The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism

Mollecules telling the story! by dprust · 2004-11-01 04:28 · Score: 1

It will be interesting to see "mollecular fingerprinting" tell the entire story of our evolution over time. It will be like putting together the human genome!

Darwin got it right... by Space+cowboy · 2004-11-01 04:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article is essentially saying 'we found the smoking gun'; that light-sensitive cells originated within the brain, and migrated slowly outwards to form eyes. Ergo, the famous Darwin reasoning 'any form of eye is an evolutionary advantage, and therefore given even a truly-awful eye you would expect it to develop over time into something useful' is at least plausible. Evolution at work within a large-enough population.

I remember reading in 'PCW' back when I was at school (20 years or so ago :-) of a graphical demonstration (written in Mac Basic) of the evolution of an eye lens, using statistical population approximation to demonstrate that once even a slight advantage is gained, the population moves towards a better and better eye. It drew the lens on the screen as it was being calculated iteration by iteration - fascinating stuff. I ported it to my Atari XL/Turbo Basic - Macs were a little out of my price range :-)

Simon

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:Darwin got it right... by NardofDoom · 2004-11-01 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny

To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:Darwin got it right... by micromoog · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1

Lousy sight still beats no sight. That's pretty much what the article is about.
Re:Darwin got it right... by SonnicBoom · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 1

Go back and read Darwin and modern evolutionary theories. Evolution doesn't demand that "unfit" organisms cease to exist. It talks about "on average" and "tendancies", not absolutes.

Besides, if the rest of the world also had lousy/non-existant sight and smell, there's no competitive disadvantage wrt sight and smell, so other factors would be at play. It's like saying that humans are bad at mind-reading, so we should have been wiped out by now...
Re:Darwin got it right... by pixelpusher220 · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually it proves Darwin's theory...

As you said the 'animal' with poor vision and smell is at a disadvantage and more likely to be killed by a predator. So now in the remaining population the 'mutations' giving better sight or sense of smell will reproduce more in comparison as the weak 'animals' have been culled from the herd as it were.

If you're talking about just one individual yes it's contradictory as they can't reproduce, but rarely are entire species wiped out quickly enough to stop the mutations from having a positive effect. (ignoring our own human influences on nature of course!)

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Darwin got it right... by zors · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1

No...only if they were in competition with humans who had better eyesight. Besides, sight and smell wouldn't be lousy, they would be a mean of the high and low ends of the spectrum, the middleground. SO there would be something of an advantage to having both decent smell and decent eyesight.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Bromrrrrr · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1

You are contradicting yourself, if sense of smell is a receding trait because it has been replaced by sight then it will not start to recede UNTILL it has been replaced.

You kow, like our aquatic ancestors wouldn't have given up on gills in anticipation of the move to land untill after they actually didn't need them anymore.

--

What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
Re:Darwin got it right... by Bohnanza · 2004-11-01 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then we have some being with lousy sight AND lousy sense of smell. Ergo, again by Darwin's theory, natural selection should cause that being to cease to exist.
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.
Re:Darwin got it right... by hawkbug · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 1

No, not really. The 2 senses combined keep the creature as competitive as it was before. Also, you're not factoring in every other sense a creature has. For example, look at humans - our eyes and noise are *very* mediocore when compared to other creatures on this planet. An Eagle has great eyes and dogs have great noses. But Humans make up for it with brain size.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Space+cowboy · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 4, Informative

That's not a counter-argument... I'm not even sure where to start...

No species evolves in a vacuum, and evolution (effectively) is constantly trying to find the most advantage for the species within a given environment. Even laying aside the argument that just because one thing is increased doesn't mean another is decreased (some creatures have good sight, good smell, and good hearing, for example), it is the environment, not the species that dictates what path evolution takes a species.

Consider a massively pungent environment, where all smells are rendered undetectable against the background within a metre or so. If you hunt over large distance, your species will likely only use smell for identification within social groups. Sight, hearing, maybe sonic radar, whatever will become far more important, and therefore more prominent to your species.

Consider the opposite - a constantly foggy environment. Here sight (unless you evolve a radio-sense) will be pretty useless, smell and hearing will take control.

The real world is neither of the above extremes, but given the prey and lifestyle of any given species, it is highly unlikely to ever result in a *real* stagnation in evolution. Even if so (hah!) there is more to it than just evolution at work - if you read Stuart Kauffman's 'The origins of order' (and you manage to finish it, which took me a few tries), he derives theories that both place limits on what evolution can acheive, and shows how jumps can be made from the stable state to a worse or better state across fitness landscapes.

People think that apes/chimpanzees/whatever are less evolved than humans, which is rubbish. People are more intelligent, but apes are just as evolved - a human wouldn't survive anywhere near as long as a great ape in the ape's natural habitat. Evolution and environment go hand in hand.

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Darwin got it right... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Recession of traits is not part of the theory of natural selection.
I would also like to point out that nose size has NOT BEARING AT ALL on how sensitive the sense of smell is. There are rodents that put our noses to shame.
What natural selection DOES say is that as traits are not used anymore, a mutation that impairs them is not bred out of the population. That is why we still have vestigal organs like the appendix and tonsils. There are other mammals that still use those organs, but humans don't.
(On a side note, the part of the human brain that should respond to pherimones stopped working eons ago. Unlike most mammals, we communicate sexual arousal through blushing, so color vision has largely replaced musk. Yes, we can still smell the pherimone, but that smell doesn't trigger that part of the brain anymore. Don't think we communicate sexual arousal through color? Why do women color their cheeks with makeup?.)

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Darwin got it right... by BWJones · 2004-11-01 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative

The other thing to remember is that the human eye is NOT the most advanced eye in the animal kingdom. We essentially have three channels of vision for perception of our world, red, green and blue, whereas other organisms such as many fish, turtles and birds have much more advanced retinas (and complex) that our own. For example, the turtle likely sees in at least seven channels of vision, perceiving a world we could never hope to imagine.

Oh, and here is another fact: In the zebrafish, despite their retinas being much more complex and sophisticated than ours, can repair their retinas from damage whereas we are currently screwed if our retinas go bad.

IAAVS (I am a vision scientist), and neuroscientist.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Re:Darwin got it right... by E_elven · 2004-11-01 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
Re:Darwin got it right... by Coos · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

Consider the opposite - a constantly foggy environment. Here sight (unless you evolve a radio-sense) will be pretty useless, smell and hearing will take control. The real world is neither of the above extremes
Errm, I can't provide the "extreme" example of the constant fog, but how about the darkness in caves? The (occaisionally partial) eyelessness of cave fish species is a classic example of the removal of selective pressure for maintenance of a complex structure resulting in its degeneration...
People think that apes/chimpanzees/whatever are less evolved than humans, which is rubbish. People are more intelligent, but apes are just as evolved
Agreed, but not for the same reason. Every living creature alive now is exactly as evolved as every other: they all have a heritage stretching back from now to the first self-reproducing system. People misuse "evolved" as a synonym for "complicated" - whereas I'd be inclined to view the very simplest organisms that are still going as the most elegant solution to the self-replication puzzle.
Re:Darwin got it right... by plague3106 · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

hat is why we still have vestigal organs like the appendix and tonsils. There are other mammals that still use those organs, but humans don't.

They may not be useless after all. Until just a few years ago, everyone said the gall badder was useless, but now they think it actually helps break down fat. More recently, some are beginning to think that the gall badder works in conjuction with the appendix, that you need both organs to perform certain tasks.

On a side note, the part of the human brain that should respond to pherimones stopped working eons ago...Don't think we communicate sexual arousal through color? Why do women color their cheeks with makeup?

If pherimones don't work anymore, why do women wear perfume?
Re:Darwin got it right... by Space+cowboy · 2004-11-01 05:40 · Score: 1

I take it you missed where I said 'effectively' in the sentence ?

Evolution is a theory. Mutations happen. Some are bad, some benign, some are good. A fraction of those that are good are heritable. A fraction of those heritable ones will result in the same mutation in offspring. Once a threshold for sustainable replication has been achieved, the mutation can be said to be prevalent, and it will then rapidly spread through the population modulo selection barriers such as geography. I do understand these things, but the observable phenomena is identical to evolution 'effectively trying to' do something about a situation.

Simon

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Darwin got it right... by Zardoz44 · 2004-11-01 05:41 · Score: 1

Sort of off-topic, sort of not.
The Country of the Blind by H.G. Wells. (search the page for "Chimborazo")
This is a short story about a guy who discovers a land where everyone is blind and he thinks he can rule them because he has sight. He soon finds out that it isn't as easy as that.
Re:Darwin got it right... by jhwang · 2004-11-01 05:45 · Score: 1

There's a great article on the very topic of eyelessness in cave fishes I found linked off of www.pandasthumb.org, which is cool evolution blog that started this year:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/deve lo pment_of_cavefish_eyes/

It shows the power of combining developmental and evolutionary biology. There are a variety of hypotheses explored, and here's the conclusion (SPOILER WARNING):

"What all this is telling us is that the failure of the eye to form in the blind cavefish isn't the result of a passive loss of eye genes, but the expansion of expression of genes that actively oppose eye formation. Other work from the Jeffery lab suggests that the expanding genes are responsible for an increase in jaw size and the number of gustatory receptors. The enlargement of sensory and manipulatory structures isn't to compensate for the loss of eyes, as Darwin suggested, but may actually be the developmental cause of the organism's blindness."
Re:Darwin got it right... by gosand · 2004-11-01 06:00 · Score: 2, Funny

To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

The Pope has one eye?

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Vraylle · 2004-11-01 06:00 · Score: 1

Not necessarily so...have you read up on the notion of punctuated equilibrium?

--
Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
Re:Darwin got it right... by Tenebrious1 · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 1

Oh, and here is another fact: In the zebrafish, despite their retinas being much more complex and sophisticated than ours, can repair their retinas from damage whereas we are currently screwed if our retinas go bad.

Not to mention that human retinas are inverted. It's amazing that inverted eyes didn't end up as an evolutionary dead end, that they were able to evolve into what they are regardless of the inverted wiring. Simply amazing. Maybe that's why our ancestors left the oceans, to get away from the fishes and squids that could see much better with "verted" eyes.

--
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Ctrl-Z · 2004-11-01 06:19 · Score: 1

The (occaisionally partial) eyelessness of cave fish species is a classic example of the removal of selective pressure for maintenance of a complex structure resulting in its degeneration...

Nonsense. Everyone knows that the Stonecutters rob cave fish of their sight.

--
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Re:Darwin got it right... by tundog · 2004-11-01 06:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Now that you mention the three channels of vision, it reminds me on an article I read in Red Herring sometime back about a mutant gene that shows up in some women that that gives them 4 channels of vision. It allows the ones lucky enough to have it to have a much sharper perception of color tones - ironically, most that have it aren't even aware that they see the world any different than the rest of us. Do a google on tetrachromatic women.

The Red Herring article is here but you need to give up your first born to read it.

--
All your base are belong to us!
Re:Darwin got it right... by ghum · 2004-11-01 06:26 · Score: 1

For example, the turtle likely sees in at least seven channels of vision, perceiving a world we could never hope to imagine.
On the other hand, turtles have not to endure the colour schemas of slashdot.org

(BTW: there are some people who have in fact 4 different colour-receptors. They can separate colours more clearly)

And additionally: nearly half of mankind can recognize colors the other half would not even name that way, like appricot or creme
Re:Darwin got it right... by BWJones · 2004-11-01 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative

All mammalian retinas are "inverted" as well as many other organisms. This seems backwards from a developmental perspective, but when you realize the anatomy and physiology of the retina is designed around a high metabolic load system, it makes more sense. The retina has one of the highest metabolic requirements/mass in the body and all that metabolic machinery requires some mechanism to supply nutrients and remove wastes. This is the function of the RPE and vascular choroid. So, you make the retina essentially transparent and flip the bits with the highest metabolic requirements over to face the tissues that would be very difficult to make transparent and you have a reasonable solution.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Re:Darwin got it right... by ghum · 2004-11-01 06:29 · Score: 1

As you said the 'animal' with poor vision and smell is at a disadvantage

On the other hand, a guy with poor vision and smell is less selective and more probably get laid.
Re:Darwin got it right... by sjames · 2004-11-01 06:44 · Score: 1

Then we have some being with lousy sight AND lousy sense of smell. Ergo, again by Darwin's theory, natural selection should cause that being to cease to exist. Seems a bit contradictory to me...

Nothing says the two trends must occur in lockstep. Presumably, the sense of smell willonly be de-emphasized after the sense of sight renders it less important.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Moofie · 2004-11-01 06:45 · Score: 1

I think that might explain chartreuse.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Darwin got it right... by BranMan · 2004-11-01 06:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Could be that our eye's evolution was halted by our acquiring intelligence - remove evolutionary preasure and features stagnate. IIRC, the skunk has really bad eyesight - since everything leaves it alone and it only eats plants it had no reason to evolve better eyesight.

If we ever do get into genetic manipulation, I hope that is one area given serious work. We depend much more on our eyes than ever before (though not for survival per se) in our society. I for one would love to see in seven channels of vision - and have eyes that can repair their own damage.
Re:Darwin got it right... by lawpoop · 2004-11-01 07:07 · Score: 1

One exmaple of better design is the octopus eye -- they have no blind spot in their eye. We do, where our optic nerve hooks up in the back.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:Darwin got it right... by sydb · 2004-11-01 07:08 · Score: 1

No, Darwin says that marginal advantages become survival determinants over time.

And your analogy is bollocks. There is a competitive advantage in having a useful trait no-one else has. It's like saying that humans are bad at mind-reading, but thankfully so is everyone else so it doesn't matter. If baboons were able to read our minds I'd happily bet my Christmas bonus on the baboons if it weren't for the fact that the baboons would probably be in league with the bookmaker.

OK?

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Darwin got it right... by BWJones · 2004-11-01 07:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

wouldn't it be more accurate to say that humans have four channels of vision

You are somewhat correct. Given the general audience here on Slashdot, I "tuned" my comments a bit to make them more clear discussion. Photopic and mesopic are words commonly used in vision science, but are not words the general populace is familiar with. As for your point about humans seeing with four channels, this is somewhat complicated by the fact that cones "piggy back" on the existing rod based system so one does not have true segregation of signals. Mammals evolved cones later than rods and integrated them into the existing rod based pathways.

Also, isn't it somewhat misleading to describe the cone channels as red, green, and blue channels when in fact the peaks of their sensitivity curves are closer to what we would call yellow-green, green-yellow, and blue, IIRC? Or is referring to them as red-green-blue channels standard usage in the field in spite of that?

Most folks in the vision community, even the psychophysics folks use red, green and blue for their nomenclature, but everybody does know about the spectral properties of the pigments. As an interesting aside, the pigment in rods is actually blue-green.

I've heard rumors that a small number of human females may be tetrachromats -- i.e., actually possess 4 distinct cone variants -- but I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies of this supposed phenomenon. Do any exist to your knowledge?

I have seen a few posters at ARVO, and I believe there might have been a paper in Nature some time ago talking about it, but I am not really familiar with that literature.

Finally, regarding retinal regeneration, the current issue of New Scientist discusses some successful early experiments in which implantation of retinal material from aborted fetuses helped restore vision in adult humans.

Much of the vision restoration literature has been lacking in definitive proof of vision restoration. It turns out that the problem of evaluation of vision is harder than it seems. That said, I believe there are some good potential biological approaches to rescuing vision, possibly involving stem cells, but I have my own ideas about that and am not talking just yet..... :-)

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Re:Darwin got it right... by BWJones · 2004-11-01 07:25 · Score: 1

One exmaple of better design is the octopus eye

Not necessarily. I would argue that it is well developed for its needs and environment and may have some advantage in terms of design, but the metabolic load in a mammalian eye is much higher than that of an octopus. For instance, in addition to the vascular choroid at the back of the eye, we also have a vascular network at the front of the retina on the ganglion cell side.

As to why we have a blind spot, we developed a need for high acuity vision that the octopus (despite their well developed visual system) does not have in combination with very high metabolic needs. In order to obtain this acuity combined with high metabolic turnover, we have developed the inverted system which necessitates a place to run all of the "wiring" out of the retina which gives us the blind spot.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Re:Darwin got it right... by EMH_Mark3 · 2004-11-01 07:34 · Score: 1

Not THAT lucky: male children of tetrachromatic women are more likely to be daltonians.

--
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
Re:Darwin got it right... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2004-11-01 07:40 · Score: 1

Darwin said no such thing. Darwin's theory only dictates that the fittest will survive.

For instance, in the homo "sapiens" species, a current trend in many areas of the world is for carelessness to be a trait most likely to result in reproduction. Though the offspring will have many disadvantages, they will at least exist. "Carelessness" is effectively a counter-intuitive component of "fittest".
Re:Darwin got it right... by alexo · 2004-11-01 07:47 · Score: 4, Funny

> Now that you mention the three channels of vision, it reminds me on an
> article I read in Red Herring sometime back about a mutant gene that shows up
> in some women that that gives them 4 channels of vision. It allows the ones
> lucky enough to have it to have a much sharper perception of color tones -
> ironically, most that have it aren't even aware that they see the world any
> different than the rest of us. Do a google on tetrachromatic women.
>
> The Red Herring article is here but you need to give up your first born to
> read it.

However, you also have to read the Green Herring and the Blue Herring to get the complete picture.
Re:Darwin got it right... by edremy · 2004-11-01 07:55 · Score: 1

The retina has one of the highest metabolic requirements/mass in the body and all that metabolic machinery requires some mechanism to supply nutrients and remove wastes. This is the function of the RPE and vascular choroid. So, you make the retina essentially transparent and flip the bits with the highest metabolic requirements over to face the tissues that would be very difficult to make transparent and you have a reasonable solution.
Yet the octopus has an eye equally as advanced as ours, and it's wired "correctly".
Serious question: is there some reason why the octopus can do it and we can't?

--
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Re:Darwin got it right... by mlush · 2004-11-01 07:56 · Score: 1

To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man in regarded as insane
Re:Darwin got it right... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 08:16 · Score: 1

Perfume in ancient times was part of religious cerimony. They were expensive, so it also came to be a sign of wealth to wear perfume.
In the middle ages, nobility wore perfume to cover the fact they didn't bathe every day. And it wasn't just women, men wore perfume too. Commoners, of course, simply smelled.
In a nutshell, chicks wear perfume for the same reason they "desire" huge chunks of diamond on their finger. They want to show off how rich they, er rather their mate, is.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Darwin got it right... by cylcyl · 2004-11-01 08:30 · Score: 1

SEVEN channels?! Is it THX certified? Where can I buy an upgrade to my current system?
Re:Darwin got it right... by Xybot · 2004-11-01 08:35 · Score: 1

I've always found the Tuatara and interesting example of a transition species. It has a simple third eye, which is an outswelling of the brain.
From my understanding the theory of Intelligent Design rests on the assumption that there is no evidence of transitional evolutionary structures in organs as complex as the eye.

--
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
Re:Darwin got it right... by E_elven · 2004-11-01 08:48 · Score: 1

PE doesn't really have anything to do with the 'reasons' for evolution, it merely describes the process.

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Re:Darwin got it right... by Vraylle · 2004-11-01 09:16 · Score: 1

That really depends on how much reading you've done on it. Wikipedia alone, you are absolutely correct. If you go deeper, and you encounter a train of thought that there's a pseudo-conscious tinkering going on...where evolution "saves up" a wad of changes calculated to be useful later.
Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio" is an entertaining example. The case isn't really made that this is a sentient process, but very nearly so.

--
Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
Re:Darwin got it right... by viva_fourier · 2004-11-01 09:40 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the "inversion of the human visual field of view experiment" first performed by George Stratton that now seems an obligatory reference in any image processing/human visual perception classes:
http://eyetap.org/research/wearables/wearcomp/teth erless/node4.html
Basically, you can wear glasses that invert the perceived image on your retina, and your brain will(in time) "correct" for this inversion.

I think this link is worth reading for the following quote:
The unusual appearance of the apparatus was itself a hinderance in my daily activities (for example when I wore it to a formal dinner), but after some time people appeared to become accustomed to seeing me this way.

--
and now back to the fallout shelter...
Re:Darwin got it right... by Muad'Dave · 2004-11-01 09:49 · Score: 1

Google for Tetrachromat.
(Sounds like a type of Kodak film, doesn't it?)

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Confessed+Geek · 2004-11-01 09:57 · Score: 1

I actually knew a woman like that. I doubt she would realizes to this day, but she is an artist (sculpter ironicly) and as part of some class she took a color recognition test and she was able to make out far more variations that was "supposed" to be possible.
Re:Darwin got it right... by E_elven · 2004-11-01 10:04 · Score: 1

PE offers no proof of such behaviour. The PE is a logical description but it can be explained by the fundamental nature of things: inertia until a sufficient force is built, then rapid actions, reactions and side-effects until things settle down to build up power again.

I suppose I'm trying to say you can look at it two ways: deterministically and nondeterministically. I'm just making a case that there's nothing about evolution that would require determinism.

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Re:Darwin got it right... by B2382F29 · 2004-11-01 10:08 · Score: 2, Informative

However, you also have to read the Green Herring and the Blue Herring to get the complete picture.

Oh, and the fourth Herring... it is about tetrachromacy after all.

--
Move Sig. For great justice.
Re:Darwin got it right... by zsau · 2004-11-01 10:28 · Score: 1

To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Incidentally, have you ever read the source work?

--
Look out!
Re:Darwin got it right... by ozbird · 2004-11-01 10:56 · Score: 2, Funny

That would explain women's fashion:
F: "I can't wear that - emerald was last year's colour. This year it's teal."
M: "Huh? They're both green..."
[whack!]
Re:Darwin got it right... by lylfyl · 2004-11-01 11:10 · Score: 1

You said "All mammalian retinas are 'inverted' as well as many other organisms." Which ones are not inverted? I assumed all vertebrates' eyes were similar.

Okay, I know the octopus eye is not inverted, and I'm not going to worry about insects and arthropods; there's an insane amount of variety there.
Re:Darwin got it right... by DunbarTheInept · 2004-11-01 11:23 · Score: 1

This has come up before. It's not a difference of perception. It's a difference of vocabulary. Ask me what emerald and teal look like, I have no clue. But that's because I don't know what the words mean. It's no different than a computer programmer asking someone "which of these two colors is #FF00FF and which is #FF99CC ?", and falsely assuming they must be bad at color vision if they can't tell.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Darwin got it right... by DunbarTheInept · 2004-11-01 11:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Evolution leads to local maximas, not global maximas. That's why there so many different kinds of animal. If an eye develops that works, even if in a backward way, it will tend to stay that way if there's a hard evolutionary "ditch" to get over in flipping it around (i.e. there is a global maximum nearby, but the curve goes through a dip before it gets there, so locally evolution favors not going in that direction.)

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Darwin got it right... by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-01 11:58 · Score: 1

Oh, come now. What does this have to do with the reasons why women wear perfume today? You no longer need to be rich to buy perfume. (You could equally argue that women used to wear blush to cover up smallpox scars, and so that's why they do today. For the record, though, I think you're right about blush, just wrong about perfume.) Perhaps you've never found a woman who smelled good to you, but I assure you, it can be highly arousing, whether pheromones have anything to do with it or not!

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Burpmaster · 2004-11-01 12:25 · Score: 1

To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Now I know the destiny of the last person. He will be king!
Re:Darwin got it right... by jwkane · 2004-11-01 12:44 · Score: 1

Very well put; but you'll sure scare the fundies working with evolution in mathematical terms.
Re:Darwin got it right... by clambake · 2004-11-01 13:05 · Score: 1

Consider a massively pungent environment, where all smells are rendered undetectable against the background within a metre or so. If you hunt over large distance, your species will likely only use smell for identification within social groups. Sight, hearing, maybe sonic radar, whatever will become far more important, and therefore more prominent to your species.

Consider the opposite - a constantly foggy environment. Here sight (unless you evolve a radio-sense) will be pretty useless, smell and hearing will take control.

Well, you forget one point. Evolution only forces the fittest to survive, but the definition of fit is simply that it survives. A being with perfect senses that can see into the x-ray spectrum, smell anything in one part per quadrillion, and can kill other creatures with it's mind, but only lives 20 years and only has a chance to reproduce once in that timespan will surely die out to a creature that is blind, unable to defend itself, tastes excellent, but can reproduce ever 30 seconds.
Re:Darwin got it right... by PsiPsiStar · 2004-11-01 13:56 · Score: 1

I read in Red Herring sometime back about a mutant gene that shows up in some women that that gives them 4 channels of vision. It allows the ones lucky enough to have it to have a much sharper perception of color tones

And their male sons have a 50% chance of being colorblind.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Starcub · 2004-11-01 14:24 · Score: 1

I'm curious. We only need three colors to form all other colors in the visible spectrum provided the colors are processed correctly. Those colors are the primary colors R, G, and B. Do you suppose that it might be possible that there exists a creature whos retina is only binary sensitive and yet capable of rendering all possible visual colors? Correct me if I am wrong, but what we see dervives from the combination of what we physically detect and how our brains process that data. So the most advanced vision would seem to be that which employs the fewest detectors to represent the full range of the visible spectrum (which is objectively determinable using electronic sensors).

It also seems to me that having seven channels of vision does not necessarily imply that one's sight is better than one who has only three channels of vision. In other words, it might be that we have a brain that can process three input signals better than the brain of the creature that has 7 input signals. Likewise we know that having a larger number of eyes doesn't necessarily imply better vision. For example, the human brain is far more capable than that of a fly.

Lacking concrete scientific and qualitative data, it seems to me that "the most advanced vision" would be in the eye of the beholder. ;)
Re:Darwin got it right... by NardofDoom · 2004-11-01 15:10 · Score: 1

No, where's it from? I've heard it a lot, and was wondering.

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:Darwin got it right... by zsau · 2004-11-01 15:41 · Score: 1

Actually, neither have I. I thought I had, but upon re-reading what I thought was the source (H. G. Wells' "The Country of the Blind"), it merely quotes it. Apparently it comes from a Dutch priest Desiderius Erasmus, or so says Wikiquote. You might try searching with "country of the blind" rather than "land of the blind", it seems to be an older translation.

--
Look out!
Re:Darwin got it right... by Exatron · 2004-11-01 16:41 · Score: 1

To parady: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is hunted down and killed."

--
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Re:Darwin got it right... by Minna+Kirai · 2004-11-01 17:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

We only need three colors to form all other colors in the visible spectrum provided the colors are processed correctly.

That question is meaningless, because your premise is either circular, or flat-out wrong, depending on the definition of "color" used.

If "color" means those things humans call colors, then then it's a truism: we can see everything we can see, because that's what we can see.

But the number of potential colors is unlimited, even within the visual spectrum. The colors we percieve are actually superimposed photonic waveforms produced when light reflects off a surface. (or is emitted by radiation, etc).

If you understand auditory perception, that can be a helpful analogy: although sound is really a 1-dimensional quantity (air pressure varying over time), the variations happen too fast to be tracked directly. So the ear canal contains receptors sensitive to different frequencies of pulsation, which are combined in your brain to make hearing.

Photons are even faster and less plausible to measure individually, so receptors trigger off of different wavelengths, and combine them visually. There's no physical reason for an RGB breakdown; that's just the number of colors which turned out to be most helpful for mammalls to evolve.

So the most advanced vision would seem to be that which employs the fewest detectors to represent the full range of the visible spectrum

And is the most advanced computer the one that uses the fewest symbols to represent the full range of possible data? Of course not. There's a reason we don't just use ASCII / VT100 terminals, and there's an even better reason why the Altair's binary lightbulb display was so quickly obseleted.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Threni · 2004-11-01 22:41 · Score: 1

Huh? What does vocabulary have to do with being able to see more shades of colour than most people? If you just see a red piece of paper, but someone else sees a teapot as well (because a teapot is printed using a very slightly different shade of red), then thats a word thing, right?
Re:Darwin got it right... by ralphclark · 2004-11-01 23:53 · Score: 1

Biological relativism is all well and good up to a point. But when resources are *limited*, only the fittest are able to outcompete all the rest, and the weakest *do* go to the wall. That's nature, red in tooth and claw. How else do you think extinctions happen? It's not all about giant meteors and pandemics.
Re: Darwin got it right... by gidds · 2004-11-02 02:08 · Score: 1

I for one would love to see in seven channels of vision

Considering that pretty much all colour printing and colour displays rely on people having roughly the three channels we have, and so would look rather poor viewed with extra channels, that might be a rather mixed blessing...

--
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Re:Darwin got it right... by SeanDuggan · 2004-11-02 02:51 · Score: 1

Which, admittedly, boiled down to "In the land of the blind where there's no light and they've learned to adapt to it, the one-eyed man who's relied on sight for most of his life will be at a disadvantage."
There was also a fascinating story I read involving a traveller who happens upon a colony of deaf-and-blind people, the result of some large epidemic of disease that left a large part of a generation without sight or sound. I can't remember the name or which anthology I saw it in. I do remember that they had this amusing bit where the traveller meets one of the children (most of which are endowed with sight and sound), the first child of the colony actually, named Pink because the parents knew that was the color of babies, this being ironic because Pink is black.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Re:Darwin got it right... by illtud · 2004-11-02 04:00 · Score: 1

IIRC, the skunk has really bad eyesight - since everything leaves it alone and it only eats plants it had no reason to evolve better eyesight.

Skunks are carnivores. Look it up! Dunno about the rest.
Re:Darwin got it right... by Paul+03244 · 2004-11-02 07:53 · Score: 1

Fascinating. I didn't read the Red Herring article,
but did read this one. This article also explains why; for essentially the same reason; red/green color-blindness afflicts about 8 percent of Caucasian males, but about only 0.5 percent of Caucasian females.
Re:Darwin got it right... by yet+another+coward · 2004-11-02 10:59 · Score: 1

Along with the channels argument, I think it's worth mentioning that many invertebrate eyes have the photoreceptors nearest the light instead of hiding them behind several layers of cells. The retinas do not necessarily have blind spots; ours do. They are much less likely to detach, too.
Re:Darwin got it right... by notcreative · 2004-11-03 06:33 · Score: 1

My understanding is that each of the types of cones in our eyes creates data that is analyzed in a different portion of the brain. If our eyes could pick up seven colours, we still might be only able to process three of those, unless you start fooling around with the brain genes which I don't recommend.

Let it begin by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Since this story is just an invitation for a huge flamewar, I thought I'd ask a few follup questions:

What's your favorite Linux distribution? Why?

Does anyone you know still run Windows?

What religion are you?

Vi or emacs?

Mac users: all gay?

How do you feel about abortion?

Which U.S. presidential candidate do you support?

Was the war in Iraq justified?

Just some food for thought.

Re: Let it begin by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 5, Funny

> What religion are you?

> Vi or emacs?

Looks like you got an accidental line break in there.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Let it begin by forkazoo · 2004-11-02 06:27 · Score: 1

Well, this is pretty off-topic, but I am in favor of allowing abortion only pne day a year, but making it mandatory. I think that this is a good compromise. The only people who don't have to have abortions are those over 50 years old. This government sponsored old people procreating program is to promote people who live long lives to pass on their genes. Also, extra tax credits for children bourne past 60.

Finally First by jimijon · 2004-11-01 04:29 · Score: 1, Flamebait

My take is that creationism and evolution need to go hand in hand. Just think about how humans "create". Someone comes up with a good idea it becomes created! Then, others like it and create something very similar... not exactly the same but very close.. then successive evolutions happen. Remember it all comes down to : Mind | Body | Spirit and Cash -Jimijon

--
Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash

Re:Finally First by ThePDW · 2004-11-01 04:39 · Score: 1

Ummmm translation please?
Re:Finally First by PudriK · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except often ideas are evolved, too. For example, Einstein's Relativity built upon the work of Lorentz, Poincaire, and a host of others. He took concepts that were already half-way developed and made the mental leap that made them coherent.
Re:Finally First by timjdot · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1

I think you are right about creation versus evolution but to date the best hard evidence is destruction of species. Man has proven quite good at that. We've yet to witness in modern history the evolution or creation of a new species (withstanding viral mutations) AFAIK. Anyone care to point to a new species of a higher order animal? Of course, we do have teeming breeds of dog and have found that families such as feline and equine can in fact inter-breed.

So much to learn here. Let's hope some philanthropist is socking away genetic samples. By the end of the century we'll be generating species at will. There may even be "build your own species" science kits for kids (just like the flying cars we were supposed to have in the '60's :-). Monsanto et al may have competition yet.

Of course, the possiblity of the generation of new species by genetic manipulation does firmly question the veracity of the current Evolutionary Theory. With no intermediate forms, living fossils, and other issues, one would be remiss not to imagine a previous civilization doing some genetic engineering of its own. Of course, if evolution is random and the numbers of species were in the millions, we'd in all probability have seen a new species in the last few eons. Perhaps evolution is not uniformly distrubuted over time at all. Perhaps what is taught about evolution is quite holey.

Genetics and species birth a wonderfully interesting field of guesswork and imagination and a very cool field of science.

--
Expect Freedom.
Re:Finally First by Darby · 2004-11-01 06:46 · Score: 1

have found that families such as feline and equine can in fact inter-breed.

What?!?
So when a horse fucks a cat, that's where hats come from?
Re:Finally First by timjdot · 2004-11-01 07:12 · Score: 1

Never seen that. Have you?

Liger, Mule, Zebra-Donkey, et cetera. Not same species. Rule used to be no interbreeding outside of species. Oh yeah, seem to remember some human-gorilla conception too but they aborted. Back in the '80's.

--
Expect Freedom.
Re:Finally First by MysteriousPreacher · 2004-11-01 08:13 · Score: 1

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene has a chapter on this. These ideas can be called 'Memes' and the way they evolve and propagate through societies isn't too different to the way genes make their way through the species. Memes are a bit louder though.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:Finally First by Darby · 2004-11-01 10:09 · Score: 1

Oh, different cats with each other etc.

Sorry, I totally misread that as cats and horses crossing.
Long day.

This won't change their minds... by garcia · 2004-11-01 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

Re:This won't change their minds... by Bearpaw · 2004-11-01 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I picked up a copy of Wired the other day. (First time in years.) It had an interesting cover story on the people and strategies behind "intelligent design".
Re:This won't change their minds... by Alci12 · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Hmm As though 'evidence' has anything to do with the creationism argument. If you really 'believe' in creationism you will always think that there isn't enough evidence. As each argument is knowcked down another just springs up in its place. Hmm is it time to study the evolution in creationist explanations over the ages?
Re:This won't change their minds... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

no, it won't, because the argument is cyclical. it is assumed that "evolved cells" came from parent cells with the same fingerprint, but this hasn't been observed, only assumed. this argument is then used to "prove" other cells formed from the same place. so how do you know the eye evolved from this cell? because it has the same fingerprint. Why does it have the same fingerprint? because it evolved from this cell. this is a staple of darwinist reasoning.

is it that hard to believe that cells that perform similar function would have similar molecular make-up without being mutations of a parent cell? toasters and blenders both have wires in them, and if you buy GE, they probably both have a GE logo, but they didn't evolve from a single kitchen appliance.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Nopal · 2004-11-01 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless: You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is meant to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to. On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition, unprovable belief.
When both sides are not even supposed to have common ground on which to argue, the creationist/evolutionist debate is a non-sequitur on both sides.
Re:This won't change their minds... by FortKnox · 2004-11-01 04:51 · Score: 1

Heh... there is no point to the debate. If there was concrete evidence that we were all created from God, there'd be scientists denying the fact. If there was concrete evidence of evolution, there'd be scientists denying the fact.

Sorry, you just can't convince the other side, just like the other side can't convince you.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Re:This won't change their minds... by Gr8Apes · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 1

I agree that the linked article was a little light.

It definitely won't quell the creationists, because nothing ever will. You cannot prove the nonexistence of god, because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. All you can hope to do is to force a retreat into "god worked through evolution over millions of years", and be happy that they at least acknowledge evolution and the timeline.

It's similar to a delusional person who thinks donning tin foil hats prevent alien brain control, nothing you say or show them will persuade them otherwise. (They're not under alien control: it's working!;)

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since the "God planned it all along" argument is non-falsifiable, those promoting it will never have reason to abandon it.

Non-falsifiability means that it's useless from a scientific point of view. A useful scientific theory must make predictions; if those predictions turn out to be wrong, then you discard the theory. You almost never know anything 100% certainly in science, but falsifiability lets you know 100% for certain when something is wrong. Lack of falsifiability means that it makes no predictions and is therefore useless. I can assume that it's true, or that it's false, but that doesn't change what I expect to happen in the world.

Intelligent design arguments are not necessarily non-falsifiable. They predict the existence of features which could not have evolved. The eye was one such feature, but this discovery tends to refute that. There are others, such as mitochondria, which are basically a challenge to evolutionary theory that says, "Show me how that could have evolved".

(Not to mention that God himself could, someday, speak from the sky, cause plagues of locusts, and generally prove his existence in the scientific sense. His reasons for not doing so remain obscure to me, but then, by definition they would.)

