Evolution

[Mickey]

Given the attempt in Pa. of requiring the teaching of "Intelligent Design" which I see as creationism by another name, I thought this would be informative:

 

 

 

From Talk.Origins:

 

Claim CI001.1:

 

Intelligent Design (ID) is scientific, not religious.

 

 

Response:

 

The ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint. In the words of its founders and leaders:

 

There's a difference of opinion about how important this debate [advocating intelligent design] is. What I always say is that it's not just scientific theory. The question is best understood as: Is God real or imaginary?" [Phillip Johnson, "The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe", Silicon Valley Magazine, 9 Jan. 2000.]

 

"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator. [Phillip Johnson, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator", LA Times, 25 Mar. 2001.]

 

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." [Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, 10 Jan. 2003]

 

"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." [Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., Unification Church, http://www.tparents.org/library/unificatio...ells/DARWIN.htm ]

 

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." [William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.]

"Intelligent design is the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." [William Dembski, Jul/Aug 1999, Touchstone, 84]

 

Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible. [steve Maynard, Tacoma News Tribune, May 7, 2001, http://www.discovery.org/news/life%27sIntelligentDesign.html ]

 

See Poindexter [2003] for more such quotes.

 

Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school [Michigan HB 4946].

 

 

Several books on intelligent design are published by InterVarsity Press, which says of itself, WHO IS INTERVARSITY PRESS? We are a publisher of Christian books and Bible studies. As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of life. [iVP n.d.]

 

The video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" purportedly "tells the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful but controversial idea -- the theory of intelligent design." But it was produced by and promoted almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christian organizations [Evans 2003].

 

The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity [branch 2002]. Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. "The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism.'" [Morris 1999] And despite their claims, the movement has no science.

 

 

ID is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with. For example Philip Johnson equates theistic evolution (which would include most of Christianity) with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution.

 

Links:

Poindexter, Brian, 2003. The horse's mouth. http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/Ho...Mouth-BP007.pdf

 

References:

Branch, 2002. Evolving banners at the Discovery Institute. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(5): 12. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp

Evans, Skip, 2003. Who promotes Unlocking the Mystery of Life? http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...e__7_3_2003.asp

IVP Online, n.d. About us. http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/info/aboutus/

Michigan House Bill 4946, July 2, 2003, House introduced bill. http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.a...me=2003-HB-4946

Morris, John D., 1999. Open letter included with mailing of April 1999 Acts and Facts.

Poindexter, 2003. (see above)

[John Adams]

Good thing my office windows don't open.

 

This is so loco. Makes public schooling look less and less an option. My children will learn science in science class. That means studying theories that explain how things happen, and predict future events.

 

ID can't do that. It's not science. I really have no problem discussing the idea of ID. It's a viable theory- at least as viable as the entire universe is just grime under the fingernail of a giant. But ID doesn't help predict the future, or explain the subtle perutations of the past. Evolution is not perfect, but it has basis in observable reality, and is the best theory we have for the progression of species.

[Mickey]

Good thing my office windows don't open.

 

This is so loco. Makes public schooling look less and less an option. My children will learn science in science class. That means studying theories that explain how things happen, and predict future events.

 

ID can't do that. It's not science.  I really have no problem discussing the idea of ID. It's a viable theory- at least as viable as the entire universe is just grime under the fingernail of a giant. But ID doesn't help predict the future, or explain the subtle perutations of the past. Evolution is not perfect, but it has basis in observable reality, and is the best theory we have for the progression of species.

160175[/snapback]

I hope lots and lots of school districts teach this, just not my kids. That should thin out the competition when comes to college and grad school admissions.

 

Here is some info on what is going on in one schoold district in Pennsylvania:

Creationism mandated by school district

[Johnny Coli]

As someone that works in the scientific field, and as a person who taught genetics as a grad student, this is disheartening. It is astonishing that there are people in this country, in this day and age, that feel this should be a serious part of any science curriculum. Many graduating seniors today are already behind the curve in far too many disciplines. This nonsense only makes it harder for them at the university level.

[Mickey]

As someone that works in the scientific field, and as a person who taught genetics as a grad student, this is disheartening.  It is astonishing that there are people in this country, in this day and age, that feel this should be a serious part of any science curriculum.  Many graduating seniors today are already behind the curve in far too many disciplines.  This nonsense only makes it harder for them at the university level.

160246[/snapback]

You must be one of those Christ hating pagans I hear so much about who won't allow God in school. I'll pray for you.

 

Seriously, why do so many insist on seeing evolution as such a threat to their faith that they have to demand equal time in a science class? *sigh*

[UConn James]

I hope lots and lots of school districts teach this, just not my kids.  That should thin out the competition when comes to college and grad school admissions.

160202[/snapback]

 

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

 

The creationism movement is comparable to the borg collective. And someday, when you least expect it, your kid walks in the door and says, 'Hey you know what? Maybe blah blah blah....'

 

We don't need Christian madrassas in this country. If people want their kids to learn it, that's what Sunday School is. Science class is about studying, hypothesizing and experimenting with observable fact.

[John Adams]

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

 

160296[/snapback]

 

Smart people.

[Johnny Coli]

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

 

The creationism movement is comparable to the borg collective. And someday, when you least expect it, your kid walks in the door and says, 'Hey you know what? Maybe blah blah blah....'

 

We don't need Christian madrassas in this country. If people want their kids to learn it, that's what Sunday School is. Science class is about studying, hypothesizing and experimenting with observable fact.

160296[/snapback]

The beauty of science is that good science will always obliterate bad science. Sound scientific ideas, based on testable hyptheses, will always prevail over this rhetoric-based garbage. It may become popular in a few areas of this country populated by people who would rather have us still rubbing two sticks together, but the field will continue to police its own.

[John Adams]

Back to the point of the story though. The problem with this effort by the evangelicals is that they are trying to make the very definition of science a bad one. In the end, there will be parents who cannot or do not want to unteach this kind of drivel, and kids will not have an interest in science. As it is, science is mocked by far too many people (all of whom talk on cell phones, got immunized last week, and are taking hairgrowth pills etc.).

 

The countrywide drive for science started failing when we realized that we didn't need to beat the USSR in the science race. Once we realized that we were the scientific superpower, and weren't motivated by the fear that the USSR breed into us, a lot of scientific drive went out the window. In its place, we have lots of poly sci majors.

[CookieG]

And in still other news, the Kansas Board of Education again reconsiders its science standards. Back to the 1999, "de-empahasis" of evolution stuff?

 

Dorothy's lesson plan

[OGTEleven]

My children will learn science in science class. That means studying theories that explain how things happen, and predict future events.

 

 

160175[/snapback]

 

 

How does evolution meet this definition? I can give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent on "explaining how things happen" but it is still replete with missing links in its theories (pun intended). With that said what does it do to predict future events? Physics class teaches a lot there as does chemistry, but evolution? "Continued adaptation to one's environment" is a little vague, no?

