Slashdot Mirror
The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism
Sox2 writes "SciScoop is running a story about researchers in Germany who claim to have solved the "mystery" surrounding the evolution of the mamalian eye. The work, published in Science, goes some way to answering the issues raised in the "intelligent design" debate that has become the mainstay of creationist thinking."
Scientist Kristin Tessmar-Raible provided the crucial evidence to support Arendt's hypothesis. With the help of EMBL researcher Heidi Snyman, she determined the molecular fingerprint of the cells in the worm's brain. She found an opsin, a light-sensitive molecule, in the worm that strikingly resembled the opsin in the vertebrate rods and cones. "When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain - it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution."
Well, I understand that for this article they probably spoke in very simplistic terms but the phrase "strikingly resembled" doesn't exactly equate to "concrete evidence". This certainly won't quell the arguments from the creationists either as there just isn't enough evidence to prove that the "supreme being" didn't plan this all along...
It's that creationism arguments will evolve as well
While the evolution of the eye has never been that much of a theoretical puzzle--there have been lots of plausible theories--this discovery moves us a little away from the realm of theory and into the realm of historical detail.
What effect will it have on the creation/evolution debate? The same effect that all the other mounds of evidence in favor of evolution have so far had on the debate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And don't you think that the same can be said the other way around as well? The point is that humans are opinionated creatures. Anyone telling someone 'You beliefs are wrong' is going to be met with a cold stare. Even the scientific community is no exception. Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence. This is how things are. It takes a lot of courage to accept something contrary to you belief. Think about it.
Religion and science don't mix very well in my opinion. Beneath the typical flaming contests there lies a fundamental difference. I kind of look at it as the "outside-in" thinkers vs the "inside-out" thinkers. Religion is based on the Fact that God exists and that he/she is behind the way things happen. Non-religious thinkers (or those religious who keep religion out of their science) start with a meta science philosophy and build up their scientific knowledge based on observation, deduction and extrapolation. The meta science typically tells them not to predict things that can't be proven. The two philosophies are incompatible at the meta level. No matter how loud you scream, we will not settle the argument at the discussion level.
DISCLAIMER: this is just my $0.02
Nobody has a problem with intelligent design as a philosophy or religion.
The problem is that's it's faith, i.e. you just believe it with no basis in provable (or testable) fact. It's the same as believing the Bible, just a little more rational because there's nothing that proves it's not true.
The problem is when people try to masquerade it as science. "I don't understand how this can happen, ergo 'God' did it." is not science, it's faith.
BTW, I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of "intelligent design" as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design....
I agree. Most molecular biologists who are in the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution" -- primodial soup-type theories of genesis of life.
I think that unless you're a strict, seven day creationist, you at least have to have an open mind about evolution. And if you're still against micro-evolution, you're just a Luddite.
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
I graduated from a Catholic High School a few year back and one of the Priests said it best,
'Who are we to say how God created or didn't create the World. God could've could've chosen to create the creatures in 7 days or God could've chosen to create the creatures in the world with evolution'
I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs. This has little to do with morality and my day to day life.
It does turn out to be a lively debate that can go on for hours between two opinionated people. And my guess is that those two people usually care more about looking smarter than the other, than they care about their beliefs and Morality.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox!
The article is an interesting report about a new biological discovery which provides evidence of the evolution of the eye. However, creationism is not mentioned at all; looks to me as if the submitter is trying to start an argument for no reason.
-Stephen
Creationists often point to the human eye as something so perfect that only a divine being could have planned it. However, the human eye is far from perfect. The detached retina model is a serious flaw which can oftentimes lead to total vision loss. Other animals, such as squid, have a significantly more advanced model completely impervious to these problems.
If the human eye is evidence of creationism then it can only be evidence of a flawed creator.
Go look at what has happened to education in public schools in the past 10 years and get back to me.
I have nothing against organized religion.
I do have something against organized religion preaching in direct contradiction to accepted science, while providing no evidence to the contrary, other then "its in this book, so you cant teach the obvious, accepted science."
no
This is the typical 'reasoning' that creationists use to justify their attacks on evolution. The problems comes in places like Delaware, where people actually believe this line of reasoning. It comes from a terrible lack of real science education in this country. You don't see this sort of nonsense in Europe or the more develped countries in Asia, where they have better education systems.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
Displayed by both sides. Science is the quest to determine how our Universe operates. But if a God/Creator exists, and is all powerful, then our Universe could have been - actually, must have been - "intelligently designed". If science is currently discovering that evolution is the mechanism by which this occurs, discovering that mankind was created by putting a rock in play about a sun with just the right mixture of gasses and stability in it and letting the laws of Physics do their work, then so be it. Evolution is hardly a refutation of religion, and "Creationism" is the pathetic blithering of men who have read their Bible incorrectly.