Personally, I believe that if there were an intelligent designer we wouldn't have to search so hard for evidence. An intelligent designer had many, many options; if we're not descended from ape-like species, then it was unnecessarily parsimonious of that designer to make us so extraordinarily similar, down the the levels of individual bones and individual nucleic acids. Those pieces of evidence that claim to falsify evolution are few and far between and it generally seems possible to find the refutations for them, given time either to piece out the genetics or the necessarily gap-ridden fossil record.

But that won't change the minds of anybody who believes a non-falsifiable theory in the first place. They don't place the same priority that I do on predictive powers of theories. They're more interested in the moral implications, and will disregard any theory that denies their morality, no matter how much closer it comes to "truth" in the scientific sense. It's just not something they care about.

It's not my cup of tea, and of course I'm upset when they try to force on me a version of truth that I can prove is wrong (using a version of "proof" that they don't accept but which has proven very useful for developing things like toaster ovens and rocket ships). Especially when that version of truth contradicts my moral beliefs. But without even a single point of overlap between us there appears to be no rational place to resolve that. It must be an article of faith. If you wish your faith to contradict perceived reaility, or to make no statements whatever about perceived reality, then I will certainly outcompete you in the building of toaster-ovens and rocket ships, but that may not matter.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Prune · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 1

That is all irrelevant. What matters is that one side is actually right and the other actually wrong. Some people can fool themselves into wishful thinking, but others can't ignore the truth.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:This won't change their minds... by adamjaskie · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Exactly. Only one group can be right, and it is obvious which one. Earth was created approximately 5700 years ago. The planets, sun and stars revolve around it, and it is flat. Fossils were put there by God to make us question our faith. Only the truely faithful will be saved on the judgement day, in -4 years.

--
/usr/games/fortune
Re:This won't change their minds... by sonicattack · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1

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...

What kind of evidence do you think would ever make the creationists silent? We are talking about people here whose argument is completely based upon the idea that the truthfulness of a several thousand years old text, written when superstition was even more rampant than today, and science was in its infancy, is completely unfallible.

What kind of evidence would they look at, and say "gosh, we were wrong all along - how could we believe this old hogwash!"?
Re:This won't change their minds... by zx75 · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 1

It isn't supposed to be proof. Its additional evidence supporting evolution theory. Scientific theory isn't an absolute "this is the way things are", its a constantly changing thing as new information is processed. Old theories are updated or thrown out when new theories that better explain all available evidence are discovered.

In this case, the burden of proof is on creationism, it is a theory that claims to be the all and everything. For such a thing to be accepted it must be proven to be accepted as a law. Recursive theories cannot be accepted without a provable base-case, "it is true because it says so" is an invalid argument.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:This won't change their minds... by timjdot · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

Also saw a page comparing tasmaian tiger jaw to wolf jaw. Nobody's claiming they evolved together but, quite certainly, they are in form very similar.

Maybe some wolf go freaky with a possum? Oh man, not a pretty sight!

--
Expect Freedom.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:29 · Score: 1

I think the moderators mistook your sarcasm for trolling. Or maybe I mistook your trolling for sarcasm. Only one is right, but I don't know which one...

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:This won't change their minds... by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless: You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.

Actually that's not quite what the creationism/evolution debate is about. Creationists are deluded people that think that what they do is science - the real point of the debate is to make these people understand that, yes, it is possible that they are right, but science is falsifiable - creationism is not. Ergo creationism has nothnig to do with science.

What these people have done is simply fill a hole that the creationists claimed couldn't be filled... that is of course interesting, but since creationism is not falsifiable it doesn't actually move anything.

Stories like this, where real scientists attack the claims made by creationists, are in my view a little dangerous... on one hand it tackles a relevant scientific question, but on the other hand the creationists might think that they are being taken serious as scientist, making them even more adamant in their delusion.

--
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Re:This won't change their minds... by nessus42 · 2004-11-01 05:54 · Score: 1

You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
I'm not sure that you are really doing the debate justice. There are many scientists who believe in God and who believe in evolution. The vast majority of such scientists are going to believe that God arranged to create a universe in which evolution takes place.

There are very few scientists, however, who believe in creationism, which says that the universe was created 5,000 years ago.

|>oug
Re:This won't change their minds... by jilles · 2004-11-01 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

You are probably right. Historically, fundamentalists have shown great resistance to any kind of scientific evidence, facts etc. There is no scientific proof they are wrong. It's just that there's no scientific proof that they are right either.

The latter is more relevant (for a scientist) because science is about disproving hypotheses until you run out of ways to do so or until they are proven irrelevant.

Creationism, being a slightly rediculous hyphothesis to begin with, clearly falls in the latter category: it is an irrelevant theory because it has been carefully constructed to support what the bible says instead of what we observe in scientific research. Worse, it is constantly being adjusted (as we learn more) by so called creationists to convince non scientists that it is in fact a scientifically sound theory. Some of these creationists even have scientific careers though I wouldn't trust many of them to pull off something like cloning a sheep.

Creationists derive their legitimacy from the very thing they are arguing against: science. They have their own little journals, professors, they take part in bonafide research projects and it can be quite hard to see the difference for non scientists. However, science has nothing to do with believes other than proving that what you believe is not supported by facts. Don't show you are right but demonstrate that you have done everything to prove your hypothesis wrong and maybe a scientist will believe you.

Science provides loads of facts and means to observe facts. Only if you ignore those facts, creationism makes sense. Scientific theories have to be consistent with everything we observe.

The creationist hyphothesis posed here was that because there are two different types of eyes in nature they cannot have the same ancestor (which from a darwinistic point of view is convenient rather than necessary). The motivation for this hypothesis comes not from any facts which need explaining but from the notion that something as complex as the eye must have been invented rather than evolved. This notion developed itself as creationsists were examining darwinian predictions which seemed so improbable that they would support the overall hypothesis that in fact darwinism is nonsense.

By showing that in fact there was a creature which at least had the building blocks for constructing both types of eyes, this hyphothesis has been proven wrong. Either the observation that there was such a creature is wrong or the hyphothesis is wrong. Both facts cannot be right at the same time. Case closed for the scientists.

Of course it is tempting (for a non creationist) to extrapolate the conclusion that in fact creatinism itself is nonsense (rather than darwinism). It's certainly true that many other creationist myths have been disproven in a similar way. However, as creationists are likely to point out: the observation could be wrong as well. And even if it's right it is all part of a bigger plan. Creationists never run out of explanations, no matter what the facts are.

--

Jilles
Re:This won't change their minds... by jludwig · 2004-11-01 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Non-falsifiability means that it's useless from a scientific point of view.

I used to hold this view very near and dear until I read a little about Bayesian statistics (the same stuff that makes your spam filter work). The problem is (and this is also brought up in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence) is that there is an infinite number of potentially valid hypothesis if one simply operates from this falsifiability standpoint, and therefore objective scientific progress is impossible.

Instead, all reason (scientific or religious) involves a prior subjective probability, a "hunch" if you will, against whichs one checks the validity of a experiment. In other words, scientists ask P(u|x), that is, what is probability of the truth "u" given the observation "x" which one can easily show depends strongly on your initial prior belief in what "u" should be. As you observe more "x", you become better able to judge the probability of "u" being true. Fundamentalists have a prior probability distribution of 1 and therefore even in the Bayesian approach will never reject "u". They are simply a limiting case of the scientific method, and most science falls in somewhere in the spectrum on this sliding scale, but science is by no means objective.
Re:This won't change their minds... by aborchers · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 1

religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition, unprovable belief

Religion is too inclusive a term to be so trivialized. Maybe the only religion you've ever encountered "rests on a premise of faith" but that is not a generalizable characteristic of religion.

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Nopal · 2004-11-01 06:17 · Score: 1

There are many scientists who believe in God and who believe in evolution. The vast majority of such scientists are going to believe that God arranged to create a universe in which evolution takes place.
That's a variation of the same theme: That God created a mechanism that ultimately resulted on humans. Whether humas are the ultimate result or not, is again, virtually entirely an item of faith.
There are very few scientists, however, who believe in creationism, which says that the universe was created 5,000 years ago.
That's an interesting point, and reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the part about an alien race creating the earth complete with fake dinosaur bones, but I digress. I think that the stance of strict creationism can be as pretentious as the stance denying the existance of a creator via science: A strict creationist pretends to know how the technicalities of how God did things.
But again, I would answer that isn't the point of scripture at all. There is no "mix three portions of faith and one grain of sand to cure the blind" type of technicalities in the Bible. Because the point of science and religion answer two different questions about our existance: One seeks knowledge and facts, the other, meaning and wisdom.
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I just read the whole thing and I find it highly disturbing. The article brings up many good points, probably the most important point is that the scientific community should not take creationists lightly, these people are dangerous. Not only do they have a desire to strengthen support for their believes through an education system and they are gaining ground, but they are doing it in an insidious manner that leaves a layman with perception that both sides are equal in their scientific background and both sides use rigorous analysis and peer review of their theories.

The main point is that ID generates a discourse where traditional creationists fail to do that. Discourse in itself is the danger. There should not be discourse on a pretence level field, there is no level field.

ID does not stand up to the scientific rigor, analysis and review. The point is that to win 'hearts and minds' of average population it does not have to. It just has to create polemic, hot air and nothing else.

I am tired of people telling me that I should have 'an open mind' for the possibility of the supernatural. I have an open mind. When you provide examples, collect data, create theory, test theory against data and provide statistically sound results that your theory supports the reality and when you publish your findings so that the rest of us can do the same thing on our own. Then I will accept your version of reality. Until then my mind is just that - open for a scientific process.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jc42 · 2004-11-01 06:24 · Score: 1

It isn't supposed to be proof. Its additional evidence supporting evolution theory.

And, of course, that's how the scientific process works.

Any number of people (including Karl Popper) have argued that scientific methods rarely (if ever) actually prove anything, and the phrase "scientific proof" is usually an indication that the writer doesn't understand scientific methods. If you look closely at most scientific tests, they are actually methods of disproof. You think up a lot of explanations of what you've observed ("hypotheses"), and attempt to shoot them down. If all your tests fail to disprove one explanation, you tentatively accept it as valid ("theory"). But you continue to test it, out of general skepticism.

This is why the most important scientific concept is "falsifiability". And it's why creationism probably won't ever be considered a scientific theory. It can't be falsified by any methods that we know of. After all, no matter what tests you do, whatever happens is God's will. Nothing can happen that isn't God's will. So you can't test creationism.

I've always liked the theory that the world was created 5 minutes ago, including all of our memories. How can you disprove this? Obviously you can't. Any evidence to the contrary was obviously put there by God to fool us.

Another idea that I like is that all the fossil evidence was planted by God to make us believe in a long geologic history and evolution of living things. Since God went to so much work to make us believe all this, we are obviously thwarting God's will if we don't believe. This is a fun concept, but it's completely non-falsifiable.

I've forgotten who came up with that one. Anyone know?

(No, it wasn't Doug Adams. ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 06:25 · Score: 1

Progress is made by accepting a second axiom, Occam's Razor. While it's true that there are always an infinite number of valid hypotheses (including the one that suggests that there has been an elephant following you your entire life who always manages to stay just out of your line of sight), you tentatively accept the simplest one while holding the others in the back of your mind.

If evidence comes out that forces you to accept a new entity, you reject that hypothesis (since it's no longer valid) and pick a new one according to whatever seems most beautiful/simple/etc to you.

That seems to me the only valid way to make progress. In the end I rely on hunches in my day-to-day beliefs, but I have not rejected permanently potentially valid hypotheses.

Ultimately this is just a restatement of your argument, except that I don't bother assigning probabilities; I simply say "tentatively true" and "tentatively false" and don't rank them (since I don't believe that a single number between 0 and 1 is a useful way to discriminate.) More importantly I treat one theory as true and the others as false rather treating them all as partially true, which can lead to some weird epistemological side effects.

Thus I make progress without rejecting potentially true theories and without violating the scientific method, which never treats any theory as true but which only rejects known false ones.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Nopal · 2004-11-01 06:27 · Score: 1

I agree that faith is much more than that, but sometimes generalizations are needed to make a point (a "seeing the forest for the trees" sort of approach). Would the term "religion rests to a large extent on externally unprovable beliefs" work better?
My goal is not to argue against faith, and in fact I am deeply religious. My goal is to point out that God gave us both a brain, and faith. Using both appropiately needn't involve contradiction. If one seems to contradict the other then maybe we need to reexamine our assumptions.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Necromancyr · 2004-11-01 06:29 · Score: 1

I know graduate school sucks, and I know that I'm never getting out of here. That's about all I 'know' from 4 years of grad school. Yippee! (Oh and your results never mean anything.)
Re:This won't change their minds... by iabervon · 2004-11-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Science doesn't have a clear definition of "life" or "intelligence". Evolution is certainly a process of sufficient complexity and circularity that it may be unproductive to exclude from the definitions. After all, it is a classic AI technique, so it is a bit odd to claim that genetic algorithms are a rudimentary form of intelligence, but that things which evolved in nature are not the product of intelligent design.

I expect there to be much confusion when science finds the aggregate life on earth to have all of the properties attributed by the religious to God.
Re:This won't change their minds... by t35t0r · 2004-11-01 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Religion only relies on faith if you're talking about christianity, islam, judaism and other western religions that expect you to believe something just because someone or some book said it was the truth.

If you do some research on the philosophical basis of eastern religions especially on the concepts of maya, karma, vedas etc then you can see that these require not faith, but simply the act of living that will reveal the truth. This is why eastern religions are more in accordance with science (e.g. quantum physics) thus you don't have these creationism vs evolution conflicts.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 06:38 · Score: 1

I don't consider logical positivism defeated. I'm well aware that it's rejected by many philosophers, but Quine's not quite dead yet. (Actually, he is, but only comparatively recently, and his students are still around.)

I haven't read Swinburne, but I've read Hick and I reject the eschatological argument as a difference which makes no difference: I restrict my world to that of the living and treat any other world as fiction until I have at least some shred of evidence for it under Occam's razor (an axiom which I admit I accept only because I believe it is beautiful and convenient, not because it contains any objective truth.)

I will someday perform Hick's experiment, and if he's right I will reject my argument (though of course I can't tell you about it, since I'll be dead), but in the meantime I refuse to allow the thin edge of the wedge to force a theist interpretation into daily life (prayer in schools, teaching of creationism over evolution, etc.) for the sake of an argument which will be proven over my dead body, as it were.

That may well mean, by Pascal's argument, that I'm going to hell for eternity, but I don't think that Rawls would find that just.

So in the end I'm depending on a pair of theories (verification and Occam's razor) which are not analytically true, but they are not analytically false and are empirically true, at least as long as I'm willing to reject Hick. As for Hick, well, if he turns out to be right I promise to do my damnedest (pardon the pun) to come back and apologize.
Re:This won't change their minds... by fwr · 2004-11-01 06:58 · Score: 1, Troll

The main point is that ID generates a discourse where traditional creationists fail to do that. Discourse in itself is the danger. There should not be discourse on a pretence level field, there is no level field.

So then you're against freedom of speach. Great.
Re:This won't change their minds... by mdielmann · 2004-11-01 07:01 · Score: 1

People like you amuse me. Here you are, criticizing a god for using the same technique more than once, and, given what I can see of what you've posted previously, you'd probably expect nothing less from a programmer. And even from a programmer, I'd expect different implementations of certain things if the criteria were slightly different (although I haven't studied the different eyes out there to see their relative benefits and drawbacks).

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:This won't change their minds... by Darby · 2004-11-01 07:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

but faith is not, by definition, unprovable belief. Rather it is belief based on reasonably strong evidence of the reliability of what one is believing in, at least in a Christian understanding of what faith is.

That's a nice thought, but it just isn't true.
See, you go from talking about how the bible's observations of human nature match up to reality, how *some* of the historical facts match up etc, which is fine as far as it goes. You proceed to ignore the things in the bible that don't match up, the things that are blatantly palgiarized from other older sources, and somehow, magically conclude that there is a god who is so loving that in order to convince himself not to torture us for acting in a manner consistent with the way he created us that he should torture and murder his own son?

If you don't see that there is a tremendous blind leap there, then you are beyond rationality.

Heck, most mythologies match the historical period in which they were relevant to a decent degree.

Are you saying that Zeus, Odin, and all the rest of the gods that have ever been written about are real as well?

If so, then fine.
If not, then the only difference is that you have actively chosen to believe one over the other.

That is why it is an unprovable belief.
There is no "evidence" whatsoever.
Unless, that is, The Iliad is evidence of the existence of Zeus, Appolo, and the rest of the Greek Pantheon.
Re:This won't change their minds... by thechao · 2004-11-01 07:17 · Score: 1

This is a somewhat archaic view of the scientific process; a better picture is to consider:
(1) descriptive power (accuracy)
(2) prescriptive power (accuracy)
A scientific theory A is superior to scientific theory B if it is more descriptive, prescriptive and accurate; otherwise it is `just as good.' The ambiguity comes in deciding the measure of `accuracy.' In general, I would say that creationism fails completely for (2) and is very poorly accurate for (1) with respect to the fossil record; it fails for (2) and is very accurate for (1) with respect to the Bible.
Never confuse `extremely accurate' with 'true.'
Re:This won't change their minds... by Nopal · 2004-11-01 07:20 · Score: 1

the real point of the debate is to make these people understand that, yes, it is possible that they are right, but science is falsifiable - creationism is not.
I know that your user id is in the 600k range, but you must not read slashdot much if you think that's the crux of the debate. How many anti-religious rants have been posted so far about God and religion being fairy tales, about believers being dellusional, etc? The whole point of this story is about how science provides evidence that creationism is wrong.
Your point about falsifiability (is that a word?) is a bit of a problem for me to agree on. Science is falsifiable, but misplaced faith can also be false (worshiping false Gods, etc). Of course that strict creationism is falsifiable! But you seem to be lumping strict creationism with othe forms that aren't, as you've described, falsifiable.
In fact, creationism takes many forms, from the scientist that believes that God created evolution, to the strict creationsis that believes the world was literally created in 7 days. All the while, "anti-creationism" works the same way (from the scientist that belives that evolution disproves God, to the scientist that believes evolution merely demonstrates that the book of Genesis involves parable instead of being entirely literal).
But yet many take perfectly rational positions and lump them together with irrational ones in an attempt to discredit the other side (such as strict creationists lumped together with other believers, or religious but rational scientists being lumped together with scientist that belive that science is a religion).
My point is that at the end of the day, we seem to be comparing apples and Oranges, blending them all together, and endlessly arguing about whether we have lemonade or apple cider!
Re:This won't change their minds... by Darby · 2004-11-01 07:24 · Score: 1

Religion is too inclusive a term to be so trivialized. Maybe the only religion you've ever encountered "rests on a premise of faith" but that is not a generalizable characteristic of religion.

Sure it is. That is what religion is.
Name one religion that doesn't?
Be sure to provide absolute 100% irrefutable proof for every single aspect of that belief.

If you can't, then you have failed to prove your point.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 07:25 · Score: 1

Sadly, this is true. Worse, each side believes that the other is out to introduce a morally reprehensible state. Creationists believe that evolutionists want to create a humanistic state (true) with no moral compass and no values (false, but hard to convince people of).

Evolutionists believe that "intelligent design" is a thinly disguised argument for teaching religion in the schools, and not just religion: Christian religion, generally of the more fundamentalist sort. As in, once you believe chapter 1 of this book, you're obligated to believe the remaining chapters, particularly those banning homosexuality and witches, and since there's "no way to come unto the Father but through me" you gotta give a whole bunch of money to Christian churches.

I believe that I can logically refute the rephrasing of my argument, but clearly at this point there's so much distrust between the sides mere logic is insufficient.

I believe that I'm willing to be proven wrong (it would be easy to imagine a creature which could not possibly have evolved; we see them all the time in science-fiction movies), and that a willingness to be proven wrong is crucial to any real debate. It's ad hominem of me to accuse those who wish to debate against me on this of being unwilling to be proven wrong, but I'm afraid the evidence appears to be on my side in that.

Not to mention that they may well not consider willingness to be wrong an important element in a debate. If you've got omnipotence on your side, who needs rhetoric?
Re:This won't change their minds... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 07:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't feed the trolls. Especially don't feed the trolls that try to sound intelligent; they always seem to have an endless supply of "support" for their arguments. By support I mean "lots of words."

And yes, censoring someone just because you think they're wrong is violating their rights to freedom of speech. I wholly agree with you.

I also believe that the parent is wrong in his assumption that ID should be thrown out on the basis of its perceived lack of scientific merit. What merit then does evolution have within the scientific community? Is it observable? No? That's what I thought.
Re:This won't change their minds... by aborchers · 2004-11-01 07:45 · Score: 1

I understood and appreciated your point. I just wanted to point out that not all religions treat faith as equally important or even as necessary to their practice.

And yes, as rephrased I find your statement much more palatable. :-)

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 08:00 · Score: 1

I'm glad I amuse you; it's good to know my life hasn't been totally wasted.

I wouldn't say that I criticize God for using the same technique more than once. I'd criticize God for using a bunch of lousy design choices; surely an omnipotent designer could have avoided SIDS and brain tumors and bad knees.

Rather, I say that the combination of design flaws (at least from my point of view; surely if they are God's will then it's all part of that ineffable plan that I don't get to see) and repeated elements strikes me as similar to an evolved design. Evolution is conservative; according to it you have four limbs because apes have four limbs, who descended from quadrupeds with four limbs, who descended from fish with two dorsal fins and two anal fins, etc.

That observation is not proof of the non-existence of an intelligent designer, who could have done the same thing by choice. I merely note that evidence against evolution could easily exist, in the form of creatures which couldn't have evolved (say, for example, a squirrel with the beak of a toucan). If that's because God is acting like a good software engineer, then good for Him, but I have a few user-requested features for the next release.
Re:This won't change their minds... by misleb · 2004-11-01 08:43 · Score: 1

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...
Evolution doesn't preclude intelligent design. Who is to say that God doesn't have a hand in evolution or that it wasn't "planned." Such proppositions are simply outside the domain of science. Science need not contradic religion and vise versa. They CAN coexist nicely. There are many religions around the world, for example, that happily accept creation stories as myth and not literal truths. Personally, I have no idea how a literal interpretation of Creation could be useful. It is so rich with symbolism and metaphor. That is where the interesting stuff is.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:This won't change their minds... by aborchers · 2004-11-01 08:48 · Score: 1

I'm going to ignore the provocative tone of your reply and attempt to answer your question on its merits.

Most people seem come to the conclusion that religion is all about "faith" because they base their understanding of religion on some derivative of Christianity. It is not up to me to educate you on comparative religion, but you shouldn't have to dig very deeply into the topic to learn that the overwhelming importance of faith in Christianity is the exception rather than the rule.

So in effect, I will name not one but many: basically any religion that isn't Christianity.

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:This won't change their minds... by LMariachi · 2004-11-01 08:59 · Score: 1

While it's true that there are always an infinite number of valid hypotheses (including the one that suggests that there has been an elephant following you your entire life who always manages to stay just out of your line of sight)
So that's where that smell is coming from. I knew it wasn't me...
Re:This won't change their minds... by Bob+Uhl · 2004-11-01 09:19 · Score: 1

Not only do they have a desire to strengthen support for their believes[sic] through an education system...
Which is different from anyone else how? Those who believe in macro-evolution (I happen to be one) also wish to strengthen support for our beliefs.
And regarding proof of the supernatural, the scientific method requires that one assume objectivity. What if looking for data influenced the data themselves? E.g. what looking for ghosts drove them away? What if testing God caused Him to ignore one?
Re:This won't change their minds... by mdielmann · 2004-11-01 09:22 · Score: 1

Well, if you take into consideration the premise of fallen humanity and the corruption that would be expected to follow that, it's not so surprising. Note that most of the leading causes of death in the develped world are lifestyle diseases, which is directly related to the human condition whether you subscribe to evolution or creationism. And the Judeo-christian God I read about was big on consequences for our actions.

The leg thing is kind of interesting since they've done tests in insects, and a simple transcription error (duplicates of the right piece of DNA) will cause multiple segments to grow. Which begs the question of why it didn't happen more often, whether you believe in micro- or macro-evolution.

We also have a good example of strange behaviour in the mammalian line, with the platypus. It has both bird-like and mammalian sex chromosomes, and 5 pairs of them. Here is an interesting article about them, and their unusual relationship to birds. I'm not sure if it would be easier to get something like that through random occurrence or intelligent design, one way or the other. It seems to fall on both sides of the bird-mammal fence (literally with the sex gene!), in a fairly random manner.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:This won't change their minds... by KrackHouse · 2004-11-01 09:47 · Score: 1

Before I stopped attending church when I was a kid we had an expert come in and try to convince us that the earth was 5,000 years old. I don't hate religion but to use "science" to refute evolution is just flat out deceptive.

The problem is that the pace of scientific discoveries have increased to the point that to believe in a litereal interpretation of the bible is only reasonable if you can somehow use science in your argument.

It can't be easy to take the foundation of your beliefs, the bible in the case of a lot of people, and say, "Well some of it it just made up but there is probably a lot of truth to it." When is someone going to create a bible for scientists? Morality and the search for truth can't be mutually exclusive.

--
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Re:This won't change their minds... by Modesitt · 2004-11-01 09:59 · Score: 1

"Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite... If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there, the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field, is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right." -Richard Dawkins

So, lets make a deal. You find someone who'll jump off a cliff and will fly on faith and I'll happily jump off that same cliff. Only I'll have something stronger than faith - A parachute.

--
Everyone on my foe's list is an evolution denier.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Sj0 · 2004-11-01 10:03 · Score: 1

Actually, it is. Not in higher-level species, but bacteria multiply at a fast enough rate that evolution has been observed in microbial species. Frankly, anyone with even a basic understanding of physics knows that for evolution to even be presented as a theory for as long as it has

It's highly debatable whether scientists should stop defending against creation nutjobs. It's true that it's a complete waste of time trying to argue against someone who has no proof(every single creationist arguement I've ever seen attacks a hole in the understanding of evolution, rather than having any proof as such to back up their worldview. It's like saying "Hey! My car doesn't work! Well, the fuel line isn't clogged, and my battery is charged, so it must be underpants gnomes using my transmission to store their booty!".), but without refuting them again and again, how will people know just how wrong the creationists are? It's the Bush effect: if you keep saying something enough times and nobody refutes you, people start to think it's the truth.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:This won't change their minds... by misleb · 2004-11-01 10:07 · Score: 1

First of all science does not explain everything. Not yet anyway,
This is a statement of opinion and a matter of faith on your part.
it is religion that claims that it has answers to everything.
Not all religions. Not even eall Christian sects. The fact that many scientists are capable of living rich religious lives is evidence of this.
Secondly, the scientific method is not a believe system.
It can be. Especially if you start asserting that science will eventually explain everything. That is a belief. True science is not a belief system. It is merely a set of rules and procedures.
It was established as a meaningful way to describe and predict reality.
And religion is established as a meaningful way to descibe ones place in teh world and to deal, psychologically, with reality.
The prediction matters, that's how everything works
Ok, that is how everythign works. How does science tell us why it works that way it does? Does science even BEGIN to address the deeper mystical yernings of man? No. It can't. It isn't designed to. You can say that a mystical experience or yearning is caused by such and such receptor in the brain, but does that tell us what it means? Why do we have such feelings? Science can tell us how we have such feelings, but it can't say why or what its ultimate purpose is.
Another point is this: you did not read the article. Why do you even bother answering to my comments? How do I know you did not read the article? Because you contradict what the article is saying about ID. The article is showing that ID is trying to create a perception that ID is based on a scientific approach, which is clearly false.
"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. "ID" is just an idea that may or may not have been hijacked by Creationist for their own goals. The fact is that ID doesn't necessarily have anything do with Creationism. Look, I feel that Creationist are generally deluded morons too, but I don't let that give ID a bad name. To say that a god created or planned evolution is a perfectly valid assersion that does not contradict science. Creationism, with or without ID, does contradict science. Science is clearly the winner here if only because Creationsts are out of their league.
And by the way, I can just as easily say that you are closed minded, but I don't do that because I alow you your right to your religious believe. But I am 100% against indocrination of such believes into a public education system.
Nice of you to assume I am a creationist. Hell, I'm not even Christian. But I do keep an open mind and accept that there can be multple correct explainations for the same thing... especially when those two explanations are working on totally different levels.
Personally, I don't have much problem with kids hearing about Creation in schools. I'd just rather they hear about it in the context of Comparative Religion and not Biology.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:This won't change their minds... by misleb · 2004-11-01 10:14 · Score: 1

So, lets make a deal. You find someone who'll jump off a cliff and will fly on faith and I'll happily jump off that same cliff. Only I'll have something stronger than faith - A parachute.

Did you even read what I wrote or did you stop at "The problem with scientists...?" You totally missed the point. I proposed a way in which science and religion can, and do, work together... or at least without confict. Regarding your little "deal." Even if you have a parachute, you're gonna need at least a little faith in it openning correctly after you jump. Most people will at least make a token appeal to "God" before they jump. So there you have science and religion working together. Man builds parachute. Man says a little prayer before jumping. No conflict.

-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:This won't change their minds... by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · 2004-11-01 10:33 · Score: 1

Yeah well... of course you are right.
There are a lot of anti-religious rants here, and the crux of the story (the slashdot interpretation of it anyway) is to show that creationism is wrong.

But my point is that we really shouldn't mix apples and oranges. The falsifiability is actually a pretty decent test for wether you've made the fault of mixing up science and faith.
Even the scientist who believes god created evolution, could not come up with an example of experimental evidence that could convince him he was wrong, so he should realise that he is no longer dealing in science.

mind you, I do not clam that the "creationists" are wrong, simply that it's not science. That's really the important issue... I don't care that religious people beleive that god created the world in 7 days... I really couldn't care less. As long as it's not considered science.
If it's accepted as science, it'll have to be accepted in the biology classes, and that's when things really start to go wrong. That's when my (imaginary) childrens education starts looking more like religious indoctrination in a theocracy than actual education.

Just because a lot of anti-religious slashdotters firmly beleive they can scientifically prove that god is dead, that doesn't mean that it is the important part of the discussion... (slashdot is rarely the place to go if you are looking to find that) The important thing is that we are able to tell the difference between science and faith, that we can tell if someone put apple-cider in our orangeade or watered down our whisky.

--
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 10:52 · Score: 1

When I wrote Not yet anyway. I thought someone like you may end up giving these words the wrong connotation. I do not think the science will ever explain everything. Hope that's clear.

For example (to go to one of the points you are trying to make) it is not the point of science to give answers to many questions that start with 'why'. Why do we exist. Why do we want. Why do we desire. All of these questions are good for philosophers to dwell on, but in science these questions don't mean anything. A scientist would ask: How is it that we exist? What makes our digestive systems work etc. How is it that we have feelings like desire. What is the process behind our desires? - those are the kinds of questions that science is good in answering.

And religion is established as a meaningful way to descibe ones place in teh world and to deal, psychologically, with reality. - agreed. But there is no process, there is a huge leap of faith that a religious system requires one to take in order to 'answer' the questions. And what are the answers? - Because god says so. Those are not answers, those are like a comfort blanket that one puts over his/her head to get away from reality because they are so scared of the simple truth of it, that there is no reason for them to exist and do what they do beyond a random set of events.

Does science even BEGIN to address the deeper mystical yernings of man? No. It can't. It isn't designed to. - well, that is what philosophy is for.

"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. - well, if you read the article (wasn't that my point, read the f.king article before arguing with me.) You would see that ID is on its way into establishing itself as a 'scientific approach' for the masses. Only no scientist recognizes this approach, which skips such necessary elements as rigorous analysis and peer review. Oh, I see, the scientists are not peers for the ID folks. Well then, they should not call themselves scientists then.

The fact is that ID doesn't necessarily have anything do with Creationism. - again, you did not read the article. ID is a facade, it is a hook used to push the same ideas of creationism and ultimately christian believes into a public education system.

To say that a god created or planned evolution is a perfectly valid assersion that does not contradict science - that is not what ID says. They say that evolution is not valid and should not be taken as a good working theory. Sure sure, god could have created species through evolution, but again, it is a religious believe not based on facts and has no place in the public education system.

Nice of you to assume I am a creationist. Hell, I'm not even Christian. But I do keep an open mind and accept that there can be multple correct explainations for the same thing... especially when those two explanations are working on totally different levels. - excuse me then, that I made such an assumption. As far as I am concerned there is no place for multiple explanations where one is sufficient. Occam's Razor (that became overused, didn't it) but it applies. I don't want a doctor monitoring someone's heart try to come up with as many as possible explanations that are in different planes. I want him to use a proven and working method of coming up with one good model for what is going on and acting upon it.

Personally, I don't have much problem with kids hearing about Creation in schools. I'd just rather they hear about it in the context of Comparative Religion and not Biology. - I don't want any money wasted on that crap in public schools, period. There are special places they can learn all they (or their parents most likely) want about it.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Elkboy · 2004-11-01 11:06 · Score: 1

Religion was originally a method to explain the world, like the science is today.

So, I would say that modern religion is designed so that science can't deal with its god.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Nopal · 2004-11-01 11:08 · Score: 1

Now that's an interesting proposal: Falsifiability as a litmus test for "off-base" arguments on either end. A faith-based argument than has falsifiability would likely be dealing in an area where science may be better applicable. A scientific-based argument that lacks falsifiability would likely be dealing in an area where faith may be better applicable.
I have to agree with you on those points. Still, the debate between creationism/evolution doesn't always seem to follow them.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Tyreth · 2004-11-01 11:15 · Score: 1

I am tired of people telling me that I should have 'an open mind' for the possibility of the supernatural. I have an open mind. When you provide examples, collect data, create theory, test theory against data and provide statistically sound results that your theory supports the reality and when you publish your findings so that the rest of us can do the same thing on our own. Then I will accept your version of reality. Until then my mind is just that - open for a scientific process.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Darwinist who subscribes to the naturalistic philosophy? Let us assume that the supernatural exists. What method would you propose for testing it, given naturalistic assumptions?
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 11:36 · Score: 1

Yes, I do not believe in anything supernatural. I think everything has a materialistic basis and everything is explicable from that point of view.

Let us assume that the supernatural exists. What method would you propose for testing it, given naturalistic assumptions? - is this a flamebait? Did you notice the moderation of my original comment? I don't care about moderation, it just shows something interesting:

70% Insightful
10% Flamebait
10% Troll

People believe I made my comment in order to troll, how f.cked up is that? Is my comment a flamebait? I don't think so, I offered my opinion without any desire to start a flame-war.

Now to your question again: Assuming that the supernatural exists negates the naturalistic principles in their very core and so makes it impossible to build a workable theory that could stand to rigorous analysis and peer review.

If supernatural existed, (whatever that means,) it would not be possible to set up a repeating experiment. I would go further, assume that god exists. If god existed his will and command could play a major role in everyday events, and as such the universe would become untestable. Today god says - let there be light. Tomorrow he says, - forget the light, let there be whatever something else. In those conditions a stable environment would not be possible.

Now if god existed and decided to create sustainable life forms, he/she/it would have to create stable life conditions. But stable life conditions depend on repeatability of events and thus display symptomes of causality. Cause/effect system would have be put in place. Cause/effect implies repeatability and testability.

My point is, if there is god we cannot prove it, because god would make the universe a stable environment for us to survive in and stable environment must exclude all that is supernatural and thus does not follow the cause/effect pattern.

Corollary, evidence of supernatural events would imply a non-stable universe. We wouldn't exist to witness it.

To me personally this shows the absolute non-importance of such ideas as idea of god, if basically god would equal nature in this sense.

Applying Occam's Razor I infer that the simplest explanation is that there is no god and everything happens for no reason in an NDA system.

Given enough time this is not improbable to have our universe with everything there is here, and I cannot even start thinking about the amount of time that preceeded my personal existance.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Tyreth · 2004-11-01 11:58 · Score: 1

is this a flamebait? Did you notice the moderation of my original comment? I don't care about moderation, it just shows something interesting

I missed the reason why you posted this. Were you saying mine was flamebait while yours isn't? Or were you just pointing it out as an interesting side note? You should try being a creationist. You can post on-topic defences to an attack and get modded flamebait or troll. It's disgusting. Moderations on this whole topic are warped. People should respond when they disagree, and reserve the negative moderations for specifically when something is a troll, offtopic, or flamebait - not just to promote a particular viewpoint.
Anyway, back to your answer. The problem was that if you first assume naturalism, there is no way to include the supernatural from the very beginning. So the existence of the supernatural must necesserily be determined independantly of naturalistic assumptions. I think it is highly likely that the supernatural cannot be tested empirically/scientifically. For example, let us suppose that God does heal someone - the elders of a church put oil on someone and pray, and miraculously they are healed. Now, in this example we are assuming this person was healed by God, and that God does exist. How would we test it? The next time those elders gather together God may not heal. The first time he did the only testimony may be that of the elders.
That is a case where science cannot test, and in fact the testimony won't last any further than that group. A second miracle example - Jesus feeds the 5000 with a few loaves of bread and some fish. Everyone present is able to observe the miracle. However, there is no way afterwards that the miracle can be tested repeatedly.
I should get to the point: An angel from heaven comes to earth, feeds 5000 people with nothing but a basket of 3 loaves and 2 fishes. The angel then ascends into heaven. All who witness the event have irrefutable proof for themselves that the miracle occurred. However, anyone outside that group will have no proof other than the accuracy of their testimony. Science would be unable to test any such event too. Yet it did happen. This leaves an important question - how can these people know something as truth that is not obtained through science? There is no doubt for those present that this was true. Yet science is unable to present that truth.
The answer is using logic. They used philosophical arguments/reasoning to determine truth. Philosophy is the method by which science is defined. Naturalism is a philosophy which hangs over science and is outside of science. Science is not the only method by which we can determine science, and in fact science itself rests on the foundations of philosophy.
So my point is that God's existence can be verified by methods outside of science. There is the axiological argument, teleological, and others. If justified these prove His existence.
This is a messy post, I know, so I guess I'm saying two things:
1. I appreciate the difficulty in verifying the existence of the supernatural, but I don't think scientific requirements are suitable
2. God's existence can be proven, but not scientifically. Science is not the only method of obtaining truth.
Regarding instability: Christians practiced science because they believed in a rational God who created a consistent and rational universe. Interventions are seen as an exception, not a rule. Complaining about the instability introduced by a God is much the same as watching natural processes and seeing odd behaviour - we begin to look for outside sources. For example, scientists watching a local evosystem begin to see a particular species dying out without any natural predators. They can either find a natural explanation, or, in this case, they find out that local farmers have been spraying poison over the area to kill this species. That is the very same "instability" that God presents - when it appears, it should be obvious and able therefore to be accounted for.
Ugh, long and messy post :)
Re:This won't change their minds... by bnenning · 2004-11-01 12:01 · Score: 1

E.g. what looking for ghosts drove them away? What if testing God caused Him to ignore one?