 

Disclaimer: This post is not meant to contrast evolution with ID or creationism (I think there will always have to be faith to believe in God, and I think God made it that way on purpose.) The post is meant to measure evolution as meeting the definition of science.

[DC Tom]

How does evolution meet this definition?  I can give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent on "explaining how things happen" but it is still replete with missing links in its theories (pun intended).  With that said what does it do to predict future events?  Physics class teaches a lot there as does chemistry, but evolution?  "Continued adaptation to one's environment" is a little vague, no?

 

Disclaimer: This post is not meant to contrast evolution with ID or creationism (I think there will always have to be faith to believe in God, and I think God made it that way on purpose.)  The post is meant to measure evolution as meeting the definition of science.

160725[/snapback]

 

It's misleading to think of it as "this is" or "this isn't" science, because it's not an either/or proposition.

 

Consider, for example, theories of the solar system. The original theory was the earth-centered system: everything revolves around the earth. Perfectly legitimate, based on observation...but with serious holes and problems in it that made its predictive and descriptive powers very weak. The comes Copernicus and the heliocentric universe...much better in both descriptive and predictive qualities, but still relatively poor for lacking any sort of foundation of "why?". Enter Kepler's laws...now there's a set of basic underlying principles for orbital mechanics, but still no understanding of what causes an orbit.

 

And so on, to Newton...gives us gravity, gives us a theory that both explains and predicts with a good degree of accuracy. Then Herschell discovers Uranus...Uranus' orbit has oddities in it, which leads to Neptune and Pluto. Newton's theory, good as it is, is still seriously flawed in that it can't explain Mercury's orbit...enter Einstein and General Relativity.

 

That, in brief, is the evolution of a scientific theory. So, in light of that, is evolution "bad science" for having lots of holes? Well...no more so than the geocentric solar system, really. Yes, it's got holes...but it describes what we see fairly well, moreso than any other scientific theory. It's got a solid underpinning in genetics. It's predictive qualities suck, no doubt...but it's one case where virtually any theory is going to have virtually no predictive value (predicting the future form of life?)

 

The other thing it has going for it above any other theory is that it's scientific: it involves creating and investigating testable hypotheses in a repeatable fashion. And it's even empirically testable on a small scale (looking at isolated populations of animals that enjoy wider distributions elsewhere...pygmy elephants on Indonesian islands, and the lions in N'Gorogoro crater jump most immediately to mind). Even if it's scientific qualities aren't much to brag about (and they're better than most people think), it's at least formed via the scientific method.

 

Basically, if it doesn't explain, forsee, and pass peer review, it isn't science. Evolution does each of those to varying degrees. Creation, on the other hand...well, it both does and doesn't, since it whitewashes everything with the simple explaination of "God's will". If that's your theory, then everything and nothing is forseen and explained...and how do you subject God to peer review? So even if creation is a good theory (it isn't...good theories don't whitewash), it's still not scientific.

[sweet baboo]

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

160296[/snapback]

 

just because they teach it in school doesn't mean kids will pick it up...most kids don't pay much attention in school anyway

and if my kids listen to the ID bullcrap, well, hopefully the recognize that their father is alot smarter than their teacher will ever be when i tell them what a bunch of horseshit it is

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I pose a very interesting set of questions to the members of both sides:

 

If genetic engineering is used to eventually extend a person's lifespan to 200 years, removeing every possible defect that could hinder a person's chances at dying sooner, should it be undertaken?

 

If not, should genetic engineering be used at all to cure patients? Why, if it interferes with God's creation? Or, is it a simple fact that God allowed this technology to be discovered for such cures?

 

If so, how would the problems of overpopulation and a lack of eventual jobs be undertaken?

 

And the most important question:

 

If you are against cloning for religious reasons, are you against the use of genetic engineering to cure cancer, heart disease, and AIDS if it is found?

[Mickey]

I pose a very interesting set of questions to the members of both sides:

 

If genetic engineering is used to eventually extend a person's lifespan to 200 years, removeing every possible defect that could hinder a person's chances at dying sooner, should it be undertaken?

 

If not, should genetic engineering be used at all to cure patients? Why, if it interferes with God's creation? Or, is it a simple fact that God allowed this technology to be discovered for such cures?

 

If so, how would the problems of overpopulation and a lack of eventual jobs be undertaken?

 

And the most important question:

 

If you are against cloning for religious reasons, are you against the use of genetic engineering to cure cancer, heart disease, and AIDS if it is found?

160868[/snapback]

I haven't given this tons of thought but I'll take a stab anyway.

 

Extending our life spans that much would really constitute a fundamental reodering of our life cycles that would require that just about everything else change as well. We would have to make such changes for that much of an extension of our lives to be viable. The number of changes would be too numerous and complex to even attempt to go through them here. Providing we do make the changes necessary, I have no problem with such an extension of our life spans wether it be achieved through genetic egineering or cleaner living.

 

As for overpopulation and lack of jobs, I'm thinking that people living to be 200 would entail a much longer period of youthfulness and many other changes that would create additional jobs. We would have to have kids much later in life. These are all solvable problems.

[Britbillsfan]

Having an additional amount of lifespan (why just 200 years?) will have fundamental differences in just about everything other than just the obvious overcrowding. If lifespans are significantly increase (and by significantly I am talking about increasing lifespans by 100s of years) then the issue of if you have kids or not becomes an issue for society (and, dare I say it, government) and not just the individuals concerned.

 

To extend lifespans beyond 150 years or so (when the brain will have deteriorated too badly to function effectively) would involve halting the aging process so ages far beyond the hypothetical 200 years will be commonplace, with even the possibility of reversing it if you were already old when the process became available to you.

 

As for GE being an interference with God's creation - well that will be for the individul to decide (is not most medicine 'interfering' to some degree?). Some will be against, some will be pragmatic ('If it was truly against God's will it would not be possible/we would not have been clver enough to work out how') and others will go 'So?' and it will be a total non-issue (like all the atheists out there). Once the scientific progress has been made it will become available somewhere as aging & dying is not high on most peoples' WANT to do lists, and once it starts to become more common place the number of people wanting such extended lifespans wil increase.

 

All rather hypothetical at the moment as the treatments will take another 70-100 years (most likely) to become available and we will all be worm food by then.

[_BiB_]

Whether it should be taught or not, what is inherently wrong with the theory? I'll answer that. It calls for the power and the intervening hand of something more powerful than us. Many, for some reason find that frightening. This is pretty close to my personal beleifs. I had them long before I ever heard of ID. Has anyone stopped to think about how complex life is, let alone the rest of it? I don't believe in FLASH, Here you go Adam-and that the world was created 10,000 years ago-but I have not seen anything to prove that life is due to a lightning bolt hitting the right random combinations of amino acids at the same time. If one miniscule of DNA screws up, and one simple releaser enzyme doesn't engage at the proper moment-there is no life for that individual. Should one want to believe this is all random chance, I guess one can.

