculous. Schools should decide what they teach. Parents should decide which school to send their kids. No public funding of schools - no controversy. If you don't like what your school teaches, go to a differenent school. Let the parents have some freedom in what their kids learn. Instead, we have this public schooling in the name of equal opportunity, which we will never achieve, because the schools are only as good as the amount of property taxes collected in said area. If there was just a free market of schools to rely on, the lower schools would be brought up and made accountable.

[CosmicDust]

What about poor people? What do they do if there's no public schooling? Get vouchers? They'd have to use public money to make these vouchers accessible to all the poor.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

It would give their parents more incentive to work hard, to be able to provide for thier kids schooling. For the ones who can't help being poor, charity would take over for this, and for those that couldn't get charity or afford it, vouchers would be allowed sparingly for extreme cases.

[Division56]

Ahhh yes, the infallible free market system....

[Melody]

I spoked aboot this elsewhere. I provided the link before, I'll do it again: http://forums.keenspace.com/viewtopic.php?t=58925&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=138

I believe "That which sucks at living, dies." I do not think anyone can offer any argument against it. It is pure nature. However, there may be problems or inaccuracies in the broader theory which uses this concept. And, questioning it can only improve it or define its limits better.

It may be something like what happened in physics. Everyone swore Newtonian physics was fact. Certain experiments, however...poked at it in unexpected ways. Einstein arrived and suggested reasons and solutions. Although it was not Newtonian physics that benefited, the field of physics in general was improved. And of course, Newtonian physics is more than good enough for most applications.

The "Survival of the Fakest" article claims that evolutionary theory fails to take into account convergent species. Is this the case? It could be a "almost at the speed of light" situation for evolutionary theory.

[CosmicDust]

Convergent species? Ones that look alike but aren't close relatives, you mean? That would result from similar environment putting similar demands on the creatures, according to my memory of evolutionary biology.

[Melody]

I dunno... O_O

The particular article I was talking about is here: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf .

If that explains it, then great. XD I still think it is better to be critical of every theory, including such an "obvious" one like Darwinism.

edit--
Hmmm, something tells me those aren't the same convergent species the article is talking about.

[Melody]

Although, I am an insanely talented technologist of the first degree, not someone who has studied these topics about the origins of species.

[MacGuffin]

This is why public schooling is ridiculous. Schools should decide what they teach. Parents should decide which school to send their kids. No public funding of schools - no controversy. If you don't like what your school teaches, go to a differenent school. Let the parents have some freedom in what their kids learn. Instead, we have this public schooling in the name of equal opportunity, which we will never achieve, because the schools are only as good as the amount of property taxes collected in said area. If there was just a free market of schools to rely on, the lower schools would be brought up and made accountable.

That would be the worst thing in the history of the USA.

You don't want private schools deciding what to teach. Next thing you know you got 1/3 of the country attending religious schools like the Madrassahs in the Middle East. Those students would be able to give 10 biblical reasons it is okay to shot an abortion doctor in the back, but wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook.

You need consistent widespread public education, or you get a bunch of morons and a third world country.

The real solution is to disconnect the funding of schools from local property taxes.

[Division56]

This is why public schooling is ridiculous. Schools should decide what they teach. Parents should decide which school to send their kids. No public funding of schools - no controversy. If you don't like what your school teaches, go to a differenent school. Let the parents have some freedom in what their kids learn. Instead, we have this public schooling in the name of equal opportunity, which we will never achieve, because the schools are only as good as the amount of property taxes collected in said area. If there was just a free market of schools to rely on, the lower schools would be brought up and made accountable.

That would be the worst thing in the history of the USA.

You don't want private schools deciding what to teach. Next thing you know you got 1/3 of the country attending religious schools like the Madrassahs in the Middle East. Those students would be able to give 10 biblical reasons it is okay to shot an abortion doctor in the back, but wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook.

You need consistent widespread public education, or you get a bunch of morons and a third world country.

The real solution is to disconnect the funding of schools from local property taxes.


*nods*

[CosmicDust]

The real solution is to disconnect the funding of schools from local property taxes.
Indeed. This might solve what affirmative action programs in colleges could not.

[Claverhouse]

That would be the worst thing in the history of the USA.

I imagine there are other contenders.


You don't want private schools deciding what to teach. Next thing you know you got 1/3 of the country attending religious schools like the Madrassahs in the Middle East. Those students would be able to give 10 biblical reasons it is okay to shot an abortion doctor in the back, but wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook.

'The children are ready to greet you with the School Song, Borat's Throw the Jew Down the Well, after which there will be a cold collation of sheep's eyeballs and chopped liver'.