Such theories are unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of science.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Oblio · 2004-11-01 12:12 · Score: 1

I can't understand why an imagined creature (toucan-squirrel) can't have an imagined evolutionary path (teeth form into beak, beak forms into brilliant colors to attract mates).

You mentioned digging up examples of "non-evolutionary species" from science fiction, but all I can come up with in terms of "creatures I can imagine, but can't imagine an evolutionary background" are synthetic beings (such as robots). And then you get into that whole stupid matrix "machines making machines" thing.

I'm just not sure that darwinism is any more "non-falsifiable" than ID is.

(but I'm ignorant).

--
Pax -- Ob
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 12:26 · Score: 1

I missed the reason why you posted this. Were you saying mine was flamebait while yours isn't? Or were you just pointing it out as an interesting side note? - I think it is an interesting side-note. It does nothing to diminish my opinion but I think the moderators in this case fill some sort of personal attack. Current numbers are:

60% Insightful
20% Flamebait
10% Troll

And I did go to +5 Insightful on that one twice already. I like /. it often shows to me how difficult it is to talk to people - there are many who don't share your opinion and some of those would love to silence any opinion that does not coincide with their own. Somehow they get the mod-points :]. I think I would give myself +5 Funny for the above comments.

----
Well, you confirmed my post:
The problem was that if you first assume naturalism, there is no way to include the supernatural from the very beginning. - yeah, obviously. These things are mutually exclusive, so I see it as confusion on the part of some scientificly-minded people who still hold a believe for some sort of a deity.

An angel from heaven comes to earth, feeds 5000 people with nothing but a basket of 3 loaves and 2 fishes. The angel then ascends into heaven. All who witness the event have irrefutable proof for themselves that the miracle occurred. However, anyone outside that group will have no proof other than the accuracy of their testimony - and 5000 people would tell you other quite interesting stories after inhaling some weed smoke or whatever. But actually, it wouldn't be 5000, it would be more like 5 or maybe even 1 writing these things down as they come into his own head. Where are those 5000 accounts on the incredible deeds of the angels?

Personally I have such ingrained disbelief in all that is supernatural, that even if I at some point told you - I believe! I wouldn't be telling the truth. Do you understand what I am trying to say? I don't believe in anything that cannot be proven and tested and the hell with unrepeatable anomalies. They are as good as fairy tales.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Starcub · 2004-11-01 14:39 · Score: 1

Personally, I believe that if there were an intelligent designer we wouldn't have to search so hard for evidence.

Maybe the problem is more along the lines of "How do I explain the last computer program I wrote to my pet chimpanzee?" Though I suppose that given enough time, 7000 chimps might actually come up with better code than mine. Of course, I wouldn't really say that in reference to God because if I did, I mmighyaw.a w wt /iy haep/.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Tyreth · 2004-11-01 15:26 · Score: 1

These things are mutually exclusive, so I see it as confusion on the part of some scientificly-minded people who still hold a believe for some sort of a deity.

Science is not necessarily naturalistic, it's just that the naturalistic philosophy dominates the minds of most scientists. If a method could be found by which to apply the scientific method to the supernatural, that would be acceptable. I don't know if any have tried yet or not. I do know that while I find the skeptics societies inability to apply skepticism to evolution fascinating, I appreciate greatly their efforts to disprove psychics, religious, healings, etc. There's far too much deception. My particular dislike is mediums like John Edward and James Van Praagh.
I don't believe in anything that cannot be proven and tested and the hell with unrepeatable anomalies. They are as good as fairy tales.

When I talked about whether there is a God, I was not talking about something that cannot be "proven". Any argument that follows this formula:
1. If A then B
2. A
therefore,
3. B
That is a philosophical proof, not a scientific one. Those are the sorts of proofs that exist for God. In fact, for science we should talk about 'evidences', while in philosophy (iirc) we talk about 'proofs'.
And this is important - after all, you can't prove that there is no God, but you can prove that there is one.
All I'm really saying is that science is not the sole determiner of truth. True knowledge (knowledge that is true ;)) can be obtained through other means than just science, and science is almost always a probability rather than a proof.
Re:This won't change their minds... by misleb · 2004-11-01 15:46 · Score: 1

But there is no process, there is a huge leap of faith that a religious system requires one to take in order to 'answer' the questions. And what are the answers? - Because god says so.
I'm sorry that you have such a limited and negative experience of what religion is. I happen to consider myself Buddhist and none of my "answers" come down to anything resembling "because God says so." You do seem to have a rather closed mind. Or is it just ignorance?
Those are not answers, those are like a comfort blanket that one puts over his/her head to get away from reality because they are so scared of the simple truth of it, that there is no reason for them to exist and do what they do beyond a random set of events.
That is the "truth," huh? You came to this miraculous conclusion through the scientific method? Or perhaps it is just your personal comfort blanket.
"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. - well, if you read the article (wasn't that my point, read the f.king article before arguing with me.)
I read the damn article. Why are you being such a presumptuous prick? I didn't need that atricle to tell me about ID and Creationism.
You would see that ID is on its way into establishing itself as a 'scientific approach' for the masses.
Why do you keep treating ID as some autonomous entity?
again, you did not read the article. ID is a facade, it is a hook used to push the same ideas of creationism and ultimately christian believes into a public education system. I knew what ID was before reading it. ID is more than a facade. It is a valid philosophical idea that has been hijacked by Creationists who do not represent religion as a whole. I'm sorry that your disdain for anything religious blinds you to this fact.
that is not what ID says. They say that evolution is not valid and should not be taken as a good working theory.
No... that is what Creationists say. ID merely states that a higher power planned and/or guided whatever this world has come to be. It does not, theoretically, exclude evolution in any way. Nor does it deny the validity of the scientific method as a whole.
As far as I am concerned there is no place for multiple explanations where one is sufficient.
Too bad. The world is full of multiple explanations for things. You can be close minded and dismiss all but your own perfered explanations, but then you are no better than the religious fanatics that you seem to despise.
Occam's Razor (that became overused, didn't it) but it applies. I don't want a doctor monitoring someone's heart try to come up with as many as possible explanations that are in different planes. I want him to use a proven and working method of coming up with one good model for what is going on and acting upon it.
Personally, I want a doctor who understands the problem on many different levels... a doctor who understands the biological, psychological, and perhaps the philosophical aspects to good health. But whatever.
Honestly, I can't really blame religious fanatics for defending their faith from nihilists like yourself. I know I don't want to see the world turned into an empty, meaningless, technological dystopia. You're no better than they are.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:This won't change their minds... by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 16:39 · Score: 1

Since the "God planned it all along" argument is non-falsifiable,...
How so?
Make the question more general. Here's a foobar, something a bit different than anything else we've seen so far. Is there a way to determine whether the foobar is a thing designed by some kind of intelligence, or came about by totally natural causes?
Why is this question inherently un-falsifiable, any more or less than any other question? Why is this question extremely interesting to the geek crowd when running SETI@home, but so threatening when its object is a living thing?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 17:08 · Score: 1

Why is this question inherently un-falsifiable, any more or less than any other question?

Let's put it this way: what piece of evidence can you imagine that would make you say, "You're right. There is clearly no intelligent designer."

I'm not asking you for existing evidence. I'm asking for hypothetical evidence that could be gathered, no matter how much money it cost or how long it took. That's what falsifiable means: that there is some conceivable way for it to be not true.

To put it another way, make a prediction based on the ID hypothesis which I could conceivably test, even if it's impractical for me to make that test.

If I found a mammal walking around on Earth which breathed methane, I'd be pretty sure it didn't evolve, because there's no way for methane-breather to live in this atmosphere. (It may have evolved elsewhere, but I'll forgo that at the moment). If you showed me a creature whose mother was a rutabaga and whose father was a koala, I'd know that evolution was wrong; it predicts that such creatures cannot exist.

That is, evolution predicts that such things are impossible, and therefore finding such would falsify evolution. The ID hypothesis is under no such constraints that I am aware of. Which means that it's impossible to disprove, but it also means that it's impossible to prove.

So I'd say, "Yeah, fine, sure, there's an intelligent designer out there, but it doesn't matter because there's no way to contact him, he left no instructions, and there's no evidence that he cares what I do." Thus a non-falsifiable hypothesis is a meaningless one which you can accept or reject without it making any difference.
Re:This won't change their minds... by CaptainCarrot · 2004-11-01 17:13 · Score: 1

Not to mention that God himself could, someday, speak from the sky, cause plagues of locusts, and generally prove his existence in the scientific sense.
This would not prove God's existence scientifically. It'll be unanalyzable and non-repeatable. Miracles actually occur with some regularity...
Parenthetical note: I've seen the above statement denied here rather stridently, but for me to credit that means I have to discard the evidence of my own eyes, and the testmony of a large number of people I personally know and trust, in favor of that of some faceless militant atheist. (Not you. The post I have in mind was far less reasonable in tone.) I think I can be excused for not doing so.
...But the nature of a miracle is that once it happens, there's nothing of it to see other than its effect where, if there are no physical signs of the cause, there are usually no supernatural signs of it either. Even the fire from the annual Holy Light in Jerusalem starts to give off heat after a while. What's to say about a miraculous healing except that a medical condition corrected itself somehow? A voice? Did anyone record it? Witnesses? We all know how unreliable they can be. And so forth.
And if a miracle could be verified scientifically, then what? Why would that be scientific evidence of God's existence? Wouldn't a materially-oriented scientist conclude rather that there's some physical law he does not yet understand and work towards understanding it? That the law would not exist given our hypothetical premise doesn't matter for the purpose of making a guess about such a person's natural reaction.
What it boils down to is that a system and method such as science, which is of marvellous utility for analyzing, categorizing, and understanding the natural world, can't say much about the actions of a supremely free-willed being who acts unpredictably and outside the bounds of nature. This is just not a sphere it's designed to operate in. Personally, I have no more problem with science's limitations here than I do in the opposite direction. After all, electric lights are pretty useful. Even in church.

--
And the brethren went away edified.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 17:52 · Score: 1

Let's put it this way: what piece of evidence can you imagine that would make you say, "You're right. There is clearly no intelligent designer."
If you take the stronger "irreducibly complex" idea, it's falsifiable in each instance you might want to posit it. It's only necessary to demonstrate a serious of steps to arrive at the posited "irreducibly complex" structure, each of which is in some way beneficial to the organism in question.
In fact, that is exactly what many evolutionists have been doing to debunk claims of irreducible complexity.
So you can falsify the hypothesis that intelligent design is NECESSARY to explain some phenomenon. You can't falsify the argument that intelligent design is a POSSIBLE explanation for some phenomenon.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 18:08 · Score: 1

So you can falsify the hypothesis that intelligent design is NECESSARY to explain some phenomenon. You can't falsify the argument that intelligent design is a POSSIBLE explanation for some phenomenon.

Correct. So at that point I take it as "simpler" to believe that there is no intelligent designer, a rather complex entity whose rules I do not understand (and which I gather I cannot understand).

If you find the world a more beautiful place if there is an intelligent designer as a possible explanation for the things you observe, then there appears to be no point of contention between us, and peace be with you too.
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 18:20 · Score: 1

I'm sorry that you have such a limited and negative experience of what religion is - don't be. I am not interested in any form of religion. Sure sure, in buddhism you achieve your 'enlightment', maybe you get moderated even and your karma will dictate what will happen to you in your next life. And you accepted this on faith because some Indian born guy who was shrewed enough to become a king in China said so. Well, it is unacceptable to me. I don't believe there is reincarnation or soul of any sort, period.

I have a closed mind to nonsense, as I should. When you prove that reincarnation is possible, then come back. No prove is valid until it follows the scientific principle.

That is the "truth," huh? You came to this miraculous conclusion through the scientific method? Or perhaps it is just your personal comfort blanket. - actually I did not come to this conclusion through a scientific method. I came to it through Occam's Razor. It is the simplest explanation of what happens. When you are dead, you stay dead forever. Information you had in your mind is gone, even though the matter that once was you still exists in the universe as your corpse.

It is the religious types that came to miraculous conclusions of soul, reincarnation, gods etc. I dismiss all of this outright until they prove themselves through sciense. Believe is unacceptable.

I read the damn article. Why are you being such a presumptuous prick? I didn't need that atricle to tell me about ID and Creationism. - Taking the conversation to a whole new level, why don't you? Since I argue by the article in this thread I require you to read it as well. I don't care what you think you know about ID, ID is a false 'scientific' facade to the same creationist BS, used to push christian propaganda.

Why do you keep treating ID as some autonomous entity? - oh, you want me to use names standing behind the Discovery Institute in Seattle? It doesn't matter how I refer to it.

I knew what ID was before reading it. ID is more than a facade. It is a valid philosophical idea that has been hijacked by Creationists who do not represent religion as a whole. I'm sorry that your disdain for anything religious blinds you to this fact. - anything can be presented as 'a valid philosophical idea'. In fact anything at all is a valid philosophical idea. It does not follow that all such ideas have any usefulness and need to waste our time. My disdain for anything that is religious? Excuse me for not caring for ideas that waste my time. Come back with a working scientific model.

No... that is what Creationists say. ID merely states that a higher power planned and/or guided whatever this world has come to be. It does not, theoretically, exclude evolution in any way. Nor does it deny the validity of the scientific method as a whole. - right, the aliens did it. There is not a single good reason to teach this garbage in publick schools. This is just what I said it was - garbage. There is not a single good point there. So maybe the aliens are responsible, but that does not answer the questions that are worth our time, how did we evolve. The questions that ID is supposedely answering are the same old religious BS. type questions: why is it the way it is? These are unimportant questions, they cannot be answered without some form of an unproved religious explanation. Why should schools waste time on these? Besides, if you read the article you will see that ID people forced change of curriculum in some schools and introduced material that contradicts parts of evolution theory that are well understood. ID is harmful at schools.

Too bad. The world is full of multiple explanations for things. You can be close minded and dismiss all but your own perfered explanations, but then you are no better than the religious fanatics that you seem to despise. - sure sure, the world is full of various explanations. It does not mean we have to teach all of the crackpot ideas

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by jfengel · 2004-11-01 18:23 · Score: 1

That was a very insightful reply; thank you.

It is very true that a miracle that happens which I observe directly presents rather a challenge to me: I cannot go on to believe precisely the way I believe now, because I would have the evidence of my eyes, but neither do I have an event I can study since it's non-repeatable.

Since no miracle as such has happened to me it would be easy to dismiss them as nonexistent, but you have the evidence of your eyes, and from your post you're not an unreasonable person (somebody trying to manipulate me to advance his religious goals).

This leaves me with an epistemological problem to which I admit my theology does not admit a ready solution. The simplest way would be to accuse you of being mistaken, and then to accuse myself of being mistaken if I had observed a clearly miraculous event. But that seems to beg the question by ignoring evidence, which is a very un-scientific thing to do.

So as you say, I can't say much about a supremely free-willed being. If he exists, I hope that he observes that my behavior (predicated on His non-existence) still matches His moral goals for me. I like to think that my secular-humanist morality matches most modern religions as far as behavior is concerned, except in matters of faith. If I'm wrong, well, I suppose one can't be sanguine about being in Hell, but I'll try.
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 18:47 · Score: 1

Sure, logic is great. But what good is it when the assumptions are incorrect in the first place.

If A then B
A
therefore B

it's all good, the problem is that 'A' is not provable.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by tehdaemon · 2004-11-01 18:49 · Score: 1

"I don't believe in anything that cannot be proven and tested"
I stubbed my toe last week. It hurt.
I had a great idea yesterday.
I've been thinking about that.
I made this water by burning hydrogen 5 minutes ago.
There are plenty of things that cannot be proven and tested. And it should be easy to prove it too. all you need is one solid example, I just gave you four decent candidates, I am sure you could come up with a few more. This hardly proves supernatural things, but it does prove that you cannot prove that there are none.
Unrepeatable anomalies are not as good as fairy tales. They are not as entertaining. (*joke) They are also valid scientific data. What they tell us is that the experiment was not controlled enough. We did not account for all of the inputs. Either there is some effect that we were not aware of and did not measure, detect, or understand[1] in this particular run of the experiment, or the materials in the experiment were not as pure or simple as we tried to get them.[2]
In short, the experiment was flawed. Usually though, our experiments are good enough that we can just throw out the few anomalous results, and still have enough clean data to get our results. Perhaps later on, as we get further understanding, we will be able to make sense of and gain understanding of, those anomalies.
There are indeed fanatics, many of whom are seeking a security blanket, and who can't accept that their view of the purpose for living is wrong, let alone that there may not be any - as you charged in a previous post. I think you are sick of these claims. I know I am. I think that you believe that these claims do lots of damage and retard scientific progress. I do to. But I also think that you have let this disgust take you too far, to the point of assuming that anything that would seem to support their claims, even in some small way, is wrong, and to go about trying to prove that it is wrong, instead of trying to discover the truth. I hope that you can see that this is exactally what the creationists do. They assume that evolution is false, and so they attack anything that seems to support it, with no concern for the truth.
[1]This could be anything from a stray burst of gamma rays from deep space, to a new principle of quantum mechanics, to a god saying 'I feel like using my power here for X reason'. And since we had neither a gamma ray meter nor a god-power meter present, we missed that input.
[2]That wasn't really pure water, it had a little bit of X in it....

--
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Tyreth · 2004-11-01 18:53 · Score: 1

Right. Sometimes A may be provided through the scientific method. Sometimes not. This question is one that philosophy also deals with. For example, some believe there are foundational truths which are simply known to be true. Some others believe that every truth rests on another, forming a circle eventually.
But at any rate, these are questions which help us know what is truth but are outside the realm of science.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Shadowlore · 2004-11-01 20:17 · Score: 1

You do realize that the quote you gave to "George Bush" was not the current president right? It was from his father George HW Bush in the mid-late 1980s'.

http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonb el iever/page50.html
and
http://homepage.mac.com/dr billmartin/rssl/quotes/b ush.html

Will get you started if you didn't.

Otherwise, your sig quote makes me think of the Creationists misrepresenting reality to fit their agenda. ;)

--
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Shadowlore · 2004-11-01 20:30 · Score: 1

The problem is (and this is also brought up in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence) is that there is an infinite number of potentially valid hypothesis if one simply operates from this falsifiability standpoint, and therefore objective scientific progress is impossible.

Yet despite the assertion, scientific progress is churning along at an ever increasing pace. It isn't the number of potentially valid hypothesis that determines the number of actually valid ones. We potentially have an infinite number of people to confirm/refute them.

So the hypothesis that an potentially infinite number of hypotheses makes scientific progress impossible is proven to be actually false, thus reducing it by one. Well, that's infite -1 hypothesis left. ;)

When your end point is an indefinite distance away, measure from the starting point.

science is by no means objective

"Science" is objective. Scientists , however, that's different.

--
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Re:This won't change their minds... by misleb · 2004-11-02 04:24 · Score: 1

Sure sure, in buddhism you achieve your 'enlightment', maybe you get moderated even and your karma will dictate what will happen to you in your next life. And you accepted this on faith because some Indian born guy who was shrewed enough to become a king in China said so. Well, it is unacceptable to me. I don't believe there is reincarnation or soul of any sort, period.
Buddha? King in China???? Where the heck did you learn that? Or did you mean "like a king?" FYI, Buddhism isn't about "faith." It is a series techniques that permit one to explore the deeper truths of existence and to get the the root cause of suffering. Also, Buddha rejected the idea of a soul. But I guess you wouldn't care about any of that.
I am a realist.
You sound more like a nihilist. Except that a good nihilist would reject even science. You should read some Nietzsche sometime. I bet you'd like it. Maybe it would get you out of the existential hole that you have dug for yourself.
Anyone basing their live on an unprovable believe system is an idiot.
Another of your scientificly proven facts? Or do you just have faith in this sentiment? If only you knew how much of who you are and what you believe in is "unprovable." You're no less an idiot than anyone else.
My live has enough meaning in it for me to happilly continue, I am sorry that you need to believe in something bigger than simple existance to feel happy or whatever it is you are trying to feel.
It isn't about what I "need" to believe. It is just a matter of what I do believe. It is about who I am and what fits my personality. I am not going to reject what I have experienced to be true (or at least plausable) based on some nihilist wannabe's idea of what an idiot is. Living a hollow shell of a life is hardly an alternative to what I may or may not have faith in right now.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-02 05:04 · Score: 1

But I guess you wouldn't care about any of that. - hey, it's your philosophy, as I said as long as this crap is not part of curriculum in public schools I don't care.

You sound more like a nihilist. - whatever you want, buddy, I said realist.

You sound more like a nihilist. Except that a good nihilist would reject even science. You should read some Nietzsche sometime. I bet you'd like it. Maybe it would get you out of the existential hole that you have dug for yourself. - oh, the tragedy. Am I hearing from you an advice to read Nietzsche? Why, it is in my library and I have read his books and I doubt that you have, you sound like a guy who heard something about that but never bothered to read himself, but you sure do like to give advices.

Another of your scientificly proven facts? Or do you just have faith in this sentiment? If only you knew how much of who you are and what you believe in is "unprovable." You're no less an idiot than anyone else. - thank you for making it clear for me. Without this 'enlightment' I would have wandered in the darkness of the world that I have created for myself and I could never have seen the light.

You are trying to convince me that your religion is the true one and I cannot have a full life without it or something like it? That is my problem with you and people like you (I copied this last phrase from something you said earlier.) You think that what you believe will give you meaning and thus it must be imposed on others to give meanings to their lives as well.

I have a problem with it only at the point where my taxes go towards educating people such nonsense. That is my argument. I would be an idiot if I allowed that to happen.

It isn't about what I "need" to believe. It is just a matter of what I do believe. It is about who I am and what fits my personality. - excellent. Do it at your own expense and don't try to push this into public education system (I am not saying you are doing that, but the ID people are)

I am not going to reject what I have experienced to be true (or at least plausable) based on some nihilist wannabe's idea of what an idiot is. - wow, just wow. All this time you trully believed that I am somehow trying to negate your believe system? I don't give a shit about your believe system and I wouldn't care in a million years. Don't push it onto me.

Living a hollow shell of a life is hardly an alternative to what I may or may not have faith in right now. - and there you are, comparing your life to mine again. Yes, I said that religious types are idiots for believing in whatever higher purpse. I really think so, but at the moment when this purpose is proven mathematically and stands up to a review I will accept it as a fact.

Other than that I have no further comments to you.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Bob+Uhl · 2004-11-02 07:11 · Score: 1

A public education system must not affiliate itself with a religious group of any kind.
Sure--but of course, that's not possible. Atheism is just as much a religion as Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or Christianity. We need to eliminate public schooling; then parents can send their children to be educated according to their own precepts.
And hello: I agree with you on macro-evolution. I just happen to find that no less a religious belief than disagreement thereon. The rationalist-objective viewpoint is no more well-founded than any other (read Goedel sometime...).
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-02 07:20 · Score: 1

this post is for you, I mistakenly put it on the same level in this thread.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by roman_mir · 2004-11-02 07:26 · Score: 1

Atheism is just as much a religion as Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or Christianity - that's a big load of bs. There is no belief in atheism, there is only absense of believe and, as opposed to agnostics, atheist deny such things that require a blieve until there is a proof. You will tell me: but atheists don't know that there is no god. We don't have to bear the responsibility for every stupid question that someone asks. If the question is not stupid it will not require a believe system to be built around an unproved statement.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:This won't change their minds... by Bob+Uhl · 2004-11-02 07:27 · Score: 1

Such theories are unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of science.
That was my point: he was arguing for scientific proof of something which may at once be scientifically unprovable yet true.
Re:This won't change their minds... by cortana · 2004-11-13 01:35 · Score: 1

If you were watching a cat and it suddenly changed into a horse, would you start believing in evolution?

Evolution vs. Creationism by einhverfr · 2004-11-01 04:30 · Score: 5, Funny

What is this "Creationism" program? And will it run on Linux?

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....

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by zechariahs · 2004-11-01 04:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe evolution is the "intelligent design." I just have a hard time believing that evolution gave us, the human race, our start. I think we were created and evolution was allowed to take its course so we can adapt to our environment. Assuming we were created maybe god knew we were going to fuck up our planet and we needed a mechanism to survive those changes.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by bmj · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by dkf · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 1

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....
Actually, there have been studies of this (and someone else will have to pick up the karma for tracking down a URL) and you get differently shaped family trees with evolution and intelligent design. For some reason, I keep thinking of "design of cornets" was a case study...

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by micromoog · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Strictly speaking, "Luddite" is reserved for people opposed to technology, not science. I believe the word you're looking for is "Republican". *ducks*
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by bmj · 2004-11-01 04:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Strictly speaking, "Luddite" is reserved for people opposed to technology, not science. I believe the word you're looking for is "Republican". *ducks*

Allow me to split hairs ;-). Would this level of scientific research be available without technology?

*ducks*

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by theparanoidcynic · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't think many ludites read /. That would be . . . . odd. ;)

--
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by truthsearch · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here's a very good article from Wired about the debate between evolution and intelligent design. It was the cover story for Oct. One big question: is intelligent design Christian creationism repackaged as weak science?

--
Developers: We can use your help.
Re: Evolution vs. Creationism by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 1

> 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.

Some of the leaders of the movement don't reject evolution at all; they just argue that God^w some unknown Intelligent Designer was involved somewhere along the way. But they participate in a "big tent" strategy of "let the creationists come unto me", by minimizing the differences in opinion about the age of the earth and the extent to which evolution works out God's plan. (The backstabbing can wait until they defeat the common enemy, secular science and government.)

Given the neocon connections of the leading proponents of ID, lots of people doubt that they believe what they're saying at all, and suspect it's a deliberate attempt to use religion as an opiate for the masses.

At any rate, their arguments rely on a pile of fallacies of fact and logic that they should have been able to spot while still undergraduates, if not highschool students, so I find it hard to take them seriously as anything other than demagogues.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by r2q2 · 2004-11-01 04:56 · Score: 1

If you understand that this creation program requires a quantum computer at minimum with a lot of qubits sure. You might have to port linux to a quantum computer though.

--
My UID is prime is yours?
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by pilgrim23 · 2004-11-01 04:56 · Score: 1

Evolutionists were created, Creationists.....evolved.

--
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution"

In other words, they aren't against the parts that have been conclusively proven in repeated experiements, but are remarkably obtuse about allowing that what happens in small ways quickly can also happen in large ways slowly.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Rikurzhen · 2004-11-01 04:59 · Score: 1

Someone should point out the Wikipedia entry on Intelligent Design.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Elledan · 2004-11-01 05:02 · Score: 1

Of course, creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Evolution has been proven to be very real over and over again in the past century, to the point that it's pretty much a scientific fact.

Biogenesis, however, is still a battleground, with many scientific theories competing. Currently it appears that vulcanic vents on the bottom of oceans were the original birthplace for life on earth, a theory which is supported by, among other things, the fact that the life which currently exists around such vulcanic vents appears to be older than anywhere else on this planet.

Creationism can be discarded for the simple reason that it's not based on any evidence or observations, hence failing the scientific process.

The same is true for intelligent design, unless we are willing to entertain the thought that the designers in this theory were in fact extra-terrestial lifeforms. In which case it's a perfect subject for a philosophical debate.

--
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by humuhumunukunukuapu' · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 1

error:
cannot find libgod.so

--
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by dubl-u · 2004-11-01 05:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

I just have a hard time believing that evolution gave us, the human race, our start.

Hear, hear! Personally, I also have a hard time believing that the same force that keeps the planets in motion is the one that makes things fall down. I know scientists say that it's all some "gravity" thing, but it just seems too weird.

I mean, sure, they say they have a lot of evidence and math and stuff. But I tried looking at some of it, and it made me all sleepy. So I figure that's some all-powerful creator guy trying to tell me that the gravity thing is bunk, and it's just his will keeping things in the place where he thinks they should be.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by bmj · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

I guess Biogenesis was the term I should have used, instead of macro-evolution.

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Dimensio · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Evolution theory does not cover the ultimate origins of life. The ultimate origins of life is a matter not in any way addressed by evolution, "macro" or otherwise. This is a common Creationist misconception, but they repeat it anyway because ignorance of the facts is no barrier for them.

--
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Bohnanza · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 1

I don't think Darwin ever claimed to be an atheist. He's buried in Westminster Abbey, after all.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't evolution now the official Catholic Church explanation of how life came to exist on earth? I think the current Church theory is: God Created Evolution, and then at some point (Just like in 2001: A Space Odyssey) God picked some advanced monkeys and stuck "souls" into them.

--
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Angostura · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1

OK, so you agree that evolution through natural selection has shaped Homo sapiens.

Once you accept that, you are close to accepting divergent evolution - that a population of animals can split into two or more species when presented with different environmental conditions and isolated from one another.

So that's speciation covered. That just leaves understanding what you mean by 'giving the human race its start'.

What is this 'start' that you are struggling with?
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by someguysomewhere · 2004-11-01 05:18 · Score: 1

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....

The way I view ID is that the "design" comes from the initial conditions of the system. So once you set things up you just let evolution do the rest.

So, as the parent noted, I believe evolution and creationism are not incompatible.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Mr.+No+Skills · 2004-11-01 05:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe the "intellegent design" was the balance of matter to make an atom work, and now he sits back to see what happens. Why would God waste his time with all that detail work on DNA and eyeballs?

I have a hard time believing any person can even imagine what God is trying to do, and an even harder time thinking that man could be his crowning acheivement.

In some ways, "creationists" are trying to hijack the "intellegent design" theories as a back door to getting creationism taught in schools (since their God could be one of the possible designers). But, strictly speaking, intellegent design theory is the exploration of those evolutionary black boxes regardless of who put us here.

And, we all know we got here due to meddling by Q anyway.

--
Sleep is for the Weak
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by weekendwarrior1980 · 2004-11-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Nope, you're wrong. ID people aren't against "evolution", they are against evolution via Natural Selection. They agree evolution happened, just want the algorithmic process of selection by nature supplanted by a "mind" and intelligent force.

--

Activists United
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by QEDog · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

One big question: is intelligent design Christian creationism repackaged as weak science?

One short answer: Yes

Seriously, or maybe not, check out Kent Hovind's comments on creationism, VERY funny Christian extremist.

Some of my favorites:
-Probably, after the Flood, the Tower of Babel took place. God put them into different language groups. They spread out. Those that spoke French went one way. Those that spoke German went a different way. Those that spoke Spanish went a different way.
-I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years.

-These continents are not lily pads floating around in a bath tub, folks. They are connected. The Earth has a solid crust to it.

--
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Elledan · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 1

No you shouldn't. Biogenesis and evolution are completely unrelated as well, except that the former is required for the latter.

--
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 05:31 · Score: 1

What is macroevolution if not a whole bunch of microevolutions strung together? The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step...

Consider canines. No one act of breeding is enough to cause speciation, but the individual actions of thousands of breeders across continents over the past few millenia has wrought breeds from (more or less) unchanged wolves to mastiffs to dobermans to pugs to chihuahuas, many of which are no longer physically capable of mating, no matter any genetic incompatibility.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by pixelpusher220 · 2004-11-01 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 :-D
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Elledan · 2004-11-01 05:39 · Score: 1

Wrong. There exists sufficient evidence which proves that species can evolve from other species. Like the birds Darwin studied on his voyage.

Besides, there's no other theory which is able to directly compete with the theory of (macro)evolution.

--
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Xrikcus · 2004-11-01 05:42 · Score: 1

I think "abiogenesis" would be more accurate there. Biogenesis refers to lifeforms coming from other lifeforms, abiogenesis from non-living matter.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Epistax · 2004-11-01 05:44 · Score: 1

I don't understand how anyone can really completely dismiss evolution. It can be demonstrated very easily.

Get a bunch of rats, white ones and black ones. Let'm have fun for a few months.
Remove every black rat. The white rats will have black babies. Remove them before they can mate.
Keep this up for a year.
The white rats aren't having nearly as many babies. Keep it up and they won't have any.

Let's say that there's been a climate shift and a once arboreal region is now frozen tundra. The black rats are easily seen by predators and so are eaten. The white rats live to mate. This is all evolution is (in it's most simple form--removing a trait). To not believe in evolution is to not believe in heredity. If you believe in heredity but not evolution (aka survival of the fittest, sexual evolution) I'd love to hear you make your case.

Now if your argument is against adding a trait (mutations, etc) then you already didn't completely dismiss evolution and so I don't think you're stupid ;)
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by joib · 2004-11-01 05:55 · Score: 1

The same is true for intelligent design, unless we are willing to entertain the thought that the designers in this theory were in fact extra-terrestial lifeforms.

But in that case, who created the aliens? God? Or perhaps evolution?

That is, the entire "intelligent design has no opinion about who the designer is" argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Bastian · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

Heck, I think we should teach all of the competing biblically-supported competitors to scientific "facts" that Christianity has held to be true over the past several hundred years. For example, we should teach that there are four elements, the earth is unmoving and at the center of the universe, all celestial objects are held aloft by heavenly spheres, and the world south of the equator is an uninhabitable region of fire.

It's only fair that our children get several sides to the story in order to make sure they get an objectively balanced education.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-11-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Sadly, you're not that far off from the truth. The Christian Right is predominantly right (versus left). Yet at the same time most of the Christian Right want vaccines, cars, and other technology. It's true that accepting some of science does not mean accepting all of it. It does seem somewhat contradictory and unethical, however, to accept only part of what science verifies when it suits your needs. If there is a God, he certainly hasn't shown just cause to worship him, IMHO.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by cruachan · 2004-11-01 06:41 · Score: 1

The Catholic church tends to be rather progressive on these things: one of the benefits of having a corporate memory measured in centuries I guess.
Having got their fingers burnt rather badly over Galileo and they have been rather careful to stay on the right side of scientific progress ever since.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by LMCBoy · 2004-11-01 06:46 · Score: 1

I believe "macroevolution" as used by most ID adherents means "speciation", nothing to do with the primordial soup. It's essentially a strategy to minimize the impact of biology on their belief system: "Ok, I grant you that selective breeding made all the breeds of domestic dogs and cats, but no amount of breeding can turn a dog into a cat! Silly scientists! Each animal created in its kind, blah blah blah..."

In fact, the scientific theory of evolution has *nothing* to say about the origin of life; it is simply about the diversification and specialization of life through the process of natural selection.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Elledan · 2004-11-01 06:52 · Score: 1

Biogenesis -> evolution -> intelligent life -> space-travelling civilization -> biology experiment on a planetary scale -> intelligent design.

Biogenesis appears to be the key when talking about life.

--
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:56 · Score: 1

Actually, the vast majority of celestial objects turn out to be precisely spheres, so just because someone in the 1500s misunderstood what spheres(sun, moon, stars, planets, moons) were being talked about, doesn't make the scripture wrong, it merely invalidates the interpretation.

4 elements and stable earth were Greek mythos, not Jewish.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by William+Tanksley · 2004-11-01 06:57 · Score: 1

May I suggest you think about why the ID folk only want *their* Intelligent Designs taught in schools?

That's not true -- the ID folks are incredibly diverse. I've seen types ranging from Christian six-day creationists, to new-age Panspermia advocates, to atheists who weren't clear about what was driving evolution, but saw that something was. The six-day creationists are not very influential.

-Billy
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:59 · Score: 1

Darwin's birds?? those were finches right?? And the other species, those were finches too?? they weren't doves, or hawks, or gila monsters?? So finches make finches, just like horses make horses, and a donkey and a zebra are horses too, just because they aren't cross fertile, doesn't mean much, there are human pheno/genotypes that aren't particularly cross-fertile.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by stanmann · 2004-11-01 07:04 · Score: 1

So, are they still rats?? IF they are, then you have only demonstrated variation within kind. Let me know when they turn into ferrets.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Epistax · 2004-11-01 07:17 · Score: 1

Move them into another climate where they need to become smaller because the ground is too tough for them to borough, however another small animal in that climate is able and the rats can steal their homes. Then move them to a climate where their teeth and stomach are no longer able to consume most of the food. Then move them to a climate that has wildly different summer / winter temperatures.