 

I'm not implying this is the right answer, but I do think that by totally discounting an overarching power to all of it might be the worst form of egotistical prodding the bear.

 

Looking at science as science, this place was apparantly a barren wasteland for quite a few billion years. Then suddenly, there was a virtual explosion of life. Maybe it wasn't a force we can call God, but I've yet to see a definitive explanation otherwise. The excuse is "it's a theory, how can it be definitive-we weren't there to see it".

 

Modern "Us" wants a definitive proof of a higher power, beyond the shadow of any doubt, but is willing to accept as science, the theories of man. Maybe we should stick to what we know we have discovered, and can prove, as science-including the process, and not close the door on what we don't know we can prove until it is done.

 

I can understand that people might want to live 2,3,400 years-as they have already discounted the idea of anything beyond this existence here. They feel that this is all there is. To hope or believe otherwise, they fear, makes them look uneducated, unintelligent and childishly foolish. So be it. I'll take my chances that perhaps it's not that way. I believe that there is a higher power, whom I choose to call God, that there IS another place and I'm more than willing to go there as soon as it is determined that it's my time.

 

So, I guess, call me a naive, unscientific fool. But, hey, I'm regularly called a lot worse. Don't bother me none. I still look forward to it, and I have no fear of it. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'm living what I think is some type of larval stage. I won't truly live until I pass through it.

 

As far as teaching it? No, probably not. What I think works best is for schools to teach scholastics. Where a particular religion is germane to the subject, as it so often is in history, place it into the curriculum. It would not bother me one iota to see some form of theology taught at the highschool level, the intent being to give the basics, for understanding reasons, the core beliefs and history of the worlds major religions-as they DO figure prominantly into the everyday lives of billions. How can and why should this be ignored? As an example, we wouldn't be having this problem with the middle east if everyone had a basic uderstanding of Islam and the role it plays in the everyday life of the Muslims. Muslim Children taught the ideas of Christianity would have a clearer understanding of why much of the West think the way they do. This wouldn't be meant to foster agreement, just to foster understanding. We have botched foreign policy for over 200 years. Why? Because we want to Americanize and Christianize everything everyone else does. Americans see things only through their eyes, not the eyes of the Hindu, or the Muslim, or in many cases even through the eyes of the Jew or other Christians. Because of this, everything will eventually break down and fail-or conversely, we are going to have dominate the world by force.

 

Not very good choices.

[VABills]

BIB, very well stated. I wish that I could state it was well as you, but you really touched on it. Noone knows for sure and therefore all theories should be included for discussion.

[John Adams]

BIB, very well stated.  I wish that I could state it was well as you, but you really touched on it.  Noone knows for sure and therefore all theories should be included for discussion.

160930[/snapback]

 

I hope my theory that we are all grime under the fingernail of a giant gets a lot of play.

 

BiB- you comments on ID are not off base. I agree that at a philosophical/religious level, ID is worthy of discussion. In fact, the idea of ID originated a long time ago, and dates back to at least Aristotle (and probably before that).

 

But ID is not science. If a teacher wants to mention ID in a science class, he could say, "We can't explain everything in science because science is a series of theories. Some people think that the ultimate theory is called Intelligent Design, which is a theory that everything can be explained by some higher power. That theory is viable, but at least at the moment, it doesn't help us make and test hypotheses, which is the study of science. So now we turn to science, and leave ID behind."

 

As to your other doom and gloom stuff, well, we disagree. That's your spin on things. And not mine.

[Mickey]

Whether it should be taught or not, what is inherently wrong with the theory? I'll answer that. It calls for the power and the intervening hand of something more powerful than us. Many, for some reason find that frightening. This is pretty close to my personal beleifs. I had them long before I ever heard of ID. Has anyone stopped to think about how complex life is, let alone the rest of it? I don't believe in FLASH, Here you go Adam-and that the world was created 10,000 years ago-but I have not seen anything to prove that life is due to a lightning bolt hitting the right random combinations of amino acids at the same time. If one miniscule of DNA screws up, and one simple releaser enzyme doesn't engage at the proper moment-there is no life for that individual. Should one want to believe this is all random chance, I guess one can.

 

I'm not implying this is the right answer, but I do think that by totally discounting an overarching power to all of it might be the worst form of egotistical prodding the bear.

 

Looking at science as science, this place was apparantly a barren wasteland for quite a few billion years. Then suddenly, there was a virtual explosion of life. Maybe it wasn't a force we can call God, but I've yet to see a definitive explanation otherwise. The excuse is "it's a theory, how can it be definitive-we weren't there to see it".

 

Modern "Us" wants a definitive proof of a higher power, beyond the shadow of any doubt, but is willing to accept as science, the theories of man. Maybe we should stick to what we know we have discovered, and can prove, as science-including the process, and not close the door on what we don't know we can prove until it is done.

 

I can understand that people might want to live 2,3,400 years-as they have already discounted the idea of anything beyond this existence here. They feel that this is all there is. To hope or believe otherwise, they fear, makes them look uneducated, unintelligent and childishly foolish. So be it. I'll take my chances that perhaps it's not that way. I believe that there is a higher power, whom I choose to call God, that there IS another place and I'm more than willing to go there as soon as it is determined that it's my time.

 

So, I guess, call me a naive, unscientific fool. But, hey, I'm regularly called a lot worse. Don't bother me none. I still look forward to it, and I have no fear of it. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'm living what I think is some type of larval stage. I won't truly live until I pass through it.

 

As far as teaching it? No, probably not. What I think works best is for schools to teach scholastics. Where a particular religion is germane to the subject, as it so often is in history, place it into the curriculum. It would not bother me one iota to see some form of theology taught at the highschool level, the intent being to give the basics, for understanding reasons, the core beliefs and history of the worlds major religions-as they DO figure prominantly into the everyday lives of billions. How can and why should this be ignored? As an example, we wouldn't be having this problem with the middle east if everyone had a basic uderstanding of Islam and the role it plays in the everyday life of the Muslims. Muslim Children taught the ideas of Christianity would have a clearer understanding of why much of the West think the way they do. This wouldn't be meant to foster agreement, just to foster understanding. We have botched foreign policy for over 200 years. Why? Because we want to Americanize and Christianize everything everyone else does. Americans see things only through their eyes, not the eyes of the Hindu, or the Muslim, or in many cases even through the eyes of the Jew or other Christians. Because of this, everything will eventually break down and fail-or conversely, we are going to have dominate the world by force.

 

Not very good choices.