Einstein rejected more than one theory on the premise that no God would have designed the proposed system - and he was right more often than not. Religion and science are hardly incompatible, except to those of rigid thinking.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This doesn't mean you need to become an athiest, though -- although I am one, I don't see the difficulty in conceiving evolution as merely a tool of your creator. If (a) god(s) wanted to create a planet with life on it, why couldn't they work through natural processes that they themselves set in motion? How does that challenge anyone's faith?
But there are those who insist that the Earth was created "with age" 6000 years ago, and that fossils, etc, are a diversionary trap for the unfaithful. The same arguments can be made about this work, or anything done with molecular fingerprinting. (or any other technique, for that matter.)
Wearing the right blinders, it will be obvious that your road is the only correct one, and that all else is distractions. There are those who will make the same assertion against scientists, claiming that there are "science blinders" that restrict their vision. While I won't disagree that there are scientists who wear blinders, I would argue that the basic premise of science is to remove the blinders. The facts will guide you, and a scientist is always supposed to be ready to modify or discard a theory if disproven by facts.
I spent a little time with google and "neocon" (and a few other terms, some independent of "neocon") this weekend, and came to an interesting conclusion: Neocon philosophy is *never* wrong. Any mistakes happen because the philosophy was not put into practice vigorously enough. In other words, they compromised too much, and if they'd been sufficiently uncompromising they would have succeeded. Rather a disturbing world view, IMHO. Of course, this is the result of an hour or so on the Web, and my view can be modified by facts.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's what made me go from agnostic to atheist. We just use the concept of God whenever we reach personal limits. Time and time again we use God to explain things and we're proven wrong. Me becoming an atheist came after seeing one too many arguments in favor of the God is a coping mecanism rather than truth.
Concrete and conclusive are different words. Scientists have long surmised (since Darwin himself, in fact) that the eye evolved from a very crude light-dark sensor by way of various kinds of primitive eye. Now we actually see common chemistry between an existing primitive light-dark sensor and the vertebrate eye. This provides concrete (ie real) evidence to support this view. It is not conclusive (the same chemistry could conceivably have evolved independently), but they don't say it is.
But they're mollusks, which means they branched off at something like a clam.
So, it's interesting wonder how they wound up with eyes too.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
They just do not believe we evolved from a 1 cell orginism in a pool of muck. To a monkey to a human. The problem with both sides. There is ALOT of gaping wholes in everyones theories.
Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean god did it. Every natural phenomenon was once explained by saying "(a) god did it", we now have scientific explanations for most of those. There's no reason to resort to magical explanations just because we don't have the answer yet.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ... but I learnt somewhere that not only are octopus eyes as complex as human eyes they are actually better "designed" since they do not have blind spots. I've always thought that was as compelling argument as any against creationism. God may think you're the bees knees, but he gave the good eyes to the celaphopods...
the layman's guide to computer science
When I read the story, I didn't even think about the religious aspect. I'm a devout Christian and evolution is just another one of God's miracles to me. I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible. After all, God did create Adam from the Earth. God is the master of code-reuse! :-) We can physically be made of the same stuff as all of the other creatures and still be spiritually distinct.
But this isn't the point of the story, really; we've already seen evidence of links between our bodies and behaviors to other creatures. This story just shows that the rods and cones in our eyes developed from certain types of brain cells. It isn't a religious discussion.
You're thinking logically...stop it.
But what Creationists believe is that God did the 7 days and he rested bit...then the Adam and Eve bit (so we can get "original sin" in there right off the bat) and that the Earth is really only 10,000 years old.
If they wish to believe this, that is their choice. As is the choice of the people that say the Earth is flat, and that we didn't really go to the Moon. These people are totally and completely free to believe this, to talk about it and to argue about it. Free speech and all that. I bow to them. I respect them. They're standing up for what they believe and that's fine.
But when they start putting this non-sense in my sons school books, then we've got a problem. They argue that children should be getting both sides so they can choose which to believe. Well, this is about science, not beliefs.
Then the Creationists, if they succeed in gaining a foothold into school science books shouldn't have a problem with other Creation theories. Like the Hindu and Buddists views on creation. Right? They shouldn't have a problem with that...right? What about Native American folklore? They should throw that all in the science books also...so that the children can decide for themselves which is right. But no, sorry...it's only the Judeo/Christian creation their only interested in.
Pot...meet kettle.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Personally, I love reading articles like this, but I always have the depressing thought that *nothing* researchers can do will change creationist thinking.
If someone were to create a time machine or "past viewer" so we could watch the entire history of the planet at any accelerated rate we wanted and trace the evolution of all life, it might change the mind of 10% of the True Believers. The rest would consider it to be a deceiving tool of Satan.