Our rat is now black, smaller, different teeth, different digestive system, grows a thick coat in the winter and sheds it in the summer (er if they do not already--I confess I know little about rats). Add a few more to give it a poofy tail and a purple nose. Heck let's put it on an isolated island that is slowly sinking, say, an inch every thousand years and watch it evolve to swim and eventually live totally in the water. As I said, I gave a most simple example.

As for sexual evolution perhaps one will be born with a boney head and the chicks find it irresistible. Several generations later we have them knocking horns for dates. Some rats, huh. Sorry it's not a ferret--you'd be hard pressed to exactly duplicate the conditions that changed one animal into another and even if you do, it's kind of random as to what change takes off. All that matters is that it works.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by sydb · 2004-11-01 07:27 · Score: 1

It does seem somewhat contradictory and unethical, however, to accept only part of what science verifies when it suits your needs.

I'm an atheist liberal but I fail to arrive at your conclusion.

Remember that science does not provide facts, it provides theories. It's perfectly reasonable (indeed commendable) to be skeptical about some (even all) theories whilst utilising their apparent results for your own needs.

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by pixelpusher220 · 2004-11-01 07:36 · Score: 1

I guess my point is the 'other' types of creationists don't seem to be the ones pushing their views into curriculums.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by sydb · 2004-11-01 07:41 · Score: 1

On the basis that a famous scientist says so?

I favour the evolution-by-natural-selection theory for biological diversity, but I still hold it to be a theory.

Gould claims that facts are the world's data.

How can long-term evolution be the world's data, when we are not in a position to witness any more than a tiny fraction of the occurence of the event? We rely on interpretation and probability when we perceive evolution, so it's not a fact, it's a conclusion. A good one, but still a conclusion.

And I'm not confusing evolution with natural selection. Evolution explains biodiversity, and natural selection explains evolution.

I think Gould is just dumbing down his science to make a point.

But I might be wrong, I have been known to be a fuckwit.

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by IdahoEv · 2004-11-01 08:22 · Score: 1

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.

"Macro-evolution" is not usually used to mean the primorial-soup business, it's generally used to mean large-scale changes in body morphology and/or speciation. Which is a completely specious definition; it's 100% impossible to draw a clear line between what's "micro" and what's "macro". Border cases can always be found to counterexample any attempt.

The primordial soup business ... how we got to using amino acids, DNA, membranes, ribosomes, all that jazz, sometimes called "early evolution" ... is all really speculative compared to archaeology. Which is not to say there aren't interesting results in research in that field, but science is a lot further from a cohesive story than with respect to the archaeological record.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-11-01 08:27 · Score: 1

Darwin's birds?? those were finches right?? And the other species, those were finches too?? they weren't doves, or hawks, or gila monsters??

I find that q-tips dipped in rubbing alcohol are the easiest way to clean sticky keys. Simply straighted a paper clip, hook it under your "?" key, and pop it off. Then, apply rubbing alcohol to dissolve whatever was causing the stickiness, and use a dry q-tip to wipe it clean.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by William+Tanksley · 2004-11-01 08:45 · Score: 1

It seems that way because you most strongly notice the ones that get people most offended. Also, when the "centrist" IDers push for inclusion, they're usually painted as six-day creationists. Neither view is accurate.

-Billy
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Bastian · 2004-11-01 08:50 · Score: 1

I wasn't talking about the shape of the heavenly bodies, I was talking about the frabric of the universe and the forces that keep the heavenly bodies aloft. The thought was that Earth was surrounded by a series of concentric spheres, and the heavenly bodies were embedded in these "heavenly spheres." (They had to be attatched to something or they would all come crashing down.) The heavenly bodies' circular orbits were caused by the spheres in which they were embedded rotating in place.

The 4 elements and stable earth originated in Greek mythos, but the Church adopted them (and many other parts of Aristotalean cosmology) and found biblical justification for them. (If you would like a list of other aspects of Christianity that come from religions other than Judaism, I can gladly point out a few more examples.)
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by stanmann · 2004-11-01 09:00 · Score: 1

I know, the scriptures(psalms in particular) talk about the heavenly spheres. CERTAIN in the church misconstrued this to the attachments, this is not a necessary interpretation of the given scripture. I'm aware of the asteroth worship and other pagan practices. I'm just pointing out that the church(roman) in this case can be wrong without the scriptures also being wrong. Pagan practices and false teaching in the church to not make the Bible wrong, they make the church(organized) wrong, and that is not to say that all organized churches are wrong, only those that teach wrongly.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by RevAaron · 2004-11-01 09:14 · Score: 1

Macro-evolution doesn't have so much to do with "primordial soup-type theories" as speciation. That is, to go from some common primate ancestor to chimps and humans; to go from some common ancestors of conifers to modern coniferous tree species.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by RevAaron · 2004-11-01 09:22 · Score: 1

I don't know enough about Darwin to know if he was a straight up atheist or now, but he was not christian. He rejected christianity throughout his adult life, much to the disapointment to his very, very devout wife, who continued to pray for his conversion until death.

Though he could've been a theist. That was kind of popular around then.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 09:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

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)

Skip the middle-man and go straight for the unsupportable option; teach ancient Greek mythology as a legitimate theory. Titans etc. Polytheism. Then watch as the Christians who are so angry that schools don't teach ID come up with a thousand arguments against teaching ancient Greek mythology that will also apply against teaching ID.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by RevAaron · 2004-11-01 09:31 · Score: 1

Nope, you're wrong. ID people aren't against "evolution",

And so are you. Or rather, you're only right about some IDers, I suspect a pretty small amount of them. Most of the ID/creationists I've known believe that the world was created in 7 days, with every species being created and plopped onto the earth done like a pie out the oven on their appropriate day.

I know some more intelligent folks who try to reconcile science and religion and "believe in" evolution guided by some Holy Hand. Most of them don't care whether or not their god guided evolution, because the splendor of earth's life says to them much more about god's power than how long it took, or whether or not he wrote up teh blueprints in his shop. But most of the hardcore creationists/IDers don't believe in evolution of any sort, even micro-evolution.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-11-01 10:16 · Score: 1

It's commendable to be skeptical. It's not commendable to use theories you're skeptical of. That's lunacy. It's commendable to accept some theories as pretty reliable after seeing lots of data and possibly personal experience to back up the claims of the theory. It's not commendable or consistent to accept some theories on some level of proof while utterly reject another with the same level of proof. That's the part that's contradictory to me. Evolution is not a young theory. It's much older both in age and proof than many other theories which are accepted as fact. That inconsistency is unethical to me.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by sydb · 2004-11-01 10:41 · Score: 1

Take classical physics. The 20th century has brought knowledge to supercede the outdated ideas of earlier generations. But that doesn't mean we throw away Newton's laws, does it? Even though we know they're not generally applicable. They are useful, even though we know they are wrong!

So we can be skeptical of the rule whilst using it's apparent results.

Or is that unethical?

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by DunbarTheInept · 2004-11-01 11:37 · Score: 1

Though he could've been a theist. That was kind of popular around then.

I don't think you're using that word right. It just means any sort of person who believes in the existence of any sort of god. (in other words, "atheist" and "theist" are opposites.) It could cover anything from a Christain to a Muslim to a Jew to a Ancient Greek worshipper of the pantheon. (Athough I suppose that would still make your closing statement very true: "That was kind of popular around then".)

Maybe the word you were looking for was "deist"?

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 13:15 · Score: 1

The problem with your explanation is that there is no evidence of intelligent design - it is an assumption. Many scientific discoveries come from making an assumption, and either proving it right (you knew enough about the subject matter to make a good guess) or proving it wrong and learning something else in the process. However, the intelligent design theory attempts to use the assumption as proof of itself. It says that because there is no current explanation for something that some magic has occurred. However, in every case we can see that something is going on, and we don't understand why or how it is related. Eventually, through sufficient study, we devise ways to see how it is related, and the process continues.

I am not against creationism, except when people get too literal about the whole six days thing. I am not against the bible being taken seriously, as research has indicated that parts of it do describe specific historical events. I'm against using God as the explanation for everything we do not understand, because A> it is not provable or disprovable and thus it is not related to science and B> it's just too easy, and life is hard. Life is a constant fight against entropy and easy answers are rarely correct.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by AK+Marc · 2004-11-01 13:48 · Score: 1

It is unethical for a science teacher to teach newtonian physics without first explaining it is convenient, but wrong. It is ethical to use something you know to be wrong in order to provide an adequate estimation. It is unethical to provide an estimation and declare it to be fact.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 15:08 · Score: 1

May I suggest you think about why the ID folk only want *their* Intelligent Designs taught in schools?
Simple. They're just playing by the rules that secular materialists have put in place to mandate what kinds of ideas can be broached in a public school.
The whole point of Intelligent Design is that it scrupulously avoids mention of the Bible or any other religious text. So if any of those other systems want to be included in a discussion in a public classroom, I guess they need to hitch on to Intelligent Design or come up with an equivalent.
Mind you, this is something that the materialists have put in place, not Christians or any other religion.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2004-11-01 15:52 · Score: 1

"Republican". *ducks*

That's quite a bit of evolution there. I thought they were elephants....
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Mr.+No+Skills · 2004-11-01 17:35 · Score: 1

I believe the "current explanation" (and I wouldn't be the best debater of the argument since I am simply someone who has done some reading on the subject and not someone that is necessarily a proponent of the theories) is that there are certain elements of life which are not possible by random occurrence. The ID theory is not that there is no current explanation, but that there is _no possible_ explanation. Hence, the only way life occurred is by design.

Behe uses molecular chemistry in his book to promote the argument with a number of examples, mostly cascade reactions of one kind of another where the intermediaries are either non-viable for the end result or something that cannot exist in any of the intermediate stages. Some have disproved this through computer models, but these are computer models that have whatever relevance they have (some think none, some think some). Exploring ID through chemistry could point to someone creating life here (God, aliens, "spores from across the galaxy" - whose origin are unknown), or that this is part of a larger cosmic experiment.

Others (and my memory fails me on the specifics) use the balance of matter on an atomic level as their proof. The argument is that the fundamental building blocks of matter exist in mathmatically pure harmony, so the theory would be that "something" created all the primary matter in the first place. ID on this level seems to point to the creation being by God or equivalent, since they made the entire universe.

There is an offshoot of this, of course, that is related to reality itself, and that perhaps we're all part of some cosmic program running its course, simulating life's experience for us all (the "matrix" view of the universe). This implies that at the end we're a program who has run its course, or perhaps we are all part of God, enjoying the experience just like a couple of hours playing Counter Strike.

In reviewing some of the threads of messages in this topic, it's clear to me that a couple of things have collided. Of course, there are the usual people that have made up their mind in absolutes one way or the other and are throwing rocks at each other. I noticed (for the first time) that the "creationists" seem to have attached to the ID theory for the obvious reason that it lets them place "god" as the intellegence behind the design. I think this is unfair to the ID proponents, because they are not really advancing creationism by God but a form of creationism in a generic sense. And, many of them think some day the explanation will become clearer, as you point out. Even in Behe's book he points out that he is Catholic, but that he offers no explanation as to the designer since it can only be speculation at this point.

--
Sleep is for the Weak
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Bastian · 2004-11-01 17:44 · Score: 1

So, getting back to the topic, isn't it just as possible that, say, 100 years from now, someone will be saying the same thing about modern-day creationists that you say about people who believed in the heavenly spheres back in the 15th century?
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Minna+Kirai · 2004-11-01 19:16 · Score: 1

Actually, the vast majority of celestial objects turn out to be precisely spheres,

No known celelstial object is spherical (possible exception of "black holes").

Many are ellipsoidal, if you think that's close enough. But even in the 1500s the insufficiency of circles/spheres to describe the heavens was apparent.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by rudi_v · 2004-11-01 20:13 · Score: 1

A while ago i read a free booklet from the Hare Krishna movement on the topic: 'Does life originate from matter, or does matter originate from life ?'. And the line of thought expressed in the booklet was astounding: 'You follow scientific principles, and according these principles you cannot prove that life originates from matter. Consequently, this proves the point that matter originates from life.' Mindbogglng.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by ezeri · 2004-11-01 21:14 · Score: 1

If eveolution is to be true, it needs a starting place, so yes primordial soup-type arguments are correctly placed in the same sphere as evolution.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by sydb · 2004-11-01 21:59 · Score: 1

That's what I said, thanks for the confirmation.

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by stanmann · 2004-11-02 00:46 · Score: 1

The earth is as spherical as a billiard ball.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by RevAaron · 2004-11-02 01:56 · Score: 1

A-ha! A deist. Though I did mean theism too, just in that grand-architect, semi-angostic way. Sorry for the ambiguity-

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Dimensio · 2004-11-02 11:31 · Score: 1

If eveolution is to be true, it needs a starting place, so yes primordial soup-type arguments are correctly placed in the same sphere as evolution.

Wrong. Evolution deals with changes within populations of living organisms as they reproduce through successive generations. The point at which life began involved, in at least one step, a period where there were no reproducing life forms. As such, evolution does not apply.

Evolution begins when the first reproducing life forms are present. How those life forms got there is not a matter addressed by evolution. They could have come about through chemical reactions in primordial soup, they could have been seeded by aliens or even time-travelling humans or they could have been zap-poofed into existence by some divine entity, and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution.

--
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by Minna+Kirai · 2004-11-02 18:58 · Score: 1

The earth is as spherical as a billiard ball.

False. The earth is smoother than a billiard, but less spherical.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism by haruchai · 2004-11-13 07:45 · Score: 1

Which genotypes or phenotypes would these be? Are their offspring sterile, as are the offspring of horses and donkeys/zebras?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Verses? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:30 · Score: 1, Funny

Can I have it in prose, please?

Re:Verses? by Pxtl · 2004-11-01 04:39 · Score: 1

Yeah - I caught that too. Its not that Slashdot needs a spell checker... the spelling is valid. Its just that it needs to be edited by something other than a febrile two-year-old.
Re:Verses? by mitchus · 2004-11-01 04:47 · Score: 1

Ouch. That's a bit versatile, wouldn't you say?
Re:Verses? by Ithika · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 1

(chuckles)

I like the sig.

I'm still trying to work out if it fits in with the ol' Russel catalogue paradox. (brain fizzing)

--
the layman's guide to computer science
Re:Verses? by Pxtl · 2004-11-01 05:42 · Score: 1

All I know is that I haven't seen any more "I get metamod and I moderate down all 'offtopic' and 'troll'" sigs. I'd like to think that my sig was involved, but that's probably wishful thinking.

"concrete evidence" by akaina · 2004-11-01 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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."

Can someone explain how this information is conclusive?

--
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.

Re:"concrete evidence" by The_REAL_DZA · 2004-11-01 04:35 · Score: 1

Prerequisite: You have to be willing to jump a certain distance to get to your conclusion.

--

This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Re:"concrete evidence" by stevelinton · 2004-11-01 04:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:"concrete evidence" by Dun+Malg · 2004-11-01 04:44 · Score: 1

"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."
Can someone explain how this information is conclusive?
It's not actually conclusive, but it represents what was previously a large gap in the evolutionary chain-- specifically, the primitive verion of certain structures found in the human retina. Before this, there was no clear indication where the eye came from. Things either "had an eye", or "didn't". They've sound something that doesn't have an eye, but has something that resembles one.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:"concrete evidence" by Otter · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 1

Can someone explain how this information is conclusive?
From a quick look at the Science paper, the argument seems to be this: the particular opsin in these light-sensing cells is the same as the one used in vertebrate eyes. That suggests a continuity of the structure used for "eyes" between the worm and vertebrates. I wouldn't toss around "conclusive" the way they do, but it does support the idea that human eyes evolved in a continuous process from a primordial really bad eye.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:"concrete evidence" by MayonakaHa · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 1

Great, now I'm gonna get that stupid bit in Office Space about a game called "Jump to Conclusions" stuck in my head all day!
Re:"concrete evidence" by stevelinton · 2004-11-01 09:03 · Score: 1

No. There are loads of light-sensitive proteins in plants, for instance, which have no chemistry in common with either the vertebrate eye or the worm.
Re:"concrete evidence" by silicon+not+in+the+v · 2004-11-01 09:31 · Score: 1

Concrete and conclusive are different words.[...]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.
You're right that they don't say "conclusive", but they imply it because their next sentence is "We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution." That implies "conclusive".
The article seems a bit overrated to me. It just doesn't really say that much. It's like:
These cells are kind of like those cells. Therefore...[stretched conclusion]. We've solved the mystery!

The thing that is interesting about faith is that it is not proven before belief. Many people here do not believe in God because they haven't seen sufficient proof of God. Also, they characterize faith as forever having no proof so it doesn't make sense to them. Actually, God usually doesn't show proof in advance, but for those who belive and choose to seek God, he usually shows evidence to them. I personally have witnessed several miracles from God, but significantly they only came after choosing to follow him.

It's kind of like saying, "I won't be friends with that person until I see personal evidence that he's trustworthy." Well, the person wants to show you they are trustworthy, but they need that relationship with you to show it.

--
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds

Verses? by NardofDoom · 2004-11-01 04:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Evolution verses Creationism? So evolution is quoting creationism?

Oh, you mean "versus." Now I get it.

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!

Arguing with a creationist by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

This doesnt matter.

Have you ever tried to have a reasoned debate with a creationist? It doesnt work. Their entire belief structure is based on rhetoric, falsehoods, and a book written two thousand years ago, that has gone through several revisions by whoever was in power at the time.

Then these people pick and choose which parts to believe in based on how it fits their situation.

IE, god created the world, but that whole thing about stoning disobedient children we can ignore.

WTF?

I have, honestly, tried to have an intellectual debate with a creationist. It was an exersize in futility.

These are completly unreasonable people, and trying to make an argument with reason will be lost on them, no matter how much scientific backing it has.

This willful ignorance is destroying america.

Im bitter, can you tell?

Re:Arguing with a creationist by ximor_iksivich · 2004-11-01 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by garcia · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

This willful ignorance is destroying america.

While I am not a creationist and I agree that they are typically difficult to deal with I have to say that your quote above is less than intelligent.

Creationism (and the general belief in the Bible word for word) has been around for centuries. Yeah, the Bible has caused war, death, etc, all against its supposed teachings, yet the human race somehow survived.

I have a feeling that America will survive this round of Church/State integration as well.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by bludstone · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 .sig
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Lord+Kano · 2004-11-01 04:43 · Score: 1

Have you ever tried to have a reasoned debate with a creationist? It doesnt work. Their entire belief structure is based on rhetoric, falsehoods, and a book written two thousand years ago, that has gone through several revisions by whoever was in power at the time.

I call bullshit.

You assume that all creationists are Christians. What about the muslims who believe that God created the universe? Their book is less than two thousand years old and is still in the original Arabic.

What do you say to them?

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

the bible (NIV, KJV, RSV, etc.) is, and will always be translated from the earliest manuscripts possible, which, for the New Testament date back to 50-60AD. there is no historical evidence for the Bible changing over the years.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Hatta · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative

There is nothing in the Christian or Jewish bibles about stoning disobedient children.

In the Old Testament, you have the Law, what Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Pentateuch. In those 5 books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers), Moses gave the people laws by which to live there lives (don't murder, steal, covet, love God and love your neighbore). Additionally, some laws found in those books are not politically correct in the current day and age (men should not sleep with other men, not to fornicate, not to have sex with animals).

Many of these laws had stern consequences, some would say even Draconian consequences. (i.e. stoning a woman who cheated on her husband)

Christians believe that the punishment of these laws are no longer valid, because of Christ's death which covers our sins. This is evidenced in Christ's own forgiving of the woman who cheated (when he said, "he who is without sin should throw the first stone").

Most Jews believe these laws and punishments are still valid, but they have no secular law to enforce them.

Both Jews and Christians believe that these laws were given by God to Moses, in order to establish an absolute moral standard, hence giving the people a lawful and ordered society in which to live.

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by megarich · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 1

The same applies to non-religious too. When someone hold on to an idea, no matter if there dead wrong or not there argue it until they die.

I'm a believer myself and I don't remember there being stoning of children? Stoning of men yes but not of children. Where was this stoning of children located you are talking about?
Re:Arguing with a creationist by DogDude · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 1

What do you say to them?

I say, "You're wrong." No matter what religion you're talking about, religion is based on faith, which is a belief based of things other than fact.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by garcia · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 1

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."

Then get involved in your local school and do your own preaching against it. I was in public school less than 10 years ago and I never learned about creationism. If I did it was a footnote. YMMV.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Moby+Cock · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Except it has been compiled very selectively. There are many apocryphal books of gospel that have been 'decreed' heresy without much explanation as to why. and these books give a very different view of the proto-christian community in Palestine at the time of Jesus.

Having said that, the argument you make is a little misleading in other ways. The creationism part of the bible is in the Old Testament which is the "Jewish" part of the bible and was written before the ministry of Jesus.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by EddieBurkett · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Until either side can prove that the world and everything in it existed five minutes ago, and that myself and the world weren't just spontaneously created with my "memory" fully intact, then this debate is endless.

It would be nice though if the creationsists at least admitted that regardless of how things "actually" happened, there seems to be a pattern of evolution within the fossil record. Even if the world was only created in seven days, this puzzle was also created in the process, so why not try to solve it?

--
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by DrXym · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

a) Evolution is a fact as well as theory. Evolution can be observed and thus it is a fact. There are certainly areas of disagreement and uncertainty within the (vast) field, but nothing comes even remotely close to displacing or disproving evolution. Nothing. Not one bit.

b) Creationists don't have a theory. Spouting 'god did it', or resorting to dubious pseudo-scientific rhetoric is no subsitute for evidence. You need evidence to form a theory.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Le+Marteau · 2004-11-01 04:56 · Score: 1

These are completly unreasonable people, and trying to make an argument with reason will be lost on them, no matter how much scientific backing it has.

This willful ignorance is destroying america.

The people you cite believe their mythology, literally. There have been people like this since, well, the beginning of myths. Contrary to your tone, more and more people are putting mythology where it belongs, and more and more people are seeking truth rather than mere comfort. Don't dispair because people today behave like people of 2,000 years ago. Intellectual evolution is certainly occurring, just not as rapidly as we might wish.

--
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Re:Arguing with a creationist by stanmann · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1

Just to clarify, are you for or against creation?? your post could go either way. And since the state of public schools has dramatically gone down in the last 10 years and Intelligent design/creationism/etc are NOT taught in Public schools, I must assume you believe they should be.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Arguing with a creationist by nonameisgood · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1

If you read about how that particular book came to be, and really look at it, you'll see that none of the modern religions have anything original in them, and were obvioulsy written by people, not gods.

While I'd agree that it is arrogant to think we know it all, it is idiocy to believe that supernature (rather than nature) is responsible simply because we don't know every detail.

If your child came home and told you that he/she was told that an invisible man could see and control everything, and that we should talk to him/her/it, what would you think? What if it was a mother who just killed her children? A senile old man?

Perspective is the key. If you believe something which is quite obviously false to a distant observer, your belief doesn't make you right.
--
Keep jesus out of the White House. Our president can't serve two masters; he must serve either the American people or his imaginary god.
--

--
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Re:Arguing with a creationist by suso · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 1

The fact that you were modded down (for reasonable insight) makes me question why I read slashdot.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 05:14 · Score: 1

A common mistake among modern day readers of the Bible is to assume the word "son" as meaning a child. This is evident in the example when Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar at God's request, most Christians take that to mean Isaac was a child, when in fact Jewish scholars have identified Isaac as being in his mid 30s during the ordeal. The passage you specified mentions neither child nor children, only "son". If a son is a rebellious drunkard, he could be stoned at the request of the parents.

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence.
This is entirely wrong. If you say that 'Einstein was wrong' and then show just how you came to this conclusion, you could well overturn a lot of physics. In science, this doesn't get you beaten, this gets you recognition and accolades! This is how it is in evolutionary biology as well. If you manage to use evidence to make your case, you have contributed to our understanding of the universe. It's what science is all about.
You must understand that science is not some sort of competing religion. Luther was branded a heretic for challenging the Church. On the other hand, Planck and complany were branded geniuses for challenging classical mechamics.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Greyfox · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 1

Hey! Bibles don't kill people! People with bibles kill people!
OK, look, you can't hate people for being so terrified that none of this has any meaning that they withdraw into their little shells and carefully filter out any information that conflicts with their world view. You can hate them for trying to make everyone else do the same. Why do they do that? I suspect they are still insecure in their beliefs and require someone else to validate their religion. So if anyone tries to argue religion with me, I just tell 'em I'm not there to validate their veiwpoint and try to switch the discussion to politicis (:-P) If that doesn't work, well there's always the cattle prod...
By the way, how about that election tomorrow?

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Theatetus · 2004-11-01 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Intelligent design/creationism/etc are NOT taught in Public schools

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
Re:Arguing with a creationist by UtucXul · 2004-11-01 05:21 · Score: 1

>Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would >probably get beaten badly even before you say a >word about evidence.

Sorry, but that just isn't true. Look at recent physics papers http://xxx.lanl.gov or go to a physics talk, and lots of physicists are willing to give serious consideration to things that go pretty far against Einstein's theories. And, once one of those actually does better with the data, it will supercede relativity. Not to mention that lots of gravitational wave stuff is stated a test of relativity. You don't test things that you would never be willing to accept could be false.

That is where science is different that intelligent design or creationism.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by farmgeek · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Angostura · 2004-11-01 05:29 · Score: 1

No. Sorry, you're wrong.

I've had people seriously question the theory of evolution, and I've been interested in what they had to say, and talked to them about it. At the end though, the creationist side tends to fall back on some piece of axiomatic dogma, and the discussion can go no further.

By contrast If you can show a scientist definitive facts that demolish their theory, they (should) gleefully embrace the problem and either fix up the theory or go back to the drawing board.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by NotFamous · 2004-11-01 05:31 · Score: 1

I agree. All Creationists are alike. They lack basic reasoning skills. They use a lot of ad hominem attacks, straw-man arguments, etc. Don't you think?

--
Some settling may occur during posting.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by headkick · 2004-11-01 05:32 · Score: 1

You must have picked the wrong creationist. Not all of us are hate-spewing, narrow-minded, rhetoric quoting hypocrites. It really is a shame that a significant percentage of the Christians in this country fall into the above classification.

That being said, the Bible is approximately 5000 years old, not 2000. I am also interested in your proof of revisions, and a reference for the alleged stoning of disobedient children. In all honesty, that is a new one for me, and I have been a Christian for almost 30 years. If you need a good online Bible for researching this, you can go here

As far as evolution goes, I have one really burning question. Given that it is theoretically possible that The Big Bang really happened and that everything in the universe has undergone successive iterations to end up where we are now, where did all the "stuff" come from so that The Big Bang could happen? Was it always just there, or did it come from somewhere (or something)else? Where is the ultimate origin?

I choose to believe in a Supreme Being that transcends time and space, who always was and always will be, who is all knowing and all powerful. I choose to put my faith in Him, as opposed to putting my faith in Naturalism. No one will ultimately prove or disprove evolution, so there has to be at least a small portion of faith involved in believing either side. You can either put your faith in God, or in evolution. I choose to believe in God, and to submit my life to him, instead of trying to be my own god (I've tried it, and it doesn't work). We all try to be our own gods, because that is human nature. We are inherently stubborn and refuse to submit to something that we cannot see. That is why man has been trying to disprove God, or declare him dead, for a very long time.

When you are tired of fighting him, you might actually come to the place where you Need Him I know that I do.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by krunk7 · 2004-11-01 05:33 · Score: 1

The Hisenburg (sp?) uncertainty priciple dictates this!
A good rule of thumb is: if you can't spell it and don't care enough to look it up you shouldn't realy be using it to bolster your view.
I don't think any scientist has ever purported that we will know everything about our Universe. However, most will tell you that a gap in knowledge is no excuse to start filling the holes with fairy tales.
For future reference, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was an observation of the probabalistic nature of quantum physics. Specifically, it held that our knowledge of the position and the velocity of a quanta for any given time is inversely proportional to each other.
Hardly pertinant to the point you were trying to make.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by ATMAvatar · 2004-11-01 05:46 · Score: 1

Intelligent design/creationism/etc. may not have been taught in your school, and they may not be taught in schools nearby, but they are taught in some schools.

I live in Kansas, and I had the fortune to go to schools teaching evolutionary theory. However, had I lived further West in my state, I would have gotten combined creationism/evolution studies. Further West (and by that, I still mean in Kansas), I would have gotten nothing but Creationism.

Sure, Kansas is a particularly backward and overly christian conservative state (hell, it took Kansas a good 50 extra years to repeal prohibition within the state), but I find it difficult to believe that it's the only state where you'll find some schools teaching Creationism or ID as science.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Arguing with a creationist by TomorrowPlusX · 2004-11-01 05:50 · Score: 1

yeah, perhaps god put the puzzle there as a test to see if we could develop enough free will and free thinking to derive a theory of our own development that is counter to what He gave us?

perhaps He'd be proud of his clever children.

I just don't get the evangelical idea that a wise or compassionate god would want us to dwell and wallow in willful ignorance. Why give us these big calorically hungry brains if we're only to use them to worship Him? What a jerk!

--

lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Re:Arguing with a creationist by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 05:53 · Score: 1

Just because we can explain it does not mean God did not do it.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Re:Arguing with a creationist by tarius8105 · 2004-11-01 05:55 · Score: 1

Like, why isn't it forbidden for Christians to eat pork, while Jews don't because of the OT.

The reason Jews dont eat pork is they view pigs as unclean animals, they roll around and sleep in their own filth and such. As for christians I dont know why we are allowed to eat pork.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by helmespc · 2004-11-01 05:57 · Score: 1

Ridiculous... striving for scientific explanations does not equate to athiesm at all. People think anyone who has different beliefs than a "god" and some prophets is an athiest... science is a very spiritual experience for me and a lot of people... I don't need a religious dogma explaining everything with mythical tales of creation to give meaning to my life. In fact, meaning comes to my life from NOT knowing where things came from... something as inconceivable as "god" is far beyond human comprehension... much less the comprehension of the early church leaders who defined what christianity believes...
Re:Arguing with a creationist by skiman1979 · 2004-11-01 06:07 · Score: 1

I believe the grandparent's reference to "stoning of children" is referring to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. In this passage, the Bible speaks of parents leading their "son" to the outside of the city, declaring him a "rebellious drunkard" and stoning him to death, with the help of other city folk. However, "son" does not necessarily mean "child."

However, even if it did mean "child," we live in different times. Many believe that after Jesus' crucifiction, laws like these are no longer necessary because of Jesus' sacrifice. Some people also use this as an excuse as well. "I'll be forgiven, so it's ok."

--
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by miskatonic+alumnus · 2004-11-01 06:10 · Score: 1

Because Jesus awoke after 3 days in a cave, and some heathens were cooking up some bacon just outside the chilly, dank tomb. The lord thy god Jesus Christ Almighty then smellethed the seared meat and thoughteth, "Mmmmm... Bacon." So now, every Christian may partaketh of the flesh of the filthy pig.

But thou must NOT consumeth uncooked tapeworms, for to do so makes thee unclean before the lord so that ye must follow the sin by a manual scouring of thy duodenum with an S.O.S. pad --- so as to maketh thyself pure again and worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Amen.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 1

And do these schools have a greater or lesser degree of the violence associated with teaching evolution alone?? ie school shooting, muggings, rape, Bloodhound gang?

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Hatta · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by mozingod · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 1

As far as evolution goes, I have one really burning question. Given that it is theoretically possible that The Big Bang really happened and that everything in the universe has undergone successive iterations to end up where we are now, where did all the "stuff" come from so that The Big Bang could happen? Was it always just there, or did it come from somewhere (or something)else? Where is the ultimate origin?

As much as I hate to answer a question with a question... where did God come from? Always was, correct? Couldn't matter have just always been here? I see no reason as to why it couldn't have been.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Hatta · 2004-11-01 06:16 · Score: 1

Just because we can explain it does not mean God did not do it.

True. But it does mean that there is no reason to believe that God did it. See my response to the other fellow for more details.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by hb253 · 2004-11-01 06:25 · Score: 1

A lot of the new testament was written and/or revised hundreds, not 10's of years AD.
Anyway, assuming translations are always made from original source (not very likely), any translation is subject to the biases of the translator.

--
Self awareness - try it!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by aborchers · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

Semantics, maybe, but one does not stop being a child of one's parents because one has passed a certain age...

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by NaugaHunter · 2004-11-01 06:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Really? Did you skip Deuteronomy?

21:18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Or, in logo-illustrated form for the biblical-language-challenged.

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Digz · 2004-11-01 06:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Acts 10
There was confusion about this in the early Church. St. Peter had a vision from God which showed him that ceremonial cleanliness (and in general the distinction between Jew and Gentile) had been mitigated through Christ. Read up on the history of the Judaizers to get a better feel for this struggle in the early Church.

--
SYS 64738
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

True, however, a requirement to that specific law is that the son can only be stoned if he is belligerent and a drunkard, and only at the parent's request. You'd be hard-pressed to find a drunk 4 year old, even in Biblical times. :-)

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 06:48 · Score: 1

Their book is less than two thousand years old and is still in the original Arabic.

What do you say to them?

That its all hearsay.
AND its based on the older stuff that had already been edited a lot at the time, so the fact that they quote from a more recent revision doesn't really give it any more credibility.

It makes no difference if it comes from a bible/priest/iman/mollah/pope/preacher/etc. The point is that if people believe that all living organisms were created purposefully to be the way they are now (by an hyperintelligent superbeing), no amount of evidence that they actually evolved to be that way (over long periods of semi chaotic trial and error, punctualy interrupted by catastrophic massive extinctions) will do.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Arguing with a creationist by ReagansUndeadBrain · 2004-11-01 06:51 · Score: 1

I think the only way to understand what it's like arguing with a creationist is to - argue with a creationist! Luckily, I've found a few captive ones you can cut your teeth on. Head over to this thread on the Young America's Foundation message board (giving young conservatives a fun and safe place to rap!) Basically, every argument with a creationist ends with something to the effect of "Because the Bible says so". If you do end up registering on the site to have some fun - word to the wise - don't use personal attacks to get your point across. Just like with Bush's campaign rallies - you'll be banned! Enjoy!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 06:51 · Score: 1

Never once is a child mentioned. As I clarified in another reply, a son does not equate to a child. For instance, Abraham had offered his willing son as a sacrifice, at a time when his son was in his mid-30s, Jewish scholars estimate.

This is even evidenced in the verse you cite, when one of the prerequisites to his being stoned is him being a drunkard. Obviously they weren't stoning toddlers. :-)

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 07:00 · Score: 1

Both Jews and Christians believe that these laws were given by God to Moses

Yup. Unfortunatly, all we have as a basis to believe that is Moses' own word on it. And the guy, by his own account, held conversations with burning shrubbery...so his testimony is somewhat suspicious.

Because, really, its not the word of God: its Moses' word that it came from god.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Arguing with a creationist by npsimons · 2004-11-01 07:28 · Score: 1

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.

Any true scientist will not give you a cold stare or beat you badly. He may cock an inquisitive eyebrow, but that's about the most emotional thing I think you'd see out of a true scientist. A true scientist would say "Really? Please show me." The ultimate scientist would have no beliefs.

--
Nathan's blog
Re:Arguing with a creationist by NaugaHunter · 2004-11-01 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Ignoring whether or not ancient Israel only allowed adults to drink, or whether or not that was added in a later translation, let's have some verses that aren't actually stoning but aren't too child-friendly:

Kings 2: Call a prophet bald, be eaten by bears
2:23: And he (Elijah) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Psalms: Why hit them with stones, when you can hit them against stones?
137:9: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Isaiah: But be sure to let the dads watch! Or at least blame them.
13:15: Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
13:16: Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
---
14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

You can split hairs about how it's done all you want. The fact remains that the old testament details a vengeful god, just like all of the farming tribes had around 1000-800 BCE. There are quite a few bits and pieces that go against a modern, civilized society. Well, a society not founded on religious fanaticism anyway; these kinds of things fit right in with radical Islamics.

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you think the book of Psalms advocates the killing of children by bashing them against stones? Are you arguing that Elijah simply hated children? Perhaps Isaiah was trying to slaughter the children of the world via the hand of God? :-)

A more honest answer would reveal that the verses cited were taken out of context to purposely convey a negative meaning. Surely, if one were to curse a man of God as great as Elijah, God would curse that person ("I will bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you"). And more certainly, those that fight against righteous people will be put down ("Greater is He that is in you than those in the world. No weapon formed against you will prosper.")

When asked about children, Christ responded, "Let the children come to Me, for the kindom of God belongs to them." And when asked what were the greatest commandments in all the Torah, Jesus responded by saying the greatest two are to love the Lord and love your neighbore. To me, that doesn't sound like a vengeful God.

