RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/4/2006 10:16:51 PM)
Redfining words like 'science' and 'theory' may score debate points, but they do nothing to change the facts... And it is a fact that the scientific method has increased the likelihood of the theory of evolution or gravity being correct to a level that can only be refuted by blind faith...such as jumping off a cliff, or refusing a vaccination. And the scientific method has reduced the chances of literal Creationism being true to the opposite extreme. For those who wish to force the blind faith paradigm on others, the question would seem to be why it is not sufficient to allow competing belief systems to occupy their proper sphere...science in the science classroom, and religious doctrine in the philosophy classroom or church. Doesn't the attempt to mandate the miscegenation of the two connote a sense of doubt?

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/4/2006 10:26:04 PM)
(Fast Reply) My, what a tempestuous teapot.

Alumbrado -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/4/2006 10:43:51 PM)
Does anyone really think that all of these millions of dollars are being spent over nothing? Once the politicians gain the ability to legislatively force school teachers to teach superstition as science, will it stop with that? I think this is a spear point, not a final showdown.

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/4/2006 11:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darkinshadows quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat There are a lot more churches than there are schools. Don't waste schools space and time teaching religious pseudo science. Anyone can go to church and hear the alternate " theory ". Hey....why not stop installing brakes in cars? Pray you will stop in time. Classes in proper emergency prayer at the mechanics shop. We can institute bans on all sorts of seafood. Just because the evil godless scientists invented refrigeration is no reason to stop believing it is a sin to eat a lot of it. There is science and fact. There is belief. The two should seldom share the same space at the same time. There are more swimming pools and oceans - but I wouldnt advocate not teaching children to swim just because of that reason. Its not about teaching - its about giving people the choice and the knowledge to choose for themself. Peace and Rapture Not really an appropriate retort. Unless you are thinking some pools and oceans are actually created in a totally different way, therefore swimming does not apply. Then you could teach walking on water as an alternate?

Kedikat -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/4/2006 11:21:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Evolution is not a science, it is a theory. Just the same as Creationism (which I do not buy either). What schools need is a mix between the two, a centrist point of view. There is a popular theory of UFO's, Scientology has an interesting concept of our creation...on and on and on...teach them all in schools as science? Science classes teach science. Evolution is not a theory, it is fact! Some details of it are still being discovered. Religion eventually catches up to science. And does not hesitate to use science to it's own ends. They fought against the earth orbiting the sun, but were happy to use the satelites to broadcast their foolishness. ( satelites and rockets were also impossible and intrusions into gods heaven too at one time )

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 7:06:37 AM)
Personally, I feel the theory of evolution is closer to the truth. Not because I think it's true or correct or I'm stubborn. Creationism is at it's core nothing more than wishful thinking. I think most people who take the time to examine the origins of religion and human nature would agree. Intelligent design is based on the organization found within nature. At first, this would appear that there's something to it but think about this...just because you can find patterns in things living or otherwise, does not mean there's a divine hand involved. One point that never seems to be raised in this controversy is the source of the observation...namely the human mind. Our brains are capable of discerning patterns of great complexity. It very well could be that it's this simple trait of ours that's responsible for the whole idea that there must be an intelligent being out there organizing the universe. In other words, we as human beings are projecting ourselves onto the world we observe...like a filter. I remember one of my philosophy professors giving a lecture about how you can count any combination of objects (such as 4 apples, 6 chairs) and the answer will always be the same sum. He started this lecture by writing on the blackboard (4+6=10...therefore God exists). Human beings created mathematics which is a filter of sorts. If we had 6 fingers on each hand we would not be using the decimal system to be sure. Physical laws are the same thing...we observe that something always behaves the same way and conclude it must be some sort of natural law when in fact, it's just the behavior we are observing. It has no meaning outside itself but we want it to so badly. Here's another example...imagine standing on an overpass watching cars on the interstate driving down the road. You know that statistics show that out of every 100 cars, three will take the next exit but you don't know which three will do it. There's something there to observe but you can only see so far because you're human. The statistics were created by human beings studying cars driving down the highway...not by a God. But you will stand there and ponder over and over why is it you cannot tell which three cars will take the next exit. It really comes down to what people want to believe. It doesn't matter if it's true or not to them if they want it to be God. They want God, not the truth. Having the hope of an afterlife and a God responsible for everything that happens in this world is what is desired. It's extremely difficult for most people to shoulder their own responsibility for the world in which they live. Better to hand it off to a divine presence and not think about it too much. anthrosub