And outside such a fundamentalist school in Texas, there would also be muslim ones as well, still more extreme.


You need consistent widespread public education, or you get a bunch of morons and a third world country.

Well, almost. But having this obvious thing doesn't always preclude the others.




Claverhouse :ph34r:



Throw the jew down the well
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have a big party

[Melody]

Hey, are you saying the Islam religion is more "extreme" than Catholic religions? I do not think it says anywhere in the Qur'an that people should drive airplanes into World Trade Centers, if that is where you are deriving this from.

[Claverhouse]

Hey, are you saying the Islam religion is more "extreme" than Catholic religions? I do not think it says anywhere in the Qur'an that people should drive airplanes into World Trade Centers, if that is where you are deriving this from.

No. And I do not see how you could derive that from my post. However it is conceivable that a group of extremist muslims could be more extreme than extreme fundamentalist christians, and vice versa. Depends on each group.

I think you should tour the Bible Belt telling them they're Catholic.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


For that matter I never read that the Prince of Peace ever implied people should be set on fire; but the Church, and other christian groups have done this in the past.

[Arioch]

Hey, are you saying the Islam religion is more "extreme" than Catholic religions? I do not think it says anywhere in the Qur'an that people should drive airplanes into World Trade Centers, if that is where you are deriving this from.

No. And I do not see how you could derive that from my post. However it is conceivable that a group of extremist muslims could be more extreme than extreme fundamentalist christians, and vice versa. Depends on each group.

I think you should tour the Bible Belt telling them they're Catholic.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


For that matter I never read that the Prince of Peace ever implied people should be set on fire; but the Church, and other christian groups have done this in the past.

I would like to note that most of the people that were burned were already dead at that point. Except murderers I believe... have to look that up sometime

[Johnny]

For that matter I never read that the Prince of Peace ever implied people should be set on fire.

Judas' fate for rejecting God's forgiveness doesn't count?

[Boozer]

The crusade against evoloution is what scares me most about the south/midwest.

I'm all for having faith but sooner or later reality has to set in. Can't the bible be just a good story that still has a lot of bearing in the world without being the literal "Truth"?

[Claverhouse]

I would like to note that most of the people that were burned were already dead at that point. Except murderers I believe... have to look that up sometime

Don't think so: it may have depended upon the discretion of the hangman { as the general term, irrespective of method ], which was why you'd be advised to keep some large change handy. Jehanne d'Arc certainly wasn't; neither Bruno. Or the chaps here burnt in England as heretics.


Judas' fate for rejecting God's forgiveness doesn't count?
It is not for us to assume anyone's fate. Plus the jews were so mad, The Torah Old Testament; The Talmud, where Jesus is having all sorts of disgusting punishments; and Revelations, their views scarcely count.



I'm all for having faith but sooner or later reality has to set in. Can't the bible be just a good story that still has a lot of bearing in the world without being the literal "Truth"?

See above. Much of the Bible is depraved rubbish without much of a storyline. ( Unless you adhere to the belief that everything therein is symbolic of God's relationship with his chosen. Who inexplicably are the jews. Who also are the ones who inform us that God promised Israel to them and not the inhabitants. God wants only the best for those who tell us He Chose them ).

Not that I give a damn about evolution or whether people believe it or something else.

You'll be dead before you could notice any further changes. Scientists and priests have much in common: particularly dogmatic devotion to the current fashionable beliefs.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Boozer]

Scientists and priests have much in common: particularly dogmatic devotion to the current fashionable beliefs.


I'll give you scientists, they drop a thoery as soon as a better one comes along (or in some cases clubs them over the head), but priests? At best they try to keep thier traditional beliefs from sounding too out of wack with societies current sensibilities. I do agree that they have a lot in common, but I suppose that comes from both trying to tell the world what the "Truth" is. They are encroaching on each others turf. I guess I just prefer the current fashonable beliefs to 2000 year old ones. But I find it hard to write off beliefs that have lasted that long as complete rubbish.

[crule81]

The one thing I want to know: Where did Cain's wife come from?

[Johnny]

...It is not for us to assume anyone's fate...

...Scientists and priests have much in common: particularly dogmatic devotion to the current fashionable beliefs.

I'm not assuming Judas' fate, I'm just quoting a source that has now conveniently been deemed suspect. *sigh*

To the scientist's credit, technology has been created that both puts smiles on our faces and erases them just as easily. It seems that priests can only achieve the latter here... :lol:

:sombrero:

[Tatsuboshi]

You'll be dead before you could notice any further changes. Scientists and priests have much in common: particularly dogmatic devotion to the current fashionable beliefs.