160899[/snapback]

I respect your viewpoint but within the whole of what you have stated are some fundamental misunderstandings regarding evolution. For example, the idea that evolution holds that suddenly, for unknown reasons, there was an explosion of life is not what the theory of evolution holds at all. Not unless you view "suddenly" as something that took millions of years. Referring to evolution dictating that life began only by chance, by random event is also not quite accurate. It was the combination of chance and the laws of physics which, fortunately for us, existed well before we developed as a species and "discovered" them. Further, the probablity of a If you are interested, here is a site with a wealth of information regarding this debate. There are more scholarly articles at this site then you could imagine. Rather than me repeat what is there, I'll give you the link because I know you have so much spare time to devote to this.

Talk.Origins and its subsite: Talk.design They are one sided but have links to creationist snake oil type sites. I mean "snake oil" in the nicest way.

 

There is a pretty healthy block of people who subscribe to a theistic form of evolution where the fundamentals of evolution are not denied but are embraced. At the same time, the existence of a God, even a judeo-christian one, is also embraced. No real conflict exists there unless one interprets the bible literally. Intelligent Design, which is not a theory by any stretch, is simply religious faith dressed up as scientific theory inorder to shoe-horn it into classrooms. Even if you accept it as some sort of half baked "theory" you should know that it does NOT allow for even a theistic form of evolution. What you have stated looks to me more like a form of theistic evolution. If so, ID would in fact not suffer that belief. In fact, one of the founders and leading proponents of "Intelligent Design" )Phillip Johnson) equates theistic evolution with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution. If you accept evolution, intelligent design proponents and their "theory" would conclude that you are the worst form of atheist: an atheist who thinks he is a believer.

 

I have no problem with people discussing their faith in a variety of forums outside of science classes. One of the great debates of our age is between science and religion starting at least as far back as Galileo. This is the Age of Science. Scientific advancement has been so great and so extensive that it can't avoid bumping into faith. Rethinking our faith in light of our science is unavoidable. I don't think however that it is a debate we need to burden 10 year olds with who have a hard enough time figuring out the periodic chart of the elements.

 

Maybe when we are no longer gettin hammered in math and the sciences by kids in Asian and some European countries we can afford the luxury of devoting class time to theological debates. If we spent half the concern, cash and political posturing on actual learning in schools as we do on God back in school, maybe our kids would be able to compete with kids from southeast Asia in an increasingly technological economy. Never fear, the kids can pray all they want hoisting boxes of hi-tech goods from Singapore at the loading dock making minimum wage because they learned intelligent design while the Hong Kong kids were doing calculus in their heads.

[OGTEleven]

It's misleading to think of it as "this is" or "this isn't" science, because it's not an either/or proposition. 

 

Consider, for example, theories of the solar system.  The original theory was the earth-centered system: everything revolves around the earth.  Perfectly legitimate, based on observation...but with serious holes and problems in it that made its predictive and descriptive powers very weak.  The comes Copernicus and the heliocentric universe...much better in both descriptive and predictive qualities, but still relatively poor for lacking any sort of foundation of "why?".  Enter Kepler's laws...now there's a set of basic underlying principles for orbital mechanics, but still no understanding of what causes an orbit.

 

And so on, to Newton...gives us gravity, gives us a theory that both explains and predicts with a good degree of accuracy.  Then Herschell discovers Uranus...Uranus' orbit has oddities in it, which leads to Neptune and Pluto.  Newton's theory, good as it is, is still seriously flawed in that it can't explain Mercury's orbit...enter Einstein and General Relativity.

 

That, in brief, is the evolution of a scientific theory.  So, in light of that, is evolution "bad science" for having lots of holes?  Well...no more so than the geocentric solar system, really.  Yes, it's got holes...but it describes what we see fairly well, moreso than any other scientific theory.  It's got a solid underpinning in genetics.  It's predictive qualities suck, no doubt...but it's one case where virtually any theory is going to have virtually no predictive value (predicting the future form of life?)

 

The other thing it has going for it above any other theory is that it's scientific: it involves creating and investigating testable hypotheses in a repeatable fashion.  And it's even empirically testable on a small scale (looking at isolated populations of animals that enjoy wider distributions elsewhere...pygmy elephants on Indonesian islands, and the lions in N'Gorogoro crater jump most immediately to mind).  Even if it's scientific qualities aren't much to brag about (and they're better than most people think), it's at least formed via the scientific method. 

 

Basically, if it doesn't explain, forsee, and pass peer review, it isn't science.  Evolution does each of those to varying degrees.  Creation, on the other hand...well, it both does and doesn't, since it whitewashes everything with the simple explaination of "God's will".  If that's your theory, then everything and nothing is forseen and explained...and how do you subject God to peer review?  So even if creation is a good theory (it isn't...good theories don't whitewash), it's still not scientific.

160765[/snapback]

Thanks for a well thought out reply.

 

My issue with the "religious" and "scientific" crowds is in the one area where they agree. They both seem to think that their beliefs/theories are mutually exclusive. They may give lip service to some level of compatiblity, but it is clear that both sides believe the other to be worthless. This has nothing to do with the search for truth that both science and religion are supposed to be about.

 

God could not have created a world/universe where things evolve? Give me a break. A proof of evolution would mean there is no God? Common man! If evolution is real, we are progressing and improving the species constantly right? In other words we are becoming more God like (at a snail's pace, but hey.). Isn't that what the religious folks want?

 

My question was meant to point out that some (IMO many) on the "scientific" side want evolution to disprove God. This in itself goes against the very method of science they espouse as the answer. There should be no desire involved, only fact. The "religious" side counters by attempting to drown out evolution by piling on with myriad alternate "theories". This goes against religion being a search for truth because such a search would not fear evolution.

 

IMO, the whole thing is a big joke. The scientists have an agenda to mock believers because they fear a God. They are trying to use the school systems to do it. That is why evolution is so prominent in curriculums even though it has not met the standards to which other scientific theories are held. The believers have an agenda to drown out scientists because they have weak faith. They doubt whether their beliefs will hold up against science and feel compelled to refute every facet of evolution including the existence of dinosaurs. Both camps claim to be in search of the truth. Hardy har har.

[OGTEleven]

No real conflict exists there unless one interprets the bible literally.

 

...or one accepts the current version of evolution as fully informed.

 

I have no problem with people discussing their faith in a variety of forums outside of science classes. 

 

It's nice that you have decided what should go on in science class. Other people disagree and they also pay taxes. Maybe if schools weren't run by the government, we wouldn't have to have so many arguments, and we could all decide which school we would like our kids to attend.

 

One of the great debates of our age is between science and religion starting at least as far back as Galileo.  This is the Age of Science. Scientific advancement has been so great and so extensive that it can't avoid bumping into faith. Rethinking our faith in light of our science is unavoidable.  I don't think however that it is a debate we need to burden 10 year olds with who have a hard enough time figuring out the periodic chart of the elements. 

 

I agree. Especially with the bold part. This will always be true.

 

Maybe when we are no longer gettin hammered in math and the sciences by kids in Asian and some European countries we can afford the luxury of devoting class time to theological debates.  If we spent half the concern, cash and political posturing on actual learning in schools as we do on God back in school, maybe our kids would be able to compete with kids from southeast Asia in an increasingly technological economy.  Never fear, the kids can pray all they want hoisting boxes of hi-tech goods from Singapore at the loading dock making minimum wage because they learned intelligent design while the Hong Kong kids were doing calculus in their heads.

 

 

This from the chief PPP advocate of "Cucumber condom 101"?

[RuntheDamnBall]

IMO, the whole thing is a big joke.  The scientists have an agenda to mock believers because they fear a God.  They are trying to use the school systems to do it.  That is why evolution is so prominent in curriculums even though it has not met the standards to which other scientific theories are held.  The believers have an agenda to drown out scientists because they have weak faith.  They doubt whether their beliefs will hold up against science and feel compelled to refute every facet of evolution including the existence of dinosaurs.  Both camps claim to be in search of the truth.  Hardy har har.

161001[/snapback]

I think the problem is that we're letting the extremists dictate the discussion and hence the final actions. I don't think most scientists have a problem with God or believers, regardless of whether or not they necessarily believe. It's about whether religious theories should be taught as SCIENTIFIC ones in a science classroom setting. Where they seem to conflict, teachers can always address and be open to questions in class, but when we're talking about children who may or may not all be of the same religious backgrounds, teaching a religious version of scientific history is a big problem, particularly if the knowledge may be foundational to other studies or jobs in the future, as Mick has pointed out. Try and begin any college class report with "10,000 years ago, when the world began," and I think you'll elicit more than a few laughs. Unless you go to Bob Jones or something.

 

If you want religion, put your child in Sunday School. It's not like they're in short supply. Just as much as no child is going to be brainwashed by learning a little bit about Christian history (a common reply around here), no child would be brainwashed by learning about the theory of evolution, if they've learned what theories are vs. laws. They (and parents) can make their own decisions.

[Mickey]

Thanks for a well thought out reply.

 

My issue with the "religious" and "scientific" crowds is in the one area where they agree.  They both seem to think that their beliefs/theories are mutually exclusive.  They may give lip service to some level of compatiblity, but it is clear that both sides believe the other to be worthless.  This has nothing to do with the search for truth that both science and religion are supposed to be about.

 

God could not have created a world/universe where things evolve?  Give me a break.  A proof of evolution would mean there is no God?  Common man!  If evolution is real, we are progressing and improving the species constantly right?  In other words we are becoming more God like (at a snail's pace, but hey.).  Isn't that what the religious folks want?

 

My question was meant to point out that some (IMO many) on the "scientific" side want evolution to disprove God.  This in itself goes against the very method of science they espouse as the answer.  There should be no desire involved, only fact.  The "religious" side counters by attempting to drown out evolution by piling on with myriad alternate "theories".  This goes against religion being a search for truth because such a search would not fear evolution. 

 

IMO, the whole thing is a big joke.  The scientists have an agenda to mock believers because they fear a God.  They are trying to use the school systems to do it.  That is why evolution is so prominent in curriculums even though it has not met the standards to which other scientific theories are held.  The believers have an agenda to drown out scientists because they have weak faith.  They doubt whether their beliefs will hold up against science and feel compelled to refute every facet of evolution including the existence of dinosaurs.  Both camps claim to be in search of the truth.  Hardy har har.

161001[/snapback]

"progressing and improving" are subjective terms. Species adapt to survive. Intelligence is one survival strategy and so far it has worked for us but could certainly even destroy us so it is not a prefect survival strategy. Having big teeth is also a pretty spectaculary succesful survival strategy. I suppose becoming more "god like" would be a survival strategy as well but unlike in theology, in science they don't really suspend the laws of physics so we aren't going to evolve into possessing omnipotence or omniscience.

 

The idea that scientists have an agenda to mock believers is something I respecfully disagree with you over. Most scientists in fact subscribe to a version of evolution that is theistic. They embrace both God and the fundamental principles of evolution. Unless they are intending to mock themselves, I don't thinke they are mocking believers. Evolution is not really a theory on the creation of life, it is a theory on the development of life, its changes over long stretches of time. It does pretty much preclude a literal interpretation of Genesis but beyond that it doesn't really present much of a conflict with faith.

 

I am not sure where you get the idea that evolution does not meet the standard to which other scientific theories are held. That is not the case. Biological evolution is a fact, not even "just" a theory. It can be demonstrated today and the evidence for its occurence in the past is overwhelming. The precise mechanism of evolution is a theory, in fact, there are more than one theories for the mechanism of evolution. The theory most are familiar with is "natural selection" which is the one you mention. Geographical isolation is another, so is "genetic drift". The idea that man descended from ape-like creatures, australopithecines and the like, is a fact. How we did so, by the process of natural selection or some other process, is a theory. The study in this area is, in my geek-o-nerd world, about as exciting as science gets.

 

Take geographical isolation for example. Lets say you have a large group of one species living and reproducing together. Then, for many reasons that are so easy to imagine I won't bother listing examples, the group is split into two isolated groups. Over an almost incomprehesible period of time, small changes occur in each population. Over more time, those chages become more significant and numerous. Suddenly, their isolation ends, they rejoin only to not be able to recognize or even reproduce with eachother anymore. There you have it, speciation. If one group was isolated from the other in a warmer area and the other in a colder area, wouldn't the ones with hair reproduce more in the cold area and the ones with darker skin reproduce more in the sunnier climate? One group gets harrier and the other darker. And so on. Natural selection and isolation. Two theories working together to promote adaptations that in turn promote survival.

[Mickey]

...or one accepts the current version of evolution as fully informed.

It's nice that you have decided what should go on in science class.  Other people disagree and they also pay taxes.  Maybe if schools weren't run by the government, we wouldn't have to have so many arguments, and we could all decide which school we would like our kids to attend. 

I agree.  Especially with the bold part.  This will always be true.

This from the chief PPP advocate of "Cucumber condom 101"?

161028[/snapback]

 

Do you want to put science to a vote? What if the majority votes that the world is flat, as in another time it surely would have, should we teach the kids that?

 

That is the beauty of science, it transcends political agendas and "belief". Gravity is gravity and it isn't going to go away because some people vote that it doesn't exist. Why is it so offensive to think that scientists should decide what is taught in a science class?

 

Actually, I didn't argue in favor of condoms in school at all. What I did do is present the stats that showed that the government funded abstinence only program wasn't doing so well. At the same time I pointed out that the actual number of condom availability programs is mind blowingly lower than one would think given the constant gripe about them on the right. I added that, unlike the propaganda about them, parental permission was required and in the handful of schools that have them, they appear to be doing well. I know that the actual facts can be tedious and it takes time to present them but is it really an acceptable alternative to short hand it all into something as misleading as "chief advocate of cucumber condom 101"?

[Johnny Coli]

I suggest people interested in this debate read The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (1986) by Richard Dawkins. In it he disputes William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802), in which Paley argues that the complexity of a watch suggests the evidence of a watchmaker, therefore the complexity of life suggests a higher being had to be involved in its creation. Dawkins shows that Darwin’s process of natural selection is random and not by deliberate design.

 

Review and excerpts:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO...oks/blind.shtml

 

 

While I have no have no quarrel with those who want to discuss Intelligent Design or Creationism, I feel that these two theories have absolutely no room as serious curricula in a class teaching a life science. They can adequately be discussed in another forum outside of a science class. I do not “fear” a higher power, and I do not believe that subscribing to the theory of evolution thereby deems one an atheist. The people I work with, and have worked with in the past, represent a large and diverse set of religious beliefs. But they don’t let these private, religious leanings interfere with their belief in the basic understanding of science and scientific principles. Believing in evolution and a higher power are not mutually exclusive, but a religious belief needs to be checked at the laboratory door (and please leave bioethics out of this discussion on evolution).

 

I would welcome being able to live to be 200+ years old. I love my career and to have the opportunity to see what scientific breakthroughs come to light just over the horizon…well, that would be “heaven” to me. A Bills Super bowl win would be neat, too.

[OGTEleven]

"progressing and improving" are subjective terms.  Species adapt to survive.  Intelligence is one survival strategy and so far it has worked for us but could certainly even destroy us so it is not a prefect survival strategy.  I suppose becoming more "god like" would be a survival strategy as well but unlike in theology, in science they don't really suspend the laws of physics so we aren't going to evolve into possessing omnipotence or omniscience.

 

Becoming more God like does not mean becoming God. It means getting ever closer. My example was a bit of a stretch or at least I should have given more detail. What I meant is that we are getting smarter and smarter, and if we discover we are actually changing (evolving), that should be accepted by the religous groups. So what if we turn into those bulbous headed alien things. If we are getting smarter and discovering more about how to help each other, God should be pleased.

 

Having big teeth is also a pretty spectaculary succesful survival strategy.

 

This explains Elway's last two Super Bowls. Would crowns work for Bledsoe/Losman? You could be on to something.

 

 

The idea that scientists have an agenda to mock believers is something I respecfully disagree with you over.

 

There seems to be a pretty big market for the fish with feet that have the word Darwin in them. If that is not mockery, I don't know what is. Mockery may not have been the intent of scientists and or schools, but it is certainly the result. There are many examples, but the fish is stark and direct.

 

 

The idea that man descended from ape-like creatures, australopithecines and the like, is a fact.  How we did so, by the process of natural selection or some other process, is a theory.  The study in this area is, in my geek-o-nerd world, about as exciting as science gets.

 

I am not a scientist so it is pointless to argue this. My main question about evolution personally has to do with time. There are big differences between man and apes. There are missing links in the chain. The "smell-test" problem I have is with the amount of time that has past over which all of these changes supposedly took place. Is it truly enough time?

 

When I compare evolution to, let's say the type of physics taught at the high school level, it seems to me that physics paints a more complete picture for the student. "If I roll this ball down a ramp of x degress, how far will it travel forward before it falls 4 feet?" It is very predictive. The same idea holds for chemistry. These sciences, and more importantly their methods of data collection and experiment are very useful tools for a HS student. I'm not sure I see the same value in teaching a science less complete in its measurement techniques and predictive capabilities to such young students. It certainly has its place in universities when students become more diversified in their endeavors. I'm not even saying it doesn't belong in HS, just that it is a fair question. For me it further comes in to question when you see "evolutionists" mocking "religious types" and the mockery becoming part of our pop culture. I doubt true scientists would want this result and I think when they saw it, they would take steps to lessen that result. I don't see any such steps being taken. I only see them being resisted, with no alternatives offered.

[OGTEleven]

  I know that the actual facts can be tedious and it takes time to present them but is it really an acceptable alternative to short hand it all into something as misleading as "chief advocate of cucumber condom 101"?

161132[/snapback]

 

 

No, It's not fair, and your description of your previous arguments is accurate.

 

What never came up in that other thread is the value/detriment of condom/contraception discussions in clasrroms. Your focus was on condoms being given to students, which is perfectly fair (as a point of focus). My complaint here is about time being spent in schools putting condoms on cucumbers (literally). I believe that is far more widespread that the hand out programs. I am lazy and don't feel like looking it up, but I know they teach that stuff in the schools systems here whereas they don't hand out condoms. I see this as just a big time waster (getting us further behind Japan, etc.) as you see talking about ID.

[Mickey]

Becoming more God like does not mean becoming God.  It means getting ever closer.  My example was a bit of a stretch or at least I should have given more detail.  What I meant is that we are getting smarter and smarter, and if we discover we are actually changing (evolving), that should be accepted by the religous groups.  So what if we turn into those bulbous headed alien things.  If we are getting smarter and discovering more about how to help each other, God should be pleased.

This explains Elway's last two Super Bowls.  Would crowns work for Bledsoe/Losman?  You could be on to something.

There seems to be a pretty big market for the fish with feet that have the word Darwin in them.  If that is not mockery, I don't know what is.  Mockery may not have been the intent of scientists and or schools, but it is certainly the result.  There are many examples, but the fish is stark and direct.

I am not a scientist so it is pointless to argue this.  My main question about evolution personally has to do with time.  There are big differences between man and apes.  There are missing links in the chain.  The "smell-test" problem I have is with the amount of time that has past over which all of these changes supposedly took place.  Is it truly enough time?

 

When I compare evolution to, let's say the type of physics taught at the high school level, it seems to me that physics paints a more complete picture for the student.  "If I roll this ball down a ramp of x degress, how far will it travel forward before it falls 4 feet?"  It is very predictive.  The same idea holds for chemistry.  These sciences, and more importantly their methods of data collection and experiment are very useful tools for a HS student.  I'm not sure I see the same value in teaching a science less complete in its measurement techniques and predictive capabilities to such young students.  It certainly has its place in universities when students become more diversified in their endeavors.  I'm not even saying it doesn't belong in HS, just that it is a fair question.  For me it further comes in to question when you see "evolutionists" mocking "religious types" and the mockery becoming part of our pop culture.  I doubt true scientists would want this result and I think when they saw it, they would take steps to lessen that result.  I don't see any such steps being taken.  I only see them being resisted, with no alternatives offered.

161176[/snapback]

I have never seen the t-shirts you are talking about. What mockery I have seen goes both ways. For the scientists who do poke fun at others, it is not all believers they mock, just those who insist on a literal interpretation of the bible. As I said before, most scientists are believers themselves. They aren't mocking the vast majority of those who subscribe to a theistic form of evolution. That is the prevailing personal view of most scientists.