FangsNfeet -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 7:44:38 AM)
I really don't have a problem bringing in an idea of Divine/Intelligent design. Most of us belive in something on atleast an agonostic level. However, if you suggest intelligent design in books of education, you're going to have to show how these superior beings created our existance and how he/she/they made it so that we and other life forms evolve to adapt to ever changing environments. Thus bringing the science of evolution into play. Evolution is not necessarly anti supreme being. It's a method in thought on how creation was done by this all mighty being. Other than that, by teaching or promoting that we where created by a superior being, does that mean that we have to or should worship it? Should the public education system teach who and what to worhip simply because it created us? Who feels that they are worshiping an alien that just happens to be more technologicaly and envoronmentaly advanced than us? If you belive in or promote the idea of intelligent disign, then you are going to have to support the basics of scientology. Which christian is going to work with a scientologist to promote the idea of intelligent disign? It seems that the the religous folk in this case is trying to promote a god more than a mere creator.

darkinshadows -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:04:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat quote: ORIGINAL: darkinshadows quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat There are a lot more churches than there are schools. Don't waste schools space and time teaching religious pseudo science. Anyone can go to church and hear the alternate " theory ". Hey....why not stop installing brakes in cars? Pray you will stop in time. Classes in proper emergency prayer at the mechanics shop. We can institute bans on all sorts of seafood. Just because the evil godless scientists invented refrigeration is no reason to stop believing it is a sin to eat a lot of it. There is science and fact. There is belief. The two should seldom share the same space at the same time. There are more swimming pools and oceans - but I wouldnt advocate not teaching children to swim just because of that reason. Its not about teaching - its about giving people the choice and the knowledge to choose for themself. Peace and Rapture Not really an appropriate retort. Unless you are thinking some pools and oceans are actually created in a totally different way, therefore swimming does not apply. Then you could teach walking on water as an alternate? To teach walking on water, you would have to teach faith - me? I prefere the walking on custard method...[;)] Peace and Rapture

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:06:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet I really don't have a problem bringing in an idea of Divine/Intelligent design. Most of us belive in something on atleast an agonostic level. However, if you suggest intelligent design in books of education, you're going to have to show how these superior beings created our existance and how he/she/they made it so that we and other life forms evolve to adapt to ever changing environments. Thus bringing the science of evolution into play. Evolution is not necessarly anti supreme being. It's a method in thought on how creation was done by this all mighty being. Other than that, by teaching or promoting that we where created by a superior being, does that mean that we have to or should worship it? Should the public education system teach who and what to worhip simply because it created us? Who feels that they are worshiping an alien that just happens to be more technologicaly and envoronmentaly advanced than us? If you belive in or promote the idea of intelligent disign, then you are going to have to support the basics of scientology. Which christian is going to work with a scientologist to promote the idea of intelligent disign? It seems that the the religous folk in this case is trying to promote a god more than a mere creator. You add an interesting question. Where did it start that if there's a superior being responsible for everything that it must be worshipped? I've always wondered about that. It seems to me it made better sense when nobody knew much about the world (or the universe for that matter). Perhaps people believed it was necessary to spare the nice rich flood plain they decided to grow next year's crops on the next time a 50 year flood swept through the valley. Of course back then, nobody knew anything about 50 year floods, or earthquakes, or volcanos, etc. anthrosub

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:23:04 AM)
*ID has every bit as much validity as this theory!* http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 8:41:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy *ID has every bit as much validity as this theory!* http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 Thanks for the link. Reading that guy's idea of "scientific inquiry" is enough to make your skin crawl. His findings have as much substance as picking images out of clouds (which is at the heart of all religious explanations about life). He keeps referring to passages in the bible as if they are the baseline for where to start. Of course his ideas will prove his point but he fails to call his own body of evidence into question which is exactly what science does all the time...that's why it's always called a theory. anthrosub

AAkasha -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy *ID has every bit as much validity as this theory!* http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 Thanks for the link. Reading that guy's idea of "scientific inquiry" is enough to make your skin crawl. His findings have as much substance as picking images out of clouds (which is at the heart of all religious explanations about life). He keeps referring to passages in the bible as if they are the baseline for where to start. Of course his ideas will prove his point but he fails to call his own body of evidence into question which is exactly what science does all the time...that's why it's always called a theory. anthrosub Maybe you should read a little more of The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51336 Akasha

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 10:17:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy *ID has every bit as much validity as this theory!* http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 Thanks for the link. Reading that guy's idea of "scientific inquiry" is enough to make your skin crawl. His findings have as much substance as picking images out of clouds (which is at the heart of all religious explanations about life). He keeps referring to passages in the bible as if they are the baseline for where to start. Of course his ideas will prove his point but he fails to call his own body of evidence into question which is exactly what science does all the time...that's why it's always called a theory. anthrosub Maybe you should read a little more of The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51336 Akasha Alrighty then...I'll bite. Either that site is a parady of the news or someone is collecting the most bizarre true stories they can find to post on the web. Either way, I think I've been had and openly admit my embarassment. Still, that article about the biblical origins of gravity is not at all far from the gibberish creationists come up with to explain the universe. anthrosub

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 11:34:16 AM)
Yeah, the Onion is a parody, but that one strikes so true to the heart of the ID'ers claim that it is pure art. If they want ID to be taken seriously, they need to present a working theory of Intelligent Design. Theories are not laid low by contesting elements of them, but by presenting a contending theory that better explains the problem. A non-explanatory ' theory ' does not win by default if a reigning theory is proven wrong.

QuietDom -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 11:46:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darkinshadows quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat Not really an appropriate retort. Unless you are thinking some pools and oceans are actually created in a totally different way, therefore swimming does not apply. Then you could teach walking on water as an alternate? To teach walking on water, you would have to teach faith - me? I prefere the walking on custard method...[;)] Peace and Rapture I don't get this difficulty in walking on water. Here in Canada, we walk on water all the time. Even when the water isn't frozen, it's still doable. The trick is to pick very, very shallow water to walk on.

amastermind -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 12:10:27 PM)
Topcurious, I do not agree with your statement that a theory is good if it is consistent with a large amount of data. A theory is good if it is consistent with all the data and also if it is predictive. Newton's theory of gravity is a great theory because it meets both of these standards in its realm of validity (what you call "most situations you have to deal with".) Where it fails these standards, such as explaining the existence of the universe (why doesn't everything collapse on itself? ) it is not good theory. I am not aware of any predictive utility of the theory of evolution. It is also inconsistent with much data as in the examples I have given. That major differences in species do tend to be found in disconnected geographical areas does not provide any evidence of evolution, although I will agre that it isn't inconsistent with it. However, if the mechanism is (as I was taught) due to groups being unable to interbreed for many generations, to the point that they differentiate, it shouldn't matter whether or not this differentiation is caused by geographical separation or by artificial breeding. Regardless of how you perform your calculations, for (as in the full theory of evolution) for all species to have had a common ancestor, or even in a simpler case, for humans and monkeys to have a common ancestor, given the number of humans, number of monkeys, age of the earth, frequency of mutation, fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, there just simply wasn't enough time. It isn't a matter of "feels too hard". It is simple calculations. At the risk of repeating myself, if evolution wereat play, one would expect to find fossil evidence of intermedary species which would have been around for a long time. The fact that there is no record is not inconsistent with evolution, but doesn't support it either. I am not saying that the theory of evolution is completely invalid. Maybe there are mechanisms at work that aren't understood yet. Also maybe it is complete nonsense. I agree that theories should be taught and with a critical eye. There are political agendas on all sides. It is not fair to attach them only to the anti evolution people. I chose to avoid this subject. Maybe religion answers who, maybe why, maybe both. However science answers how. Thus there is no conflict.

Alumbrado -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 1:00:37 PM)
Are there science people suing or lobbying to force churches to teach science in their religious education? Or is this particular agenda blatantly one sided? And as far as the requirement that there be some sort of absolute 'predictive value' of evolution, you are making a straw argument...and it still doesn't hold water. The 'theory' that the earth revolves around the sun has been right countless times, and hasn't been wrong yet. But it is worthless for its predictive value as to whether ot not the sun will rise on any given morning in the future..should an outside factor such as the sun going nova, or the earth disintegrating come to pass, then there would be no sunrise. On the other hand, evolution correctly predicted long ago that bacteria would mutate into antibiotic resistant forms (which they have), and used that prediction to do something about the future.