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by smithmc · 2004-11-01 08:12 · Score: 1

To think we can know everything through science (in the macro or the microscopic) about our universe is just plain stupid.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But even if it is true, that does not imply that there exists any other means by which this knowledge is possible. Just because there is something that science cannot (yet) explain, that does not constitute proof of God. It just means that we don't know.

--
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 08:12 · Score: 1

Its not the idea that you don't believe God did it that bothers me. Its the pig headed notion that creation science is not real sience because we do.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Scroatzilla · 2004-11-01 08:13 · Score: 1

>> Additionally, some laws found in those books are not politically correct in the current day and age (men should not sleep with other men, not to fornicate, not to have sex with animals).

Damn, I feel old now. When did screwing animals become polictically correct???!!!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 08:14 · Score: 1

And given that other patriachs such as Joshua, Caleb, and their descendants lived during and after Moses, and after witnessing the events described in the Torah, they still went on to fight for their land and form the nation of Israel long after Moses' death leads me to conclude that at least some of what Moses said had to be true.

Not to mention, many of the things recorded were not just on Moses' word. An entire nation walking through the Red Sea, Moses' face glowing after seeing the face of God, the pillar of fire leading the camp, all these things were witnessed by not only Moses but also his descendants and those that lived long after him, some of those people also wrote books of the Bible confirming what was said earlier.

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Hatta · 2004-11-01 08:23 · Score: 1

Its not the idea that you don't believe God did it that bothers me. Its the pig headed notion that creation science is not real sience because we do.

Is creationism falsifiable? Scientific theories make testable predictions about the world. What are some of those predictions? How are they testable? What sort of experiment would you do?

If creationism makes testable predictions, I'm very interested in hearing about them.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Darby · 2004-11-01 08:30 · Score: 1

Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence.

Utter crap.
That is the fundamental difference.

Come to me and say that, and I'll say, "Oh yeah? Prove it."

If you can, then great. If not, I'll point out where you made a mistake.
If it's over my head (which it probably would be) I'll hold off on my judgement until the experts have weighed in.
If you are correct, then your ideas will be vindicated eventually.

Scientists aren't the ones famous for burning people alive for disagreeing with their unprovable beliefs.
Huge difference.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Darby · 2004-11-01 08:41 · Score: 1

So because a certain science is "accepted," you believe it must be true?

Absolutely not. Nor is it even possible to derive that from what he said. That would be an example of the inherent flaws in creationist thinking.

Is that not as much an act of faith as believing in creation?

Of course not.

The best theory that anybody has yet to come up with that fits the facts is evolution, hence what is taught is that this is the best theory that fits the facts. Huge difference, huh?

The fact is, neither evolution nor creationism, as an origin of modern species, can be proven.

But evolution could be disproven and creationism can't. That makes evolution science and creationism a religion.

And neither have any bearing on the teaching of pure science.

Given that evolution is a science, it clearly has a bearing on science.

So why should a public school waste time teaching either?

Well, you have certainly demonstrated quite convincingly that creationism has no place in a public school.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 08:56 · Score: 1

Many experiments go as far to proving creation as they do evolution. For instance the recent studies into the shift in colors humans see toward the blue spectrum. From an evolutionary stand point this goes to prove that human eyes began to evolve at a time we where water based creatures. From a creationist point stand point this goes to prove that are eyes became adjusted to those wavelengths during the time in which the earth was covered by a curtain of water. Neither are provable but both deserve the same chance to be seriously evaluated. You can not cast off the creationist because they view the evidence in a different way. The problem is that both sides start with predefined ideas and both evaluate the evidence from those view points. That does not show either as being some sort of fringe science that does not deserve serious study.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Swamii · 2004-11-01 09:09 · Score: 1

Since Slashdot and Goatse were invented. ;-)

--
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Hatta · 2004-11-01 09:27 · Score: 1

Many experiments go as far to proving creation as they do evolution.

When trying to explain the universe, it is important to make as few assumptions as possible because the completeness of your understanding is directly related to the number of assumptions you make. Therefore, when you have two theories that explain the data equally well, you should choose the one with the fewest assumptions. In this case creationism makes an extra assumption that evolution does not. Namely, existance of an omniscient being.

The problem is that both sides start with predefined ideas and both evaluate the evidence from those view points. That does not show either as being some sort of fringe science that does not deserve serious study.

Scientists have lots of preconcieved ideas about the way the world works, yes. But when confronted with conflicting data, they rapidly adapt. All it takes is one contradictory experiment to overthrow a theory. One little corner of the universe that does not jive. One reproducible datum that cannot be explained by the old theory. That is what I'm asking for. Actually, all I'm asking for is a proposed experiment that could show that creationism is a better explanation than evolution.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Arguing with a creationist by mdwh2 · 2004-11-01 10:00 · Score: 1

And in the same vein, just because we can explain it doesn't mean that magic pixies didn't do it. So surely, you believe in magic pixies too?
Re:Arguing with a creationist by kenaaker · 2004-11-01 10:43 · Score: 1

There is no evidence outside of the old testament that anything like the Exodus ever occurred. Archeologists have found and excavated encampments of family groups from the purported timeframe of the Exodus in the Sinai. But, strangely enough, there is no trace of a half million people wandering for 40 years in the very same desert.
Also, there is no trace of Joseph, Moses, or any of the other figures in Exodus in the written records from that period in Egypt. The Egyptian have an exhaustive list of their kings back to the King Scorpion, but there is no trace of Joseph.
Another interesting thing about that timeframe is that Egypt had conquered and occupied Canaan. So, the refugees (if they existed) would have been escaping from Egypt to territory controlled by Egypt. (Not a smart move...)
And finally, there is no archeological evidence to support the Jewish conquest of Canaan. The latest information that I have read indicates the Hebrew people were natives of Canaan.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Lord+Kano · 2004-11-01 10:58 · Score: 1

You miss my point. The post I responded to was inferring that creationists were small minded Christians.

I was pointing out that his generalization was just as small minded.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 11:40 · Score: 1

The post I responded to was inferring that creationists were small minded Christians.

There is a LOT of those, and they make a lot of noise.

his generalization was just as small minded.

He's obviously mostly talked to small minded christian creationists, just because there exists small minded people of other denomination to argue with does not mean the grandparent poster had the misfortune to argue with them.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Arguing with a creationist by jasno · 2004-11-01 11:49 · Score: 1

No, it sounds like two completely different gods, or maybe a god that changed his mind on how he deals with people.

But at least you've clarified that you have no problem with killing children for making fun of 'god
's messenger'. At least your omnipotent god chose a relatively painless way to die, as opposed to just striking them dead, or even worse, instructing Elijah to teach them in his superior ways.

This is the same god who's all loving, omnipotent, and 'desires all men to be saved'. Yet, narrow is the way that leads to salvation, so I suppose less than 50% of people actually escape the eternal vacation in the lake of fire. But, he keeps the whole game going year after year... Is hell not full yet? Maybe that's the 'fullness of the gentiles' he's waiting for.

--

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Re:Arguing with a creationist by Clod9 · 2004-11-01 13:49 · Score: 1

>part of a larger trend of religious conservatives fighting tooth and nail against intellectualism in general. And that is what's killing our schools.
I don't think it's the evolution debate that's killing our schools. I think it's the entrenched education lobby. Have you talked to a teenager lately? Forget biology, I'd like to see average students who can do basic algebra or discuss English literature in proper English. "Intellectualism" is so far out of their ballpark I'm not even hoping for it.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-01 14:45 · Score: 1

Mmmm, nicely done :) +1, Sticking it right up them.

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-01 14:55 · Score: 1

The other reply got it right; there is no independent confirmation of those events. If I don't trust one part of the Bible, what makes you think I'm going to trust another part of the Bible as verification?

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 17:17 · Score: 1

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."
If you think religion is the problem in public schools, why do so many Catholic schools offer superior educations to public schools in the same neighborhoods?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:Arguing with a creationist by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 17:22 · Score: 1

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.
Up until here, your argument was pretty reasonable.
But to believe that religion is "killing our schools" is silly. Detroit turned down a multi-million dollar grant from an individual to start a charter schools because the NEA felt threatened by it. Compared to the road block to reform and progress that is the NEA, religion has negligible impact on the quality of a public education in the U.S.A.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:Arguing with a creationist by RageEX · 2004-11-01 18:16 · Score: 1

That's simply not true in science. The scientific community *is* the exception par excellance. Einstien *was* wrong ... he admited so himself. He saw his theory as incomplete because it did not mesh with Quantum Mechanics, and he did not like the way QM explained things. So he set to work to come up with a grander theory which would explain the very small and the very big, but he never finished it. Sure after x number of years and a theory still holds up it gets enshrined and people get used to it. But everyone knows that it will eventually be superceded by something which is even more correct. This is the business of science.

Today there are many people saying Einstein was 'wrong'. He was 'wrong' just like Newton was. Which is to say that neither were the last word, and science marches on.

In science great claims require great evidence.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by ezeri · 2004-11-01 21:30 · Score: 1

Ok, ill admit the pattern when I can see it. I've taken the bio courses on evolution, and no I'm not attending a religious school, and I don't see the pattern. There are very few fossils that could be even possibly by evidence of a pattern. I don't consider a single incomplete fossil much evidence of a pattern between two very different spiecies.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Re:Arguing with a creationist by jaoswald · 2004-11-02 04:59 · Score: 1

There are, however, textual indications, at least for the Old Testament, of editing and redaction of conflicting materials, to support one or another side in a now long-dead controversy. As well as some evidence of later additions or emendations of New Testament books, even above the usual problems of slight differences between sources.

Of course, many people reject the idea that the Bible was subject to the sorts of human impulses that govern the writing of other documents, or that it is valid to use the techniques of textual criticism on sacred writing. Then again, many people think the Bible was written in English, or that the KJV is somehow more (or less) valid than newer translations.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by blueforce · 2004-11-02 13:08 · Score: 1

Couldn't matter have just always been here?

Yes. No one has yet attempted to answer HOW it got here or WHERE it came from but most singularity theorists agree that it has always been here.

Parent - Where is the ultimate origin?

Trying to answer that question - or even THINK about it - is mind-blowing.

On the other hand, there are a couple of theories right now regarding the state of the universe as we know it.

One very popular theory suggests that since the "Big Bang", the universe is expanding, will eventually slow until it ceases expanding, begin contracting until it reconvenes, and finally repeat the "Big Bang" singularity and start the cycle all over again.

Another suggests that the matter will eventually slow, cease expanding, run out of energy, never contract, and simply die a cold, lonely death somewhere in the ether.

Either way, God, god, or none, the "stuff" came from somewhere and it's going to end up somewhere.

I doubt I'll be around to see it.

With regards to the Bible - there isn't even enough room here to refute or illustrate the Bible as a fabric of fact, fancy, legend, the imposition of the will of men, and the absolute necessity for humankind to explain its consciousness and self-awareess.

There couldn't just be no reason. It was too much to embrace the idea that our consciousness means nothing - it's a fluke of chemistry.

DNA is composed of 4 neucleotides - each of which is composed of 5-carbon sugars, phosphates, and one nitrogen base. Ultimately DNA is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Phosphorous, and Carbon. For all intents and purposes, that's it. Nothing more. 5 of the most simple and abundant elements in the universe. Due to simple chemistry, they bond in specific ways then form a union in chains that we call DNA. Through the wonder of meitosis and meiosis - viola - here we are. Sometimes along the way two alleles get paired up incorrectly or one gets broken and we have a disease.

Like it or not, good or bad, we're made of the same atoms that frogs, marbles, and Dodge Trucks are made of.

--
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Re:Arguing with a creationist by kenaaker · 2004-11-12 06:10 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the Ron Wyatt artifacts.
Archeological evidence produced as proof of Exodus by the man who found Noah's Ark (according to real geologists and archeologists a mineral formation), the Ark of the Covenant (that he could never actually show to anyone... how conveeennnient), and others.
You'll have to excuse me if I find the work of professional scientists, that has been cross-checked and evaluated by other professional scientists more believable.

Lets just get a few things out of the way, by arcite · 2004-11-01 04:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Creationism is a myth.

Evolution is a fact of life.

Deal with it.

if we know 1 thing about evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's that creationism arguments will evolve as well

Re:if we know 1 thing about evolution by lxw56 · 2004-11-01 14:16 · Score: 1

True, but evolutionists change their theories too, in response to evidence. When Kerry does this, it's called "flip-flopping," but it's perfectly legit.
Re:if we know 1 thing about evolution by ezeri · 2004-11-01 21:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, as do all arguments in fields that are on a more theoretical basis. Creationists as well as evolutionists both change thier theories as to the events that got us where we are today when presented with new evidence, that doesn't mean anything, I believe God created everything, how he did it is still of great intrest and something that no current theory fully describes, and I'm not all the gaps will ever be filled, any honest evolutionist would also have to admit that it is unlikely they will every fill all the gaps, but that is to be expected.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd

Intelligent design? by cmburns69 · 2004-11-01 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Intelligent design? That's soo 1700s! ...

Actually, I'm a proponent of the theory.. And while I'm not an expert on the official "intelligent design" theory, I think it's completely compatible with evolution.. (eg. evolution is the way the design is achieved).

--
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!

Re:Intelligent design? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Intelligent design? by delta_avi_delta · 2004-11-01 04:39 · Score: 1

Ah but that omits the core tenet: the design is not random, it was done by an intelligent creator. All this random coming together of molecules, it'd just to *filthy* for creatonists - it's abhorrent that we're derived from bacteria, rather than, oh, God.
Re:Intelligent design? by Smidge204 · 2004-11-01 04:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've heard this quite a bit. It always seems to me that this is a way to salvage creationism, so one can acknowledge the scientific evidence and still not have to concede that maybe they were mistaken in their belief...

So I'd like to ask; Now that the role of (insert favorite deity here) has been reduced to such an abstraction, what purpose does he/she/it serve in the process, other than maintaining compatibility with what you were taught to believe as a child? At what point does chemistry become divine influence?

I mean, if you believe in creation, that's fine. If you believe in evolution, that's also fine. What does this hybrid belief offer other than a weak compatibility between religion and science?
=Smidge=
Re:Intelligent design? by Derek+Pomery · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, I'm a proponent of the theory.. And while I'm not an expert on the official "intelligent design" theory, I think it's completely compatible with evolution.

Its not compatible. The problem for 'intelligent design' is that much of the design is very unintelligent. For example, the design of the mammalian eye is awful - the nerves are in the wrong place, meaning we have blind spots. (If design were intelligent, we would have eyes like octopuses, which are far better). The are plenty of other examples of extremely bad design. Evolution is not about what's good; it's what's better than the competition.
Re:Intelligent design? by RsG · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Intelligent design? by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 1

ID is Creationism and most certainly not a scientific theory.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:Intelligent design? by nine-times · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1

For example, the design of the mammalian eye is awful - the nerves are in the wrong place, meaning we have blind spots. (If design were intelligent, we would have eyes like octopuses, which are far better). The are plenty of other examples of extremely bad design. Evolution is not about what's good; it's what's better than the competition.
Well, I think the question has to be "good for what?" Dogs don't see in color, is that "bad"? For seeing in color, yes. For what dogs need sight for, apparently not, because they do just fine.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

Bzzt. Try again. Funny that anyone who actually understands how the eye is designed completely disagrees with your conclusion.

I am a biologist, and have studied the design of the eye.

Get off you lazy ass and do so honest research instead of repeating the evolutionist bs that does not, and never did have, any evidence to support it.

I think you are the one who needs to do research - there is vast evidence backing the various paths of eye evolution that have occurred many times over millions of years.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 1

Well, I think the question has to be "good for what?" Dogs don't see in color, is that "bad"? For seeing in color, yes. For what dogs need sight for, apparently not, because they do just fine.

No matter how good, relatively speaking, the design of a dogs eye is, the nerve-in-front design of mammalian eyes is still bad. There are better ways, as is shown by the independently-evolved cephalopod eye.
Re: Intelligent design? by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

> Nobody has a problem with intelligent design as a philosophy or religion.

FWIW, I have trouble with it as philosophy because it relies on arguments that are transparent bullshit. As for religion, I've seen theists on talk.origins condemn it as a heresy.

So yeah, strictly speaking some people do have a problem with it as philosophy or religion. But your bigger point about the masquerade as science still stands.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Intelligent design? by Keebler71 · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Smidge.... we meet again.... :P
I've heard this quite a bit. It always seems to me that this is a way to salvage creationism, so one can acknowledge the scientific evidence and still not have to concede that maybe they were mistaken in their belief...
I don't see it as a way of salvaging creationism... I see it as way of putting the barrier back in place that belongs between spirituality and science. I am a scientist (BS in Physics) and engineer (multiple graduate degrees) who also holds deep religions views. I have yet to find any aspect of evolutionary theory that I disagree with, although I clearly see the gaping holes in most of the arguments made by creationists. For me, science has told us the mechanism, the "how" - and religion answers (or ponders) the "why". Intelligent design allows the motivation and the mechanism to be nicely seperated... in effect separating the science from the spiritual.
My views are much closer to those of the determinists although they were at somewhat of a disadvantage. They could not concieve of a god that was outside of space-time.. thus they could only imagine a god whose interactions occurred at specific instances of time througout history. Thus a clock-work universe had "no room" for God. On the contrary, I personally believe that God exists outside the limits of our universe, thus the very concept of "God's interaction" becomes something that we can not even comprehend. More importantly, matters of god are purely un-provable matters of faith (or opinion) and matters of science, well,... are tenable and provable.
The bottom line is, I am almost agnostic about creation from a religions point of view because I don't see why it matters. Assuming God does exist, I doubt he/she would really want the fundamentalists "wasting" so much time and energy on the issue... why can't some parts of the religion be based in faith?

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Re:Intelligent design? by carpe_noctem · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 1

I'm just curious... what makes the octopus' eye superior to the mammilian design?

--
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Re:Intelligent design? by Gumshoe · 2004-11-01 05:46 · Score: 1

Cephalapods have no blind spot because the optic nerves are on the "correct" side of the retina. ie. behind the eye. It's not that the Cephalapod eye is "superior" necessarily but it does demonstrate how an eye would be made by an "intelligent designer".
Re:Intelligent design? by nine-times · 2004-11-01 06:01 · Score: 1

No, see, I think you've missed my point. I'm not saying anything about "relatively good". I'm saying "good" is a judgment. You're judging eyes by whether or not the eye meets some criterion of yours. I'm guessing visual acuity? I don't really know, but measurements of "good" can change dramatically in different circumstances.
Admittedly, eyes aren't my specialty, but very few things work as "one size fits all". There's pretty much never a "best thing", just a "best thing for this purpose". Something as complex as life in general, and mammals among the more complex forms of life as we know it, is quite an engineering feat. Changing one aspect of the design can shift all sorts of things around. You have to consider aspects of chemical make-up, durability, growth and development, social impact, etc.-- a lot of things, more that I have the imagination for.
Engineers might look at the design and think, "I can do better," but it's rarely that simple. First of all, they tend to be looking at animals as a snap-shot final-product single-specimen lone-body-part. You can't really do that. You need to look at the whole animal, the entire lifespan of the individual animal, the interaction of its pack, and life of its species as a whole.
Second, for all the engineers who will point out inferior design aspects of some part of an animal's body, notice how rarely we can do better. When you successfully generate a race of dogs with octopus eyes, and have done a comparative study, we might be able to talk about the overall effect on the dog population. Does it really lead to greater visual acuity? Do the eyes wear out more quickly due to some typical canine behavior? We could really start to hash out the pros and cons for dogs having octopus eyes, but it would still be a judgment call as to whether the pros outweighed the cons.
Until we have octopus-eyed dogs, however, we can only speculate as to whether octopus eyes would serve a dog better than dog eyes. Given the track record of evolution, and its amazing ability to shape each life-form in the manner that is most advantageous to that life-form, I would suspect, however, that we would find that dog generally do best with dog eyes and octopuses with octopus eyes. If so, then octopus eyes are good for octopuses, but maybe not so good for dogs. Maybe dogs don't really need the visual acuity, but the drawbacks of the octopus design would have terrible consequences in a dog's life, which would make the design inferior.
Re:Intelligent design? by enjo13 · 2004-11-01 06:13 · Score: 1

Your mistaking suboptimal design for wrong design.. Just because something is suboptimal, it doesn't mean it's bad. Often in the context in which it exists (a human eye socket) it is not only correct, but very good at what it does. After all, you can hardly argue that the design choice (whether made by I.D. or Evolution) has done little to limit the advancement of our species.

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:Intelligent design? by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 06:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

And that just slays me. I watched the PBS special on Evolution and found it absolutely fascinating, even though I'd already known most of the stuff presented. To me, the process of evolution is a marvelous process, combining the grace of life in nature with the savagery of survival and competition in a harsh universe, all written on a tapestry 3 billion years long, just aching to be read. On a long enough time scale, morphology flows like water. It is a process that is beautiful beyond compare.

To say that humble origins detract from the end result is ludicrous. A painting is nothing but a canvas, paint, and the proverbial blood, sweat & tears, but it is no less a work of art for it.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Intelligent design? by MarkCollette · 2004-11-01 06:25 · Score: 1

See, most science minded people think that Intelligent Design is just creationism wrapped in a thin veil of pseudo-science.

So do I, but I think that it actually serves a usefull purpose. First of all, it means that us scientists are beginning to win, because creationists are having to explain their beliefs more from our viewpoint then just with their old dogma. Think of how the Reformation caused people to question aspects of Catholocism, which then led to more people questionning religion itself.

Secondly, it keeps us on our toes. The process of science is great, but not everyone is cut out to being a scientist. By having to defend ourselves, it can only strengthen our requirements of argument, which should weed out those who aren't sufficiently rigorous in following the scientific method.

Sure, politically and educationally this is a step backwards, but in the long run I think ID will be usefull, if only as a cautionary tale of pseudo-science.
Re:Intelligent design? by Greenisloved · 2004-11-01 06:42 · Score: 1

"It's the same as believing the Bible, just a little more rational because there's nothing that proves it's not true."

More rational???

That i would go to hell ,cuz im non believer of Jesus. That a christian would counsel unsolicited preaching to others raised in different philosophy without understanding that such counselling starts with "Your existing beliefs are totally stupid "...That learning about other religions and respecting their ideals is foolish.. Is it like "Be a christian, cuz thats the way god wanted to be".How is christianity superior to other religions?That learning only Bible in schools and Insulting science by creationistic beliefs..
What so puzzles me is that the true christians i have met are wonderful in character and very friendly except when they get emotional with their spiritual beliefs.

there's nothing that proves it's not true

Earth is Flat.
Creation period although evidence exists for claim that civilizations started before that.
And may be many more ,that i dont know now.

--
Hello , this is my way.
Which way is yours ?
btw there is no right way
Re:Intelligent design? by NaugaHunter · 2004-11-01 06:42 · Score: 1

So now suboptimal design is equivalent to intelligent design?

Or are you arguing that a creator that holds us in the highest esteem gave us inferior eyes to other things he created, under the theory that they were 'good enough'? Why not at least give humans eyes that can heal themselves, or is that part of the whole 'life-is-suffering' dogma?

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Re:Intelligent design? by plenTpak · 2004-11-01 06:56 · Score: 1

This seems to be a common line of thought, that people believe in a god because there is some need to. You hear people say "I believe in God because he heals my pain", or "I don't believe in God, because I don't need someone to lean on". This is backwards though; God doesn't exist depending on whether you need him or not, just as your house doesn't exist just because you want it to.

It's a revision in theory, which occurs naturally as new information is discovered -- it happens most formally in science, but also in all parts of life.
Re:Intelligent design? by binary+paladin · 2004-11-01 07:02 · Score: 1

The problem is that's it's faith, i.e. you just believe it with no basis in provable (or testable) fact.

And is evolution any different? Or any science for that matter? How many of us here can really prove much of anything. Some people have faith in scientists telling them, "Hey this is how it works." Some people turn to religion for the same thing.

We all have faith in something and while science often takes more steps of proof than religion, our understanding of the universe is, at best, a black box. We have a theory, we throw some values into it and sometimes we get the results we figured we'd get.

We're tiny primates in a large, cold and mysterious universe that have barely scratched the surface of anything and for every one discovery that tells us we're on the right track there's two that tell us that perhaps it is time to rethink everything.

I've never seen at atom. I have faith that they exist. I've never been to Africa. It's existence is based on my faith in maps and pictures, but given the I rarely leave my home state those pictures could be from anywhere.

Intelligent design is no more faith than Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent Design: Look, there's a bunch of circumstantial evidence that says these complicated biological machines cannot be the product of choas. Some kind of intelligence much have been involved. Look at other systems in human life.

Evolution: Look, there's a bunch of circumstantial evidence that says these complicated biological machines came about by gradual change in nature. It was all random and we're not even sure about all the details but if we look at some historical evidence, it agrees.

Gimme a break. "Scientists" can't even agree and evolution, as it stands, is still full of holes. I don't care if people believe in it. I don't care if people believe in creationism. I just get real tired of the evolutionist camp making these ridiculous claims that their idea doesn't require faith. The only belief system that does not require faith is an agnostic view. If you don't care, you don't need faith.

Evolution is a theory. It's not an answer. It's got a lot of holes that may or may not be plugged. In a lot of people's minds it is the best answer out there. Great. Wonderful. It's still faith. It's still a black box. Our science 100 year ago was a joke by today's standards. In 100 more years, today will be a joke. These searches lead us the greater discoveries and understanding. That is the best part of science. The worst part is people taking an uncompleted puzzle and pushing it on everyone else and calling it "complete" and "provable" as opposed "faith" as it is.
Re:Intelligent design? by hords · 2004-11-01 07:32 · Score: 1

Very interesting point. There are many things that animals have evolved better than we have. All of our senses have been done better by one animal or another. Most animals have more offensive and defensive arsenals than we do. Our evolved brain, vocal cords, and hands are wonderous tools that [over]compensate for what lack in other areas. There is no such thing as the perfect animal, each have evolved with their own set of skills to give them an advantage. If not, they are lunch.
Re:Intelligent design? by zanderredux · 2004-11-01 08:29 · Score: 1

When you talk about unintelligent choices, you've reduced the entire discussion into one of subjective preferences. The problem is, how can one decide what an intelligent design is, in simple and objective terms?
In other words, why is the current design of the human eye "bad"? Compared to what?
Re:Intelligent design? by zanderredux · 2004-11-01 08:36 · Score: 1

Ok. Since you're a biologist, would you care to share your knowledge with us, explaining why the design of the octopus' eyes is better and what makes the design of the mammalian eye inferior???
Re:Intelligent design? by scot4875 · 2004-11-01 09:10 · Score: 1

Why would God, a supposedly perfect (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) being, design something that could be bested by a mere human? Are you saying that he was at his drafting table, working on the specifications for the human eye/brain/optic nerve, and he just got to a certain point and said "hey, that's good enough! D is for Diploma!"?

And we're created in his image, right? Does God have a blind spot? Why would an omniscient being even *need* eyes?

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Intelligent design? by Florian+Weimer · 2004-11-01 11:07 · Score: 1

I mean, if you believe in creation, that's fine. If you believe in evolution, that's also fine. What does this hybrid belief offer other than a weak compatibility between religion and science?

It's completely irrational. In school, we are typically told three radically different myths of creation: two from the bible, and the evolution of species. The two myths from the bible are so far apart that it's usually not a problem for someone who presses both into a remotely consistent belief system to incorporate just another one.

If you don't acknowledge that the bible needs interpretation and sometimes has to be read with the historical context in mind, you are a fundamentalist who cannot participate in modern Western society anyway. Those people flatly refuse to take part in any intellectual discourse, and there is no way to please them, short of being intellectually dishonest.

Of course, there are fundamentalists in science, too. Science can never deliver the same absolute truth which religion promises, and some scientists fail to acknowledge that.
Re:Intelligent design? by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 12:01 · Score: 1

It's scary that you think these things, because there are tens of millions of people who agree.
Re:Intelligent design? by vmaxxxed · 2004-11-01 12:39 · Score: 1

The 'ick' factor?

Maybe, in part, but its the same the other way around.

Look at the news these days...

Are we the best god could do??

I think that that is way more dispappointing, and "Iky".

I believe that, to think that god just created a
simple set of rules that are the source of
all nature, is way more difficult and beautiful.

My 2 cents
Re:Intelligent design? by binary+paladin · 2004-11-01 13:43 · Score: 1

That I think what things? That theory masquerading as fact should be called such? That the word "faith" should be applied to ALL parties who use it.

I believe in God, but I certainly don't cling to a literal belief in a six day creation or other such rubbish. However, I wasn't present for the creation of the world so all I am capable of doing is having faith that those freaks are wrong.

As humans we cannot even define our own reality. We cannot prove our own existence outside of our own minds. I BELIEVE I'm not living in some construct similar to "The Matrix" but how can any of us prove otherwise? I certainly don't believe that, but honestly... what proof do we have?

I like to think I'm a man of science and in my mind circumstantial evidence points to the existence of God. I'm not throwing my religion in other people's face or saying, "THIS IS HOW IT IS! IT IS FACT NOT FAITH!" I'm not closed to new ideas either. However, most of what I take for granted is built on the limited perceptions of "educated" people whose opinions I trust.

My entire post was simply asking that the kettle be called black. That's all.

Of course maybe you're a pro-creationist nutjob who is angry at me for not being a "believer" too.

I think it's scarier that there are tens of millions of people like yourself who are unwilling to talk and too quick to label. (Yes, I labeled pro-creationist nutjobs one paragraph above, deal with it.)
Re:Intelligent design? by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 15:35 · Score: 1

I BELIEVE I'm not living in some construct similar to "The Matrix" but how can any of us prove otherwise? I certainly don't believe that, but honestly... what proof do we have?

It doesn't make the slightest difference if we're all brains-in-vats. If it's unprovable then obviously the universe works exactly as it would without virtual reality conspiracies, so why entertain the notion in the first place?

It can't be proven, no - but that's the way science works; inductive reason and all that. Given the evidence, it seems fairly obvious to me that evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. If you have a better theory, please propose it.
Re:Intelligent design? by binary+paladin · 2004-11-01 15:52 · Score: 1

You're focusing on the wrong part of the story. I wasn't speaking out against evolution specifically. I was just saying that I'm tired of people trying to pass it off as "proven fact." Scientists don't agree. They don't understand the method. They're working with what they have which really isn't a lot. I never even said it was wrong. I just said it is hardly proven.

Inductive reason tells me that the beauty and diversity of life is the product of a creative intelligence that may or may not have used the process of evolution to create that.

Your "evidence" for evolution being as it is is no less circumstantial than mine.

More important than anything else my point is simply that science is moving forward and will move forward. We've hardly scratched the surface and even with the particle of understanding of the universe we possess there are people are out there going, "That's it. We solved it. It's fact." When it isn't.

And you know another thing, incorrect theories lead to correct ones. Evolution, in the history books, may end up being written off as a mistake of man that lead to something greater. Darwin didn't have the tools we have now and his idea of evolution is certainly not what we have today. I don't believe what we have today will be what we have tomorrow.

I believe in God but that also doesn't instantly make me some kind of Biblical fundamentalist. I'm not attempting to stop scientific theory. I'm not opposed to any findings. I mean hell, I love computers. I'd be pretty bummed if not for science, you know?

It's a good thing we also have diversity of thought just as we have diversity of life, so don't tell me it's sad that people think as I do just because I don't agree with your acceptance of evolution. I'm not telling you not to believe. Geez.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 21:15 · Score: 1

Ok. Since you're a biologist, would you care to share your knowledge with us, explaining why the design of the octopus' eyes is better and what makes the design of the mammalian eye inferior???

It's the path the nerves take. In the mammalian eye the axons of the nerves pass in front of the retina. This means that light has to pass through the nerves before it reaches the light-sensitive pigments, and also that there has to be an exit point which is not light-sensitive (the blind spot). In the squid and octopus eye the axons pass behind the retina, so no light-blocking and no blind spot.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 21:18 · Score: 1

The problem is, how can one decide what an intelligent design is, in simple and objective terms?

Its very simple. If the human eye was designed better we would see better (no blind spot) and the brain would have to do less work (extrapolating what we would see in the blind spot). This would measurably better in the engineering sense.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 21:20 · Score: 1

Your mistaking suboptimal design for wrong design.. Just because something is suboptimal, it doesn't mean it's bad.

There are many things in evolution that are not just sub-optimal - they are really dumb. An intelligent designer would not have been that dumb.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-01 22:17 · Score: 1

I do not buy this for one second, based on your posts.

You don't have to buy this. Fortunately, the awarders of my B.Sc, M.Sc and Ph.D. and the students I taught at degree level did.

I would be curious to know exactly what I said that led you to believe that I was not an expert in this area? Perhaps you have a strange ability to assess 25 years of a career from a few words in Slashdot?
Re:Intelligent design? by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-02 12:57 · Score: 1

It doesn't bother me that you disagree with me, it bothers me that you have so many misconceptions about what we're disagreeing on.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-03 08:31 · Score: 1

The trouble is, you can't have it both ways. You can't look at the results of evolution and say they require an intelligent designer, but then start to question how we judge what is 'good'. If we don't allow ourselves to judge good and bad design in these matters, we should not also allow ourselves to judge what is 'intelligent' design.
Re:Intelligent design? by nine-times · 2004-11-03 09:35 · Score: 1

Well, first, I don't think I would fit properly into the "intelligent design" camp. I mean, I think animals are exceptionally "well-designed", in a loose way of speaking, but I think that's by virtue of the nature of life and the process of evolution, and not because we were plopped down well-designed by a grey-haired man.
Additionally, I don't believe I was saying that we shouldn't attempt to judge what "good" is. I'm merely saying that "good" can be very context-dependant, and so we should be careful is saying that one thing is "good" and another is not. It's usually more appropriate to say one thing is "good for this purpose" or "good in this way". What's good for an octopus in not always good for a wolf. Being under water, for example.
I think we ought to be particularly careful when catagorizing evolutionary features as "not-good", since evolution has often done a better job of "choosing" what's good for the various creatures than they are capable of choosing for themselves, and though man is wise, I'm not sure he's that wise.
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-03 11:42 · Score: 1

Well, first, I don't think I would fit properly into the "intelligent design" camp.

Actually, I didn't think you did, but your comments gave the opportunity to make a general point.

I mean, I think animals are exceptionally "well-designed", in a loose way of speaking, but I think that's by virtue of the nature of life and the process of evolution, and not because we were plopped down well-designed by a grey-haired man.

I see your point, but I guess I just believe differently. As I see it, there are some really clear examples of bad design when there is not much evolutionary pressure. One of my favourites is the tree kangaroo. I mean, its a kangaroo with the long legs, and it lives in trees. Its hopeless! If there was any serious competition up in the trees, it would die out pretty quickly, but there isn't, so it does fine.
Re:Intelligent design? by nine-times · 2004-11-03 18:55 · Score: 1

...If there was any serious competition up in the trees, it would die out pretty quickly, but there isn't, so it does fine.
I still don't think that shows that evolution has done a "bad design job". I think I would restate what you said as, "If things were different, the design wouldn't be sufficient, but as it is, the design is good." Part of what I was saying when I said that you had to consider the life of the species and not just the animal, was that you also need to think about the cost of evolution itself. Wild mutations in a stable environment would lead to trouble. It's a better design choice for the species to only have traits that provide benefits make an impact.
Let me go a different way with this metaphor: Lets say you're working in IT, and most of the people in your business use computers merely as a word processor. A consultant comes in and tries to sell you server-class 8 processor unix systems with everything spec'ed out to the fullest, one for each employee. Your boss asks you, "Are these 'better' computers than the Dell Desktops we've been looking at?" And you answer....?
I'll tell you how I'd answer. "In an abstract sense, yes. In the context of shopping for servers, yes. But we're not shopping for servers, so for us, no. Sure, they're powerful, but not in ways a word processor will utilize. On the other hand, they're big and clunky and expensive, and our users don't know unix. If we tried to drop one of these on the CEO's desk, it would be a disaster."
So, I mean that as an example of where, in a certain context, something is 'better', even in certain ways that you might think are 'objective', without actually being better in the context of what matters. The tree kangaroo example-- without really being familiar with these animals-- I'm sure they're well suited to the environment in which they live. Having serious tree competition would be a change in the way in which they live, thereby changing the context in which they are being judged.
Does that make my point more clear?
Re:Intelligent design? by Decaff · 2004-11-03 23:23 · Score: 1

Does that make my point more clear?

I understand your point. What I disagree with is your suggestion that these animals and features are 'good'. Taking the computer example (which is a useful one!) its like someone offering you a desktop machine which isn't that fast, and has some awkward wiring in for historical reasons. You buy it because its better than the competition, but when you open the lid you still gasp at the mess.

There is a long history of thought that believes that evolution produces optimal designs for each situation, but a more detailed understanding of genetics has revealed that its far more complicated than that. When you look at a feature of an organism, you have to consider what benefit the feature confers, and, this is the key thing - who benefits from the feature. There are good examples where a feature in one animal is of benefit to a separate organism, often a parasite that has influenced the animal's growth or behaviour.

History versus theory by Henry+V+.009 · 2004-11-01 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:History versus theory by Planesdragon · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

The same effect that all the other mounds of evidence in favor of evolution have so far had on the debate.

Prove what I ate for breakfast today last year.

Science can tell us how well we know the past, but it cannot tell us everything. I.D.--which is distinct from creationism--should be taught in schools, perhaps as an "anti-science" class that details the limitations of our rational evidence-only way of thinking.

At the least, it could give the students ammunition to shut down ignorant history teachers who believe the screed that half of the major figures in history were homosexual. Not that we have any way of knowing that they weren't, but we sure as heck can't tell that they were.
Re:History versus theory by Dun+Malg · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 1

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.
True, but the eye is pretty much the Big One. The "intelligent design" argument for the eye was one of the earliest against evolution, and was even addressed by Darwin himself: (from TFA)
Darwin himself confessed that it was "absurd" to propose that the human eye, an "organ of extreme perfection and complication" evolved through spontaneous mutation and natural selection. But he also reasoned that "if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist" then this difficulty should be overcome

So basically, the one item the creationists have been able to rally around from the beginning has finally been shown to have a possible evolutionary origin. This is a pretty heavy blow. They can no longer shut down debates by repeatedly shouting "show me the evolutionary path of the eye, then!" (a tactic I found quite irritating back in my "coffee house philosopher" days).

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:History versus theory by brsmith4 · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 1

Prove what I ate for breakfast today last year.

A completely assinine argument, if I may be so bold. We can easily recreate that particular experiment by having you sit down and eat breakfast today, documenting it, and proving it one year from now. Its the same thing as that idiot that asked how you prove that everything wasn't created five minutes ago and that we all just have memories of the perceived past.

We had no need 1 year ago to document or experiment with your breakfast eating habits, but now that you've posed the question, recreating that experiment is easy.

You may think that these statements are logical, but they are not. They are rooted in rhetoric and are created, usually, by people that have smoked copious amounts of pot. It is safe to assume that the earth and the universe were not created 5 minutes ago, but a long time ago due to overwhelming scientific evidence.

If your statements are logical, then is the following statement logical as well: "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so massive that even he can't lift it? See its a paradox so God CAN'T exist." These statements are purely irrational and have no place in the realm of scientific reason.
Re:History versus theory by Keebler71 · 2004-11-01 05:31 · Score: 1

From a motivation point of view, I don't see much difference between the creationists and the debunkers... why is it that creationists feel the need to use science to "prove" an aspect of their faith... and why do some scientists feel it necessray to use science to "disprove" something that is clearly a matter of faith. Why can't they just ignore one another?

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Re:History versus theory by St.+Arbirix · 2004-11-01 05:39 · Score: 1

There shouldn't be a debate in the first place. What the Intelligent Design people do is start a debate in a school district over whether evolution or ID should be taught. This brings a large group of people out of the woodwork to watch the debate. Then throughout the debate the ID people argue, since arguing the science is useless to them and always goes back to "some supreme being", that since these two topics were both important enough to be debated then they should both be put in school textbooks.

The Popular Science had this in their last issue and Penn & Teller lambasted Cobb county Georgia for including ID. It's like putting up the six Commandments which don't mention God and claiming they were independantly derived from morals and ethics experts around the country.

--
Direct away from face when opening.
Re:History versus theory by jc42 · 2004-11-01 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

True, but the eye is pretty much the Big One.

Yeah, but this is pretty much because the (mammalian) eye is soft tissue that doesn't fossilize well. So it has long been a "mystery". The religious folks are really just arguing that "Scientists don't have any evidence about how our eye evolved, so it must have been a miracle." Anything not preserved in the fossil record can be used in this sort of fallacious argument.

On the other hand, you can read an interesting scientific story of the past few years by googling for "brittle-star eye". This is about a group of starfish, not mammals, but it's a case where we can see the early stages of a functional eye. The evolution has happened in the past million years or so. It's a nice case where the animals don't have a very good eye, with resolution of several degrees, but it's better than what their relatives have. Comparing the brittle stars with other starfish shows clearly how this eye is evolving.

In a few more hundreds of millions of years, when the descendants of the brittle stars are having their scientific revolution, they will probably have lots of fossil evidence showing how their advanced eye developed, and their religious people will have to use other arguments against evolution by natural selection. And they'll probably insist that those strange ancient creatures with internal skeletons couldn't have had vision, because their fossils don't show anything like the compound eye that all advanced species use.

(There's another interesting recently-developed sort of "eye" in the pit vipers, giving them a sort of pinhole camera that works in the infrared. But that's harder to find by googling.)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:History versus theory by Planesdragon · 2004-11-01 07:02 · Score: 1

If your statements are logical, then is the following statement logical as well: "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so massive that even he can't lift it? See its a paradox so God CAN'T exist." These statements are purely irrational and have no place in the realm of scientific reason.

Wrong. These statements are nonscientific, but that doesn't mean that they're irrational. Science isn't even a subset of reason--they're distinctly different qualities, once you get past the basics.

The questions are questions of philosiphy--similar to "how do we know there isn't a grand conspiracy trying to hide that we're all in an alien labratory on TV?"

The answers, FWIW:

* Since there's no way to tell if we were created 5 minutes ago, we just need to act on the knowledge we have, but keep an open mind to watch out for abberant data.

* Once something is so massive that there is nothing an order of magnitude larger than it to push off from, the verb "lift" becomes "move."
Re:History versus theory by LMariachi · 2004-11-01 09:53 · Score: 1

Here's the difference: Creationists are pushing the Bible into schools. Scientists aren't forcing churches to adopt their textbooks.
Re:History versus theory by lylfyl · 2004-11-01 11:43 · Score: 1

You mean thermoreceptors? You're right, Google only gives about 800 hits for 'thermoreceptor'
'pit organ' works better, once you ignore the musical sites.
And yes, that's why they're called pit vipers
Re:History versus theory by mindstrm · 2004-11-01 12:50 · Score: 1

Simpler.

How do we prove that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago, and we just all have false memories of the past?

We obviously can't. Any evidence that the universe is older could have been planted, inherent in the design the Creator implemented a short 5 minutes ago to deceive us.

And that, of course, is irrelevant. If no experiment can tell the difference between a universe that has been around for billions of years, and one that was created 5 minutes ago but LOOKS like it's been around for billions of years, then there IS no difference.
Re:History versus theory by jc42 · 2004-11-01 13:35 · Score: 1

Indeed, though those terms might not be obvious to someone who doesn't already know them. The "pit organ" problem illustrates an ongoing frustration with keyword searches. Similar terms or phrases are often used in unrelated fields, leading to the notorious difficulty of finding what you're looking for in a large haystack of unrelated pages.

The pit vipers were so named for the pits on their faces, of course, but I think that the term predates the discovery of infrared light and its relationship to heat. Those pits are now textbook examples of a separate development of an imaging "eye". Like the brittle starts, the pits' images don't have very good resolution, but they don't need good resolution. Picking out a spot of warmth in a scene is useful to a predator, and the other eyes are good enough at focusing on the details.

But it is somewhat curious that the pit vipers wouldn't have just adapted their older eyes to see in the infrared. Other animals do so, and it wouldn't have been difficult for snakes to adjust their frequency response. This is useful in the evolution/creation debate, because it's not something that an intelligent engineer would likely do. But an unintelligent evolutionary process could very well do something so apparently idiotic.

Then again, I've seen "committee" designs that are every bit as idiotic, where every member of the group objected to the design but went along because it was the only way to get agreement. So maybe there isn't just one "intelligent designer", but rather a whole committee of them.

That would certainly explain a lot of the absurdities in this world much better than an omniscient god does. ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:History versus theory by scribblej · 2004-11-02 09:17 · Score: 1

Re: googling for vipers with infrared sensitivity.

Try googling on

viper "heat pit"

And you'll get all you ever wanted.
Re:History versus theory by sjames · 2004-11-03 01:03 · Score: 1

Science can tell us how well we know the past, but it cannot tell us everything. I.D.--which is distinct from creationism--should be taught in schools, perhaps as an "anti-science" class that details the limitations of our rational evidence-only way of thinking.

Actually science should be taught in schools. Sure, schools teach chemistry, physics, biology, etc, but the first class should be Scientific Methods and Philosophy.

By the time students complete that course, they should understand that God(s) is NOT a valid part of any sciencs because God is not experimentally testable or repeatably objectively observable. They should understand that Science does not claim there can be no god, just that god is not a suitable scientific subject or theory.

If they got a thorough dose of that, they would then understand also that the whackier historical 'theories' are not, in fact, properly constructed theories, and bear more resemblance to pointless curve fitting and fudging than anything else.

If the creationists truly understood the philosophy and methodology of science, they would understand that the assertion that science should consider their God in it's theories is actually quite blasphemous on the grounds that it would deny faith.

If carpentry was done the way vocal creationists think science should be done, the building codes would claim that it is God's will that studs be placed at 16 inches O.C. for residential construction.

Huh??? by TopShelf · 2004-11-01 04:32 · Score: 1, Flamebait

"Creationist thinking"? We have a new oxymoron of the highest order...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Re:Huh??? by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 04:42 · Score: 1

Ahh... so you are as open minded as they are then?

Sorry... couldn't resist. :}

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:Huh??? by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1

"Creationist thinking"? We have a new oxymoron of the highest order...
How this trollish post got modded to +5 insightful, I have no idea. (Even though I am a devout atheïst and evolutionist myself :-)

Even some creationists believe in evolution. My religious friend believes that god just set the rules and gave things a little push, then leaned back and enjoyed the show without interfering (besides a few miracles here & there).

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Huh??? by RealAlaskan · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are two very interesting questions behind this story:
1) ``How did things get to be this way?'' and
2) ``Why are things this way?'', or ``Who made it so?''.
Evolution is a very plausible answer to the first question. Creationism is a very plausible answer to the second. Since there isn't any great overlap between the two questions, there isn't any strong reason to think that the two answers are mutually exculsive.
Science is concerned with the first question, because that is the question which can be given an objective answer from verifiable facts. The scientific method just doesn't lend itself to the second question.
The sooner the religious nutcases on the science side quit picking on creationism, and the sooner the religous nutcases on the religious side quit picking on evolution, the better off we'll all be. Unfortunately, since there's a lot of religious nutcases on both sides of the issue, that probably won't happen.
1) It all happened by an infinite number of rolls of the dice.
2) God loaded the dice.
There you have one Christian fundamentalist's opinion.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:Huh??? by eXtro · 2004-11-01 05:09 · Score: 1

In the context of a scientific theory disagreeing with or refuting Intelligent Design is not a bias. Intelligent Design doesn't fit inside the framework of a scientific theory. Theories don't include statements that are unknowable or untestable. A driving intelligence behind evolution is an untestable and unknowable proposition. You can't devise a test that will prove or disprove it.

--
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Re:Huh??? by TopShelf · 2004-11-01 05:38 · Score: 1

Insightful? I don't see any of those mods. Flamebait, Troll, and Funny, but no Insightful...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Even if evolution is a flawed theroy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:34 · Score: 1

... which I don't believe it to be, how is "Intelligent Design" a reasonable scientific alternative? Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? Where's the evidence? (Being "amazed" at complexity of life doesn't count) Until creationists can explain how their theory qualifies as science, you could just as well explain life on Earth as the dream of a Hindu cow.

Re:Even if evolution is a flawed theroy by Rick.C · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

...you could just as well explain life on Earth as the dream of a Hindu cow.
Ahhh... now I get it!! The underlying assumption of an unlimited supply of milk would explain our universal love of doughnuts!

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Re:Even if evolution is a flawed theroy by skiman1979 · 2004-11-01 06:40 · Score: 1

explain life on Earth as the dream of a Hindu cow.

If we assume there exists a Hindu cow that is having this dream, then this Hindu cow has religion. Therefore, she believes in a supreme being of one form or other. If the Hindu cow exists, then her diety/creator/God exists.

--
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-11-01 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No so perfect after all by alext · 2004-11-01 04:36 · Score: 1

IANAB but I thought Darwin heard sometime in his lifetime that the mammalian eye wasn't so perfect after all - they'd discovered that the nerves made an awkward and fundamentally unnecessary U-turn from the rods and cones in the retina.

Now of course an octopus's eye probably doesn't have this flaw...

Re:No so perfect after all by Loonacy · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

That's what i always thought. In fact, if there were an intelligent designer responsible for the eye, then what was the purpose of giving us blind spots? I was under the impression that as the eye evolved, it was first just sensitive to light, then later the rods and cones came about that could distinguish between colors. Unfortunately the rods and cones grew up behind the bundle of light sensitive nerves, giving us the "blind spot" that we have today.

Re:Face It by oroshana · 2004-11-01 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except evolutionists have some basis in reality. Also, they do not rule out that the process of evolution is as some deity intended. They are just describing a mechanism, not a supreme plan.

Mirror here by alienfluid · 2004-11-01 04:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's the mirror

Re:Mirror here by JPriest · 2004-11-01 07:18 · Score: 1

I remember once in 2nd grade I told a teacher that used to like me I am Atheist, she almost smacked me for it. She never again liked me for the rest of the year. I remember creationalists calling me ignorant and short sighted for believing in evolution. A great deal of progress has been made since then. I would like to give a big Thank You to the scientific community reading this.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.

Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed.

Re:Why Verses? by jay-be-em · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't understand. How does introducing an all powerful being whose existence could not be proved by definition make this more plausible than just evolution?

--
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
Re:Why Verses? by Jakhel · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1

::Reads parent post::

5

4

3

2

1 ::Holds head and starts rocking from side to side::

Oh No!! ::Head explodes::

P.S. The whole concept of evolution is one in which something/someone had to be around before something else could evolve from it. Hence, something or someone had to be around before God in order for God to evolve into God and create Evolution. That kind of fucks up the whole God being "alpha and omega" thing. And you spelled versUS wrong.
Re:Why Verses? by sgant · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Why Verses? by FFFish · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 1

How do you address the "turtles all the way down" issue, then?

If life is so damn complex that it requires a creator, then the creator is so damn complex as to require a creator.

--

--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Re:Why Verses? by Dominatus · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1

Evolution is about life, biological/chemical/ecological life here on earth, not about deities. Oh, you have fragmented sentences.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 04:58 · Score: 1

Interesting posts, How? If evolution wasn't created how was it begun? A big bang? - Sounds like a creation to me. Christian, what does that matter in science? Just because there is a beginning that does not preclude an answer. Life began it changes. That is the matter, the explaination of the change can include that change was built into the system, or the system built itself based on the creative moment, either way there is a system and there is a creation. There cannot be logically a non-creation because we are. There is logically an evolution because it can be measured. So what/who ever created can be debated but there was a creation.
Re:Why Verses? by fyngyrz · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1

Why couldn't Santa Claus have created Evolution? Why would that be any less (or more) plausible than the question "Why couldn't God have created Evolution?"
The reason that the theory of evolution (which we all really need to remember is a human metaphor for an observed set of causes and effects in nature, not some kind of diamond-hard fact) is not generally combined with God, or Santa, is because the theory is based upon visible, testable, falsifiable, reproducible, results and data. God and Santa are based upon your opinions and beliefs - no more, no less. You could be right if you attribute the creation of life to Santa, God, or little aliens from Andromeda, but there is no way to show that you are right (or wrong.)
So scientific types like to keep the theory of evolution over here where it can be poked and prodded, while they keep the belief of Santa created the world over there, where Santa worshipers don't screw up the theory by including Mrs. Claus's rationale for keeping mortal females always covered head to toe just in case Mr. Claus comes down the flue so that Claus-like offspring are not created by... er, accident. :)

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Why Verses? by Gilgaron · 2004-11-01 05:08 · Score: 1

A lot of theists believe that evolution is the creative method of God.

The Young Earth Creationists reject this because evolution requires suffering and death of competing life forms, and their doctrine holds that there was no death before the fall of man.

The debates between YECs and Theistic Evolutionists over Biblical interpretation can be as high tempered as a campus preacher and some atheists.
Re:Why Verses? by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1

Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution.

Which god is he most plausible one to have created evolution?

Was it Vishnu? Or Jehova? How about Chronos?

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Why Verses? by KyleJ61782 · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 1

If life is so damn complex that it requires a creator, then the creator is so damn complex as to require a creator.

If we were discussing a creator that existed only within time and was not transcendent, then yes, the creator would require a creator, ad infinitum. However, if you take the approach that the creator created both time and space, then the creator exists outside of the constraints of time and space and thus does not require a creator since the creator is existent apart from the constraints of time and space, namely cause and effect. In this viewpoint, the creator is the ultimate cause of all else and is the effect of nothing.

--

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1

Interesting if you are asking about Creating a world where my kids get "theory" as truth. What about the truth that evolution is a mechanism? It is not the beginning or end or anything but a mechanism? That needs to be taught but isn't. It is taught that we came from bacteria so be nice to the mold. No intention to say that God should be taught in schools, that should be taught by parents if they so believe. What should be taught is that there are limits to a theory including how it began, where it is going and why it exits. All "theorys" about why evlolution exits by non-theists should be canned just like the biblical one has been. These "theorys" (not evolution but the origins of evolution and it's causes) are speculatory at best and deserve to be identified as religious.
Re:Why Verses? by superyooser · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Because there are many contradictions between the two ideologies.
1. Bible: God is the Creator of all things. (Genesis 1)
Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.
2. Bible: World created in six days. (Genesis 1) These must be literal days; see #23.
Evolution: World evolved over the aeons.
3. Bible: Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3)
Evolution: Creative processes continuing.
4. Bible: Oceans before land. (Genesis 1:2)
Evolution: Land before oceans.
5. Bible: First life on land. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.
6. Bible: First life was land plants. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.
7. Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.
8. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes. (Genesis 1:11,20,21)
Evolution: All fishes before fruit trees.
9. Bible: All stars made on the fourth day. (Genesis 1:16)
Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.
10. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20,21)
Evolution: Fishes evolved over hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.
11. Bible: Birds before insects. (Genesis 1:20-31; Leviticus 11)
Evolution: Insects before birds.
12. Bible: Whales before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.
13. Bible: Birds before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before birds.
14. Bible: Man before rain. (Genesis 2:5)
Evolution: Rain before man.
15. Bible: Man before woman. (Genesis 2:21-22)
Evolution: Woman before man. (by genetics).
16. Bible: Light before the sun. (Genesis 1:3-19)
Evolution: Sun before any light (on earth).
17. Bible: Plants before the sun. (Genesis 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.
18. Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life appeared all at once. (Genesis 1:20-21)
Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.
19. Bible: Man's body created from the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)
Evolution: Man evolved from monkeys.
20. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms. (Genesis 1:28)
Evolution: Most organisms extinct before man evolved.
21. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian. (Genesis 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.
22. Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25; 1 Corinthians 15:38-39), although speciation does occur.
Evolution: Life forms in a continual state of flux.
23. Bible: Man's sin is the cause of death. (Romans 5:12)
Evolution: Struggle and death existent log before the evolution of man.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

Sounds like you have a good religion of your own going on. Don't pay attention to the bible unless you are willing to pay attention to the bible and those who wrote it, unless you want 30,000 churches in less than 500 years.
Re:Why Verses? by forgotten_my_nick · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 1

Maybe gods evolve too.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 05:39 · Score: 1

You didn't answer the question, Let me posit it simply, is there a creation? - chew Now if there is or isn't a creation, evolution being taught as creation is a falsifying of evolution. Evolution is not creation, it is simply the change that the created universe undergoes. Evolution is not creation.
Re:Why Verses? by dubl-u · 2004-11-01 05:47 · Score: 1

God said that if we seek Him, we shall find Him. This is a scientific experiment that anyone willing can participate in by himself in order to answer this question.

Look, I'm glad you have your faith and have many friends of varying faiths, whom I respect immensely. But it'd gratify me immensely if you'd not go dragging science into this.

Because when you do, I'll have to point that no, this isn't science. You haven't proven anything other than that when people go looking to believe something, sometimes they do. You'll need further experiments to prove anything about what they're talking to.

And living here in California, I find that people are a little ahead of you in their lab work. They try talking not just to your particular god, but to a vast variety of gods, both historical and recently made up. They also try talking to trees, rocks, bodies of water, real historical figures, wild animals, astronomical objects, imaginary historical figures, pet bunny rabbits, various internal organs, and a variety of alleged internal structures like energy bodies and chakras.

And guess what: They've all had success. So based on this evidence, I can think of two theories. A) your particular god is a pretty small part of the vast unseen world, or B) people can talk to and believe in pretty much anything if they work at it.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 06:12 · Score: 1

That isn't the question. Is your god Evolution?
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 06:17 · Score: 1

Either There is a first cause... or the first cause was no cause causing itself by accident?
Re:Why Verses? by Psychotext · 2004-11-01 06:19 · Score: 1

The thing that has always baked my noodle in late night drunk or stoned conversations comes around point 1 in your list. If God created the universe or if it was the big bang, what came before? Did God just wink into existence from no-where? Was there suddenly a huge amount of mass that appeared in nothingness. What created the nothingness? Was there a start to all of this? Was God some higher being's design?

* shudder *

I hate thinking about things like this. We'll never understand it, and I get the feeling that even if there is a higher power after death, they wont be able to explain it to a level we could understand! I think it's basically down to an over reliance on time as a constant dimension.

Stupid limited brain!

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:Why Verses? by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 06:20 · Score: 1

What?
That doesn't follow unless you presuppose the absolute nature of time.
Allowing for eternity, there isn't any problem. God isn't so complex as to require a creator; God has always existed.
*shrug*
By definition, you don't get to impose the constraints of the universe that is the creation (i.e., time & causality) on the being postulated to have created the universe and, hence, the constraints.
It's semantically clever, but it doesn't really mean anything.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

Well said! Many evolutionists have deitized a theory
Re:Why Verses? by sgant · 2004-11-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Hmmm...I'm not pushing a religion. Evolution is not a religion, at least not in the classical sense. In science, a theory is put forward based on observation, and it's tested...in this case tested with the fossil records...and revised as we learn more and gather further data. Creationism is based on writings by hebrew priests some three thousand years ago which have barely changed in that time (you'll find that the Torah(first 5 books of the Bible where Creationism explained) is well intact and in fact has been changed little when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls...the New Testament is another story though). Also, I'm puzzled by your If you don't believe that both are religions, you are not a true scientist. Read what I just placed down on what scientific research involves.

We can't evolve a human from an ape in a lab, so let's throw the evolution theory out the window? Is this what you're saying?That's a wild leap there. So you're saying if you can't "see" something with your eyes it doesn't exist? So quantum physics should also just "move on" as you say?

Show me the data on Creationism. But first, we know the Earth is older than 10,000 years. We know we're not all decended from just two people. We know that not every animal on the planet could fit in one boat with the dimensions listed in the Bible. I could go on, but I won't.

It comes down to faith I suppose. I'm not trying to test your faith, I'm mearly stating that Evolution is not a religion being pushed on you. If you wish to follow this logic, then what would happen if a religious sect declared that the math we all use and know is all wrong and it's a religeon. Should we discount all math then because it's being "pushed" on us? Like the statement "1+1=5 where there are very large values of 1". Should this be taught to a first grader?

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Re:Why Verses? by gnuman99 · 2004-11-01 06:44 · Score: 1

What will really "bake your noodle" is that maybe the entire universe *is* nothing. Nothing was created. How? Well, consider that you have no money. So you get a loan. Then you have -$5 loan and $5 cash. But in reality you still have no money.
Welcome to the world of quantum physics where nothing is something and something is nothing.
Re:Why Verses? by halivar · 2004-11-01 06:56 · Score: 1

Many of your points have nothing at all to do with evolution. TMK, Charles Darwin posited nothing on the origin of life, the universe, and everything; just on the origin of man and the mechanical process of evolution. Am I wrong about this (could be)?

I tend to think of evolutionary theory as a proper subset of "anti-creationism" (because I know of no other accepted term in use), and think they ought to be separated in these kinds of arguments. Your points go well beyond the scope of evolutionary theory.

As a "religious fundie", I have no desire to argue my point from a pseudo-scientific perspective (basing your faith on falsifiable "evidence" is a dangerous thing to do, IMHO), and I quite frankly don't know why those that share my religion have the urgent need to do so (What? Is faith not enough? Then it's not faith!).

I much prefer to stick to nonverifiable, nonfalsifiable philosophical arguments (i.e. "Q: Can an omnipotent being create, in 6 days, a planet with 4.6 billion years of geological history? Two cases: If 'no', then premise of omnipotence fails, if 'yes' blah blah blah..."). While people may still laugh at me like an idiot, at least they can't point to my silly posturing over the bombardier beetle. Just a little bit less rope for me to swing on.
Re:Why Verses? by jgardn · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

Consider the theory of the unlimited universe. The universe and energy and matter extend in all directions forever. You can never find the edge of space, in any dimension.

Now consider that the word used in Hebrew for "create" is more similar to our word "organize". In other words, it was written that the world was organized from already existing matter and not created from nothing. (This is one interpretation of many.)

With an infinite universe, in all directions, the origins of God or the universe are moot points. The universe always has been, and always will be. There was no beginning to the universe, and there is no end.

Now imagine this: If the universe is infinite, why would there only be one "earth"? Why would God create one earth and call it quits? It sure doesn't fit to have the entire universe revolve around one tiny planet in the corner of an anonymous galaxy in an unknown region of an infinite universe.

No, I believe that the universe is infinite, and so are the works of God. He has an infinite number of earths, all going through similar things that we are going through, all "organized" from surrounding matter. Our planet is no more or less important to God than those, just like one person on this planet is no more or less important than any other.

For all practical purposes, the number of humans on this earth alone is "infinite" as far as our mortal understanding goes. We can barely understand the few humans around us in our families and close friends. How can we be expected to understand the billions and all their cultures and customs and languages? The number 6 billion is just a collection of words that has little meaning to us.

This is what you get if you think through the infinite universe concept.

Another alternate idea is the closed universe theory. Here, there is a limit to the universe around us. In fact, this may be one of several billion universes. In this instance, the entire universe was created just for our one planet. Again, and omniscient and omnipotent God wouldn't be satisfied with a single earth or a single universe, so he would go about and create several more universes and earths and perhaps several more.

--
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Re:Why Verses? by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 07:31 · Score: 1

Maybe gods evolve too.

Well, if perfection is infinity, they have room to grow even if they are already perfect. So maybe.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Why Verses? by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 08:12 · Score: 1

That isn't the question. Is your god Evolution?

Depends what you mean by "god". If you mean "creator", then yes, you and I and the electric eel are the result of evolution's ability to create new organisms.
Starting with the mysterious first organism, and reproducing and multyplying and diversifying and comingling and competing, etc.

If you mean something I worship, then no.

P.S. There's the intelligent design derivative "god created all things by intentionally cultivating a designed evolutionary path through miraculous mutations, but simultaneously allowed things go about randomly to enjoy the show while he worked" I kinda like.
At least that belief limits itself to havig nothing to prove it, instead of requiring to disprove the very sound and reasonable evidence of evolution.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 08:32 · Score: 1

Excellent, I think we are on a similar page. I realize that I am evolved from my parents and so on... The disagreement becomes, where did that first "mysterious creature" come from. Did it begin from itself with the ability/desire to improve, going against all entropy that seems to govern it's environment? I don't think so and it seems you do. It is hard for me as a scientist to believe that something came from nothing.
Re:Why Verses? by djeca · 2004-11-01 08:50 · Score: 1

I tend to think of evolutionary theory as a proper subset of "anti-creationism" (because I know of no other accepted term in use)

It's called "science".

But, yeah, the parent poster's list of points has nothing to do with evolution for most of its length. The theory of evolution gives an incredibly beautiful mechanism whereby all Earthly life could have evolved from a simple common ancestor or ancestors. Strictly speaking, it does not explain where that original life form(s) came from, or even require that that was how life came into its current complexity; those questions fall under the category of palaeontology. Although, to my faithless mind, it does seem rather absurd to argue for an alternative mechanism - kinda like saying that, yeah, the Great Pyramid could have been built by the Egyptians using the technology of the day, but that it was actually built by space aliens.
Re:Why Verses? by Psychotext · 2004-11-01 08:51 · Score: 1

Again though, from my limited perspective. No matter how many universes there are, or how many Earth's, or how they were created - Everything starts somewhere, even God. That's the aspect I have problems with, not multiple universes or parallel dimensions but simply with the fact that it all hard to start somewhere (My missus argues time is all in a loop, but I then have to ask what started the loop, and how).

I think I may choose to lay down at this point and drool quietly to myself. For those that don't get what I'm going on about - Here's an image (My problem is with the first ???, I don't really care about the last ones ;-)

??? ----> God Created ---> Big Bang / Creation (Depends on opinion) ---> Now ---> Future ---> ???

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:Why Verses? by Psychotext · 2004-11-01 10:22 · Score: 1

...and that's exactly the reason I will be hiding in my cupboard for the next two weeks until my brain allows me to forget about never starting, never ending universes and gods that live in the ever-present eternity! :)

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 10:41 · Score: 1

"Life came from organic chemicals, which didn't come from "nothing"; they were part of the Earth's early environment." Where did Earth's early environment come from? - don't stop there. If you limit the environment you limit the reality. Evolution works fine once there is something to evolve.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-01 11:43 · Score: 1

"that has nothing to do with the naturalistic origins of life or the validity of evolutionary theory" exactly the point, You cannot say that evolution excludes creation There is no correlation to exclude it objectively. To say that evolution doesn't correlate to some peoples view of creation would be an accurate statement. - 7 earth days blah blah blah Creation however is a separate issue from evolution and the two theorys are not incompatible.
Re:Why Verses? by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 12:06 · Score: 1

Is geology a religion because I can't create a mountain in the lab?
Re:Why Verses? by fyngyrz · 2004-11-01 13:35 · Score: 1

The bottom line is that biblical beliefs are not theories; they are not considered part of science at all. Creationism in particular is not scientific; it may have been initially, but since data exists that outright disprove the theories, but the theories have not been modified to accomodate the actual data, it's no longer science. It's just religion.
Science requires that all relevant data be considered, not just the data that support your argument; this disqualifies every variety of creationism I have ever heard, of or read about. That is why the theory of evolution hasn't been canned: It is intact despite considering every little datum, while theories of creationism fail in a variety of ways, depending on which one we're talking about.
I am not at all certain that it is rational to argue the "origin" of evolution, as it is not conceived as something that "came into being", rather it is a process that defines results as a consequence of pressures over time - very much a natural force (natural in the sense of inevitable given the ecosystem we exist in), much like water pressure carving rock.
However, no adequate explanation exists for a "beginning" of the universe; the religionists have their God(s) explanations, and some cosmologists think they might have a workable theory, and a lot of the rest of us are saying "I don't know."
Personally, I'm glad that really smart people are looking at the question, but my instincts tell me there is no answer - that's where I am guessing they'll arrive eventually. It is interesting to watch them try to answer "how did it all start", even if it never started at all. And of course, if they do figure it out, that'll be even more interesting!

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-02 02:20 · Score: 1

I don't think you understood my question. The bottom line is that science and religion are different but not incompatible. Just because Science deals with only facts and religion deals with fact and myth or revelation does not make the two separate and incompatable. Many scientists create myth and live in a fantasy world just like some religionists. I agree in saying that "we don't know", there is no imperical evidence that can bring us to an understanding as we know it now. Creation as in the bible is a story that answers relational questions not technical matters. Those who think it does are not reading from history or context. They also make Judeo/Christianity into a farce.
Re:Why Verses? by fyngyrz · 2004-11-02 05:57 · Score: 1

No. I did understand your question. Truly I did. The problem is, science and religion are incompatible. Completely, utterly incompatible. Science cannot be formalized using belief; the method fails when used in this fashion. Religious experience cannot be reproduced, tested or falsified. Each domain has immutable characteristics that absolutely prevent it from working in the domain of the other.
Until you understand these basic issues, you're formulating your question in a manner that prevents you from ever getting a definitive answer.
Now, you make a very strong accusation when you say that "Many scientists create myth and live in a fantasy world just like some religionists." With science, you have recourse. Name the scientists, name the research that is "fantasy", and we can consider that accusation, which would be very interesting. Science has multiple mechanisms to deal with this - peer review, reproducability, falsification, and the underlying process of documentation. These serve very well to prevent bad science from "poisoning" mainstream science. The proof is in the pudding here; Science unquestionably works - you don't need belief to see it. Take a flu shot, look at the images from the mars lander, type on your computer. Science works awesomely well, in fact.
Now, I will agree with you if you are trying to say that there are a some crackpots out there who claim to be scientists (just listen to Coast to Coast AM sometime if you want to listen to some of them); but the fact is, if someone doesn't honestly and rigorously attempt to follow scientific method, they're not a scientist, they're just a kook. Kooks rarely succeed in discovering new science, or even at correctly applying older science. That's because they eschew the very methods that make it all work. It doesn't matter how loud the kook shouts, or how cool the claims are; science will find the underlying nuggets, if there are any, and discard the rest. That's precisely what makes science so effective. It's not a system of belief, it is a system of methods, documentation, and testing... all of which depends upon the idea of reproducible results.
Regarding the bible, I don't agree that those who are trying to read what you call "technical matters" from the book are making the religion into a farce; if the book was inspired by God, as its adherents claim, then it follows that it very likely will not be completely understandable by merely human readers in one place and one time. Sincere religionists who quote from the bible are trying to interpret what they read in the context of the ineffable as they understand it - which will of neccessity vary from person to person. You can't define what the book means to them any more than they can define what it means to you. Just as neither of you can truly understand how it can mean absolutely nothing to an atheist. It is all about belief, or lack of it in the case of the atheist. And belief is a personal thing.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-02 06:45 · Score: 1

Why can one not believe that Creation and Evolution coexist logically? You said yourself that "belief is a personal thing" The separation of religion from science is simply the scientific process at work. Please tell me how Einstein remained a theist and produced good science? It wasn't because he was a theist or an atheist. He used reason and even his reason was motivated by a desire for theistic truth! This motivation however didn't have to destroy the scientific process. I will admit that there were times that his theism tainted his work, but any belief in any theory alters perception. The tendencies we have taint our work no matter what our design. If you would not recognize that a religious truth is possible then you eliminate the possibility from the question. This undermines the scientific method.
Re:Why Verses? by fyngyrz · 2004-11-02 13:14 · Score: 1

Why can one not believe that Creation and Evolution coexist logically?

One can believe anything they want. What one cannot do is make evolution an issue of faith, or religion an issue of science.
Please tell me how Einstein remained a theist and produced good science?

Being a thiest, or not, has nothing to do with the ability to produce good science. All one has to understand is that they are two different domains, and not let belief taint the facts. Quite interesting is the issue that many believers try very hard not to let the facts taint their beliefs, either. Creationists are famous for this.
Now, since you brought up Einstein, you should be aware he said this: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." Einstein talked instead about Spinoza's God, a Godhead that is not by any rational accounting related to the Christian God, a God that is expressed in the order of the universe rather than in compassion for his many creatures. Einstein saw extreme injustice in the world and rejected the Christian position out of hand. Just something for you to mull over, since you brought up Einstein.
On truth: Science most certainly does not eliminate or rule out "religious truth." Science is uniquely designed and equipped to recognize actual truth (in the sense of behaviours that are real and reproducible) where ever it exists in the natural world, that is, outside of one's own opinions. Religion, so far anyway, has universally failed to come up with any "truths" that can be validated outside of one's personal belief, meaning, inside one's mind. This failure has caused a large segment of the atheist community to actually go so far as to claim that "there is no God", a far more assertive statement than "I am without a belief in God" which is the actual literal meaning of the word atheist.
but any belief in any theory alters perception

This approach is extremely bad science. "Belief in a theory" is exactly the wrong approach to take, and of course could lead to error and wasted time and effort. A theory is a framework one can hang tests for falsification and confirmation upon, not a "declaration of truth." As soon as one starts to treat a theory that way, you are acting the theist rather than the scientist, and you may well get badly burned, intellectually speaking. Look at Newton's "laws"... they held up for a very long time, but a more accurate theory was right there to give them a real beating when someone looked beyond "belief." That looker was, of course, Einstein himself. Newton's laws were not just incomplete, they were wrong. But they loooked good (and they still do, if you keep your scales on the smaller side of large.)
A much more practical and reasonable framework to use with scientific theory is confidence. Theories that are well tested and have stood up under every possible attack deserve high confidence. Theories that are new, unproven, deserve very little confidence. That is not to say that they aren't of interest, they certainly can be, but confidence should be low. Confidence stands in a good scientist in just about the same place you assume belief does. But it has a vastly different effect on how one thinks about what is in front of one's nose. For instance, I have very high confidence in Einstein's theory of relativity for macro scales (we already know it breaks down at micro scales.) That is not to say that I "believe relativity to be truth", because that is most assuredly not the case. It is a metaphor for some portions of our reality and one that may be struck down at any time, for instance, by string theory. Or not. At no point in such a process would I be disturbed; quite the contrary, I'd be most excited to learn of such a thing.
Science cannot mix with religion. Co-exist, certainly - but science can't define religious issues, and religion cannot define scientific issues. There is no way around this that I am aware of, and I am most interested in the issue, as you may have gathered.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Why Verses? by bkruiser · 2004-11-02 18:02 · Score: 1

"Co-exist, certainly" -Original post- Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed. diametrically opposed ideas cannot co-exist so you and I are not so far apart. Plausible solution is a matter of opinion and as for God's ability to create evolution it would depend upon the definition of God. Thank you, "Co-exist, certainly" was my only point, and unrelated to any of the other rants proposed such as an expectation that I am a Fundamentalist Christian or that Einstein believed in anything other than theism or that science and religion are linked. We were never at a disagreement in the matter specifically at hand. "Co-exist, certainly" And as you can tell, I am interested in this. The Question I posited was one of Philosophy not Science. It is very interesting to me that the responses expected and in some cases nearly demanded certain positions from me, which I do not necessarily hold to be true. If Einstein proposed such a philosophical question, the response would be equally closed-minded. I would be interested in understanding any and all scientific truth, even if it seemed objectionable to my religious belief. I have read nothing here contradicting my beliefs. Thank you for being a steadfast opinion in this conversation but open and fair.
Re:Why Verses? by fyngyrz · 2004-11-02 18:32 · Score: 1

Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed. diametrically opposed ideas cannot co-exist so you and I are not so far apart. Plausible solution is a matter of opinion and as for God's ability to create evolution it would depend upon the definition of God.