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
Speaking as a lifelong Christian, I'd have to say things like this are fantastic. Why? Well, there's two kinds of things in the bible, things that are meant to be taken literally (plainly stated commands which are repeated as themes) and things which are to be taken figuratively (stories which contain valuable lessons for us). I think there is this false thinking in the church that evolution somehow destroys the "need" for God to exist, or changes the fact that humans are special and unique.
Honestly, the mechanics of the system are unimporant to religion - if God created the universe to be one where we'd develop, that's equivilent to creating us directly. It's kinda like creating a pile of logs and then lighting them on fire is basically equivilient to creating a pile of logs which are on fire. There's still things in this universe which are arbitrary and important for life (6 fundamental constants) which, unless we have some way of exploring outside of this universe, are likely going to always be a mystery. Maybe it was an accident (but that's require an infinite number of universes, which is hardly a simple answer) or maybe it was on purpose (which requires an infinite being of some sort outside our universe, also not simple).
I used to be a creationist, until I studied biology, evolution, and cosmology in detail. Then I realized that the arguments that had swayed me as a kid really didn't logically add up. I think that Creationism is dangerous in the sense that it widens the gap between Christianity and science/mainstream culture. This is bad because Christianity is about spreading a message of Love and Hope, and when scientists who spend their entire lives devoted to figuring out the secrets of life are alienated and ridiculed, it's hard for Christians to come off as anything but narrowminded fools. I know a lot of fundamentalist Christians (and in some ways I am fundamentalist, with a lower case f) and it's not narrowmindedness, it's the fact that science, especially evolution, has become so abstract, and so based on mathematical concepts you need a degree or two to understand, that the scientists might as well be saying random mumbo jumbo to these people. These people have no reason to trust the scientists (especially when these same scientists ridicule their faith, as many Humanists tend to do, especially on places such as slashdot) because they cannot understand them. And honestly, I'm just as wary of those who, for no particular reason, just seem to believe that Science will solve everything, and is the end all and be all of truth, as I am of those who have little faith in it. Science is just empiricism. It's a collection of ideas that happen to work, at least as far as we can test.
I for one like to think we're here for a reason. And I think that God gave us this universe full of beauty to explore and gave us the ability to try and understand it. And shouldn't we use that?
Cheers,
Justin
But there are those who insist that the Earth was created "with age" 6000 years ago, and that fossils, etc, are a diversionary trap for the unfaithful.
Of course, this could be true. It could also be true that the universe was created last Thursday and that all appearances of age, including fossils memories, are simply manufactured. The problem with this view (Omphalism) is that it's unfalsifiable. There is no observable consequence to distinguish a universe that's actually old from one that simply has the appearance of age or even from a universe even older than our estimates that's been altered to look young for that matter. And even if we could somehow be sure that the universe was created with the appearance of age, then it simply doesn't tell us anything new. The supposition doesn't help us explain or predict any new observations.It would seem to be a bit presumptuous to tell someone else that they don't understand their religion. Their religion is just that: their religion. They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong. Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
bzzt.
ID is a codeword for creationism. It claims there are aspects of biology which cannot be explained through evolution, thus requiring... "intelligent design"
This is different from theological schools that integrate god and evolution, of which you are presumably a proponent (as are most sane theologies).
Most arguments in ID nowdays center around the concept of "irreducibly complex" biological components.
Some examples.
The blood clotting cascade.
The human eye.
DNA replication.
Most of the time they argue this while blithely ignoring a myriad of simpler intermediate processes in nature (Darwin himself pointed out that if you look at snails alone you can see almost every form of eye from primitive light sensing cells up to a complex focusing lens like our own) as well as the fact that components that are mutually dependant now may have evolved so without having been so in the past (the blood clotting cascade in humans versus lobsters for example, evidence that simpler clotting mechanisms were refined, and the components becoming inextricably linked - like hummingbird beaks and deep-throated flowers).
In short, it is their usual lack of imagination combined with a poorly concealed agenda of creationism.
One amusing thing is how they try to explain these "irreducibly complex" mechanisms in a biological framework.
A primitive cell created by some being that had all these mechanisms they clcaim required design. The cell had templates for blood clotting, eyes...
This massive cell then, presumably, differentiated into the current lifeforms who lost all this extra information.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
If Jesus himself came back with Stephen J. Gould and told them all that they're idiots and evolution is the best theory, they wouldn't believe it.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
The root problem here is that the two camps are separated by a fundimental, unbridgable divide:
- For a Scientist, Truth is discovered/uncovered by a rigourous process of interacting with the world. Theories are postulated, they are tested with experimentation, and the Big Picture slowly resolves itself.
- For a Diest, Truth was dictated to humanity by some sort of Supreme Being, where it is recorded in some sort of Holy Work. That work contains the literal Word of God, which is de facto Truth. Anything that gainsays this Word is by definition, Untruth, and the gainsayers themselves are Diabolically motivated and must be opposed.
So with one camp, we have a tradition of skepticism, of viewing the picture of Truth as incomplete, and requiring rigourous human effort to complete the bigger picture.
With the other, there is a tradition of "faith" (a nicer way of saying "believe what we tell you or face the consequences"), of viewing the Picture of Truth as complete and well-defined, and requiring Humanity to fall in line and stop believing the Lies of the Devil.
There is absolutely no intellectual common ground here. This goes beyond just simple human stubborness (an attribute common to both the Scientist and the Deist). A Scientist, used to having to "prove" his position (a core feature of the scientific method) cannot "prove" anything to someone who refutes the use of logic in discovering truth in the first place!
The bottom line here is that Scientists cannot convert Deists via force of argument - you might as well argue with a plant.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
It's all OK until:
- Someone else's religious beliefs get in the way of teaching my kids proper science.
- Someone else's beliefs mean my taxes are spent on quack treatments such as homeopathy and therapeutic touch instead of stuff that actually works.
- Someone else's beliefs prevent me from conceiving a child, or choosing not to conceive a child.
- Someone else's beliefs are used to determine funding for the scientific and medical research that may one day save my life.
- Someone else's beliefs are prominent in the election of the leader of the world's most powerful economic and military force.
At this point, someone else's beliefs very concretely become my concern, and I reserve my right to disagree with them and oppose them if necessary.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Actually, you've hit on one of the biggest problems in getting people to accept evolutionary biology. The "ick" factor.
I've only ever discussed the matter with one creationist (I'm Canadian; we don't have as many as the 'States). As far as I can tell, the major resistance to evolution among much of the public is that it's humiliating to think that we have such humble, slimy origins. If it were just a matter of scripture, then why does the big bang theory, which blatanty contradicts their bible, not get nearly as much opposition? Blind faith is only half the problem.
The other half of the problem is that we keep getting knocked away from the center of the universe. Earth was the center of the solar system before Galileo, we were created in the image of god before Darwin. People (especially religious fundamentalists) are prideful creatures, and the thought that we are not special is humbling. Evolution not only demonstrates this fact, it drives it home by showing the mechanism behind our existance to be grossly humiliating. Primordial goop? Ick! Natural selection amounts to a genetic lottery that favours the opportunists and kills off the rest. And don't even get them started on apes and pre-human hominids.
I remember asking the creationist in question why god would equip humans with an appendix, tailbone and wisdom teeth. The fact of the matter is that we are only greasy organic meatbag humans, intelligent animals, and that's a hard pill to swallow for many people.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Darwin said no such thing. Darwin's theory only dictates that the fittest will survive. Organisms are in competition on numerous levels. There is no reason to believe that such an intermediate creature would not be superior in some important ways to its competitors.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
See? You answered your own question. Creationism got dragged into it because the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe, that creationists are wrong.
Wrong. At least assuming you mean scientists and other intelligent individuals. The reasons that the average person believes what they believe are not relevant to this discussion.
As for scientists, their view on evolution is usually founded in the scientific method and falsifiability.
I don't think any scientist will tell you that the theory of evolution is complete or proven in every aspect - as with most facets of biology, it's complex, and the data we have is essentially a partial, but extensive, set of samples. The problem with Creationists is that they fail to separate articles of faith ('God is the ultimate creator of the world' - a statement that is not incompatible with falsifiable observations) and science ('the world is 5000 years old' - there is no evidence to support this and many other such claims).
Obviously, it's a complicated fray, and some of the Intelligent Design people make less outlandish claims, and instead try to attack the theory of evolution by finding exceptions or outliers. Unfortunately, they often selectively ignore important research and evidence, and have mostly been debunked (yes, I've read some of this stuff by these people out of curiousity to see how they presented their arguments, and I wasn't very impressed).
Most of the arguments, at a basic level, are elucidated quite well on the talk.origins FAQ. Strangely, the site doesn't read like religious mantra to me.
> Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
> This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)
4200 - 3500 = ?
Didn't you notice that your own account allows the MRCA to be more recent than the origin of the species?
BTW, if you're ever in a bookstore you should thumb through a historical atlas and see what kind of cool stuff was happening on our planet 4200 years ago.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
It seems like an aweful lot of people on here have a really low view of creationists. Many people are assuming that all Christian creationists believe that God created the world in 7 days, 10000 years ago. That's just as ignorant and uninformed as saying that all geeks are fat or all black Americans eat fried chicken. Almost all mainsteam Christian groups believe that the whole "7 days" thing is a metaphor. Only a small percentage of people take it to be literal.
This nuance is very important.
Evolution* isn't trying anything. It simply happens.
End of message.
[*] Evolution is a prevalent, beneficial mutation. Specifically, a mutation simply happens.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
They are in some. And in most schools the faculty is too terrified of the fundies to teach evolution at all -- witness the fact that if you ask most high school students, they'll think evolution means "man descended from monkeys". And in fact they can't even tell you the difference between a monkey and an ape.
What bugs me is not that parents with religious conviction are trying to have a say in the education of their children -- I'm for that. What bugs me is that people who cannot define the word "allele" have the gall to spout their opinions on evolutionary biology and demand their arguments be treated as having equal weight with scientific conclusions. That would be like me going to a church and saying "you know, I've never really read Ezekial but we need to stop using it in scripture readings because I've heard it contradicts my field, comparitive linguistics."
I don't think that the simple fact that schools are too scared to teach the theory of evolution is what breaks our schools. But, it is part of a larger trend of religious conservatives fighting tooth and nail against intellectualism in general. And that is what's killing our schools.
All's true that is mistrusted
Actually, the paper says that their mathematical model suggest that everyone alive today SHARES A SINGLE ANCESTOR who lived about 3500 years ago. Not that he's our only ancestor from that time.
The scriptures are ambigious in many areas. It is not the place of a man to fill in the details with opinion. Did Judas hang himself, or did he jump over a cliff? Depends on which Gospel you consult. Did Christ point to the crowds or the Scribes in his famous "you brood of vipers" line? Depends on which Gospel you consult. What were Christ's last words? Considering that none of the Apostles were there, whatever is recorded in the Gospel is a secondhand telling. And even there, it depends on which Gospel you consult.
Ambiguity is just something you have to get used to folks. Fundimentalism, or even a strict interpretation of the scripture, isn't even supported by scripture.
"All scripture (is) given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy, 3:16
You can't quote a single passage of the Bible, without considering what other passages might have to say.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Universe started on any particular day. Nor does it state how man was created, save that God formed us from Dust. Exactly what is meant by that? Was it literally from dirt molecules? Or figuratively, say from a more lowely form of life? Are we reading what the ancient Hebrews understood, or merely the best translation into the written word that their language allowed.
I'm ranting, but I definetly agree with you on all points.
--Sean
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
> is assumes that everything that's important is observable.
Yes [and no]. If you assume there are hidden agents that affect everything that happens, you can't do any science at all. (Or religion either; see further below.)
But the issue isn't whether science can aspire to omniscience, but rather which is the better guide to reality: what we see, or what our ancestors told us.
[The "and no" is because we don't actually assume that everything important is observable, e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all the immense challenges for science that follow from it. But I bracket this because I don't think it's what you meant.]
> Kind of a faith in itself (to see is to believe).
Certainly there's a philosophical problem with it, but we rely on it just to make it through the day. How do you know you're taking your morning leak in the john instead of wetting the bed? How do you know you're eating breakfast instead of jumping off a cliff?
Also, such an appeal to nihilism is pretty useless as a support for keeping creationism in the ring. How do you know the bible really exists, or if it does, how do you know it says what the letters on the page look like they say?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I respect your view point on creationism vs evolution. I'm happily on the Darwin side myself. I'm also happy to hear about creation theories that don't boil down to 'because that's the way it is'. I find it fascinating that science is proving that parts of the biblical texts actually did occur; or at least likely occured similarly to what's been passed down over the ages.
May I suggest you think about why the ID folk only want *their* Intelligent Designs taught in schools? I think we really should be teaching Native American Indian creation theories as well, perhaps the Aborginal (sp?) from Austraila as well if they're really interested in true teaching of non-Darwin based reasons as to 'why we're here'. And if you really want to see the sparks fly, suggest the teachings of the Koran (and I have no idea what these are or if they are diff from Christian type concepts...but my guess is the 'supporters' of ID would have a huge problem with this just on concept)
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The fucking sorry state of America is such that religious morons think that they can invade every aspect of society with "religion", including scientific thinking.
It is such a fucking sorry state that one must argue evolution *all over again*, because morons refuse hard evidence. We are back in the middle ages, when someone takes the Bible literally.
What a drawback. Would this be the beginning of the end for the great U.S., a nation that thrived on independent thinking and scientific investigations brought on by the great influx of immigrant brains post WW-II? I guess so...
What developed the West, what set it apart from the rest, was *science*, not religion.
In that respect, religious rednecks are very much like the fundamentalist muslims they fear and loathe so much.
You seem to have a misperception of scientists' motives. If there was concrete evidence of God creating the universe, that evidence would be used by scientists to better understand reality. You're confusing science with atheism. BTW, scientists have a tendency toward agnosticism, not atheism.
I find it frustrating that religious people (which by your post I suppose you are one, that or badly misinformed about science) think that because they base their worldview on faith, that everyone else does as well. Some of us are perfectly happy admitting that there are things which we do not yet know, and striving to find out in due time.
Your statement is also ironic, seeing that science is constantly challenged/attacked by the religious, who refuse to accept things because they are worried about implications for their beliefs.
To really consider the relation between the science and religion, there's some homework to do. Philosophically speaking, God can not be proved nor disproved. David Hume showed that all proofs of God beg the question of God's existence. That means they're circular proofs; they prove nothing. Similarly, when you're discussing a being/force which can by definition "do anything", it's child's play to refute any assertion based on faith; if someone says that God doesn't exist because of observation X, the retort is that God wants it that way, and is hiding.
If religious people want 100% of the population to believe in God, I have two suggestions: 1) Stop trying to assert that science is untrue on the basis of your personal beliefs. 2) Stop using your social identity as an excuse to do things which are clearly prohibited in your own code of conduct.
This still leaves the religious more "wiggle room" than I would like; but I think we can agree that we'd all get along better if we are considerate of each other's beliefs. And frankly, I have as much right to believe that physical reality has no cause but itself as others do to believe that physical reality must have a cause other than itself because nothing causes itself, therefore it's cause must be God, which has no cause because God has no cause but itself.
When Galileo concluded that the earth must go around the sun, it wasn't because he wanted to disprove God or destroy religion; it was because he observed reality. Galileo didn't attack the church; the church attacked Galileo. When Darwin published the Origin of the species, it wasn't his way of casting doubt on God or religion; it was his theory as to why animals are the way they are. Again, Darwin didn't attack the church, the church attacked Darwin.
What bothers me more than anything is that people who use faith to explain everything seem to have the least understanding of the nature of the spirit and the debate which they wish to participate in. Religion's value is in its charge to its followers to do the RIGHT thing. To help the weak and poor. To repay a wrong with a right. To love and forgive instead of hating and avenging. Religion also has speculative answers to questions which once were considered unanswerable. Now that some of those answers are proving to be *ahem* inexact, *certain* people are very upset. Instead of keeping their cool, they attack the messenger, and everyone who doesn't agree with them. The US is very backward, philosophically, in many places, and this is perpetuated by conservatives for political reasons. Liberals don't want to take your religion away people... we just want the same freedom you take for granted; to believe as we will and live as we choose. Evangelists have missed something here; that their right to swing their fist stops at my nose. You don't want schools teaching that God doesn't exist.. well guess what, they don't address that issue at all. We don't want *you* forcing us to live your lifestyle. You think you're "saving" people. But if atheists were to go around "saving" people from
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Luke 6:27 - 6:29
Haven't seen too much of the spirit of charity on display in the latest election, have we?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree that stating that God couldn't is utterly stupid, however the question is on whether evolution occured or not. That question is definitely within the domain of science and not religion.
These discussions reach absurd proportions, someone finds that the cells in a living fossil are very similar to those in a part of the human eye and suddenly it is possible to somehow evolve a complete human eye, lenses and all, just like that.
Yes, this is a valuable contribution, but claiming it shows how human vision evolved is about as absurd as claiming that tea cups show how beer containers evolved because they are similar in some ways.
It could also be pointed out that most parts of the really interesting parts of human vision aren't in the eyes themselves but in the brain.
Is evolution really a fact?
Yes.
Has it been observed in the amazing way that evolutionists describe it to have happened?
Yes. Speciation has been observed, in the lab and in the wild.
Why should they feel affronted, regardless of whether Creationists are right or wrong?
For the same reason a geography teacher is affronted when parents come in demanding they teach that the earth is flat. The same reason that Jews don't really like people who claim the Holocaust never happened. The same reason psychics never win the lottery, or at least with no more regularity than the rest of us. These people are simply wrong (and demonstrably so), and they use the most asinine arguments to support their ridiculously stupid stances.
If Creationists are just a bunch of blind religious zealots, why not ignore them?
Because they won't ignore the rest of us and leave their foolishness at home. Because they go to school boards, they go to governors, they go to Congress demanding in no uncertain terms that their favorite brand of nonsense be taught as fact to everyone else's children. Because students that _are_ taught ID are in for a rude awakening if and when they go to college where there's none of this "Aww, evolution is _just_ a theory" foolishness.
Dyolf Knip
It is like America is entering a new dark age.
How can America be competetive in Biological sciences (any science) if these groups succeed in destroying even Scientific Method in America.
ID == Creationism. This is backdooring religion into the Curriculum.
This is the divisive issue in America today. It is religious society vs secular society. It seems that Secular society is on the wane and religious is on the rise. Somewhere Osama is smiling because this is certainly the outcome he wants for the world.
I often like to point out that even with my eyelids closed (which I think most people would grant is an imperfect eye) I can still determine if it's night or day and figure out roughly where in the sky the sun is. With that information I could not only decide the best time to sleep/wake, but over time determine my lattitude or the coming of the change of seasons. Not to mention flinching if something big jumps right in front of me.
Imperfect eyes would still be very useful.
Pat
And in the same vein, just because we can explain it doesn't mean God didn't do it. Every natural phenomenon was once explained by saying "(a) god did it", we now have scientific explanations for most of those. There's no reason to resort to atheism just because we understand the natural process for some things.
One doesn't "resort to atheism" The default position is the one with the fewest assumptions. If phenomena can be explained equally well with and without the assumption of an omniscient being, then the intellectually honest will hold the latter position.
However you do have a point with your first statment. Just because we know that E=Mc^2 doesn't mean that we know why E=Mc^2. and you can push that back as far as you like. The question "why are the laws of physics the way they are" clearly cannot be answered with the laws of physics. However a "God" that fills this, and only this, role is dramatically different from that of any religion except perhaps taoism. That explanation is also question begging, since one may just as well ask "who created god", and "Why did god choose these laws of physics". "I don't know" is the only real answer to any of these questions.
In my mind, theism holds a place next to solipsism. You cannot disprove it, but it doesn't really get you anywhere interesting either.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I was listening to NPR this morning and they were doing a spot on the Constitution candidate running for president. His speech to a 12th grade school class was borderline embarrassing. He was pushing for evolution to be banned from schools and said, "These people want you to believe that your great grand-daddy was a small drop of goop, your grand daddy was a fish and your daddy was a chimp."
Creationism is simple thinking for complex problems. A lot of people are frightened by the idea that some things can't be explained. In ancient Rome they blamed floods and earthquakes on Poseidon. Science later told us that these are explainable natural events, not the work of Gods. Science has given us answers to many of the questions about our world that used to be associated to gods. There are a few really tough questions left that scientists are making some headway on like, "What are we made of?" Which is being understood through particle physics and quantum theory. "Why are we here?" That's a tough and fundamentally esoteric question that I don't think anyone could agree on... and here is where religion comes in. I don't have a problem with religion itself, but I'm uneasy with it because it breeds fundamentalism, hatred and mistrust. A great number of our wars in history have been about, "My god is better than your god." Again, a product of simple thinking. The funniest part is that at the most basic level all religions agree on the same things, love, trust and harmony between man. Often these values are upheld, but more and more people are straying from the basic ideas of what religion was indeed to teach us.
WURD!!
Scientists should not be spending their time attempting to discredit creationists. Any attempt to answer creationists on their own ground merely adds credence to their beliefs.
Science is not a belief. Science follows the scientific method. Accepted principles in science can be independently verified by testing and re-testing hypotheses using the scientific method.
Science is also not static, and it does not offer any guarantee that today's conclusions will match tomorrow's conclusions. While creationists attempt to cite this uncertainty as a weakness, it is one of science's greatest strengths. There is no place for dogma in science. Whereas, religion (and creationism as a sub-part of religion) is rife with dogma and the need to suppress intellectual curiousity.
Creationists deliberately misconstrue statements by various scientists and scientific conclusions in order to paint those statement and conclusions as "beliefs" rather than the results of the scientific method. Except creationists are not true scientists, because they come to the table with a hypothesis, the truth of which they are highly invested in proving. That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality. Therefore, they find exactly the answers they seek. That is not science.
That "all fall short of the glory of God" refers not to some stain handed down by Adam and Eve, but rather to our own mistakes and shortcomings, as is evident by looking at the correct quote in the Bible:
Exactly how one overcomes past mistakes and corruption (sin) to justify oneself to God is hotly debated among Christian sects, but all do believe that a belief in Christ and an appeal to Him is required. Christian thought requires a literal belief in the divinity of Jesus, and in his death and resurrection, not necessarily in a literal creation story.For my part, it makes no sense to try and drum up a controversy between evolution and creation. Evolution deals with how creation was accomplished, something not well documented in scripture, and creation deals with who did the creating, something not addressed by evolution theory. Whether God waved a magic wand or just set up the laws and circumstances that would lead to human existence makes no difference to me as a Christian. The important thing for me to know is that God did it, that he has a plan, and that I am a part of that plan.
Faith and science are not necessarily opposed to each other, though a lot of atheists would like to think they are.
The problem I see is that atheists attempt to pervert science into "proving" that there is no God, as if the techniques of science are somehow suited to grappling with the metaphysical.
The other problem I see is that fundamentalist Christians are denying their faith in God. God - not science - is supposed to be the truth, but if your arguments for faith rest on scientific proofs, then you've supplanted God with Science as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Which is just self-defeating. If God is truth, and He said He created the world in seven days, then He did. End of story. Chasing after "scientific" proofs of Biblical stories only shows one's faith to rest not in God, but in science.
And then comes science. In the discovery of the marvels of our universe, we come to realize that it is ordered - the hallmark of a creative genius. No, it doesn't prove God exists - if it did, science (or logic), rather than God, would be the ultimate truth. It isn't. Not to say science doesn't serve a useful purpose - it does; but rather that it is a tentative explanation of nature. From a logical standpoint, science doesn't prove anything, but rather explains it.
And those who try to base their religion on science only show themselves to be foolish - whether they are the atheists using evolution to bolster their naturalist beliefs, or fundamentals using flawed reasoning to bolster their creastionist ones. In fact, I'd say that both camps have done more damage to the reputation of science than all of the scientific scandals in history (cold fusion, California's fictitious elements, etc...)
Faith is something that one discovers apart from science. And we all look like fools when we attempt to use the scientific method to "prove" what we suspect to be true about God. No amount of scientific proof will ever bring an atheist to salvation, nor will it convince a true believer that God doesn't exist.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'm an atheist, and I don't think they are compatible. The main problem with the compatibilist attitude is this: evolution is a blind, mechanical process. There's no need for an agent like a god to do anything; evolution just happens on its own! It doesn't need a god to mutate genes, or put pressure on prey to see their predators better, or urge the lions to catch the slow gazelles, etc. Saying "god did it that way", is to arbitrarily stick a god in the background, where he somehow "endorses" the process of evolution..but there's nothing to do there (besides give believers their security, presumably). In just the same way, you don't need to postulate a shoelace gnome who keeps everybody's shoelaces tied (but uses the mechanism of friction to do it).
You have to look at the motivation of people like the pope when they say these things. They're smart enough to realize that evolution is an incontrovertible fact, but they don't want to give up their religion. So what else are they going to say?
The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "evolution". In the biological sense, evolution is a process, not an event. One debates whether a process occurs and whether an event occurred.
I can and do study (and thereby demonstrate the existence of) evolution every day in my research. These days, evolutionary scientists seek to understand and characterize the properties and mathematics of the process of evolution. We observe and characterize it, day in and day out.
The phrase "...whether or not evolution occurred..." is not even lexically coherent. It's equivalent to "whether or not oxidation occurred" or "whether or not gravitation occurred". If someone wants to debate the existence of the process, feel free. But creationists gave up that lane of attack decades ago in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. They pretend that the difference is now a debate between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - a distiction which does not exist and cannot be defined.
If instead you want to debate whether the dual processes of evolution and speciation have led, over the course of several billion years, to the particular phylogeny biological species which currently inhabit the Earth, feel free. At that point, we're out of the realm of strict science (meaning the scientific method) and into the realm of observation, speculation, and logical argument because we can't, of course, conduct a controlled experiment.
But for goodness' sake, at least please take the time to understand the terms about which you're debating.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Haven't seen too much of the spirit of charity on display in the latest election, have we?
When you choose not to do something--act spitefully--how do you put it on display?
If you see five people speaking angrily, there may be a thousand restraining themselves.
No, science is not religion. But naturalism - the philosophy that states that everything can be explained in terms of the natural univers - is a psuedo-religion of sorts, and it finds particularly strong support among atheists and scientists. So you will often find proponents of naturalism using science to bolster their religious convictions, which often has the effect of blurring the distinction between science and religion.
The other is based on total ignorance and acceptance of something without questioning any of it.
As trollish as this might sound, I see this line of reasoning often repeated, so I think I should respond to it. Religion, especially Christianity, is based on both man's experiences and divine revelation. It is not merely the unquestioned acceptance of some nice fantasies. Divine revelation is truthful by definition (if it's not true, it didn't come from the one who is the truth). Contrast this with science in which axioms initially thought true can prove false with greater observation and understanding. One can never know with any degree of acceptable certainty if a scientific theory is true; one can know the observations, but continued observation could disprove earlier theories.
Now this is all fine and good when it comes to material things. Generally speaking, science provides a safe way to bet. But when it comes to things such as eternal destiny, the uncertainty of the scientific method is far from reassuring. Yes, I can trust a physicist to predict the Moon's orbit, but no, I wouldn't trust the same physicist with my eternal destiny.
Now as for man's experiences. Christianity arose from the largest body of scientific data ever assembled - namely, the Bible and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This body of data far exceeds that of any other discipline - God has been the subject of more study than any other subject throughout history. Nor is reason contrary to faith - in fact, it is the light of reason which causes us to believe. Anyone who disagrees would do well to read Descarte, who found a reason to believe in God without ever mentioning a Bible verse.
We do not accept Christianity without question. Every mature Christian that I've known has, at some point, questioned their belief. And we always come back to the same place - that God does exist. To think otherwise would require simply ignoring some profound evidence:
Granted, you might not be convinced of God's existence from what I've just written, but at least you should gather that religion, and Christianity in particular, is not opposed to reason. Rather, it is our faith and our reason working together which lead us to believe in God.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.