 

Evolution or rather, natural selection, is not so easily tested in a lab because of the impossibly vast periods of time involved. Still, you have the same problem with continental drift but no one is going on and on about it being a lousy theory. Though continental drift can't be observed or tested easily, there is plenty of proof establishing it as a fact. Evolution is like that. No one doubts that bacteria change to more virulent strains in response to antibiotics. There you have a profound change in a living thing in direct response to an environmental change threatening its survival. Bacterial generations reproduce quickly enough to observe this in our own lifetimes. We see fossil records of our own changes which simply occurred over a longer period of time. Recorded human history only goes back around 5-6 thousand years ago (I haven't checked that, it is an estimate). That covers from Sumerian scratches on tablets to the moon shot. Neanderthals along with pretty much modern humans were living at the same time around 30,000 years ago when the neanderthals died out. In terms of time, that is enough to cover all of recorded human history five or six times over. That is a long time. The australopithecus afarensis (the "Lucy" fossil you have probably heard of) is 3.2 million years old. That is all of human history 640 times over. Sahelanthropus Tchadensis (discovered in Chad) is 6-7 million years old so we are talking human history 1,200 times over give or take. Is it enough time? Yeah, it is.

 

The story of human origins is the ultimate puzzle and piece by piece we are putting it together. What new finding might there be around the corner? What will the final picture tell us? Will it exclude God or simply bring us even closer to him following the clues he has given us buried in the sands? I don't know. I sure want to be part of the search though.

 

I think these discoveries are literally wondrous. It burns me that instead of being treated as such, so many are so threatened by them that more people study ways of discounting these discoveries than understanding them.

[_BiB_]

IMO, the whole thing is a big joke. The scientists have an agenda to mock believers because they fear a God. They are trying to use the school systems to do it. That is why evolution is so prominent in curriculums even though it has not met the standards to which other scientific theories are held. The believers have an agenda to drown out scientists because they have weak faith. They doubt whether their beliefs will hold up against science and feel compelled to refute every facet of evolution including the existence of dinosaurs. Both camps claim to be in search of the truth. Hardy har har.

 

I firmly believe, personally, in an evolutionary process. I also see it entirely plausible that this "spark" was set of through other than random chance of chemistry and physics. Yes, it took millions of years for life to evolve-but in the geologic timeframes involved, it went from the most simple virus like objects to coherent multicelled plants and animals in a relatively short time. Heck. Why plants and animals anyway? Didn't they begin from the same chemical reactions? Why not all plants or all animals? this can go round and round.

 

I still view this whole debate as another form of the red state-blue state mentality. If one is willing to accept any ideas on faith, one is considered stupid and inferior by the other side. In order to not be a stupid and inferior nation, we must then, eliminate any concept of faith. If it can not be proven through mans scientific process, how can it hold any measure of truth.

 

Someday, someone will create actual life in a test tube. It will be heralded as proof of the scientific mindset. How will we ever know that we aren't just duplicating something someone else did 3 billion years ago?

[IUBillsFan]

Evolution or rather, natural selection, is not so easily tested in a lab because of the impossibly vast periods of time involved.  Still, you have the same problem with continental drift but no one is going on and on about it being a lousy theory.  Though continental drift can't be observed or tested easily, there is plenty of proof establishing it as a fact.  Evolution is like that.  No one doubts that bacteria change to more virulent strains in response to antibiotics.  There you have a profound change in a living thing in direct response to an environmental change threatening its survival.  Bacterial generations reproduce quickly enough to observe this in our own lifetimes.  We see fossil records of our own changes which simply occurred over a longer period of time.  Recorded human history only goes back around 5-6 thousand years ago (I haven't checked that, it is an estimate).  That covers from Sumerian scratches on tablets to the moon shot.  Neanderthals along with pretty much modern humans were living at the same time around 30,000 years ago when the neanderthals died out.  In terms of time, that is enough to cover all of recorded human history five or six times over.  That is a long time.  The australopithecus afarensis (the "Lucy" fossil you have probably heard of) is 3.2 million years old.  That is all of human history 640 times over.  Sahelanthropus Tchadensis (discovered in Chad) is 6-7 million years old so we are talking human history 1,200 times over give or take.  Is it enough time?  Yeah, it is.

 

The story of human origins is the ultimate puzzle and piece by piece we are putting it together.  What new finding might there be around the corner?  What will the final picture tell us?  Will it exclude God or simply bring us even closer to him following the clues he has given us buried in the sands?  I don't know.  I sure want to be part of the search though. 

 

I think these discoveries are literally wondrous.  It burns me that instead of being treated as such, so many are so threatened by them that more people study ways of discounting these discoveries than understanding them.

161375[/snapback]

 

So if man evolved from ape as is commonly accepted how come you don’t see it going on now? Did the evolution stop? Shouldn’t we be seeing “missing links” all the time?

 

BTW I don’t disregard evolution at all, I am a scientist by profession, but IMHO it doesn’t explain everything.

[_BiB_]

So if man evolved from ape as is commonly accepted how come you don’t see it going on now?  Did the evolution stop?  Shouldn’t we be seeing “missing links” all the time?

BTW I don’t disregard evolution at all, I am a scientist by profession, but IMHO it doesn’t explain everything.

161555[/snapback]

 

You don't read these boards much anymore, do you?

[John Adams]

So if man evolved from ape as is commonly accepted how come you don’t see it going on now?  Did the evolution stop?  Shouldn’t we be seeing “missing links” all the time?

 

BTW I don’t disregard evolution at all, I am a scientist by profession, but IMHO it doesn’t explain everything.

161555[/snapback]

 

Are you kidding? The oldest human fossil is about 160,000 years old, and the separation between man and ape (Assuming evolution is right) took place a long time before that. Evolution takes place over 1,000,000,000s of years. We are a pimple on a virus on a gnat of the ass of the elephant of time. If we see evolution happening in the short time we've been looking for it (200 years), it would be a miracle.

 

And we do see missing links all the time- just not as they happen. We see them after they happenED.

 

And we may see evolution in action more than we know- only time will tell. Living creatures that resist certain disease may be evolving.

[Mickey]

So if man evolved from ape as is commonly accepted how come you don’t see it going on now?  Did the evolution stop?  Shouldn’t we be seeing “missing links” all the time?

 

BTW I don’t disregard evolution at all, I am a scientist by profession, but IMHO it doesn’t explain everything.

161555[/snapback]

The theory of gravity doesn't explain everything either. No single theory does.

As for human evolution stopping, compare the average height and weight of human beings today with those in, say 1850, or better yet, their respective life spans. Pretty major change. That concern really is directed more at natural selection, not evolution. On that basis, we are doing just fine when it comes to survival so there has been no need to change, at least not to the extent of growing horns or something that dramatic. Further, these changes occur over millions of year, how would we see a change between humanity on tuesday and humanity on wednesday?

 

The "God of the gaps" argument is an old one. It basically says that God is the explanation for everything science can't explain. Evolution doesn't explain such and such therefore, creationism or some other divine explanation must be the answer. Our ancestors couldn't explain thunder so they put it down to the gods. We eventually learned that it wasn't the gods, one less gap for the divine to fill. Maybe that is what God is, science we haven't discovered yet.

[Mickey]

I firmly believe, personally, in an evolutionary process. I also see it entirely plausible that this "spark" was set of through other than random chance of chemistry and physics. Yes, it took millions of years for life to evolve-but in the geologic timeframes involved, it went from the most simple virus like objects to coherent multicelled plants and animals in a relatively short time. Heck. Why plants and animals anyway? Didn't they begin from the same chemical reactions? Why not all plants or all animals? this can go round and round.

 

I still view this whole debate as another form of the red state-blue state mentality. If one is willing to accept any ideas on faith, one is considered stupid and inferior by the other side. In order to not be a stupid and inferior nation, we must then, eliminate any concept of faith. If it can not be proven through mans scientific process, how can it hold any measure of truth.

 

Someday, someone will create actual life in a test tube. It will be heralded as proof of the scientific mindset. How will we ever know that we aren't just duplicating something someone else did 3 billion years ago?

161485[/snapback]

 

I don't think it is a fair leap to go from not teaching religion in science class to elimenating "any concept of faith". That is not the object here. As I have said before, there are plenty of scientists who believe in theistic evolution, an embrace of the science without rejection of the divine. Look, if I was against teaching math in art class would that mean that I reject any concept of math? The only religious opposition to evolution comes from those who believe in the literal truth of the bible which just simply cannot be squared with much, much scientific fact, not just evolution. The age of the earth is one example. Once you remove the insistence on literal truth, there is no conflict between faith and science. Politically, they need that conflict so on and on it goes.

 

How are scientists who believe in theistic evolution mocking out believers? They are believers themselves. Who is it that considers believers to be stupid and inferior? Is it the Catholic church which also subscribes to theistic evolution? The idea that there are squadrons of atheist scientists trying to prove God doesn't exist and that everyone who believes in God is a trailer park lunatic is a delusion bordering on paranoia. It ain't so. Most scientists believe in God. Your description of your own belief is essentially a recitation of theistic evolution, are you mocking out believers as stupid and inferior?

 

As for your concern that the time periods involved are not sufficient, I implore you to do more research using the links I have provided. We know of hominids, proto-humans if you will, existing 6-7 million years ago and they were themselves many times removed from the viruses you are talking about. The time periods are incomprehensibly vast.

[_BiB_]

I'm familiar with the discoveries of the pre-hominids, as well as the evidence of tool usage far prior to what anyone suspected.

 

This really doesn't have a lot to do with the surface debate. Paleontology has demonstrated that there have been evolution spurts and evolutionary lulls. Why did certain dinosaurs survive the entire Cretacious period, and man evolve from basically a crossed monkey/squirrel-like being 7 million years ago to what we have now? If science itself is to be accepted as gospel, there was a relatively very short period, I believe in the Cambrian (I'm not googling right now, GG made enough today) period, where basically aquatic life forms divested into a variety of land animals, insectia and amphibians. Rapid evolution-then followed by a relative lull, once again.

 

Following the fossil record, man went from whatever to modern in six million years. Why did many other life forms change only some, very little, or not at all?

[DC Tom]

I'm familiar with the discoveries of the pre-hominids, as well as the evidence of tool usage far prior to what anyone suspected.

 

This really doesn't have a lot to do with the surface debate. Paleontology has demonstrated that there have been evolution spurts and evolutionary lulls. Why did certain dinosaurs survive the entire Cretacious period, and man evolve from basically a crossed monkey/squirrel-like being 7 million years ago to what we have now? If science itself is to be accepted as gospel, there was a relatively very short period, I believe in the Cambrian (I'm not googling right now, GG made enough today) period, where basically aquatic life forms divested into a variety of land animals, insectia and amphibians. Rapid evolution-then followed by a relative lull, once again.

 

Following the fossil record, man went from whatever to modern in six million years. Why did many other life forms change only some, very little, or not at all?

161773[/snapback]

 

Environmental pressure, for one. It's been fairly well demonstrated that an isolated population of animals under some kind of enviromental stress (limited food supply, overpopulation, climate change) can sometimes evolve to the new conditions very rapidly. My favorite example - again - is pygmy elephants, which are speciation from "regular" elephants involving shrinking body size to local food limitations. There are others, too - carnivorous wild boar in Argentina comes immediately to mind, too. Evidence if subspeciation in South American jaguar populations. I can even cite pretty good evidence that the domestic cat has, over five thousand years of domestication, evolved from a solitary to a pack animal.

[_BiB_]

Environmental pressure, for one.  It's been fairly well demonstrated that an isolated population of animals under some kind of enviromental stress (limited food supply, overpopulation, climate change) can sometimes evolve to the new conditions very rapidly.  My favorite example - again - is pygmy elephants, which are speciation from "regular" elephants involving shrinking body size to local food limitations.  There are others, too - carnivorous wild boar in Argentina comes immediately to mind, too.  Evidence if subspeciation in South American jaguar populations.  I can even cite pretty good evidence that the domestic cat has, over five thousand years of domestication, evolved from a solitary to a pack animal.

161908[/snapback]

 

So, you are putting forth the idea that this applies to human developmental evolution?

[OGTEleven]

Environmental pressure, for one.  It's been fairly well demonstrated that an isolated population of animals under some kind of enviromental stress (limited food supply, overpopulation, climate change) can sometimes evolve to the new conditions very rapidly.  My favorite example - again - is pygmy elephants, which are speciation from "regular" elephants involving shrinking body size to local food limitations.  There are others, too - carnivorous wild boar in Argentina comes immediately to mind, too.  Evidence if subspeciation in South American jaguar populations.  I can even cite pretty good evidence that the domestic cat has, over five thousand years of domestication, evolved from a solitary to a pack animal.

161908[/snapback]

Why didn't you give me this information before I took the SATs? I missed the following question:

 

Pandas are to Jay Rosen as _______ is/are to DC Tom:

 

A) His wife

B)Pygmy Elephants

C) Chewbakka

D) The study of all sorts of crap that I don't care about.

 

I went with D. It was the only one I missed.

[DC Tom]

So, you are putting forth the idea that this applies to human developmental evolution?

161917[/snapback]

 

Why not? How about populations in the Andes? Shorter and stockier with shorter limbs than your average human stock, with increased lung capacity. Reason? Cold, thin air at altitude.

 

Not "speciation" precisely...sub-speciation at most, simple morphology at least. And not the only example, either...I can easily think of two more, and I'm dead certain that's not all of them (don't know a whole lot about anthropology). And keep in mind: homo sapiens has only been around some 40k years; there really haven't been all that many situations where any sort of environmental pressure has needed to be solved by evolution. For the most part, migration and adaptation have always been options.