The plausiblity of a particular solution or assertion is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a matter of plausability to those who take a serious interest in the matter, which is something else entirely. To the original "Why couldn't God have created Evolution?", I responded thusly...
Why couldn't Santa Claus have created Evolution? Why would that be any less (or more) plausible than the question "Why couldn't God have created Evolution?"

...with the specific intent of demonstrating that the assertion that God creating evolution is precisely as plausible as the assertion that Santa Claus created evolution. In other words, it is not plausible at all, any more than the idea that all the stars are artificial light beacons is plausible - there is no evidence for it, and everything we do count as fairly confident data about the stars - and the nature of evolution - points in another direction.
There is a huge gulf between the fact that you can entertain an idea, and that idea somehow being plausible to careful thinkers simply because people "think so", or claim they think so.
Carl Sagan said it very well: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that a God or Gods created the universe is not backed by any evidence at all - just like a claim that Santa Claus created the universe - and these are extraordinary claims indeed. Consequently, in the area of plausibility, they are lacking in the extreme. That doesn't rule them out as possible but it definitely puts them at the very, very bottom of a very, very long list for reasonable consideration.
Thank you for being a steadfast opinion in this conversation but open and fair.

And thank you for those very kind words.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

inside-out vs outside-in by Traa · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re: inside-out vs outside-in by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by mitchus · 2004-11-01 04:42 · Score: 1

Funny you didn't use the terms "top-down" and "bottom-up" :)

And no, we will probably never settle this argument, that's what makes it so fun! Start screaming!
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by RaisinBread · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 1

I actually find that they are more alike than different.

Creationist faith is really close to scientific extrapolation, and the creationist God is not much different than the scientific Natural Law.

*My* religion prods everyone to question the truth of anything, regardless of the source of information. I mean, even if I think something is from God, I still need to question it (not only the verity of source, but verity of content). I guess the only thing I have apart from the agnostic/atheist is that believe that some sources of information, and some methods of proof are from the divine.

I think that 'proof' is a bit of a loaded term. We can take the Cartesian route and say that the only 'proof' of something we have is that of our own existence - but even science takes a small amout of 'faith'.

'Meta-science philosophy' is probably just a fancy way of saying 'religion' for a lot of folks anyway.

Just some thoughts.
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by Alomex · 2004-11-01 05:20 · Score: 2, Funny

An innovation: proof by bold tagging. Why are we so positive god exists? because Traa wrote it in bold letters.... Ah I see know. I'm convinced, Allah does exist!
Re: inside-out vs outside-in by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 05:25 · Score: 1

> whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.

BTW, if I had been speaking carefully I would have said "to winnow out the beliefs that aren't true from the ones that still might be."

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 06:33 · Score: 1

I dunno, I generally consider any religion that likes to dabble in areas well-covered by science to be a 'bottom down' process.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by yumbrad · 2004-11-01 06:48 · Score: 1

If you can assume a certain final outcome as "good," science is a useful tool to systematically achieve outcomes which are increasingly homogeneous with the "good" outcome by judging and choosing between alternate principles with increasingly general applicability.

If you can assume a certain overarching principle as "good," religion is a useful tool to systematically define principles which are increasingly specific applications of the "good" principle by judging and choosing between alternate outcomes with increasingly heterogeneous properties.

Problem is, they both try to digitally map an analog world. "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." Do you trust the lines you draw, or the infinitely precise spirit you're trying to capture like smoke with a butterfly net.

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by dondelelcaro · 2004-11-01 07:13 · Score: 1

Not to say too much on this subject, but if you're actually interested in how science is able to do what science does, (the philosophical framework of what science is, in other words,) it's time to read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery

One of my current favorite gems from his work:
[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty. -- Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Section 21

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by Traa · 2004-11-01 07:53 · Score: 1

Thanks. I have not actually read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery yet though I am familiar with the falsifiability theory (philosophy). I have recently become very interested in the philosophical framework of what science is. Is there a specific book you can reccommend? (I'll google for Popper in a sec).
Re: inside-out vs outside-in by gladed · 2004-11-01 08:38 · Score: 1

The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.
I don't see a difference. Scientists every day take their personal beliefs (for example, that all phenomena have a materialistic cause) and work from there.

If you say, "but it's obvious that all phenomena have a materialistic cause" you are begging the question. To a theist, the existence of God is just as obvious.
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by dondelelcaro · 2004-11-01 09:18 · Score: 1

Is there a specific book you can reccommend?
The standard one is The Logic Of Scientific Discovery (or its real title, Logik der Forschung) [Amazon]

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re: inside-out vs outside-in by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 09:19 · Score: 1

> I don't see a difference. Scientists every day take their personal beliefs (for example, that all phenomena have a materialistic cause) and work from there.

> If you say, "but it's obvious that all phenomena have a materialistic cause" you are begging the question. To a theist, the existence of God is just as obvious.

Who said anything about materialistic causes? Science is bound to evidence, not to materialism.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:inside-out vs outside-in by Traa · 2004-11-01 10:52 · Score: 1

I thought that the falsifiability philosophy was more modern (the Popper book is what, from 1966?). Anyway, I have long been a 'logical positivism' fan untill I started reading that this philosophy had long lost it's audience in favor of falsifiability. Hmmm. I should read more about this before discussing then I guess :-)

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation, I just ordered that book!
Re: inside-out vs outside-in by jazman · 2004-11-01 11:32 · Score: 1

Yes, that's what scientists like people to think. However, have you ever seen a scientist's response to the idea of teaching creationism in schools - not as fact, but simply alongside evolution as a possible answer to the question of how we got here? It's a positively unscientific response. It's like - we believe people should be allowed to make up their own minds about things from the facts. Creation? No, they're not allowed to draw that conclusion. They can make their minds up themselves as long as they decide Evolution is True.

Don't believe me? Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2982933.stm

Quote: ...plans have been condemned as "educational debauchery" by Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University.

"To call evolution a faith position equated with creationism is educational debauchery. It is teaching something that is utter nonsense," said Professor Dawkins.

"Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled."

And what exactly is this guy getting his knickers in a twist about? "The schools would teach creationism - drawn from the Bible's account of the creation of life - alongside...evolution."

Stress: ***ALONGSIDE***. They're not planning on throwing out evolution. They're planning on teaching BOTH. This "professor"'s response verges on hysterical - terms like "debauchery", and "utter nonsense" sounds distinctly like the fundamentalist ranting that puts most of us off religion.

Evolution _IS_ a faith position, disguised in scientific terminology. "Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence" Well, what we actually have is observation. Observation doesn't prove anything. Interpretation of observations supports theories, but if the interpretation is made on the basis of the theory that interpretation supports, then most people here should be able to see this as nothing more than a circular definition and no "proof" - no real, hard, proof, of *anything*. Let's try an experiment:

Creation science suggests observation X means Y happened. If Y happened, then Creation must be true.

What's your response to this? "Bollocks?" Correct. Now substitute "evolution" for "creation." See what I mean?
Re: inside-out vs outside-in by jazman · 2004-11-01 11:46 · Score: 1

Oops, should have pressed "Preview." Was also going to add a response to:

"The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't."

Well, as a literal six day creationist, let me just mention that I also take a scientific approach to my beliefs, which I do not take as axiomatic. I start with observation. OK so far? The observations I make are not only of fossils, dinosaurs, hobbits and so on, but also of my day to day walk with God and the effect he has on my life. I also start with one major assumption that differs from most evolutionists' position: they assume that the universe is a closed system and that there is no involvement from the supernatural - be that God, or whatever, but I assume the opposite, that God can, and does, affect the universe from outside. One thing I definitely do not do is reduce God to the God of the gaps. "Hey, we don't understand that bit, so that proves God exists" is NOT my position. If God is the God of the gaps, then as knowledge increases, God must decrease. However, by (my) definition, God is infinite, therefore (proof by contradiction) God cannot be the God of the gaps.

Re:Job by ThePDW · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 1

Speaking of spam...

Food for thought.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just food for thought. I know this may cause a big flame war, because I do believe that God created it all (and it doesn't hurt the world one bit if God did created it all), but answer this question?

Why if you purport enough time, can you make anything sound plausible? Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution). To downplay someone because they don't believe (not the word believe) the same as use is just as willfully ignorant as you would call them.

I personally believe there is a God that created it all (to much in experience and life that I've seen to contradict this), but I'm not going to argue it with someone that doesn't hold the same belief as I do. It's not because I'm ignorant, but why "Cast your pearls before swine!" (I know that an evolutionist will say the same thing). So keep the creation/evolution of the world in your own belief, firm up what you do believe, and get on with the things that matter (Like what Linux distro should I use next).

That is all.

Re:Food for thought.. by trigeek · 2004-11-01 04:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would be fine, but the big question comes down to "what do we teach the children in school?" Do we teach them evolution? Intelligent design? These are debates that happened this year in Texas (and several other states) Do the evolutionists want the future scientists of America to believe in intelligent design? No. Do the intelligent designsists want the future theologians (it would be foolish to call them scientists, since they don't follow the basic tenets of science) of America to believe in evolution? No. There lies the deadlock, and the reason this debate matters.

--
Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
Re:Food for thought.. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 1

Creation is not a theory, it's fiction. To be theory it has to at least be scientifically plausible.
Re:Food for thought.. by smooth+wombat · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution).
Stop it. Creationism is not a theory in the classical sense. It cannot be proven that a supreme being exists or does not exist therefore it cannot be a testable theory.
Evolution, however, can be and is continually being tested as evidenced by this story.
Constantly repeating an untruth won't eventually make it a truth.
but I'm not going to argue it with someone that doesn't hold the same belief as I do.
That's the problem. You have a belief which is unsubstantiated by the facts at hand.
I can believe I'm the King of San Francisco. Does it make it so?

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Food for thought.. by Moloch666 · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

It really bugs me to compare scientific theory and religious theory as being the same thing.

A scientific theory must be testable. When something in the scientific community becomes theory it is nearly fact. See here

On the other hand religous theory is just that. Some guy's idea while he was smoking a little pot.

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Re:Food for thought.. by gl4ss · 2004-11-01 05:19 · Score: 1

creationism is not a theory based on anything provable, it's a 'theory' based around beliefs that were invented around campfires.

this wouldn't really matter if creationists weren't pushing the creationist way as the *only true way* and trying to make the
theories that are based on observations from the *real* world banned from education system(this hurts everybody in the long run, hurting progress).

some people believe in ghosts.. in a very real way... should it be taught in schools that ghosts are real? of course not.

(creationist theories don't 'need' to be proven because they're all based on the same principle of blind faith, you wouldn't come to the same theories if you started observing from scratch without christian teachings)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Food for thought.. by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 05:45 · Score: 1

I do believe that God created it all [...] I personally believe there is a God that created it all

And you believe that repeating this is essential?

Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution).

Actually no. Evolution is theory, but Creationism is dogma.

The theory of the evolution of species through natural selection is an attempt to understand the world as we know it. We observe facts, and try to make sense of it all. The tenets of creationism simply explain it away with the usual "gods did it". Its not the same.

"What is the pupose of the zebra being stripped like that?"

Creationism: God wanted to pretty up the place.
Evolutionism: Makes it harder for predators to pick out individuals from the herd.

Now, however, if you'd be so kind as to assimilate evolution as part of your set of god-belief (say He arranged it that way), then the two can coexist. The problems we have is that when the findings of science do not match the holy writings of ancient texts, people who believe the ancient text go into violent denial and say that the science is wrong, because it is impossible for them to accept that they believed something that was wrong all along.

These people are guilty of a mortal sin: Pride. They refuse to admit that they could have believed something untrue. And they react emotionally. Hence all the flamewars.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Food for thought.. by servoled · 2004-11-01 13:27 · Score: 1

I am in no way supporting creation (in fact I firmly believe that it is wrong), but on what basis do you call creation scientifically implausible?

--
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Re:Food for thought.. by cortana · 2004-11-09 02:01 · Score: 1

Lack of evidence?
Re:Food for thought.. by cortana · 2004-11-09 02:07 · Score: 1

How about, we teach them intelligent, critical thinking; to question all the "facts" they are presented with as THE TRUTH; to approach such questions from an impartial point of view.

Oh wait, then no one would end up believing in Creationism, and the religious zealots who seem to make education board decisions today can't have that!
Re:Food for thought.. by cortana · 2004-11-09 02:09 · Score: 1

God created himself, you heathen! BURN!! BURN!!!

What's the Big Fuss by brandonp · 2004-11-01 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

Re: What's the Big Fuss by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 1

> 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.

Unfortunately, many of the most backward sects have made rejection of evolution an article of faith.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 1

Well put! I would mod you up but I lost the right by replying to another comment.

I still think God has a great sense of humor. I mean... how else can you explain a platypus?

"I am so gonna get these scientists... I am going to make a creature that breaks all their nice theories... and I am going to put it somewhere that will take them a while to find it"

or my other favorite:
"Ahh... moon... and earth... it's beautiful. You know... if I start this moon spinning like this... and the earth movement like this... they will never get to see the other side! Lets see them explain how that just 'happened to occure'" :} Science has a lot correct... but they have forgotten that they are working with "theories" and not "100% facts" there is always another possible explanation and hence always another view.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Speare · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
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'
Personally, if I feel I must marry the evidence to the faith, I believe the following:
- one of God's days is much longer than one of our days
- the Bible said God made the world in six days, with man last, and rested on a seventh,
- the Bible also says there's some thousand-year span of peace and calm before the world as we know it is finished,
- so we are currently still in Day Six, the day of Man.
I've read through some of the Baptist curriculum for home-schooled kids, and it's really offensive. They deride science and scientists with things like "how could a crocodile suddenly turn into a chicken?" (To point out what they see as fallacies in believing in evolution when faced with various periods of accelerated changes in "evidence.") I feel, if God wanted a croc to be a chicken, who is stopping Him? There's no reason God needed to make everything at once, as they exist today. Maybe He's enjoying shifting the genetic makeup over time. There's really no reason for the religious types to be so patently offensive to scientists who just want to answer the big questions of How, not Why.
--
[ .sig file not found ]
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Dr_LHA · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Or my other favorite:
"Ahh... moon... and earth... it's beautiful. You know... if I start this moon spinning like this... and the earth movement like this... they will never get to see the other side! Lets see them explain how that just 'happened to occure'" :}

Here you're showing the trouble that most people who "debunk" science show, ignorance of the facts.

Its called "Tidal Locking"

e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Read that and understand why the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by m50d · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

The problem is that it says that God created the world in 7 days in The Bible. Which is (supposedly) the inspired word of God. If you start saying that that part isn't literally true, then maybe the bit about that bloke coming back from the dead isn't literally true either.

--
I am trolling
Re:What's the Big Fuss by NardofDoom · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

The near side of the moon always faces the earth because of gravity. The near side is heavier, and so gets pulled towards the earth. This slowed its revolution so the heaviest side would always point towards the earth.
And the platypus breaks no theories. It's a monotreme, so it lays eggs, and it's fleshy bill is laden with touch receptors so it can find worms in muddy water. How does this break theories?

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by ZeroConcept · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

The arguments the church usually makes is if that you look at the human eye, it is so perfect and peculiar it could have only been designed by an intelligent being.

The argument opposing it is that the human eye has multiple defects (easily dechachable cornea and a blind spot) and an all-knowing perfect entity would have never commited those mistakes. Also the octopus eye is given as an example of a better design.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by npsimons · 2004-11-01 05:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

The big fuss is that it still remains true that as a set of cognitive beliefs about the existence of God in any recognizable sense continuous with the great systems of the past, religious doctrines constitute a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability. Ergo, some of us don't believe in god because it's highly unlikely that he (she? it?) exists. Some would go so far as to say god _doesn't_ exist, but absence of proof is not proof of absence. As long as you (religionists) are willing to leave me alone, and not try to validate your beliefs via specious reasoning (ie, creation "science"), then there's no fuss. It's when people try forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.

--
Nathan's blog
Re:What's the Big Fuss by centauri · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's the "God of the Gaps" problem. God is used to fill in the gaps in knowledge, but as knowledge increases God's gap gets smaller and smaller. He can't even hide behind evolution anymore, as it's possible that the development of complex organic processes on a world like earth is inevitable. Really all God has left is the creation of the Universe, as we're currently unable to test that sort of process. However, even if we never answer that mystery, we have answered (and will answer) so many others that it seems rather unlikely that God's responsible for that one.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Tucan · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 1

The creationist view is specifically that humans did not evolve from non-human species. Even if God "chose to create the creatures in the world with evolution", the creationist view explicitly excludes this possibility.

Your belief that God created the world, and may have done so through evolution, is not a creationist view.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:09 · Score: 1

Heh, let's see how you retort to the other two replies to your ignorant post.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1

I think that article is way too technical for that ignorant hillbilly. Some people are just too stupid to be helped.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by huge+colin · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 1

Asking any questions that include 'God' are non-scientific because they are based on an unproven premise. Demonstrate 'God' through direct physical evidence and we'll talk.

--Colin
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 1

While you use the Baptist curriculum as a counterexample of how to approach this, your rationalizations are just as ridiculous, if more subtle.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by fleener · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 1

No, there is one great mystery left that science has not explained to my satisfaction. Orgasm.
I predict a rise in church attendance.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:18 · Score: 1

religionists....forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.

I find that a little indignation is too subtle for these types, just as is reason, and only a good punch to the head seems to get through. I speak from experience.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by saforrest · 2004-11-01 05:19 · Score: 1

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.

Sure, what belief someone chooses to hold is of little consequence to me. From my perspective, if one wants to wilfully blind oneself to all available fact and believe the creationist hythothesis, by all means go ahead.

What I object is to the advocacy of the creationist hypothesis as being on an equal or near-equal footing with evolution, for example in school textbooks.

I recall a particularly bad example in a history text, printed in the USA, that we used in Grade 10. It had something like 20 chapters, and chapter 3 was supposed to cover the prehistoric life of the planet Earth; however, there were in fact two "chapter 3"s, chapter 3a, covering evolution. and chapter 3b, covering various creationist hypotheses.

I had not been previously exposed to these, and could not believe someone had seen fit to include them. One theory described attempted to explain why certain animals are only found in particular layers in sedimentary rock (the evolutionary explanation being, of course, that the layers of rock represent the time span in which a given animal at certain species lived). Its argument was that during the Great Flood, some animals could swim better than others, so the worst swimmers were the first to die and be deposited at the sea bottom, where they then became fossilized. However, it was nowhere explained why fish "died" before, say, dinosaurs.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by nine-times · 2004-11-01 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem comes because some people believe that the bible is the word of god and, I guess, should therefore be correct. Look at the trouble that Gallileo ran into for merely running with the notion that the planets revolve around the sun.
Well, the problem often comes not with the fact, but how you think of them. What's "true" and "correct" often depends on more interpretation that people tend to think.
Take your example. Ancient people thought the Sun went around the Earth, right? Well, some of them understood the possibility that it was the Earth that was in motion, but chose not to view it that way, possibly (and this requires some interpretation) because it wasn't a useful way of looking at it. But all that changed when Gallileo and Capernicus and Newton slowly revealed the true motions of the sun and the Earth and the planets, right? Well, no, because general relativity brings us back into saying, "It just depends on how you look at it. If you take the Earth as stationary, then yes, the sun goes around the Earth."
So, does the "truth" of evolution prove that god did not create mankind? I call up Spinoza here, who raised the question, "Even if god makes a rainbow, isn't the rainbow still light passing through water droplets? Does that make it any less 'made by god'?"
Ah, but you bring up the book of Genesis, and say evolution being true would make the Bible "incorrect". That only follows if the Bible was meant to be a scientific record, and not a spiritual one. True, there are fundamentalists who fail to understand the distinction, but really, let's not talk about them.
Criticizing the bible for not being a science text-book is like criticizing a radio personality (who you've never seen) for (possibly) being ugly, criticizing the Daily Show for not being hard-hitting news, or criticizing a Dostoevsky novel for not being a movie. Things are usually not good at being what they aren't meant to be. Even a perfect hammer, made by god, might not make a good screwdriver.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by dfj225 · 2004-11-01 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think what you said is true. I don't see why my belief in God has to conflict with my views on science. After all, humans were created in the image of God, so why would it seem unreasonable that he would give us the intelligence to understand some of the methods that He created to make the world work? I don't think any of us know enough about God and the way He works to rule out evolution or any other theory as a way for Him to have created humanity.

To me, how humanity was created is just a minor detail in the grand scheme of things...as long as I understand that it was through God's will and not by accident.

As far as the eye is concerned, I don't see this study as concrete fact that the human eye was indeed a result of evolution. I still find it hard to believe that something so complex and exact would be the result of random, accidental mutations...but then again I am not completely closed to this being a possibility. I would stil like to see more evidence before it is considered a fact. And even if another study does prove the evolution of the human eye, I don't really see how that precludes intelligent design. For instance many of us here write code...if you analyzed code from an abstract, nieve level you might be surprised that all code is made of the same simple elements (such as ints, floats, different loops, simple logic, etc.). Why would something designed by God be any different? If I was going to engineer an eye and had already created something similar but less advanced, I would probably start with the less advanced eye as a base for my design and change or improve it as necessary. To me, something like evolution -- the improvement of an existing design -- is very intelligent.

I guess what this all boils down to is me viewing science as insight into the mind of God. After all, if you believe that God created humans then you must believe that God created our minds with the knowledge that we would one day figure out how very complex systems on Earth function. So why would He give us so much intelligence if it conflicts with the idea of Him existing?

--
SIGFAULT
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Jameth · 2004-11-01 05:40 · Score: 1

One of the major issues that creationists have is that, when evolution is taught in schools, it usually conveys the idea that the Bible is FALSE. This doesn't need to be, but it is. Many schools teach it well, but many do not.

Some people argue against evolution on a fundamental level, while others argue against it on the level that it is misused and mistaught. Those in the second camp have a sound, solid argument that few can actually deny if they do some research into how evolution education goes.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Giant+Killer · 2004-11-01 05:43 · Score: 1

I know this is off-topic, but really, are we ever really on-topic here?
It's when people try forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.
I wholeheartedly agree. I hate it when people have no patience with me when I disagree with them. And I try to not take it personally when someone else thinks my ideas are rather daft.

It does bear pointing out, however, that in your statement you have advocated that others conform their behavior to yours.

The idea that people should not force ideas upon others is perhaps a bit naive. We cannot help but force our ideas on others. It is the nature of human interaction, and it is a good thing. This is how we learn.

It all comes down to how someone goes about exchanging those ideas.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Tablizer · 2004-11-01 05:48 · Score: 1

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.

Yeah, like 99% of all slashdot geeks :-)

Actuall, I think you have it backward. A good debate is like a game of chess. It is when it gets personal, AKA "outside the scope of the game", is when it turns messy. In a game of chess you never hear, "You made that move because the devil is controlling you and you have weak morals."

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 05:55 · Score: 1

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.

That's the thing.
How much of what the bible says has to be demonstrated to be pure distilled nonsense before no one can be expected to believe the rest of it?
Its a hypothetical question, I'm not looking for a percentage number, but you see the problem here? Many people see scientific progress as an attack on the basis of their belief. These people get very emotional about it.

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.

True, true.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Tablizer · 2004-11-01 05:58 · Score: 1

The problem is that it says that God created the world in 7 days in The Bible. Which is (supposedly) the inspired word of God. If you start saying that that part isn't literally true, then maybe the bit about that bloke coming back from the dead isn't literally true either.

Some of my religious relatives will say that the 7 days is "God's time", and that it may not correspond to days as we percieve them. But you are right in that if things sometimes mean mortal stuff and sometimes God's definition of stuff, and we don't know which is which, then one cannot really take it literally.

They usually respond to this by, "you have to pray and have the spirit in you to know the true meaning". Which obviously does not help the science side.

The most durable religions are those that don't couple their beliefs to the physical world. Religions that say the world is going to end on such and such day, for example, usually don't survive after that date.

If you start a new religion, make it talk about a planet far away that nobody will ever physically find. That way you can say just about anything about it and nobody can ever contradict it.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Jimithing+DMB · 2004-11-01 06:03 · Score: 1

'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'

Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

Hmmm. It looks like the part of the Bible about everything being created in seven days is wrong. But I can't question the Bible, because that would mean confronting the fact that my beliefs could be mistaken. I guess I'll just conveniently skip over the bits that are wrong and pretend I don't see them.

I think you are making the same mistake that the hardcore bible-thumpers make: taking the Bible literally. I did myself carefully read Genesis I and I think even if you do believe in evolution (and I do, I think it's the best theory we have to date) that the account of it in the Bible is really accurate.

Remember that the Bible is best read when you take it to be what it claims to be: the word of God with the caveat that it has been written by men. In the case of the old testament this was many thousands of years ago and it has been through several translations since then.

Pretend that you are God and you want to impart some knowledge to the beings you created about how they were created. You wouldn't just go out and explain the details because they would not understand. What you can do is talk about it allegorically. This story is then fairly easily passed on through the generations and finally someone writes it down along with other stories into a book.

In fact, the entire theory of evolution is really based on what the Bible says about creation. Over many years scientists have used what the Bible says about creation as the basis for forming more complete theories by filling in the blanks. This study (AFAICT, I can't read it due to the server being down) simply fills in more blanks. Anybody who thinks the Bible literally means God created the world in 7 days as we know them today is reading it incorrectly. Had Darwin thought it literally meant 7 days we wouldn't even have the theory. But Darwin took it to be a great story and began studying how it really happened. Do you think Darwin dreamed up his theory out of the blue? Wouldn't you think he starts with the assumption that animals come before man and works his way from there?

Basically what I am saying is that without the Bible the entire theory of evolution doesn't exist because no one would even know where to begin! Consider Genesis I to be the "Cliff's Notes" version of what really happened and we're still trying to write the real story.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 06:08 · Score: 1

Yes... but my post was trying to show historical views and how science is ALWAYS going to be questioned by some form of a "god" figure.

Scientists that throw out the idea of any "god" figure performing an intelligent design on our planet just because they can make theories that fit the extremely limited view of time we have makes the scientists even MORE at fault than the religous people that ignore all of sciences facts.

It is nothing but hypocrisy to claim you are doing everything scientifically and provide your theories as facts and automatically dismiss the theories of any other argument.

If the omnipotent God that I believe in as a Christian decided to make the world in 7 days I don't see ANY evidence in any scientific journal that says or even implies it is impossible. Yet daily scientists rebuke religious types as "uninformed radicalists".

Makes me think of a talk one professor of mine had in an archaeological discussion. Have you ever heard of an ancient civilization being dug up and the researchers finding a children's doll? Now we all know that kids must have played over the ages. Yet because scientists must place a meaning on everything and often preconceive that meaning we end up with hundreds of thousands of "statues" to this or that God when in reality a bunch of them were the prehistoric version of a cabbage-patch-kid.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 06:17 · Score: 1

See my reply to the earlier post on tidal-locking...

But also for the platypus the main problem isn't it's current design but the fact that there seem to be no divergent species leading up to it.

Every animal in this world has some form of divergence. Horses you have mules... tigers, lions and even household cats have relations. However can you find a single animal within any close degree to a platypus? Even humans as "special" as we are do not diverge much from apes and chimpanzees. Show me where ANYONE has found a fossil record or living animal that in any way is a precurser to a platypus or even a divergent animal living today.

Bats are another on of these dillemmas. Although there are many kinds of bats we have yet to find any record of link to any previous form. Was a bat evolved from mice or squirrels? What advantage did wings provide it before they actually became large enough to fly? If just "extended gliding" is the answer then we havn't flying squirrels evolved further in the last 1000+ years that we have known of their existence?

Anyways... I am ranting... the main point is that there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical. To say you are searching for the truth and dismiss one avenue of research because you arn't comfortable with the possible existence of a "god" figure is stupid at best and damnable at worst.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 06:20 · Score: 1

And you added any enlightenment on either side by making this post?

Please read my replies as I would like to see if you can come up with an intelligent argument as well.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by talkingcat · 2004-11-01 06:23 · Score: 1

Here's a better example for you, as I see that others have (rather rudely) pointed out that seeing only one side of the moon is pretty easy to explain. It is a wonderful coincidence that the moon and sun are the same apparent size in our sky - no particular reason AFAIK, but it gives us dramatic lunar and solar eclipses.

I would not take this as evidence of divine intervention - my own take (not that anyone asked) is that we have no idea what, if anything, the universe is "for", but it is surely not about us - our role is so miniscule.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by xutopia · 2004-11-01 06:26 · Score: 1

how convenient this all is. The priest is willing to accept any lame excuse. How else would he value his work of preaching if he doesn't find ways to excuse the apparent fallacies of the Bible?
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Psychotext · 2004-11-01 06:27 · Score: 1

A good debate is like a game of chess. It is when it gets personal, AKA "outside the scope of the game", is when it turns messy. In a game of chess you never hear, "You made that move because the devil is controlling you and you have weak morals."

You've obviously never played my local priest... :)

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 06:39 · Score: 1

Looks like someone already replied on the platypus topic. As for the other one, I am now writing a reply.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 06:41 · Score: 1

As a set of cognitive beliefs about the existence of God in any recognizable sense continuous with the great systems of the past, religious doctrines constitute a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability
Man, if your gonna plagarize from Sidney Hook, at least give credit where credit is due. :)
But the rest is good.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Digz · 2004-11-01 06:49 · Score: 2, Informative

The history of Galileo and the Church is widely misunderstood.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Gal ileoAffair.html

--
SYS 64738
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 06:52 · Score: 1

If the omnipotent God that I believe in as a Christian decided to make the world in 7 days I don't see ANY evidence in any scientific journal that says or even implies it is impossible. Yet daily scientists rebuke religious types as "uninformed radicalists".

So you are saying that God could have created the world in 7 days. Of course, this could be true. It could also be true that the world was created in two days. Or that it was created yesterday. There are various creation myths and each one has a different timeline. The problem is that the choice among them, and also among all the other infinite possibilities, is purely arbitrary (that certain myths arose rather than others can be explained away by looking at human social evolution and history, but that is no justification for one version over another). Moreover, belief in any of those is unfalsifiable (any evidence for, say, evolution, the creationists can simply say God just made it appear that way) and lacks explanatory and predictive power to place it above any other hypothesis.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by skiman1979 · 2004-11-01 06:54 · Score: 1

I'll have to agree with you on the point of the "days" of creation. I don't remember seeing anything in the Bible that defines a "day" in relation to creation. Many people seem to assume it is an Earth day, but it may just be a unit of time (e.g., 1000 years).

--
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 06:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other words, unlike the theories that describe the evolving state of the planet in naturalistic terms, creation myths fail by having no practical or observational consequences, nor a method to be checked. By the way, you ask for proof, yet you are the one claiming there is something (God), so the burden of proof lies on you. Of course, you cannot prove it. But science does not claim to prove there is not God, either.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by jdreyer · 2004-11-01 06:59 · Score: 1

Who are you or that priest to say that God created the world?

The fuss is that if your morality starts with a wacky 2000-year-old book, and that the benefits of moral behavior accrue in an undetectable and unfalsifiable realm, then you can end up with a perverse morality that causes overpopulation, poverty, disease, suffering and death, to say nothing of raped children.

There is no evidence that there is a god. New evidence, like that which started this conversation, keeps arriving in support of god-free scientific explanations of things formerly attributed to one god or other. We all need to open up our eyes to the obvious truth and let morality start and stop, on this planet, with each other.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Moofie · 2004-11-01 06:59 · Score: 1

They're not rationalizations, they are articles of faith that do not contradict observable data.

Faith and science do not address the same set of questions.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 07:01 · Score: 1

there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical.

It is not, because, as I said in my last post, saying God did it can be said about anything, and there's no way to falsify it, just as there's no way to falsify if I claim that the devil did it, or the tooth fairy! Moreover, since it does not add anything to the predictive power of the theory, it is a totally useless complication that is excised by Ockam's razor.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 07:06 · Score: 1

Hence the assertion that I have made on here before (which no I don't expect you to have read :} )

Religion is based on "faith" and science is based on "controlled suspension of disbelief". Neither side can ever prove the other wrong... neither can ever prove their side right... Scientists and creationists both know this yet they always treat the other side as if they are "wrong".

How can anything ever be wrong if it can never be proven either way?

In fact the only way we will get proof is (I say when because I believe in Him... you might say if) when God comes back.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Moofie · 2004-11-01 07:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Er, mules are the sterile offspring between donkeys and horses. They are not an evolutionary forebear of anything.

There is a huge amount science doesn't know, surely. But science has a proven, successful framework of learning new stuff, of expanding our world view and better comprehending the universe that we live in.

I happen to believe that the universe was created by a loving God, who cares for me personally, and who likes it when I try to understand His creation. That is an article of faith: It is not open to scientific rebuttal. Science is irrelevant to my faith. There is room in my faith for science. "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer for "Why are things this way?".

Why is this so contentious?

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

Interesting that you bring up Ockam's razor. Which is the simpler theory? That billions of highly unlikely events with a beginning event that came from "nothing" produced the world or that a eternal omnipotent God created it all.

Personally I find the second one as the "simpler" theory and it fits all the facts that I have run into so far where as evolution and "the big bang" are not only more complicated but have several statistical and factual problems. Granted science states they just need to "figure these out" and that there is a "logical" explanation.

I find it comforting that we can't prove either God or macro-evolution since it makes people think!

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Moofie · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

Want to really confuse a Biblical literalist? Have them try to reconcile the two different timelines for Creation that appear in Genesis.

Their brains get all melty. It's fun.

The interesting thing is, if you read the accounts as an allegory to explain cosmology to a nomadic shepherd, they track surprisingly well.

The Bible is not about how the heavens go, it is about how to go to Heaven. (paraphrased from Galileo)

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2004-11-01 07:17 · Score: 1

"Pretend that you are God and you want to impart some knowledge to the beings you created about how they were created."

Big mistake. He should have just created us and left us alone. It's like the prime directive in Star Trek. He should have just set us on the path he wanted us to be on and let us go. Tinkering here and there to improve things will only make things worse.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 07:19 · Score: 1

There is room in my faith for science. "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer for "Why are things this way?".

Bravo! I agree 100%

I am actually glad you can't "prove" that God exists nor that everything started from a sterile big bang... it gets people thinking instead of just taking the easy route.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 07:24 · Score: 1

Religion is based on "faith"

OK.

science is based on "controlled suspension of disbelief"

Er, I don't think so.

How can anything ever be wrong if it can never be proven either way?

Dude, have you ever heard the expression For All Practical Purposes? Science has proven itself a practical approach through progress -- biology gives medicine, quantum theory gives electronics/computers, and on and on. Additionally, all sciences can be arranged in a chain one reducing to another through various abstractions all the way down to physics, and the divisions are clearly artificial and caused because after Newton no single mind could deal with all "natural phylosophy" in detail. But as far as religion, there's no good reason to believe in God as opposed to the tooth fairy, or anything else at all. This has been dealt with by Pascal's Wager and its numerous rebuttals.

In fact the only way we will get proof is (I say when because I believe in Him... you might say if) when God comes back.

Oh man...but don't you see? That's no proof by exactly the same logic that when a creationist sees evidence for evolution and claims it's still consistent with God creating that appearance. This can be applied to what you said too, by me claiming that the tooth fairy created the universe, and when you see God come back, it's really the tooth fairy making you either a) see and feel that God has come back when he really hasn't or b) God is an avatar controlled by the tooth fairy. Or, to push this even further, that this is all a computer simulation, including the God coming back part and your thought at the time. There's no way to know anything for sure, and that is why the For All Practical Purposes and Ockham's razor is the only reasonable approach.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by ZeLonewolf · 2004-11-01 07:24 · Score: 1

Actually, I read somewhere that the biblical translation is fuzzy in Genesis for what a "day" is. Apparently, the old hebrew term that was used could mean either "day" or "a period of time", and it's just be popularly translated to mean a 24-hour period

--
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 07:34 · Score: 1

Interesting that you bring up Ockam's razor. Which is the simpler theory? That billions of highly unlikely events with a beginning event that came from "nothing" produced the world or that a eternal omnipotent God created it all.