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 3:01:14 PM)
It's not uncommon for people who challenge the theory of evolution to point out the missing pieces of the puzzle. They seem to expect a complete or nearly complete hierarchy, like a set of stairs, leading from the more primitive forms to the more advanced, right up to present day life forms. Primates have existed for millions of years, including those with similar bone structure and physical features found in modern day homo sapiens that suggest they may be our ancient ancestors. From the studies and discussions I was exposed to when I studied anthropology (that's my degree), I learned that what is being examined by the scientists in the field is the idea that there were many varieties of primates that coexisted throughout natural history. Some of these survived and slowly mutated while others died out. In each case, they were not necessarily creating a direct lineage but rather shared similar traits that survived along with the species that were successful at the time. The areas where the oldest fossils have been found is also one of the more active regions in terms of geologic time. It's entirely possible that much of the early record has simply been lost due to upheavals in the african plate and surrounding regions. Even today, there is a new rift forming in eastern Africa that will one day split the land enough to form another area much like the Red Sea. People think evolution is a reactionary process...that animals "take on" new traits little by little that help them survive. What actually is happening is random changes that occur at nearly invisible rates that give the particular species a very slight advantage. Over long periods of time, they become the dominant life form of that particular species and the others die off (and in time they too will be challenged by new variations). If they are isolated, the geography plays a role in shaping which species survive over others; hence the concept that isolation helps species evolve they way they do. Wherever there's a continual influx of new life forms and lots of geologic change, life forms are constantly being mixed together but in isolated areas, like the Galapogos Islands, they reach a point of stasis...a point of balance. Where does the random change come from? The answer is the sun. Right now, today, various wavelengths of radiation from the sun are passing right through the earth and right through our bodies. But some of the subatomic particles collide with our DNA at the atomic level and literally "knock out" some of the sequences. When we have children, they get the slight variation to our DNA that we didn't have when we were born. This is going on all the time in all life forms. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding all that's going on regarding the theory of evolution. It's incredibly complex and yet beautifully simple when you look into it. To me, the fact that we exist at all is the real miracle of life. anthrosub

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 4:48:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amastermind I don't know the details of the debate in Kansas but I do know this: Evolution is just a theory, and not a very good one at that. There has been no serious challenge to Evolution that I am aware of, ever. If you are aware of anything that has been published in reputable scientific research journals (rather than books out of Random House or position papers by religious think tanks), I'd like to see them. quote: The differences between breeds of dogs that have been bred for hundreds of years, disappear with a very small number of generations when the dogs are allowed to breed freely. Thus, nature seems to work against forming new species. No. Breeds of dogs arose from artificial manipulation of the genome by dog breeders over the centuries. However, these genetic variations actually didn't involve any increase in genetic fitness (essentially, the ability to survive until and carry out reproduction to propagate copies of the genome into future generations). Therefore, of course such mutations would simply dissappear in the wild - they confer no evolutionary advantage! quote: There is no fossil evidence of transitory animals in between two different species that supposedly originated from the same one. This statement is a little imprecise, but maybe I can help. The genetic evolutionary path is not a linear sequence over time. Instead, it's a tree, with branches occuring as mutations arise that confer a genetic advantage under prevailing environmental conditions. For example, scientists don't say that humans arose from monkeys. Rather, they say that both humans and monkeys share common genetic ancestors, now extinct. The evidence is there, both in the fossil record, and in the DNA record, and not only along the line of primates, but virtually all known organisms. quote: Random mutation, the proposed mechanism for creating species, doesn't seem very likely. For one thing, there really isn't enough time for the process to work. Even a few billion years is not enough time for enough favorabe mutations to have occured. It's really a matter of generations, not years. And if you want to see evolution occuring today, that's trivial. Look at how bacteria (which have a short generational period) adapt to evade antibiotic treatments in months. Look at how AIDs or cancer adapts to avoid antiviral medications or anticancer agents within a single patient's treatment. These are examples of evolution producing significant changes in organisms, to adapt to environmental pressures, over just dozens of generations, right in front of your eyes, today - it's everywhere, not just in the fossil record. Evolution isn't finished, and it never will be - it's intrinsic to the makeup of life here on earth. Noone started it, and noone can stop it. quote: Furthermore, most mutations are harmful, not beneficial. Okay, now that statement is actually true. But first, and most importantly, that has nothing to do with whether mutation, crossover, and selection act as a mechanism for evolution. Every mututation doesn't need to work for each and every individual. It only needs to work for one, actually. In numerical optimization, we also use routinely use random changes to optimize complex functions - it works and it works robustly. Furthermore, your DNA actually contains multiple copies of many of its genes. But, many of these copies have themselves become mutated over time to adopt new, but related functions. See how that works? With the redundancy of multiple copies of genes, mutations become "allowed" even in genes coding for critical proteins, because if one is disabled, the other copy will still carry out the essential function. I could go on... quote: Finally, there is no conflict between science and religion. They answer two different questions. Here, I would agree. Scientific theory accounts for the natural world. Religious "theory" accounts for the spiritual world. They are not really conflicting, because when understood properly, they are not even related. It's only when people attempt to use the Bible to explain the natural world that they come into conflict.

irishbynature -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/5/2006 7:48:15 PM)
There are many other theories on evolution...not just "Origin of a Species" by Darwin. As far as the Bibical story of creation, I find it difficult to believe that because Eve *just flat out seduced poor Adam* and all "hell" broke loose! Seriously, on this note: Until someone explains to me why there are two stories of creation in Gensis, and then tells me which one is correct...I'm sticking with Darwin[:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125