Actually, you've touched on a fundamental difference. Scientists may have belief in a particular thread of reasoning. But, scientific reasoning can be flawed, and proven flawed. If a thread of reasoning is proven to be obviously flawed, scientists would do well to drop it in favor of better reasoning. If they don't, they're not very good scientists. There is no mechanism for this in religion, where beliefs can not be proven false.

[Johnny]

I haven't seen the scientific method lose ground much. Any chance scientists will drop this method in favor of some new belief in the near future?

[Star Cannon]

...
I'm speechless.

[PsiKik]

Actually, you've touched on a fundamental difference. Scientists may have belief in a particular thread of reasoning. But, scientific reasoning can be flawed, and proven flawed. If a thread of reasoning is proven to be obviously flawed, scientists would do well to drop it in favor of better reasoning. If they don't, they're not very good scientists. There is no mechanism for this in religion, where beliefs can not be proven false.

This appears to be the fundamental point, scientific theories allow themeselves to be disproved and thus improved upon. Religion does not allow this, and is in fact not provable/disprovable. I believe the fundamental difference between science and religion is that science is an on-going attempt to understand the world while religion is more of prescribed, ready made solution for those who are either too lazy or do not have the ability to examine such issues themselves.
Oh, and lets not forget the some of the psychological aspects of religion - mind control and the seeming need for the arch religionists to convert others to their way of thinking.

[Misty_Kye]

At one time science and the church said that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us, to say otherwise was punishable by death. Even though this proved not to be true it wasn’t heresy, and did not violate the bible. Eventually people came to believe that the earth was round, revolved around the sun and God still played a part in it all.

My parents were taught that creation was fact. I was taught that evolution was fact. Creation may be true, evolution may be true, the truth may lie in between these or be something totally unexpected. I don’t know what the truth is but without an open mind I will never find it.

I just wish that facts would be taught as facts and theories as theories.

[PsiKik]

It seems to me that those who are fond of reminding us that 'evolution is just a theory'
are in effect saying 'evolution is just an idea and therefore it is not true'. The basic
core of the theory of evolution is obviously fact. We are working out the details as time goes on eg. Darwin had no idea of the concept of DNA, while we are gaining quite an understanding of that now.

[cuspuser]

It seems to me that those who are fond of reminding us that 'evolution is just a theory'
are in effect saying 'evolution is just an idea and therefore it is not true'. The basic
core of the theory of evolution is obviously fact. We are working out the details as time goes on eg. Darwin had no idea of the concept of DNA, while we are gaining quite an understanding of that now.

I don't believe they are "in effect saying 'evolution is just an idea and therefore it is not true'."

In fact i believe in a variant of Darwin's theory of evolution (pretty much what people think Darwin's theory of evolution is before they learn what it actually is, Darwin's theory is probably one of the most confused theories there is)

I also like science and the scientific method because it relies alot on observing the "natural" state of affairs in the world and is passive to what it tells us ... and if there is a 'god' it would seem natural that it would be synonomous with the world and the universe and more perhaps ... but then at least we'd have some insights.

However, I also consider myself to be an Agnatheist(tm) :) ... which means i believe there could be a god, but i also believe that there might not be a god, my judgement is suspended ... and i think that to choose between either one of these options is a matter of some type of faith ... now i believe it is the very skeptical influence 'truth' at this level that people are using to mean 'not true' when this is the case i'm really unconcerned because it really just amounts to the fact that we can only have a certain amount of information because we are limited by our perspective in time and space ... in which case there are just some answers that we don't have answers to, and if we want to be logical about it (which is pretty much what not "resorting" to faith is) we have to admit as much ... (i don't have any problems with people who use faith to guide them by the way, i just don't) ... this doesn't mean that people who live in this manner can't believe that Darwinism is 'true' in the more commonly used meaning of the term, and from what i gathered most people who said something to the effect that 'everything comes down to faith' are acknowledging the lack of the big T Truth ...

as for the core of the evolutionary theory being fact that depends on what level you challenge u're facts to, at some point everything breaks down ... while i "believe"(or take a point of view) in a variant of evolutionary theory, i'm not certain that something better won't come along, and i'm fairly certain that when its all said and done evolutionary theory won't look anything like it does now when the project has matured more ...

[Claverhouse]

The orthodox evolutionaries here may like this stuff from the Revolutionary Worker:

The Science of Evolution (http://rwor.org/s/evolution_e.htm)

by Ardea Skybreak.

I cannot say how uninteresting the whole debate is. Why should anyone care ?


Contemplating the Four Final Things


Claverhouse :ph34r: