The NYT quotes from the latest poll from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life,out today. Margin of error is 2.5%; sample was 2000 people; poll taken 7-17 July
42% of those polled agreed with this statement: " Living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time"
48% said that humans had evolved over time. Of those 18% said this process was "guided by a supreme being". 26% favoured " natural selection"
64% were "open to the idea of" teaching creationism alongside evolution
38% of those wanted to replace evolution by creationism.
It's the first 42% figure that intrigues. We understood over here that science was taught to every American adult as a child . Evidently not,or taught but not learned, if 42% still think that living things came fully formed from the beginning of time.Why worry about creationism or 'intelligent design' being taught now if 42% of the adults accept such a simple belief as this already, taught at school or not?
The 64% who are happy to think of creationism being taught alongside evolution plainly have that fine American sense of free speech and fair play to all arguments; everyone must have their say. One commentator quoted in the article said that creationists or 'intelligent design' supporters could always count on American culture to back them , whatever the scientific failings of their case .
Has the Pew organisation been unlucky in its sample: is this a genuine reflection of all American thought or of that in some places more than others, so making a rather deceptive 'average' ? +++++++++++++++++ 08-31-05, 11:31 AM aminator2002 I think taught but not learned.
08-31-05, 11:45 AM DorianGreyed The first one is really hard to accept. I don't have a high opinion of what the average American has learned in school, but I think another, similar poll with the same question would find a higher figure.
08-31-05, 06:47 PM frankvan "No one in this world, so far as I know- and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me- has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby". H.L Mencken
08-31-05, 09:28 PM notinmyname An informed populace is needed for a democracy. Oh dear.
09-05-05, 02:36 AM newnickname It seems that the US National Parks Service is, thanks to some recent appointees, leaning to the pseudo-scientific:
'Mr. Hoffman would explicitly allow the sale of religious merchandise, and he removes from the policy document any reference to evolution or evolutionary processes. He does everything possible to strip away a scientific basis for park management. His rules would essentially require park superintendents to subordinate the management of their parks to local and state agendas. He also envisions a much wider range of commercial activity within the parks.
In short, this is not a policy for protecting the parks. It is a policy for destroying them.
The Interior Department has already begun to distance itself from this rewrite, which it kept hidden from park service employees. But what Mr. Hoffman has given us is a road map of what could happen to the parks if Mr. Bush's political appointees are allowed to have their way.
It is clear by now that Mr. Bush has no real intention of living up to his campaign promise to fully finance the national parks...'
'...when Grand Canyon National Park superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Vail’s book [a Creationist explanation of how the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood] at canyon bookstores, he was overruled by NPS headquarters, which announced that a high-level policy review of the matter would be launched and a decision made by February, 2004. So far, no official decision has been announced.
Even worse, according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an organization that includes many Park employees, papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that no review has ever taken place. Indeed, PEER claims that the Bush Administration has already decided it will stand by its approval for the book and that hundreds more have been ordered. “Now that the book has become quite popular,” explained an NPS flack to a Baptist news agency, “we don’t want to remove it.”
Even more troubling, PEER charges that Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the age of the canyon, and that the NPS has blocked publication of guidance intended for park rangers that reminds them there is no scientific basis for creationism.'
11-08-05, 05:17 PM bunkboy Many people truly fear the addition of "intelligent design" to the curriculum.
I wonder what open-minded people have to be afraid of?
FredPuli, the theory of evolution is complete "bunk" (and I would know!). I have posted a challenge in another forum, (Religions/Agnosticism: "Making monkeys out of evolution). Perhaps you'd like to respond before you continue calling us "ignorant".
Nevertheless, the theory of evolution serves as a descent vehicle or context for teaching the sciences, and I have no objections to it continuing.
I don't believe that trying to teach intelligent design theory in schools adds anything useful. Appreciating the differences is a college-level task, and religion is best taught at home. Those who are serious about the subject should take it upon themselves to be serious enough to step up and raise their children according to their beliefs.
I am fully against adjusting any school topic on the basis of fair play and political correctness. That's not reason enough.
11-08-05, 07:17 PM Professor
quote: I wonder what open-minded people have to be afraid of?
A common ploy of creationists -- and purveyors of pseudoscience in general -- is to try to hide behind the shield of "open-mindedness." You, bunkboy, seem to have fallen for this oldest trick in the book. Perhaps the sun revolves around the earth. Possibly the earth is flat. Maybe 2+2=5. What's the matter -- don't have an open mind?
It was appropriate to be skeptical of the theory of evolution around 1859, when Darwin published his seminal work. But mountains of confirmatory evidence have been pouring in for nearly 150 years since Darwin, by biologists, geologists, geneticists, and in many other disciplines, that have nicely synthesized a comprehensive and consistent picture of the history of the diversity of life, rendering competing theories such as Larmarkism worthless and proving Biblical creationism to be patently false. Darwinism is one of the most robust and successful theories in modern science. It is the great unifying principle of all of biology. The theory of evolution is fact. Get over it and move on.
To answer your question quoted above: I am afraid of Christian fundamentalists creating false doubts about the reality of evolution in the minds of innocent children, in order to further their political agenda without any actual scientific basis for their claims.
Keep an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out. -- skeptical proverb
11-08-05, 09:24 PM bunkboy Heaven forbid anyone should hide behind the shield of open-mindedness. It would be so much easier if the government just told us what to believe and we all shouted a hearty "heil".
Do you know that your statement about your fear of Christians is similar to anti-semitic views of the last dozen centuries or so?
It's true. Christians used to say that Jews were drinking children's blood at passover (without ever actually witnessing it, of course), and the result was unfortunate violence.
It seems you are willing to make the same kind horrendous and monumentally ignorant statements. You actually believe that Christians are infiltrating the schools and filling your children up with all sorts of nonsense, even though you have probably never actually witnessed the event. That, sir, is prejudice.
Why not skip on over to the question I referenced above and see if you can clear up the whole matter for us. I posed some challenges that have gotten the best of the belivers there.
(Or perhaps the subject is too much for you?)
11-08-05, 11:04 PM newnickname
quote:
I don't believe that trying to teach intelligent design theory in schools adds anything useful.
Of course it doesn't. There isn't really any intelligent design theory, as your posts on that other thread illustrate. There, you don't tell us anything about intelligent design - you attack 'evolution'. I put evolution in quotes, because actually you set up misrepresentations of evolution, and attack them.
That's one of the reasons people fight the idea of 'intelligent design being taught' in school - it often manifests as a lie; twisted arguments against 'straw-man' parodies of the theory of evolution. Not very educational.
To borrow a couple of questions from that other thread;
'And what is the evidence for "intelligent design"? In fact, how can "intelligent design" be ojectively identified?
Michael Behe published a book some time ago, proposing the test of 'irreducible complexity', and giving some examples. The examples have been shown to fail his own test, however - all can be adequately explained by evolutionary mechanisms. Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe
We have scientific definitions of what 'evolution' is, and the evidence is in the fossil record, morphology and distribution of organisms, DNA studies and embryology.
When the writer asks for evidence for intelligent design to be presented, what lesson does he propose? "Everything's really, really complex, so some people question how it just happened." I guess that wouldn't take up too much time.'
11-09-05, 03:09 AM bunkboy Newnickname, I don't think you understand what "intelligent design" is. Perhaps you should read up on it. My posts have never addressed it or creationism, two very different disciplines.
Thank you for the easy link. I've asked very simple questions which have apparently stumped everyone at this web site.
Now that's what I call fun.
(Further rantings of attacks and misrepresentations just add to the humor. Try something new: answer the questions.)
11-09-05, 10:01 AM newnickname
quote: Try something new: answer the questions.
Here are the questions you've asked on this thread:
I wonder what open-minded people have to be afraid of? (Which was answered)
Do you know that your statement about your fear of Christians is similar to anti-semitic views of the last dozen centuries or so?
Or perhaps the subject is too much for you?
Did you really expect an answer to the last two? Your questions on the other thread have been answered, so far.
Maybe you could answer a question or two? Smile
What is the evidence for "intelligent design"? In fact, how can "intelligent design" be ojectively identified?
Your posts have addressed 'Intelligent Design'. You even use the phrase twice. On the other thread, you don't use the phrase, but your attempts to poke holes in the theory of evolution read much the same as any 'Intelligent Design' tract.
I have read up on Intelligent Design, and I agree with those that call it 'Creationism in a cheap tuxedo'. It's a US political movement designed to sneak Creationism into classrooms by stripping it of obvious references to Biblical literalism.
If you disagree, and feel I've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, please correct me - I'm open-minded and willing to listen. Smile
What is 'intelligent design theory'? What evidence supports it? How is it really different from Creationism?
11-09-05, 02:52 PM bunkboy Obviously the questions on evolution have stumped you, too, or you wouldn't be trying to divert everyone away from them.
I'm beginning to believe that ignorance is actually 48% and may be self-induced.
11-09-05, 03:30 PM newnickname Which questions have us stumped? They've all been answered, on this thread and the other one we've mentioned, so far, haven't they? (Apart from the obviously rhetorical ones, I mean.) Point out the ones that you think haven't had a satisfatory answer, explaining why it's unsatisfactory, and we'll have another shot at them.
I notice you don't even attempt to answer the questions asked of you. 'Sup? Smile
11-09-05, 03:44 PM aminator2002 Evolution is science. Understanding that science can not tell you all the answers in the world is an important thing that one learns along the way... it could even spark an interest in scientific study.
It does seem to me that Christians feel quite attacked by the theory of evolution and since it's inception have been fighting to keep their Adam and Eve story as a possibility and now this intelligent design theory. The problem is that it isn't science and it shouldn't be taught in science classes... it's religion. The science of evolution may be vulnerable to attack, I admit that I don't care enough to go into an indepth anaylsis, but this intelligent design business is definitely not scientific.
Sure I can "believe" in something, but it's impossible to deny that scientists have constructed a pretty reasonable amount of evidence to show evolution is real and legitimate as a theory. It should be studied because it isn't based on beliefs but on evidence... hence the science of it.
We all have our private beliefs about whether a God is guiding all things in the world. I can not prove or disprove anyone right or wrong. Therefore there is no science to it. There is no way to prove anything about it... unlike the great body of evidence showing that lifeforms have changed over time which indicates that life is constantly evolving. That is a theory with some scientific basis, but it of course does not answer all the questions of life.
11-09-05, 04:06 PM Sherasi I agree with Amy's statement.
I, myself, BELIEVE that evolution existed and still exists, there is an overwhelming base of evidence to support this theory. I also believe that God created the world through evolution. This part is my faith speaking because there isn't evidence. I don't think that the concepts are mutually exclusive.
11-09-05, 08:49 PM bunkboy
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Which questions have us stumped? They've all been answered, on this thread and the other one we've mentioned, so far, haven't they? (Apart from the obviously rhetorical ones, I mean.) Point out the ones that you think haven't had a satisfatory answer, explaining why it's unsatisfactory, and we'll have another shot at them.
I notice you don't even attempt to answer the questions asked of you. 'Sup? Smile
The question is:
"Why is there only one species of humanoid in the world?"
It's that simple. Yet evolutionists are tripping over each other quoting other people and really aren't thinking about what they're saying.
Not a single viable answer. Not even a single half answer. They're working really, really hard to defend their religiously held views, but the light hasn't come on.
11-09-05, 10:36 PM aminator2002 When you look at a second hand, you can see it is moving. When you look at the minute hand, perhaps a little movement is apparent. Looking at the hour hand does not allow us to see any movement.
Time is the problem here. If we look back at humanoids of the past, they are shorter, lived shorter lives and didn't understand the world all that well. The human race is pretty diverse in all fairness... sizes, colors, different hair textures, eye colors, degrees of athletic talent, intelligence... how exactly do you define "breed"?
11-09-05, 10:40 PM newnickname
quote: The question is:
"Why is there only one species of humanoid in the world?"
The answer is that other species were out-competed and/or assimilated, and thus driven to extinction. We know this kind of evolutionary event happens, there's no reason that this couldn't have happened for hominids.
Humans spread throughout the world, and drove any extant similar species to extinction. Why couldn't it have happened? We know that we've driven unsimilar species to extinction, why not our direct competitors?
Most species that have existed are extinct. There are other examples of 'single species' in the world or in their particular habitats. That there's only one species of human in our habitat (pretty much the whole planet), the others having become extinct, is not a problem in the theory of evolution.
11-10-05, 12:31 AM newnickname Ignorance is 42% Oops, sorry - as Jusork pointed out on that other thread - it's also scientifically plausible that the other species simply died out (as most species that have existed have), without our intervention.
In any event, our being the only extant species of 'homo' is not a problem for the theory of evolution.
Now can we have a crack at those other questions? Smile
What is 'intelligent design theory'? What evidence supports it? How is it really different from Creationism?
11-10-05, 02:55 AM bunkboy As far as I can see, only humans are alone in the world, and the single other species that newnickname pointed out.
There are thousands (millions? who knows) other species in the world that have managed to proliferate freely and are represented by large surviving varieties. They apparently had no problems during the calamities and competitions that drove all hominids into extinction.
I find this to be very suspicious. The theory of evolution does not sufficiently explain this condition, and so I reject it. I await better evidence.
11-10-05, 02:56 AM bunkboy
quote: What is 'intelligent design theory'? What evidence supports it? How is it really different from Creationism?
I don't support either of these disciplines. I use my own brain and arrive at my own conclusions.
It's an exhilerating experience. You should try it some time.
Feel free to post any other questions you might have. It sounds as though you want another crack at me, and I'd be more than happy to entertain.
11-10-05, 06:42 AM Sherasi I've been reading your attempts at de-bunking (if you will excuse the pun) the theory of Evolution. What I am actually wondering is what it is that you DO believe?
Do you believe Creationism is the way the world came to be? If it is, how do YOU explain all of the various fossil records of extinct species (human or otherwise)?
I've heard arguments that the world is only like 5000 years old or so and that God created the earth with all of the fossils already in place where ever they are discovered/unearthed. That makes even less sense than the idea of a single Hominid species surviving and out-competing other less adaptable Hominid "stock".
11-10-05, 08:08 AM aminator2002
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy: I find this to be very suspicious. The theory of evolution does not sufficiently explain this condition, and so I reject it. I await better evidence.
I'm fine with you rejecting it. Just allow other people to learn about it in science class to form their own opinions, and leave the study of philosophy/religion out of the science class rooms... and leave religion out of public schools. If people can agree with those guidelines then I have no problem with them. If you are going to continue to think you can persuade me to buy into an ideology that says "We have to know everything about it all right now or we just trash it." That is not the study of science and I really don't think you are interested in science anyway.
What is it that drives you to post this many times in a couple days time about this subject with not a piece of positive information about what you think?
11-10-05, 09:46 AM newnickname
quote: The theory of evolution does not sufficiently explain this condition...
Yes it does.
There's only one species of human because that's how evolution works, sometimes. Extinction and speciation are, in part, chance events. (Most species that have ever existed are extinct. Some 'living fossil' species haven't changed much at all over the years. Other species have thrived up to now, or for millions of years in the past, with much diversification.) Objecting to the chance happening that only one of a species survives at a particular moment in evolutionary time is silly - it's like objecting to the possibility of getting a good hand in poker. It happens.
We can speculate about why other hominids died out. Maybe we out-competed them, maybe we assimilated them, maybe they became extinct in the natural course of events (as various contributors have pointed out), or maybe it was a mixture of the three possibilities. In any of those cases, it's not a fatal blow to the theory of evolution that only homo sapiens survives.
Your objection to evolution, and question, seem to be based on misunderstandings - that the theory predicts that any particular species must diversify into many other species (and quickly), and that, where there are several closely related species, it's impossible for all but one of them to die out.
That's not what the theory of evolution says. It's not what the law of averages says, either - the law of averages doesn't say that remarkable things can't happen, only that they're less likely.
On the other thread you said, 'The best explanation for only a single human species in the world is that evolution doesn't happen at all.' But, as I pointed out, that's not really an explanation.
How do you think humans got here? (And did you agree, earlier on in this thread, that children should be taught the mainstream scientific account in schools?)
11-10-05, 10:51 AM babthrower Bunk wonders:
"Why is there only one species of humanoid in the world?"
I don't get it. There are lots of genuses represented by only one surviving species. Bunk talks as if it were something wonderful, and it makes him/her "suspicious". But it is quite common.
In fact, even within that minuscule subset of living things:
And of genus gorilla , only species gorilla survives. ( Mountain and Western Lowland are sub-species)
So the only family member to have more than one species surviving is the chimp family, with two surviving species, Pan paniscus (bonobo) and Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees)
Which makes having only one surviving species the norm, rather than the exception, in the family Homonidae.
11-10-05, 11:02 AM coldfuse Regarding creationism vs. evolution, folks seem to gather into two camps: the enlightened and the ignorant. The enlightened one is whichever one you happen to belong to Wink
11-10-05, 12:43 PM Professor
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: Regarding creationism vs. evolution, folks seem to gather into two camps: the enlightened and the ignorant. The enlightened one is whichever one you happen to belong to Wink
Cute. But for creationists, "enlightenment" takes about 10 seconds: Everything was created in six days exactly as it is today, as described in Genesis, and the Bible is inerrant. End of story.
For evolutionists, "enlightenment" takes a lifetime of arduous study, sifting through evidence gathered by many thousands of individual careers of careful research, judging its validity, and constantly tweaking the details to accomodate new observations.
11-10-05, 01:45 PM coldfuse Beg your pardon, Professor?
Do you really believe that theologians and some Christians do not spend thousands of hours during their lifetimes studying creationism and the findings that support it?
And what of scientists who, after a lifetime of study, conclude that creationism has merit? Or perhaps that the first law of thermodynamics puts the origins of the Universe in the hands of a Master Architect?
Robert Jastrow, one of America's leading scientists founder of NASA's Goddard Institute, concluded in "God and the Astronomers":
"Science has proven that the universe exploded into being in a certain moment. What cause produced this effect, who or what put the matter and the energy into the universe? Science can not answer these questions. For the scientist who has lived by faith and the power of reason our story ends like a bad dream. We have scaled the mountains of ignorance; we're about to conquer its highest peak, we pull ourselves over the final rock and we are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
From Albert Einstein:
"The scientist is possessed by a sense of universal causation. When you look at the complexity around us, someone had to cause it ... Such a super intellect that when you take all of the thinking minds that have ever existed, put them all together ... they were utterly insignificant in comparison."
Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics as well as with the chemistry and biology are there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. ... The numbers that one calculates from the facts seem to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion beyond question."
11-10-05, 01:48 PM newnickname I'm not sure if what the prof says is strictly true, either. Many people probably accept the neo-Darwinian theory without much thought - the same way they'd accept the advice of 'Consumer Reports', or any other 'experts' on a subject they didn't want to have to think too much about.
Is possible to imagine, too, a religious person who takes time to agonize over and work hard at reconciling the spiritual truths held in the poetic Bible story with what we can observe of the world, and at finding how to apply them in life.
Having said that, many prominent Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates simply are frauds, offering slick rhetoric that they must know to be misleading.
Coldfuse, those quotes are about the structure and 'rules' of the universe itself - not about the theory of evolution. Where Hoyle did talk about chance and evolution (the chances of 'a whirlwind in a junkyard creating a 747'), he got it wrong; evolution is not entirely about chance. Useful adaptions are retained and built on, gradually. No scientist has seriously suggested that the full complexity of life came about in one, instantaneous flash - that would be impossible, with astronomical (pun) odds against.
11-10-05, 02:19 PM babthrower The thing is, we need to make some distictions.
First of all, there is the question of how did it all begin -- life, the multiverse, everything.
Science does not address this because it is outside of the frame. It may be that someday it will be inside of the frame, but now it isn't. Science can speculate, of course, just like you and I. But the nature of the problem is not one that the scientific method can handle.
So evolution theory does not say whether god exists or doesn't exist. That's why so many theists are able to accept evolution theory. They just accept that if god wanted to create life using the method of evolution, then far be it for them to deny that he has that power.
But the 7-day creationists are a different kettle of fish. They believe in the literal 7 day (24-hour, 1 rotation of the earth day, not day used metaphorically to represent an eon or an age, for which there was no word).
Which is also fine. As long as these two classes of theists tolerate each other, there is no problem.
Here is where the problem arises. The more fiery-eyed of the literal 7-day creationists want their religious theory taught in the schools as if it were science.
In order to do that, they must introduce a lot of religion into the scenario.
Now if it were just a case of the biology teacher saying, "Some people believe divinity/ies created the universe. Science doesn't know," there would still be no problem. This is just a sociological fact.
But these creationists want a very narrow and limited view, their own, with no mention of other beliefs, and taught as if it were a robust theory such as the theory of evolution, and taught as if it were fact.
And as the students look at the data in the rocks, the very questions that caused early geologists to question the 7-day creation will enter their minds. And here other religious dogmas will be shoehorned into the curriculum. If the earth is about 5 thousand years old, how is it that marine fossils appear on mountaintops in the rock strata concurrent with the temples of ancient Greece? Between the time of the flood and the time these temples were built, mud became compressed into limestone?
Some religious theorists say the devil put the fossils there to tempt man's mind away from god. Will this be taught in the schools, too, to counteract the students' natural tendency to question data?
Religion is religion, and its method of learning truth is direct enlightenment by a divine being, or beings. This truth, some of them believe, is far superior to what their senses and their reason tells them.
Other religious people believe god gave them senses and reason for them to use. These people do not fear to follow the methods of experiment, theory formation, theory validation (or invalidation), and conclusion -- which are themselves subject to re-evaluation. These latter, though religious, do not want religion taught as science in the schools.
************ P.S. I'm just as opposed to unrobust thoeries such as the various cosmogonies about which some scientists speculate being taught as 'fact' in the schools. But that's another story.
11-10-05, 03:35 PM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: ...Coldfuse, those quotes are about the structure and 'rules' of the universe itself - not about the theory of evolution....
You are right, of course. I have expanded the topic a bit, as I can't imagine any discussion of creationism that does not ultimately intersect with other theories about the origins of the universe.
My own "thought evolution" is not unique. When considering the small but useful differences between races, and changes in physiology that may have occured over time, it is apparent that adaptations and mutations are at work. That someone from the creation camp would believe we are exactly as we have always been is, to me, very narrow. If these mechanisms were put into place by an Almighty, then the brilliance should not go unnoticed! Equally confusing are the giant leaps often taken by evolutionists to plug the holes in their theories.
The truth may actually lie somewhere in between - not a compromise position, but one with realistic possibilities. It seems to me that some blending of science and theology may be prudent as tomorrow's researchers are schooled today. It's a shame that the two camps are at such odds with one another.
11-10-05, 03:39 PM newnickname I think it's mostly in the US that there's such polarisation (and maybe also in areas of Islamic fundamentalism). In general, most scientists in the world are religious in some degree, and most religious people have accomodated the theory of evolution into their cosmology.
11-10-05, 03:58 PM bunkboy
quote: What is it that drives you to post this many times in a couple days time about this subject with not a piece of positive information about what you think?
Seriously, all I did is post an answer, and the floodgates opened. I try to respond to anyone who comments on my answers, and to my chagrin, the floodgates just open wider.
I have no problem defending my views, mostly because I have no problem being challenged and improving my views.
Nobody has actually asked about my own views until now, without the danger of going way off topic. So I found it necessary to start other topics to respond to them.
(With that, stand back, something just hit the fan!)
11-10-05, 04:00 PM bunkboy
quote: Your objection to evolution, and question, seem to be based on misunderstandings - that the theory predicts that any particular species must diversify into many other species (and quickly), and that, where there are several closely related species, it's impossible for all but one of them to die out.
Just a slight correction:
I don't care if evolution requires or doesn't require diversity.
I know that reproduction produces diversity, and the theory of evolution must adjust to explain it or get chucked. Diversity happens with ALL living things, and humans can't be held up as an exception without a competant explanation.
"Quickly" is irrelavent. Try the terms "simultaneous" and "world-wide".
11-10-05, 04:03 PM bunkboy
quote: ...and that, where there are several closely related species, it's impossible for all but one of them to die out.
I never said impossible. What I said is that the odds are enormously against the extinction of not just one species but EVERY SINGLE STAGE that humans supposedly passed through.
Sorry, it doesn't make it through the "bunk-filter".
You have a long way to go before you can explain that one.
11-10-05, 04:08 PM bunkboy
quote: On the other thread you said, 'The best explanation for only a single human species in the world is that evolution doesn't happen at all.' But, as I pointed out, that's not really an explanation.
Finally, you understand. I don't seek to explain evolution because I've chucked it.
The best explanation for the existance of only one human species is that there has been only one throughout time, and there are only two possible sources for a species of such higher complexity than anything else in nature:
1) We have always existed throughout time 2) We have a progenator as complex as us. (And for that you have to bring God down to human level and personalize him as a father. Believe it or not, this is a very difficult thing for Creationists to do. They would rather go to incredible lengths trying to explain around it instead of just saying "dad".)
11-10-05, 04:09 PM bunkboy
quote: Just allow other people to learn about it in science class to form their own opinions, and leave the study of philosophy/religion out of the science class rooms... and leave religion out of public schools.
quote: (And did you agree, earlier on in this thread, that children should be taught the mainstream scientific account in schools?)
Evolution is an excellent vehicle for teaching the sciences.
That's what I said.
Relgion is too personal to be handled properly in public schools. I would never want a state religion or an imposed belief system, or even a publicly recommended belief system.
These things belong at home where they are the most meaningful.
11-10-05, 04:22 PM FredPuli Bunkboy, what colour and body form did the first homo sapiens have ? Was he tall and fair like many Norwegians or tall and black like a Tutsi man ? Was he hairy like an Ainu man or sparse of body hair like most inhabitants of Japan?
Is it pure chance that natives of Africa have heavily pigmented skin and many active sweat glands compared to the natives of Northern, colder, darker places? Such natives seem to be well adapted for their respective climates since the dark skin would restrict beneficial effects of the sun's rays and so vitamins, in a place which was commonly dark and conversely the fair skin might prove a danger to its owner in a place of constant, intense sun. And a bit of extra sweat wouldn't go amiss in heat, either.
Do you suppose this variants occurred through evolution and the steady adaptation of the people to the local conditions or do you think it pure chance? Or is it all evidence of some Intelligent Designer's intervention?
**************** 11-10-05, 04:42 PM bunkboy Ignorance is 42% The first Homo-sapiens had all of the physical characteristics that differentiate him (or her) from homo erectus or homo habilis.
The superficial traits you mentioned (color and form) don't matter, since these vary in every species. The traits that matter are number of teeth, presance of a sagital crest, presance of an opposable thumb on the hands but not on the feet, a centered spinal column under the skull, a small mandible and large cranium.
These characteristics are shared by ALL homo-sapiens-sapiens, and they are not shared by the other earlier hominids.
For example, australopithicine hominids had a very pronounced mandible, a very small cranium, and some had a true sagital crest. Their skulls pivoted on a rear-situated spine rather than turning on a centered spine. They also had varying numbers of teeth. (All homo-sapiens-sapiens have 36--it is 36, right?)
That's what makes them different species.
And since their genes (the ones producing these characteristics) are not in our gene pool (meaning there are no humans reported as having them--I'm guessing here), I automatically assume that they were not my ancestors.
11-10-05, 04:50 PM bunkboy
quote: Do you suppose this variants occurred through evolution and the steady adaptation of the people to the local conditions or do you think it pure chance? Or is it all evidence of some Intelligent Designer's intervention?
The changes are due to evolution and a little chance. Yes, I believe that to a certain extent (you explained about half, you left out migration to suitable climbs.)
I just don't believe that the species homo-sapiens-sapiens, has ever had ancestors of a different species, and I don't believe that subtle changes necessarily must imply major changes over long periods. That is nothing but a leap of faith.
11-10-05, 05:23 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy:
quote: Do you suppose this variants occurred through evolution and the steady adaptation of the people to the local conditions or do you think it pure chance? Or is it all evidence of some Intelligent Designer's intervention?
The changes are due to evolution and a little chance. Yes, I believe that to a certain extent (you explained about half, you left out migration to suitable climbs.)
So if these changes are " due to evolution and a little chance" do you admit that there must once have been a homo sapiens which is the common ancestor of all these variants, these changed forms ?
If so then what form did it have ? Could it have been smaller, more like the extinct species of hominid we know of ? Why should it evolve to be more suited to where it is found in Africa or Lapland, black skin, white skin and all but not have evolved to have a given number of teeth, for example? Why should it not have evolved from some common ancestor itself, one it shares with other lines? Do you accept, for example, that there was a common ancestor for cats and dogs?
11-10-05, 06:54 PM frankvan The fact of the matter is that most of us are limited in our knowledge of both evolution and intelligent design. But not being an expert in either discipline doesn't prevent one from forming an opinion as to which seems persuasive and which does not. My experience in life is that one should listen to the evidence presented and , taking into consideration the objectivity and qualifications of the proponent, arrive at an opinion. In the case of evolution versus intelligent design it seems obvious that the preponderance of the evidence lies with the evolutionists. The creationists, sofar as I can tell, do not offer any evidence other than everything that exists had a pre-existing cause, therefore man would not exist unless some intelligent creator designed it that way. In order to accept that line of reasoning I would have to believe that because there is no effect without a pre-existing cause, I must posit that the creator either existed without a prior cause or that the universe did. I elect to choose the one I can see to the one I have never seen and about which there is little consensus.
I agree with coldfuse that there are theologians and some christians, muslims, jews, theists, etc. who have studied and devoted years of research through the scriptures and relics, and observations. And rather than dismiss them as professor does, I tend to believe that there are also very learned and dedicated scholars who devote a lifetime to the pursuit of vindication of their own superstitions and egoes. " A 2004 Harris poll on religion is instructive. Ninety percent of adult Americans professed a belief in God. More interesting, half believe in ghosts, nearly one-third believe in astrology and more than one-fourth believe that they were reincarnated from other people. Two-thirds believe in the devil and hell (but very few expect that they will go there themselves)." The degree of plausibility I attach to any of the theistic arguments is that to be believable shouldn't there be some agreement, some unanimity? Until there is more than is evident at present, why not reserve judgement in favor of science. Science is not engraved in stone or written in "holy books" ( which also and invariably contain prescribed codes of conduct for pleasing or placating a creator). Science is subject at all times to be disproved or corrected and adjusted to conform to all scientific knowledge.
I'm willing to concede that just because I haven't found any evidence for the existence of a creator, doesn't mean that there isn't one, or several. If one claims to have witnessed miraculous occurences, as seem to be happening less frequently or spectacularly than in past centuries, they can hardly NOT believe. Perhaps it's just something lacking in me. I have no quarrel with those who believe in a supreme being or creationism, I just object to the admixture of religion and science in the public schools, regardless of Pat Robertson IMHO
11-10-05, 07:34 PM newnickname
quote: I don't care if evolution requires or doesn't require diversity.
I know that reproduction produces diversity, and the theory of evolution must adjust to explain it or get chucked. Diversity happens with ALL living things, and humans can't be held up as an exception without a competant explanation.
Evidently you do care, as one of the premisses of your famous question is that the theory of evolution predicts a diversity of human-like species when in fact there is only one.
The theory of evolution does explain how only one of a species can be extant, as has been explained ad nauseum.
To run through it one more time. Speciation is a chance event. The advantageous variations that eventually lead to it are chance and rare events. There's no necessity in the theory for them to happen at all. A species often (usually) fails eventually to adapt to changing conditions and dies out. It takes a long time for new species to evolve, and modern humans haven't been widespread enough for long enough for new species to appear.
(There were other species of hominid, they were either our direct ancestors or - for the various reasons alread explained - became extinct.)
Humans are not an exception. There are many 'single species' out there - even close relatives of ours, as Babs points out.
If you feel that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the 'single species' status of humans, then we have to conclude that you don't really (want to) understand the theory.
quote: I don't believe that subtle changes necessarily must imply major changes over long periods.
That's interesting. Why wouldn't many small, cumulative changes add up to a big change over time? That's the boringly logical, down-to-earth, common sense view. No faith required. Of course, if you believe that the world was created yesterday (in geological terms) I can see how you'd think there hasn't been enough time - but otherwise, what mechanism would call a halt to the ongoing process of change when 'enough' changes had happened?
11-11-05, 01:29 PM bunkboy
quote: So if these changes are " due to evolution and a little chance" do you admit that there must once have been a homo sapiens which is the common ancestor of all these variants, these changed forms ?
Yes, I do believe this, but I also believe there is not enough information to support it. I'm sure that this particular belief will be challenged, and I won't commit to it.
I'm not prone to jumping to conclusions just because they sound good. Nature is full of surprises, and this is not the only possible explanation. You have to be open-minded at least enough to admit when you're data is lacking.
11-11-05, 01:32 PM bunkboy
quote: If so then what form did it have ? Could it have been smaller, more like the extinct species of hominid we know of ?
I am becoming convinced that the form was homo-sapiens-sapiens, mostly because all other avenues of reasoning are falling so far short of the mark of viable explanation.
I have a very different view of how evolution actually works, based mostly on the numbers, and I'm not willing to discuss it here, since it is on the verge of being raised in another thread in the biology forum (see Sherasi's questions to bunkboy, I can't remember which one).
11-11-05, 01:40 PM bunkboy
quote: The fact of the matter is that most of us are limited in our knowledge of both evolution and intelligent design. But not being an expert in either discipline doesn't prevent one from forming an opinion as to which seems persuasive and which does not. My experience in life is that one should listen to the evidence presented and , taking into consideration the objectivity and qualifications of the proponent, arrive at an opinion.
This is both an ideal and a discipline. No one can actually just do it. You have to train yourself to see evidence without bias.
11-11-05, 01:44 PM bunkboy
quote: I agree with coldfuse that there are theologians and some christians, muslims, jews, theists, etc. who have studied and devoted years of research through the scriptures and relics, and observations. And rather than dismiss them as professor does, I tend to believe that there are also very learned and dedicated scholars who devote a lifetime to the pursuit of vindication of their own superstitions and egoes.
I reject this on the grounds that the opinions of experts in almost every field are constantly changing and shifting, especially with theoretical disciplines such as religion and evolution.
There is more reliability with the exact sciences, biology, chemistry, etc., and expert opinions are actually based on incidents that can be repeated or predicted on demand.
For that reason, I accept doriangrey's research into "speciation" almost without reservation. His sources are sound and explained as fully as they need to be.
11-11-05, 01:47 PM bunkboy
quote: The degree of plausibility I attach to any of the theistic arguments is that to be believable shouldn't there be some agreement, some unanimity?
Not for me, for two reasons:
--Theists will never agree --Theism depends more on maturity and intuition than on something tangible or predictable or demonstrable.
I therefore reject all theistic arguments as unreliable.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
There is more reliability with the exact sciences, biology...
You feel that the science of evolution is somehow seperate from the science of biology? ++++++++++++++++++ 11-11-05, 01:57 PM bunkboy
quote: There are many 'single species' out there - even close relatives of ours, as Babs points out.
And every time you point one out, you're supporting my view that evolution has ever actually taken place.
You're not good with numbers, are you?
11-11-05, 01:59 PM bunkboy
quote: Why wouldn't many small, cumulative changes add up to a big change over time?
Because I'm not a sucker. I don't make leaps of faith like this. You're welcome to believe this without proof if you choose, but I don't.
I've got to see it.
11-11-05, 02:03 PM bunkboy
quote: You feel that the science of evolution is somehow seperate from the science of biology?
My goodness. You actually think that evolution is a science?
It is a theory, a way of explaining our world. Many sciences contribute, but evolution itself is not a science.
Your belief is very similar to the belief of Christians that the Bible is the Word of God. You swallow it all without challenging it.
Some Christians are offended when I tell them that the Bible is not the Word, even after I point out that John said the "Word" was a person, not a book. I take this to mean that I'm rocking the foundation of the beliefs upon which they base their existance.
I hope I'm not offending you in the same way.
11-11-05, 05:00 PM newnickname
quote: My goodness. You actually think that evolution is a science?
It is a theory, a way of explaining our world. Many sciences contribute, but evolution itself is not a science.
Are you saying that science isn't about theories that explain our world? How would you define 'science'? What would you put in a science curriculum, once you'd taken out all the theories?
"The Earth goes around the Sun. Don't ask why; that's not science - that's a theory. It just does."
11-11-05, 06:19 PM babthrower What distinguishes science from other intellectual pursuits is its method.
Science derives from Greek word meaning to know; but it is how we come to believe we know something that distinguishes modern science.
The scientific method always involves theories. Theories are hypotheses that have been tested in the fire, and have passed all tests to date.
Example: Einstein stated the hypothesis that gravity affects light particles. But it couldn't be tested at the time. Later, a solar eclipse allowed observers to see the apparent shifting of position of the star vega, which was on 'the other side' of the eclipsed sun. The shift was explained by the effect of gravity on Vega's light. This supported the hypotheses. With enough support, a hypothesis graduates to become a theory. To make a prediction like that, and have it verified, is considered strong support.
Of course in the everyday sense, any notion to explain any phenomenon can be called a theory.
Reporter: "What is your theory to explain Jack Sprat's death?"
G.D. "His wife killed him. She fed him nothing but lean meat, and he starved to death."
The Great Detective's theory is based on heresay, and not supported by data that anyone can go and check.
That a god or gods created the universe, life, and everything, is a theory. There are many creation theories, all different, and their weakness is they cannot be tested.
Each and every supporter of each and every theory of creation has the same evidence:
"Well, we're here, aren't we? How else do you explain that?"
Trouble with those theories is that they're all different. Some say the god created the world out of mud; others say the god and godess had human children. Yet they all call on the same supporting data: we're here. So you can't test any of those theories to see which is really, really true. But we also can't falsify them. We can't prove that we are not the children of an original pair of gods.
They're not scientific theories. Scientific theories can be tested. Or they can be falsified. If they can't be tested or falsified, they belong to the looser class of theories, unscientific theories.
Some scientific theories are harder to test than others. The reasons can include that time is a factor. Human life is short; the life of the universe is long. We can't observe the passing of geologic ages. But we can use reason, such as:
There is evidence that the Egyptian pyramids wew built beginning about 2600 B.C.E., or about 4600 years ago.
If we look at the area now, we see that there has been little geologic change over that time. The pyrimids have not been buried under masses of rock, and crushed to powder.
If we want to see if it's feasible that Noah's flood happened about 5,000 years ago, then how do we explain the fossils in the rocks atop some of earth's highest mountains? The theory that there was a world-wide flood in the time of Noah is inconsistent with the data in the rocks, along with cultural information.
*********** So:
When we want to check on a theory which is NOT based on data that can be reconstructed in a lab, we can figure out how well it explains the data that we know.
It is in this sense that evolution theory has been so widely accepted. It illuminates the process by which life changed over the eons better than any other explanation.
The kind of religion which wants to be taught as science gets its theories from the claims of men long dead who told us they got it straight from the gods. Sort of reminiscent of David Koresh et al.
The kind of religion which knows what it is, and what it is for, believes that a god or gods created everything, but did not literally explain to a bunch of shepherds just exacly how it was done. This kind of religion concerns itself with values and goodness, worship of the god, and learning about the natural world by examining it, using the brains their god gave them for the purpose. This kind of religion does not try to pretend it is science. It values itself for what it is, and for what it does.
11-12-05, 02:40 AM bunkboy Some will go out of their way to elevate the theory of their choice to a "science" simply because it's comfortable to do so and terribly uncomfortable not to.
Sounds like the rationale behind creationism to me.
11-12-05, 10:02 AM newnickname I'd call the theory of evolution science because it's a falsifiable explanation and description of the natural world, based on the scientific method - systematic observation of the natural world, and logical thought.
Creationism is not a science because it is based on divinely revealed knowledge, and it is not falsifiable (any problem with the explanation can be covered by, "That's just how God wants it.") It involves the supernatural, metaphysical world. That doesn't make it 'wrong', necessarily, but it it's not science.
m-w.com defines science as a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
James Randi says, "Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence."
How would you define 'science'?
11-12-05, 12:03 PM babthrower Bunk sez:
"Some will go out of their way to elevate the theory of their choice to a "science" simply because it's comfortable to do so and terribly uncomfortable not to. Sounds like the rationale behind creationism to me."
Well, that explains why you wouldn't want creationism taught as a science.
But how do you define what you would want in the science curriculum?
11-13-05, 12:41 AM bunkboy 60-70% or more of learning takes place at home. Schools do nothing more than offer the structured academics that finish off an education with breadth that parents can't always offer.
(I'm assuming that parents don't neglect their duty to educate their children.)
I'm not really sure I care what a school includes in the sciences, as long as he gets hands-on in the labs (chemistry, biology and physics) and lots of variety. The more exposure he gets to new things, the more chances I have to see where my children will excel. When I have an idea of where their talents lie and what interests them, I know where to push.
It is also imperative that primary and secondary curriculums prepare children for college, which of course includes the discipline of studying.
I don't get hung up on the minutia because I'm confident that my wife and I will be the primary sources of their survival skills. All of them will learn the industries that we have already mastered, so school is just a bonus. Beyond that, we both consider it much more important to learn how to remain stable in life and how to build things that last.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 01-11-07 01:43 AM
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
100% of learning takes place in the environment, whatever that may be. When we send children to school, we hope to expose them to a wider field of experience than their mothers or babysitters can give them at home, even supplemented by the dutiful dad who spends his evenings after work educating his children. Teaching them everything he knows.
"Schools do nothing more than offer the structured academics that finish off an education with breadth that parents can't always offer."
Bunk trivializes the function of the school. Perhaps he harkens back to the 'good old days' before the theory of evolution existed, a sort of little-house-on-the-prairie world in which Ma and Pa taught the kids all they knew about hewing wood and drawing water and raising crops. Racism, slavery and sexism were fine, because they got all their notions of justice and of how the state works from the Old Testament.
A nice romantic notion, perhaps, but not suited to today's world in which even old methods of agriculture are not nearly sufficient to feed the world's population at a subsistence level.
But it gets worse. Bunk says:
"I'm not really sure I care what a school includes in the sciences, as long as he gets hands-on in the labs (chemistry, biology and physics) and lots of variety."
So Bunk doesn't have a definition of science. Doesn't trouble to look it up in the dictionary. But he has the notion that 'hands-on in the labs' is somehow free of the suspect field of theory.
Let's look briefly at this 'hands-on in the (physics) lab'. Newton (1643-1727) explained the behavior of the planets as they move around the sun in terms of 'laws' of motion.
I wonder how he figured that out? Until his time, everyone thought -- because that's what it says in the bible -- that the sun, moon and stars rotate around the earth which was created first and which is the centre of the universe.
He looked at the problem and realized that the previously incomprehensible motion of the planets could be understood much more easily if the sun (instead of the earth) were the center of the planetary system.
So he arrived at that theory: the sun is the centre of the solar system.
Then he went ahead and did the math -- in fact invented calculus. His mathematical calculations form the basis of what we call his 'laws' of motion. His calculations support his theory of the solar system. His theory worked beautifully to predict the motions of the planets and the positions of the stars as seen from earth.
So that which we have called a 'law' is in fact a theory. It is a theory of motion expressed mathematically. And it has since been found to be only generally true. But it was held to be true and adequate until the 20th century, when study of particles led to other theories about space, gravity and motion.
This is a key feature of science. When some data (in the case of gravity and motion, the behavior of sub-atomic particles) shows a theory to be false or inadequate, science will discard that theory without a backward glance.
This is completely different from the attitude in fundamentalist religion, in which believers cling to obviously ridiculous notions simply because they were once written down in a book the believer has been taught since earliest childhood to believe contains only sacred truths.
So are Bunk's children really safe in the that physics lab, getting 'hands-on' knowledge? I fear not; they would inevitably have their tender and thus-far innocent psyches exposed to -- theories!
The formation of theories to explain phenomena is an intrinsic part of science. Without theories -- no science. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-13-05, 03:35 PM bunkboy
quote: How does the dictionary definition of 'science' exclude the theory of evolution?
Adherants to the theory of evolution automatically filter evidence and observations that don't fit the theory.
This makes evolution more a religious discipline than scientific.
Creationists use sciences in the same way as others, but they filter in the same way.
Science itself has no point to prove and no agenda. Only when you allow evidence to lead wherever it wills without your manipulation can you elevate yourself to the grand status of "scientist".
Everything else is a pseudo-science.
11-13-05, 03:39 PM bunkboy I'm not really interested in responding to babthrower's posts (sometimes people don't make it through the bunk filter).
However, it's worth pointing out that she appears to be replacing parents with schools. When schools attempt to replace parents, or when parents abdicate to the schools, children loose their greatest resource.
Parents teach their children, for better or worse, it's only a question of quality.
I personally don't need schools to teach my children. My wife and I are already home schooling, and they haven't reached school age yet. Letters and numbers are learned by 18 months, sciences are introduced at age 3, math at age 4, etc. Our goal is for our children to enter school with as few apprehensions as possible. Being familiar with the subjects will help in that regard.
I recognize the advantage of schools and I intend to use them.
11-13-05, 05:28 PM babthrower
quote: I'm not really interested in responding to babthrower's posts (sometimes people don't make it through the bunk filter).
And we understand the principle of Bunk's bunkfilter!
11-13-05, 05:54 PM GarColga Hey there's a couple of posts missing! Karrow - go outside and play.
11-13-05, 06:06 PM Karrow I'd much rather go and play outside than waste my limited time editing and deleting posts as I've had to do this weekend Gar. Wink
11-13-05, 06:32 PM methos
quote: Until his time, everyone thought -- because that's what it says in the bible -- that the sun, moon and stars rotate around the earth which was created first and which is the centre of the universe.
He looked at the problem and realized that the previously incomprehensible motion of the planets could be understood much more easily if the sun (instead of the earth) were the center of the planetary system.
So he arrived at that theory: the sun is the centre of the solar system.
Not so. By the time Newton came into the story, the scientific communtity had already accepted the heliocentric model.
Copernicus got the ball rolling. Although, in fairness, Copernicus was not the first to conceive of a heliocentric solar system, he showed that the Earth moving could explain planetary retrograde without resorting to epicycles required by Ptolemy's astronomy (which fit with Aristotle's physics). Copernicus's theory was more elegant in a sense, but epicycles were still necessary to model the exact motions of the planets.
Galileo 's observations of imperfections in the moon and moons circling other planets dealt a further blow to Aristotle's physics (and Ptolemy's astronomy), which supposed that the heavens were perfect (no craters allowed) and everything circled the Earth (no non-Earth moons allowed). He also demonstrated that Aristotle's laws for motion on Earth were wrong.
Kepler cast off the Aristotelian idea that neither Copernicus nor Galileo had been able to shake - the idea of perfect circular motion. By realizing that the planets actually travel in ellipses, Kepler was able to model the motions of the planets without resorting to epicycles - coming up with equations that accurately described planetary orbits. Kepler tried to come up with the underlying mechanism, but his ideas on the subject led to predictions that failed.
Somewhere between Galileo's Starry Messenger and Newton's entering Cambridge, the heliocentrism took hold - Newton and his peers accepted the theory.
Newton's contribution was to take Galileo's laws for motion on Earth and Kepler's laws for the motions of the planets and to realize that they were based on the same underlying laws - the laws of motion and gravity that Newton derived.
11-13-05, 07:15 PM newnickname
quote: Adherants to the theory of evolution automatically filter evidence and observations that don't fit the theory.
What observations and evidence don't fit the theory?
11-13-05, 08:07 PM babthrower Meth says: "Newton and his peers accepted the theory."
Of course. Just as today biologists accept the theory of evolution.
We must distinguish here between the scientific community and the general community -- 'everybody'.
It is pointless to mention that early Greeks spoke of a heliocentric system. Their views were completely repressed in Western Europe (even though the Arabs continued to consider them). The official Western Christian view was established by the Scholastic philosophers with reference to Aristotle, who believed the geocentric theory. This view was staunchly reinforced by the Inquisition.
Even Martin Luther, the first 'successful' protestant, in his work Tischreden , said:
"There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."
In 1556 Calvin in Commentory on Genesis condemned those who asserted that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. Referring to the first verse of the ninety-third Psalm:
"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved".
Calvin asked, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"
In 1600 Giordano Bruno, a famous Italian philosopher who had espoused Copernicanism and an infinite universe, was tried by the Inquisition and burned. In his book he had argued that the scriptures were written to teach morals but not to teach astronomy.
1687 Newton published "Mathematica Principia".
Galileo's Dialogue remained on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (See. def.)
and was not removed from that list until 1822.
The point as it relates to this thread is that theory is an essential part of science. If the veiw of the scientific community were all that mattered, we would not be discussing here whether creationism should be taught as science in the schools.
11-13-05, 10:26 PM methos My point was merely that Newton did not come up with theory of a heliocentric solar system - it was what was taught at Cambridge by the time he got there.
Luther's comment referred specifically to Copernicus, who would be a more appropriate choice in the earlier post. Of course, as you suggest, Newton would be a good analogy for more modern-day biologists working on evolution - someone working out the underlying cause for or implications of an idea that is accepted by the scientific community but has met popular resistance.
11-13-05, 11:41 PM Professor Carl Sagan, in The Pale Blue Dot, had a chapter entitled "The Great Demotions." At the dawn of science, the Earth was shockingly found not to be at the center of the universe. But it might still be the only world. Then Galileo's telescope revealed that "the moon and the planets showed that they had as much claim to being worlds as the Earth does..." Still, some hoped, even if the Earth isn't at the center of the universe, the Sun is; so Earth is approximately at the center of the universe.
But by the 19th Century, observational astronomy made it clear that the sun is just one of billions of suns in the Milky Way galaxy. Then we realized we are in an undistinguished sector of an obscure spiral arm some 30,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. Well then, might our galaxy at least be at the center of the universe? No, there are more galaxies beyond our own than there are stars in our galaxy! Well then, at least we are unique in having planets around our Sun? Wrong again! Moreover we don't even occupy a central position in time -- the universe is far older than our own solar system, which will one day die while the rest of the universe continues on. And Einstein showed there isn't even anything special about our motion. And so it goes... "The great demotions" of man.
Meanwhile Darwin put our species into perspective with respect to all other living things. The late, great evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his early essays anthologized in Ever Since Darwin, discussed the conflict between "ladders" and "bushes" as metaphors of evolutionary change. The ladder is the popular picture of evolution as a continuous sequence of ancestors and descendants, beginning with the most primitive organisms and ending with man at the top-most rung, the pinnacle, the crowning glory in the pageant of evolution, a metaphor that has controlled most evolutionary thinking. Instead, Gould argued, the "bush" metaphor is more apt: branches with more branching branches, placing humans somewhere at the tip of one of these many branches of the bush -- but nowhere special. Another great demotion.
The point of all of this is that the Creationist view, making man the apple of God's eye, a special and favored species in a special and favored place, has been utterly erased by scientific findings. Even if you accept Darwinism, it would be a mistake to think that the whole apparatus has operated over the eons with humans as some kind of end product. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, we are no more important than any other living species, however humble in our eyes.
Obviously we are smarter. So smart that we have self-awareness, culture, language, and -- yes, even AnswerPool where we can reflect on it. We are perhaps special in that sense. But our big brains are more-or-less an accident of evolution.
For those with deeply held religious views, it should give pause.
11-13-05, 11:56 PM newnickname Interesting post, Prof. You mentioned self-awareness. Our consciousness, which does seem to be unique (although gorillas and chimps apparently demonstrate a capacity for abstract thought) is something Creationists don't mention much, but it's something special about humans that the theory of evolution can't really explain.
Well, nothing can explain it - we can barely define 'consciousness' - but if I wanted to push biologist's buttons, I think my tactic of choice (rather than the usual, well-worn Creationist rhetoric) would be to keep asking. "What about consciousness, eh? Explain that, can you? How'd that happen? What's it for in evolutionary terms?"
If bigger brains reliably resulted in greater reproductive success we ought to see many more of them (in the fossil record and alive today) than we do. There must be constraints that strictly limit the evolution of larger brains. What are these constraints? And what are the environmental and selective pressures that allow or favour such a costly piece of anatomy? www.robinprior.net
11-14-05, 12:45 AM Professor The irony is that religion itself can be regarded as a relic of our own evolutionary biology. Skeptic Michael Shermer (who has a monthly column in Scientific American), writing in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, suggests the term "belief engine" to describe our brain's unique adaptive problem-solving computational abilities that evolved from our hunter-gatherer ancestors. "[U]nder certain conditions it leads to magical thinking while under different circumstances it leads to scientific thinking." He goes on to say (p.38):
quote:
Humans evolved to be skilled pattern-seeking creatures. Those who were best at finding patterns (standing upwind of game animals is bad for the hunt, cow manure is good for the crops) left behind the most offspring. We are their descendants.
Later he says:
quote:
We have magical thinking and superstitions because we need critical thinking and pattern-seeking. The two cannot be separated. Magical thinking is...a necessary by-product of the evolved mechanism of causal thinking.
As for the phenomena of consciousness and free will: I have read many esteemed authors on the subject, looking at it from all angles: quantum physics, neurobiology, psychology, artificial intelligence, etc. In the end everyone seems to throw up their hands and admit that it is fundamentally mysterious, inexplicable, and paradoxical. But I'm optimistic: perhaps one day it will all be obvious. 11-14-05, 12:47 AM babthrower My hunch is that the edge the brain gives us is a simple one. It allows a basically ill-designed creature -- weak back, can't run very fast, no impressive fangs or claws -- to use strategy (1) in hunting and (2) in stuggles with other groups of its own kind.
Of the latter type, clearly more humans would die than would live. But the survivors would fine-tune their skills even more in future generations.
But what happens when we get just a bit too good at manipulating our environment for purposes of strategy? We may be about to find that out.
11-14-05, 01:03 AM babthrower Methos, you were right that my account was oversimplified. For example, I didn't mention that both Leibnitz and Descartes had done work preceding Newton in the development of calculus.
However I simplified in order to make my point as concisely as possible, and I think that you understand that.
Similarly, people often say that Darwin is the author of the theory of evolution. But we know that the idea was floating around with credits due to Lamarcke, Wallace and even Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin, for at least sixty years before the publication of Origin of Species.
But it is fair that we credit Newton and C. Darwin respectively. Both Mathematica Principia and Origin of Species were great works of scholarship and science, and overshadowed their forerunners.
11-14-05, 07:30 AM methos I'm all for simplification, but only when it remains accurate. Giving Newton credit for heliocentricity is a bit like giving Gould credit for evolution.
I have never once heard Newton given credit for casting off geocentricity. He had no need to since it would have been what he was taught.
11-15-05, 03:23 PM Professor I know that this is so last-week, but I'd like to set some things straight after getting myself into trouble:
quote: Orginally posted by Professor: But for creationists, "enlightenment" takes about 10 seconds: Everything was created in six days exactly as it is today, as described in Genesis, and the Bible is inerrant. End of story.
For evolutionists, "enlightenment" takes a lifetime of arduous study, sifting through evidence gathered by many thousands of individual careers of careful research, judging its validity, and constantly tweaking the details to accomodate new observations.
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: Beg your pardon, Professor?
Do you really believe that theologians and some Christians do not spend thousands of hours during their lifetimes studying creationism and the findings that support it?
And what of scientists who, after a lifetime of study, conclude that creationism has merit? Or perhaps that the first law of thermodynamics puts the origins of the Universe in the hands of a Master Architect? ...
First things first: Coldfuse, I'm sorry for the flippancy of my remarks, and I didn't intend to offend you or anyone else. I have great respect for the intellectual prowess of religious scholars, and I realize that many theologians dedicate their lives to the pursuit of excellence. When Pope John Paul II died, I went on record here on AP praising his body of work. (Whether or not it represents a huge waste of a good mind is another topic for another day. Wink )
I do not extend that level of respect to a pseudoscience such as creationism, however, which starts with ancient metaphor (Biblical Genesis) and tries to alter reality to make it fit, much like assembling a jigsaw puzzle by forcing incorrectly-fitting pieces together with a hammer.
The point I meant to make (already made ad nauseum by many others) was that Intelligent Design -- whatever else it is -- is not science because it carries no burden of evidence or logic, as does a scientific theory such as Darwinian evolution.
Creationist "scholars" like Duane Gish or Henry Morris are con artists and propagandists who know and care nothing of real science. They have a religious and political agenda to pursue.
Albert Einstein is often quoted because of his references to God, but he was basically an atheist, or at most a deist. Einstein said that his god was the "god of Spinoza" -- an impersonal god manifest in the workings of nature. In the original German he spoke of "Der Alte," meaning "the Old One." You can translate that to "God," but it is more akin to "Mother Nature" or "Father Time" and hardly supports the claims of Christian fundamentalists.
Your reference to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics confuses me. Did you mean the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (SLT)? SLT is often abused by creationists who cite it as a prohibition against spontaneously increasing complexity, by pretending that the earth is a closed system with no energy input from the sun -- as has already been discussed by others elsewhere.
Hoyle's remarks about a Boeing 747 miraculously self-assembling in a junkyard is just a modern re-packaging of William Paley's argument (ca. 1800) about finding a pocketwatch and deducing the existence of a watchmaker. I believe others have adequately explained the fallacy of comparing this to the workings of evolution.
'Fuse, I have always greatly respected your posts here on AP, and I hope we can at least amicably agree to disagree.
11-15-05, 04:33 PM coldfuse Hey, Professor, my skin is nearly as thick as my hair used to be Big Grin; I took no offense to your remark, and objected only on the grounds that acceptance of creationism is the result of passionate study on the part of some. Both sides seem to have adherents that begin with the end in mind, requiring leaps of faith over massive intellectual gaps.
Whatever his faith, Einstein's remark stands on its own. His understanding of the universe included a higher power.
As to Hoyle - OK, so I found his quotation on the way to the others. Scratch and claw at it or him if you must!
The first law of thermodynamics, the principle of conservation of energy, has been stated many ways. The simplest is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If one reaches back beyond evolution to the beginnings of the universe, what force was at work to create the first matter and energy?
Somewhere along the way - perhaps when all matter was first created, perhaps when the first life was formed - scientific explanations get all fouled up. Is it not incumbent on an open mind to consider that a greater hand is at play?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6249 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
So what do Intelligent Design proponents believe? [Bunkboy seemed to be an Intelligent Design proponent though at one point he did say he was neither that nor a creationist. Whatever he was he twice refused to answer my one simple question, so I'll ask it of the rest of you }
All I've read of Intelligent Design suggests that the argument is that creatures are so complex that they could not have come about by random chance nor by steady evolution.The mathematics of chance would not permit of itNew Scientist does, from time to time, carry articles pointing out the weakness of this argument but these are concerned with minutiae. So the impression is given that I.D. only seeks to explain such parts of nature that seem impossible to explain on present scientific understanding; it serves only to fill in the gaps by saying that some things are explicable only by some Intelligent Designer's helpful intervention at key points.
But what does it say in principle? Is it that humans could not possibly have evolved at all ?If so, then does it argue that there must have been an "Adam" and an "Eve" that is fully formed homo sapiens, old enough to be self sufficient if not at puberty, which creature suddenly appeared out of nowhere ? That would seem to be the only answer if we follow that thinking of 'no evolution' (This is the question of himself that bunkboy ignored and did not answer )Does it make such a claim of the other higher forms of life ? How low a form does it accept as being evolved? ++++++++++++++ 11-15-05, 06:47 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: So what do Intelligent Design proponents believe?
They believe that the Book of Genesis is an actual account of real events.
The Theory of Evolution is in conflict with a belief in a literal Bible, therefore Darwin's theory must be false.
Intelligent Design isn't a body of knowledge, it's a buzzword signalling religious opposition to the Theory of Evolution.
Wikipedia.com is not the "end all" for information but I found the article to be somewhat enlightening to our discussion. It is packed with scientific criticism, but also suggests that the concept dates to the ancient Greek philosophers and that the phrase dates at least to an 1847 article in Scientific American.
11-15-05, 08:11 PM Professor
quote: Originally posted by Coldfuse: The first law of thermodynamics, the principle of conservation of energy, has been stated many ways. The simplest is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If one reaches back beyond evolution to the beginnings of the universe, what force was at work to create the first matter and energy?
I would readily admit that this is mysterious, unknowable, and beyond the forseeable ability of science to answer. Big Bang cosmology, which is firmly established by physical evidence, cannot describe anything before about 10-40 seconds or so after the initial singularity, because we can't reproduce those conditions in our laboratories. "Where did it all come from?" is (for now) a metaphysical / quasi-religious question. It's easy to say that "God created the singularity from which sprang the universe in accordance with Big Bang physics." It's neither provable nor falsifiable -- in logical limbo -- and as good a candidate for a "leap of faith" as any question about nature could be. But it still begs the question of "Where did God come from?" in the first place, and rings hollow to those of us who seek naturalistic explanations of reality.
The origin of life was presumably preceded by the origin of biochemistry. This, too, is mysterious because physical evidence is lacking. Here the search for answers is not so bleak, however, given what we know about the generation of organic molecules from inorganic precursors, and intriguing research into self-assembling macromolecules, auto-catalysis, and the like. Some day we may have firm answers about how life got started once the earth cooled.
But young-earth creationism in the usual sense -- denial of evolution of species over geologic time -- requires a belief system that clashes with observed physical reality. As for the notion that God planted phony evidence to test man's religious faith, Einstein said it best: "God may be subtle, but he is not malicious."
It ain't necessarily so, It ain't necessarily so, The things that you're liable To read in the Bible, It ain't necessarily so.
--from Porgy and Bess
11-15-05, 08:19 PM DorianGreyed While the Intelligent Design article seems to be free of bias at a first glance, I do want to make sure that everyone here knows that Wikipedia is an open-sourced encyclopedia. That means that Bunkboy, Osama bin Laden, Pat Robertson, Hugo Chávez, and Wavy Gravy can all edit it, inserting what they want, should they choose. Of course, whatever is put in can also be removed, but, generally speaking, what is in there will stay until replaced or a complaint is made.
11-15-05, 08:31 PM coldfuse Good point, DG. Any of us can edit a Wikipedia article today.
However, I thought it answered Fred's question a bit more fully than any of us could in a reasonable time frame.
11-16-05, 03:39 AM FredPuli Thanks...but no thanks Big Grin Big Grin
I am coming to this as a newbie, so forgive me if what follows seems a glimpse of the obvious .Intelligent Design theory is unknown in Britain.The topic does get mentioned in scientific articles. There was a small fuss in the media when a millionaire, fundamentalist-minded, Christian called Sir Reg Vardy helped found a school which included it. That a complex matter but the fuss was that the running of the school was, in effect, being paid for by the taxpayer and as part of the state system. (This was a side-effect of encouraging private investment in schools ). Mr Blair was caught on the hop when this was pointed out to him and he found himself trying to evade the question and giving vague answers of as non-committal a nature as he could muster Big Grin. You may guess correctly that I.D is not part of the National Science Curriculum.
Yes, seriously, this I.D. is neo-creationism. In fact it looks as though modern I.D. proponents would rather we didn't ask about Adam and Eve alikes. The answers are likely to be laughable at worst and unattractive to the public at best.For one thing I see that suggesting that man appeared out of the blue and complete yells 'religion' and 'bible' rather too loudly for their ideas to be taught in school. For another, we might wonder why intelligent design in operation has not instantly created another species out of the blue and within mankind's existence. Just imagine: We are sitting ou
.