Actually, it's not "billions of highly unlikely events." You should read this, either the SciAm article he wrote, or better yet, the paper he links to. I don't agree with the second two levels but that's besides the point here.

Omnipotence is not simple at all. It seems simple to you because you can use a single word to say it. Yet it turns out that when one tries to define it, paradoxes come up (the well known "can God create a stone that he can't lift" may seem trivial but is really a deep problem for the concept of omnipotence). More important, by claiming God did it, you are delegating responsibility for explaining why he created a given universe as opposed to any other out of an infinity of possibilities. How is it chosen? The complexity in that question is not an iota less in the complexities you see in naturalistic explanations (and that are explained away by Tegmark, although that's just one possible explanation and I only buy the first two parts of it).

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by npsimons · 2004-11-01 07:51 · Score: 1

Man, if your gonna plagarize from Sidney Hook, at least give credit where credit is due. :)

But the rest is good.

I was wondering if someone was going to notice that ;). It's one of my favorite quotes.

--
Nathan's blog
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Prune · 2004-11-01 07:54 · Score: 1

But I can say that I believe the tooth fairy made the universe, and that doesn't contradict observable data either. Faith is arbitrary.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Moofie · 2004-11-01 07:57 · Score: 1

Yes. Faith is arbitrary. And mine has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

So why are you so insistent that I am wrong to have it?

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by egarland · 2004-11-01 08:03 · Score: 1

I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another

I thought it was obvious. The big fuss is that if the intelligent design theory is true, it requires that something outside of natural forces had to be involved (God, aliens, etc.) If not, the possibility exists that there is no God. It's not about being able to believe in God, you will always be able to believe, it's about being able to not believe in God.

It can never be known for certain whether there is a God or not. By definition, it is impossible to prove that anything supernatural does or doesn't exist. What we can do is come up with a plausible explanation why things happen in terms of natural laws. In the face of a scientific explanation for things and evidence to back it up, most supernatural beliefs look fanciful and are eventually discarded (see origins of vampiers, church's objections to lightning rods, etc.)

Over time the role of the supernatural has been diminished as things once attributed to God and other supernatural forces have been explained scientifically. This has had the effect of slowly reducing the impact of beliefs in the supernatural on the world and our every day lives which has generally reduced the impact of the church on society, for better or worse.

That's the big fuss.

--
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Dread_ed · 2004-11-01 08:13 · Score: 1

A fantastic endeavor for the truly devoted Christian is to embark upon a study of the Bible from the original languages, using the oldest and most accurate manuscripts as source material. Add in a thorough knowledge of the circumstances of the time in which the particular book you are studying was written, a categorical understanding of the Bible and its themes, and a good understanding of idiomatic phrasing in the language you are studying from and you will begin to really understand what the Bible actually says.

Some of the things that are evident from the original languages: Satan was on Earth before man was created. The Earth was put on ice by God for a time after the fall of Satan and before the events of Genesis 1. In fact, there is reference to a thawing and cleanup of the Earth before the events of Genesis 1.

Foregoing those things, if you want an explanation of additional "time" in early part of Genesis, realize that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for an unspecified time. They did not age during this period; the ages given in Genesis for them at death start from their ejection from the Garden. This time period in the presence of God could have been a single "day" in earthly terms or could have spanned millions of years.

--
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by maraist · 2004-11-01 10:14 · Score: 1

I am actually glad you can't "prove" that God exists nor that everything started from a sterile big bang...

I argue that you could not prove that God or the big bang exist, but you can easily disprove them. All one would need is sufficient evidence that is at least as trustworthy as the feeling that the sun will come up tomorrow (or any such qualitative measurement). Take for example the possibility of information time travel (or time tunneling); something that as yet can only be considered hypothetical and as a thought-excercize. By this I mean the ability to acquire information from a period of the past which skips all the time in between the past event and the current measurement (thereby not being polluted by intermediate events). My hypothesis comes purely from simplistic views of other forms of quantum tunneling (which unfortunately would suggest this only works at the atomic level, and not at a macro-scopic level).

Given this or more simply some yet undiscovered archeological evidence, we may find that sacred texts of the world are individually flawed due to the perspectives of their authors of the events written about. If such events where experienced by today's man they might not generate similar levels of inspiration / divination, and would be unlikely to have attained such followings. While it is entirely possible that the events would seem as miraculous today as then, or that such evidence is necessarily unobtainable by the holy power(s) that be, finding such evidence would provide great pause. Much like the rather frustrating Michelson's (sp?) "null result" on the directionalty of the speed of light.

My point here is mainly that the basis of modern faith is not an intrinsic belief system.. We don't instinctively "feel" that there was a big bang. And we don't instinctively "feel" that we need to go to confession every Sunday. These were concepts passed down to us by our respected elders. Some religious and scientific figures work on the fore-front of these concepts and help mold them; refining the contradictions away. The question is whether the pillars of the faith; the key "stories" a) happened as they were described and b) imply what is currently said about them. This is the case both for religion and science. The link between past and future is our collection of cognitive causalities. Religion asks the moral question, and science asks the physical question, but both are questions of cause and effect. And both are subject to constant review.

I personally am content in disbeliving the factuality of all sacred texts I've read/read-of thus far, but can offer no further counter-proof than is available to the common believer; a loose collection of lesser probabilities of events and the greater likelihood of sacred construction evolving out of religion's inherent societial strength (as is apparent in the absolute diversity in religion, similar to the diversity of life).

In conclusion, what I have described is obviously the disproving of the factual points of certain passed-down religions, which is obviously different than disproving God. But I will make the assertion that one defines their God not as "omnipotent", but as one they would recognize by the stories told of them.

To support this, recognize that in Judao-Christian-Islam (and Hindu), the God and the Devil(s) seem to have super-natural powers. Merely healing or raising a city would not allow one to distinguish between the two. In Judao-Christian-Islam in particular, this is important for there can be only one God. To call the Devil a God would be blasphamy. Yet one could not know one from the other except that all of these religions state that one intrinsicly recognizes the difference. Thus there are characteristics aside from mere apparent omnipotence that defines them.
Thus by refuting the factualness of sacred stories, one's God becomes unknowable. If Mosus carved the 10 commandments himself, if Jesus was merely a wise/clever man, if Abraham and Mohammad merely

--
-Michael
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Moofie · 2004-11-01 11:03 · Score: 1

"then the philosophy they defined is no more applicable than Nietzsche."

Applicability can be judged, in my opinion, only based on a philosophy's relevance to its adherents.

If Nietzche feeds your soul, more power to you. That's hard for me to imagine, but I don't have to imagine it in order for it to be relevant to you.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by seguso · 2004-11-01 11:43 · Score: 1

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.

The point you seem to miss is that, after Darwin, there is no intellectually respectable reason to have such beliefs.
After you have explained how complexity arises naturally from the bare laws of physics, there is no reason at all to postulate any higher being that created those laws. Furthermore, postulating such a being would not be an explanation of anything.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by jechonias · 2004-11-01 13:14 · Score: 1

I would like to posit a reply as to why there is such a big fuss.

Most orthodox Protestants and Catholics believe that the central figure of their faith, Jesus Christ the Messiah (the saviour), is the literal Son of God.

They believe that he alone is able to mitigate the certain punishment, by God, of their sins (bad deeds) on judgement day, by merit of his resurection (return to life after death on the cross).

They also believe that the eventual punishment of their sins (as stated by the standard protestant and catholic bible) is demonstrated by the observed nature of sickness / decay and death on this planet. I.e. human death is caused by sin, and the advent of an eventual judgement day is certain.

The main problem then that they (the orthodox believers) have with evolution is that creationism states that "death is the result of sin (bad deeds)" whilst evolution implies that "death is the natural order of things".

If they accept that "death is the natural order of things" they feel that it implies that "death is not the result of sin" and therefore "no eventual eternal punishment for Sin." as both belief's are proven to be false.

"No punishment" equates to "No need for a Messiah", ergo no need for Jesus Christ.

This is what all the fuss is about. It appears that Evolution strikes at the very main root of their faith.

And they should be upset if there is any actual proof of Evolution.

Jech.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 16:53 · Score: 1

It's when people try forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to just ignore them?
Easier on the blood pressure, too.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Moofie · 2004-11-01 19:03 · Score: 1

But you argue that the scintists are ignoring one avenue of research. I assume you're talking about researching the Hand of God in evolution. I'm telling you that the Hand of God is not subject to scientific inquiry. There is no experiment you can do to show the Hand of God. There is no way to come to the scholarly conclusion that the Hand of God did anything by studying the fossil record.

Articles of faith are not subject to rational discourse. That doesn't make them invalid, by any means. Arguing about God is like dancing about architecture. It just doesn't make any sense.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Darby · 2004-11-02 02:00 · Score: 1

the main point is that there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical. To say you are searching for the truth and dismiss one avenue of research because you arn't comfortable with the possible existence of a "god" figure is stupid at best and damnable at worst.

The problem with this is that if people acted like this then no progress would ever be possible.

Here's how this works (or doesn't more to the point).
Well, here's a theory that fits all the evidence and if true would predict that such and such is true. What do you know, such and such is true etc.

Well. It could have been the Judeo Christian God doing it and hiding his existence just to fuck with us.
Hey, you're right... and it could have happenned because an invisible purple unicorn that enjoys probing its own butt with its horn made it so.

Hey, you're right...... and it could have been because the tooth fairy made it so.

And on and on and on forever.

And all of these competing theories are on exactly equal footing (except the first of course which actually provided new useful information). There is no rational reason whatsoever to choose one over the other.

So do you accept the unicorn and tooth fairy theories as every bit as good explanations as the god thing? If not, then you are by your own logic guilty of hypocrisy.

Religion is not an avenue of research. It is something that you have chosen to believe for whatever reasons you have, but none of those reasons are rational for if they were there would be one religion and no atheists.

Now, the fact that you are operating from the assumption that you know absolute truth even though there exists no possible way to justify your position over that of the tooth fairy puts you in a mind set where you are not capable of addressing the subject rationally.

That is why you keep repeating such ridiculous things like dismissing your beliefs is hypocritical.
If you dismiss anybody's beliefs, or even give them one less iota of credibility than your argument dictates that you are hypocritical.

It doesn't make sense, does it?
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-02 05:43 · Score: 1

My simple reply is only this... I do not call scientists "uniformed radicallists" or any other such term just because I don't believe all of their theories. It would be WONDERFUL if 90% of the scientific community working in this area would at least act civil and return that favor.

Dismissing me as someone with lesser intellect because I believe in God and ignoring the hints in other scientific research that maybe some parts of this "god" thing are correct is idiocy at best and damnable at worst.

Everyone in the world seems to descend from a single male and female couple approximately 4500-5000 years ago. Why is it that there are only 2 researchs groups trying to figure out why. It sure seems that if we see results like this and have a historical (not to mention religion) text like the Bible giving a reason that someone should check it out in more detail.

When scientists ignore lines of research because they might "help the other side" they are hypocritical. "We are scientists follow the scientific method but we won't pay attention to this because we don't like it"

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Darby · 2004-11-02 06:16 · Score: 1

My simple reply is only this... I do not call scientists "uniformed radicallists" or any other such term just because I don't believe all of their theories.

I'm not sure what your point is. I said nothing of the sort.

Dismissing me as someone with lesser intellect because I believe in God and ignoring the hints in other scientific research that maybe some parts of this "god" thing are correct is idiocy at best and damnable at worst.

Again, I did nothing of the sort. Your persecution complex is showing again.
I'm beginning to believe that you are actually crazy though since you seem incapable of understanding what other people are saying. Further you seem to feel that reality and the facts are working against you. I do feel bad for you.

You are the one accusing people of being hypocrites because they don't give any idea you put forward as equally valid as every other idea.

Further, there are no hints of any sort outside of the bible and the people who believe in it that any of the god stuff has any basis in reality whatsoever. How is your god any more likely than a purple unicorn?
Who made your god?
What actual useful knowledge is gained by postulating such a thing?

If you have a problem, take it up with your god. He is presumably capable of having provided some evidence for his existence rather than turning all of creation into an idiotic game of "whoever believes whatever a so-called holy person tells them without question even when it contradicts reality wins and everyone else burns".

The fact that you would consider a thing which would be so petty deserving of worship is extremely bizarre to those of us who don't.
If your god actually exists, I would consider him a childish, immature, little prankster regardless of whether he had the power to create the universe or not.

With his silly little games, he is worthy of nothing but contempt IMHO.

Everyone in the world seems to descend from a single male and female couple approximately 4500-5000 years ago.

You're showing your ignorance again.
You have no clue what the hell you are talking about nd you are just making yourself look like an idiot.
They didn't trace people back to a couple, they traced back a male line and a female line, but they didn't even live at the same time and one lived far longer ago than 5000 years.

So please don't act like you're quoting something when you are loosly referencing it and then making up lies about what it said.
Is your gos truly so pathetic that he needs you to stoop to such levels?
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-02 07:13 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what your point is. I said nothing of the sort.

How about your statement of:

That is why you keep repeating such ridiculous things like dismissing your beliefs is hypocritical.

You say I am ridiculous for calling it hypocritical. If you are a scientist... and you claim to follow the scientific method then your duty is to follow the research where it leads you. To ignore a line of research because it does not fit the hypothesis you think is correct is hypocrisy.

Again, I did nothing of the sort. Your persecution complex is showing again.

I never said that you did... I was saying that this is what 90+% of macro-evolution scientists do. I am considered "stupid" because I don't believe all their theories. Theories are also just beliefs until they can be proven yet they treat them as if they should be blatantly obvious to any "smart" person and hence since you don't believe in them you are stupid.. dumb... ignorant...uniformed...etc.

What actual useful knowledge is gained by postulating such a thing?

What useful knowledge was gained by postulating that the world was in fact round and not flat? You make postulations... you test them... if they go nowhere then you back off but until you have at least made the attempt and failed with a proven conclusion to the opposite do not dismiss a hypothesis as "impossible" or "uninformed".

How many years ago was it that physicists laughed at for asking if gravity operated faster than the speed of light. Now we know an answer because finally someone didn't just laugh... they made several expirements to test just that.

You're showing your ignorance again.

Well sorry that I happen to be working from memory on research that I saw ignored over 10+ years ago. Doesn't it kindof make you wonder why no one is going "HMM this is odd..." still to this day? Do this date I have seen no one refute the evidence in any of the scientific journals I read (which is not EVERY one so yes I could have missed it)

I don't have time to reread the journal at this moment but if you think logically for just a second if everyone is descended from a single male or female X years ago arn't they also descended from a single couple X years ago? Unless there were multiple wives or husbands in the mix that is the only logical conclusion. Hence my statement of from a single couple.

Plus the difference in the years for the female side is apparent from the Biblical record because Noah brought his son's and their wives on to the ark. The wives would have been descended from larger set while the sons were all descended from Noah and his wife only.

Is your gos truly so pathetic that he needs you to stoop to such levels?

And now you call me a liar from a single sentence statement made flippantly to show a minor point. You could have asked how in depth my knowledge was first.

I will assume that you meant "god" instead of gos. God requires only 2 things:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."

I am imperfect... a sinful being... I get things wrong... don't knock God because of me.

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Darby · 2004-11-02 14:55 · Score: 1

You say I am ridiculous for calling it hypocritical. ... To ignore a line of research because it does not fit the hypothesis you think is correct is hypocrisy.

You are saying that just because you believe that something is true that everybody in the world should treat that as if it were reasonable. You call everybody hypocritical because they don't.

I am now postulating that a green alligator with a foot fetish created all of the universe except for Jupiter which was created by me.

You are a hypocrite by your own definition if you do not put my "theory" on exactly the same level of credibility as your god.

That is exactly what you are saying and that is exactly what I am calling ridiculous.
Are you saying it is not ridiculous?

I am considered "stupid" because I don't believe all their theories. Theories are also just beliefs until they can be proven yet they treat them as if they should be blatantly obvious to any "smart" person and hence since you don't believe in them you are stupid.. dumb... ignorant...uniformed...etc.

Theories are not beliefs and they are never proven.
How can you expect anybody to take you seriously at all when you clearly don't even understand the basis of the subject you are tryingto jump in on?

There are facts. The world is here, we are on it, and a lot of other things are on it. This happened somehow.
All the evidence points to the world having been here a long time before people arrived and there were various other species which were here before us and are no longer here.

Now, that evolution happens is not disputed by one single sane individual in the world. How could it be?
Have you ever seen a dog? A Seedless watermelon? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria?

These are all absolute 100% positive proof that evolution does happen.

Now where the Theory of Evolution comes in is in trying to provide a reasonable explanation of how life developed from where it was long before people were on this rock and where it is now in a manner that is consistent with the facts.
That's it.

Nobody is trying to claim that it's finished. Nobody is trying to claim that it is some sort of absolute truth.

Now, since you know nothing about the actual theory, and you are making ridiculous claims about it which are 100% wrong, that is why people thinnk you sound stupid when you comment on it.
What you do not get is that it isn't a question of "belief". That is religion. Science is about coming up with ideas and then testing them.

Thank scientists for cars, electricity, modern agriculture, computers and pretty much everything else you see besides fields mountains etc.
What do you have that we can thank religion for?

How many years ago was it that physicists laughed at for asking if gravity operated faster than the speed of light. Now we know an answer because finally someone didn't just laugh... they made several expirements to test just that.

Which is, again, completely irrelevant to what you are talking about.

That is a valid scientific question which is testable and falsifiable.

The existence or non existence of your invisible magical friend is neither of these.

Regardless of which it is, it has no possible bearing on anything.
It provides no useful answers to anything.

Now were your god the type to actually step up and show himself then this would be different and would make the point moot.

Since your god has chosen to make himself completely useless, unapproachable, and undetectable, there is no difference whatsoever between him existing and him not existing.
Well until you die that is. And then he sends me to burn because he created me not to accept things just because 5000 years ago some desert nomads wrote up some myths because he, like, totally loves me infinitely.

Well sorry that I happen to be working from memory on research that I saw ignored over 10+ years ago. Doesn't i
Re:What's the Big Fuss by Minna+Kirai · 2004-11-10 23:14 · Score: 1

* one of God's days is much longer than one of our days

Once you start defending a writing by suggesting that its author is using different word definitions than everybody else, any declarative power of the work is quickly removed.

If "day" doesn't mean "day", then what else could be using different word meanings? "Life", "sin", "paradise", "murder", "love", "hell", "shall"?

Changing definitions is an argument from incomprehensibility. "Day" had a very well-defined meaning, even 4000 years ago. If Genesis was just an allegory, then what else is allegorical? Why, maybe when Jesus said that he will return to life, he didn't mean "life" life, but a "live on in your fond memories" life.

So, it's understandable why creationists reject your concept that days in Genesis were not really days; for it opens up the whole rest of the Bible to relativist reinterpretation.

And the same old answer..... by dickeya · 2004-11-01 04:38 · Score: 1, Funny

The lord works in mysterious ways...........

If you ever... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

If you ever try to argue with a creationist, he'll argue straight from the bible.
Then, when you bring up things in the bible that were not true, he says that part was not right.
So the bible is somewhat correct, and somewhat incorrect. It's the person reading it that gets to decide which parts are false. Therefore, the argument never ends, because they can simply say "Well, that part is not true.".

Re:If you ever... by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 05:40 · Score: 1

Just a quick note, The only method we have to accurately test the age of "ancient humanoids" is geological(what strata where they in), carbon13 dating is unreliable, due to the addition of carbon from other sources fires, floods, and other events. The creationists theory holds that there was a world flood and that bones settled in the various layers at this time. This can be attested to by the fact we find evidence of human remains(foot prints, bells in a lump of coal) right there with various remains of dinosaurs. There fore there is no evidence that the remains of "ancient humanoids" are any more than a few thousand years old. The same holds true with rocks and other geological evidence. As for the non terrestrial evidence, no one ever claimed to know the age of the universe and it does not seem to add anything to this debate, although if your curious read up on how the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves the big bang and "celestial evolution".

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Re:If you ever... by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 17:50 · Score: 1

carbon13 dating is unreliable

Indeed it is. Especially since carbon-13 has never been used in dating mechanisms. Carbon-14 is used all the time, and when used properly (i.e., not on things lt 1000 or gt 50000 years old like creationists love to do) it yields very accurate results. And I cannot fathom what bullshit Hovind fed you about radioactive dating of rocks.

The creationists theory holds that there was a world flood

Great flood, eh? Was this about 4500 years ago? Might want to talk to the Egyptians and Chinese about that. They have an unbroken record of civilization going right through that period.

As for the non terrestrial evidence, no one ever claimed to know the age of the universe

WTF? How does all astronomical evidence pointing to an expanding universe billions of years old not 'add anything to the debate'? It kinda craps all over the entirety of Genesis.

read up on how the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves the big bang and "celestial evolution"

Creationists misuse the laws of thermodynamics so much it's insulting. Aren't you also going to tell me that since entropy is always increasing on earth complexity in life forms can't increase everywhere for extended periods of time? That's the usual creationist line. I then have to patiently explain that it also mentions closed systems, which earth most definitely is not, what with the sun raining down a nice, reliable 1kW/hr per sq meter of sunlight for 12 hours every day, and that we buy our complexity at the cost of the sun radiating out all that concentrated energy into deep space, creating a net entropic gain. But this celestial wrinkle is a new one. Lemme guess, you're claiming that organized systems of planets, stars, galaxies, and superclusters cannot arise in a universe with increasing entropy? Well then, here's where I point out that for every ton of fusable stellar matter in stars, there's just as much unusable crap floating in the void, a ratio that only gets worse as time goes on. And that while 15 or even 100 billion years of visible anti-entropic activity seems like a lot to you, to an open-ended universe it is a brief moment of gloriously unevenly distrubted energy before an eternal heat death and entropy's triumph. An expanding universe that could maintain what we see today forever would violate the 2nd law (and the 1st to boot), but then nobody is making that claim.

--
Dyolf Knip

Um... by mitchus · 2004-11-01 04:39 · Score: 4, Informative

I thought Dawkins basically pulverised the "intelligent design" thesis in his "Climbing mount improbable". Maybe I didn't read it right.

Re:Um... by FFFish · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1

Likewise.

Anyone with any doubts at all about the rationality of the idea of evolution, versus the lunacy of the idea of creation, needs to read The Blind Watchmaker.

Dawkins is an ass, to be sure, but he is an ass who makes perfect sense. When he's not rabbiting on about the evil Stephen Jay Gould, he is utterly destroying every claim made by the creationists/intelligent design camp.

I think it would be nigh impossible for any rational person to continue believing in religious explanations for life, having read The Blind Watchmaker.

--

--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Re: Um... by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 1

> I thought Dawkins basically pulverised the "intelligent design" thesis in his "Climbing mount improbable".

ID gets pulverised several times a day on talk.origins, but that doesn't keep its proponents from repeating the pulverised arguments.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

No entry found for mamalian. by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 04:39 · Score: 3, Funny

From the story submission:

evolution of the mamalian eye

Did you mean mammalian?

Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:No entry found for mamalian. by Gramie2 · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?

You're new around here, aren't you?
Re:No entry found for mamalian. by Inda · 2004-11-01 05:33 · Score: 1

Not as new as you and me?

He's right though and we all know it.

We all get better at the things we do over time so why hasn't the editing gotten any better over the last few years? If anything it has become worse. It is sloppy and lazy.

The only thing that keeps Slashdot in the Favorites is the members and their comments.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:No entry found for mamalian. by Bitmanhome · 2004-11-01 06:01 · Score: 1

Who's calling themselves editors? The Slashdot rulers have never claimed to be editors or journalists. Though I can't seem to find any profiles, so I'm not sure.

--
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Re:No entry found for mamalian. by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 06:03 · Score: 1

Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?

Maybe Slashdot will evolve a spellchecker...

;-)

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:No entry found for mamalian. by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Who's calling themselves editors? The Slashdot rulers have never claimed to be editors or journalists.

FAQ: Do editors moderate?

Guess what? They're all called editors.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Stephen+Williams · 2004-11-01 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by fimbulvetr · 2004-11-01 04:51 · Score: 1

There exists an argument between creationists and evolutionists. Each proposes facts, conjecture, opinions and theories. When one side demonstrates reasonable evidence that their theory is correct, it's generally considered "a bad thing" to the opposing group.

In this case, that's creationists.

This article doesn't have to explicity say "Take that creationists!", it is hoped that underlying disagreement is considered before the article is read. In this case, you did not do that. Ergo, you can see the trees, but there is no forest in sight.
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by lovebyte · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 1

You are correct Stephen no scientist would ever mention creationism. What on earth for?

I would add that there are only 2 places in the world that talk about creationism: the USA and the muslim fundamentalist countries.

--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

Each proposes facts, conjecture, opinions and theories.

No. In this case one side proposes facts and theories, and the other one conjecture and opinions.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by HoldmyCauls · 2004-11-01 05:38 · Score: 1

I know!

and since when would Evolution write songs about Creationism?

--
Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 06:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Nor does the article address the actual creationist argument. Just because we know where light-senstive cells come from, does not mean that we've solved the problem of the "irreducible complexity" of the eye as a whole.
Now, personally, I don't think the eye is that much of a problem. The biochemical structures described by Michael Behe are probably a stronger case, plus it's easier to quantify probabilities. I also don't think that intelligent design is the only possible solution to the problem...but ignoring the problem is not the way to advance science.
A similar problem: there's an experiment that's been done multiple times with e.coli (described in Howard Bloom's latest book The Global Brain). Take a colony, without a resistance to a particular poison. In order for the e.coli to evolve resistance to the poison, they need two specific mutations in succession, and the first requires that they become *less* fit. You can calculate the odds against the colony evolving resistance, and they are astronomical.
And yet, they do become resistant, with those specific mutations. Nobody knows how. There seems to be more at work than simple random variation. The only hypotheses I've seen are downright science-fictional....or actual science fiction; see Greg Bear's recent novels.
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 06:07 · Score: 1

trying to start an argument for no reason.

Page views.
Flame wars bring in a lot of advertiseing revenue : )

The market place is the jungle man, its survival of the fittest! I wonder if adblock for firefox would be considered a parasite, or a symbiote? ;-)

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Stephen+Williams · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 1

its survival of the fittest!

Are you telling me that Al Gore didn't create the Internet in six days?

-Stephen :-)
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by npsimons · 2004-11-01 07:36 · Score: 1

However, creationism is not mentioned at all; looks to me as if the submitter is trying to start an argument for no reason.

Of course they have a reason! They want to see a flamefest! Don't you know that slashdot editors are really the ultimate trolls?

--
Nathan's blog
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 08:15 · Score: 1

Are you telling me that Al Gore didn't create the Internet in six days?

If you insist:

Al never said he created the internet, he said he was the internet's father.
He raised it (them laws and such making it open to the public) but he didn't "make it".
: )

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Interesting article, but /. headline is a troll by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 18:06 · Score: 1

Evolutionary processes yield really wierd results sometimes. Ever hear about this one? This guy set up a electronically modifiable circuit board that could change it's architecture by loading a logic gate schema into it and let loose a genetic algorithm to turn it into a voice recognition program (distinguish between "Stop" and "Go"). Not only did it generate an impossibly small program from random numbers extremely quickly (one that no human could possibly have written), they can't figure out how it works. It apparently uses some physical property of the gates on that particular board. And then there was the one that simulated a walking humanoid and went from random flopping to a confident stride in less than 20 generations. Along the way, it also produced programs that moved by doing somersaults and rolling around. So it really is not necessary to invoke god into genetics and natural selection. They are tools far powerful beyond what they appear to be.

--
Dyolf Knip

Human Eye is Flawed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Human Eye is Flawed by cmpalmer · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Detached retinas, appendicitis, cancer, male nipples, and premature balding are all due to Original Sin. If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, we would all have perfect bodies.

This is, of course, intended to be sarcasm (although I have heard a close variation of this exact arguement from fundamentalist acquaintances).

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by tepples · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 1

If the human eye is evidence of creationism then it can only be evidence of a flawed creator.

Or the curse of the forbidden fruit.
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by teamhasnoi · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1

If the human eye is flawed, then you must pluck it out!
So sayeth the Book of Wisdom!
So, like, get going. You've got like 12,795,020,360 eyes to cast away...
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by TomorrowPlusX · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

YES.

Not to mention other flaws such as our esophagus, which shares an entry point with the windpipe, allowing for easy choking.

Or our appendix, which is unused and causes all sorts of problems in modern man.

Or our wisdom teeth, which don't fit anymore and need to be removed surgically in many people.

Or our knees which fail way too easily.

Or our backs which are too fragile and don't self repair well enough ( e.g., spinal cords ).

All these things SCREAM to me of an evolutionary process which selected for beings which could get around in an energetically cheaply fashion, well enough to have a few children before the parts fail. This is good for evolution and population. This is terrible for the individual who suffers for it.

This tells me that "god" is more interested in overpopulation than the success and happiness of the individual.

--

lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by Lord+Omlette · 2004-11-01 06:30 · Score: 1

Or our knees which fail way too easily.
No, this just tells me that "god" is a big fat jerk.

--
[o]_O
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by Cerebron · 2004-11-01 07:58 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, why would anything evolve so poorly? Any evidence of a poor Creator, is direct evidence of poor evolution. And back to the squid's eveball - the squid lives in the sea, under water, where it doesn't have to worry about sun damage. If it were to leave the sea, it's eyballs would be severely damaged by the sun. Our eyes are designed to protect us from the sun.

--
xyzzy - operation overload.
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by radish · 2004-11-01 10:54 · Score: 1

We haven't stopped evolving. These are flaws which will (survival of the species willing) be ironed out in a few millenia. The creationist view is that this is the final version of HumanBeing, and no patches will be released. To hold that view in the face of obvious bugs leads us to question the motives or abilities of the designer.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by DunbarTheInept · 2004-11-01 11:46 · Score: 1

If the human eye is evidence of creationism then it can only be evidence of a flawed creator.

Maybe the creator just likes Octopuses more than Humans. Granted, that still throws off all the major creationist's theories, but still...

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by jechonias · 2004-11-01 13:21 · Score: 1

Or alternatively these things SCREAM, "something has gone horribly wrong". jech
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 14:27 · Score: 1

Maybe the creator just wanted to give us a chance to not overpopulate and go through terrible cycles so that instead of destroying the earth for the other creatures, and possibly destroying ourselves, we could live long enough to gain a little wisdom?

Of course, that's all a bunch of bullshit, because people gain wisdom through living, and they lose it when they die, passing on only knowledge.

If God doesn't consider suffering to be that serious - accept for a moment that he knows it's momentary and perhaps even valuable as a phase in your spiritual life - then maybe the system is working precisely as designed.

I'm an agnostic but I don't really see any evidence for or against creation. As long as people aren't treating creation like a science, I'm happy.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Human Eye is Flawed by MagicDude · 2004-11-01 17:48 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, why would anything evolve so poorly? Any evidence of a poor Creator, is direct evidence of poor evolution

Evolution is not meant to make everything good, it's only meant to improve reproductive viability. Evolution has worked a pretty good system where people stay pretty healthy and their parts don't fail while you're less than 35 years old or so. Evolution ensures that organisms that are best suited to reproduce do so. It doesn't have any kind of influence over parts of your life that happen after your reproductive prime. So your body is in its prime to reproduce, and then you take your chances for how it degrades afterwards, since it doesn't matter how you die after you have your kids as far as evolution is concerned. Your kids will be fit and healthy until they have their kids, and then they'll face the ravages of age too. Evolution improves the system only so far as letting you reproduce, and not any further.

Orson Scott Card said. . . by FooAtWFU · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 1

"Everyone you say who says that they have no religious beliefs is just so certain about their belief that they accept it as truth. If you just start asking probing questions, and they start getting mad, then you've found their religion."

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.

Re:Face It by eviloverlordx · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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'.

Huh? by Colin+Smith · 2004-11-01 04:40 · Score: 1

I don't get it. I can feel heat provided by infra-red, how is it a big leap from something like that to an eye?

--
Deleted

Re:Huh? by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 06:47 · Score: 1

Well, feeling heat generated by impact from IR radiation to receiving patterns of visible light is quite a stretch. It's possible tha that's how it started, though, with a clump of nerve cells that normally detected heat became sensetized to the radiation directly. Conversion to detecting visible light is just chemistry in the receptors.

--
Dyolf Knip

What absurd arrogance by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:What absurd arrogance by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

"if a God/Creator exists, and is all powerful, then our Universe could have been - actually, must have been - 'intelligently designed' "

'If's have nothing to do with science, especially with a creator that necessarily leaves no physical evidence of himself, unless you count seeing his face in a burrito.

"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."

Oh really?

"Some people might interpret (your letter) to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., 'one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or a Supreme Being'?"

Einstein's response: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
Re:What absurd arrogance by NardofDoom · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1

Why must intelligent design occur if there is a God?
And, if we were intelligently designed, then there is evidence of God, who is a creature of faith. Since there's evidence, there is no need for faith, and God poofs out of existence.

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re: What absurd arrogance by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1

> Displayed by both sides. [...] Evolution is hardly a refutation of religion, and "Creationism" is the pathetic blithering of men who have read their Bible incorrectly.

But how many scientists are actually invoking evolution as a refutation of religion?

Biological science certainly refutes some groups' specific religious beliefs, e.g. special creation according to kind, but it does not refute "religion" in general. But as for arrogance, most biological scientists are merely trying to understand how things work, rather than practicing anti-religion apologetics.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:What absurd arrogance by greg_barton · 2004-11-01 05:56 · Score: 1

But if a God/Creator exists, and is all powerful, then our Universe could have been - actually, must have been - "intelligently designed".

Um, why? The existence of a creator does not mean it had to be an intelligent creator. Just because YOU can't think of a way the universe could be created by an unintelligent creator doesn't mean that it can't be the case.

And you call others arrogant?
Re:What absurd arrogance by vhold · 2004-11-01 06:16 · Score: 1

Some pages on the topic of Einstein's statements about god and religon:

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/p ersonal.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstei n.html
http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html
http://www.2think.org/einstein.shtml
Re:What absurd arrogance by Abcd1234 · 2004-11-02 04:58 · Score: 1

Now, on to proving black is white... just watch out for those Zebra crossings!
Re:What absurd arrogance by sjames · 2004-11-03 01:40 · Score: 1

actually, must have been - "intelligently designed".

Not necessarily. To use a much smaller example, if we substitute Conway's Life for the universe, and someone playing with it for God, how much did the person have to do with the game's state? The 'creator' set some basic rules and some random cells, then sent it on it's merry way with little idea what it would be like 20,000 generations later.

What I find most interesting about this... by DeepHurtn! · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

...is that there is anyone who still takes Creationism seriously. Some of my American friends tell me it's still a big issue in education in some states, which I find mind-boggling...

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?

Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Colin+Smith · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 1

It's not the literal word of the bible.

The fact that most of the bible was written hundreds of years ago by psychotic nuts who were often high on drugs or hallucinating due to weeks of fasting and self flagellation doesn't seem to bother them.

--
Deleted
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Spyky · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't see the difficulty in conceiving evolution as merely a tool of your creator

How does that challenge anyone's faith?

Some evangelical christians (not uncommon in the US) believe that the bible is the literal word of god. Therefore to say that life evolved over millions of years is in direct conflict with phrases in the bible that say god created the earth in 7 days.

Basically, there is really no arguing with such people. They believe the bible is the word of god because it says that it is the word of god. When faced with (il-)logic like that, you obviously can't use logic to change their opinions.

Hope this explains the beliefs of some Americans.

-Spyky
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by bstadil · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

...is that there is anyone who still takes Creationism seriously
Same people that thinks Bush has done a great job. Saved us from EvilDoers (does this sound like a bible term), made the economy strong and healthy, protected the environment, left no child behind .....
If you have faith it doen't matter what reality is out there, it's a closed-loop system.

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Shihar · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 1

I think that the 'problem' in America is vastly over stated. I know that when I was growing up I knew exactly one kid that believed in creationism. In the Bible belt areas you have a few vocal people, but the truth is that the vast majority of people in the US believe in Dinosoares.
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Txiasaeia · 2004-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1

"although I am one, I don't see the difficulty in conceiving evolution as merely a tool of your creator."
Okay, from a *PURELY* Christian point of view (in other words, don't flame me because I'm not scientific enough):
Most Christians believe that the world was created in a perfect state, and that the original humans botched it up. Most fundamentalists (i.e. the Bible is completely literal) also would contend that, before the fall, there was no such thing as death. Now, if you try to overlay evolution onto this, you've got fully grown humans (creationist model) as evolved from whatever over the course of however many years (evolutionary model). In other words, in between the big bang and man, there was death. This clashes with the premise that the world was created in a perfect state, and is why, in essence, is why Christianity is opposed to evolution.
Now, I don't think that everything that happened in the early Hebrew Scriptures is 100% accurate (big discrepancy between Genesis 2 and 3 in terms of the order of things created), but then again nor do I believe in evolution. There are some people who spend their entire lives defending creation science (i.e. nearly every other male in my Baptist church), but personally I see it as a complete waste of time. I'm not going to take the time to argue it here, however.
You *did* mention the education question. Now, there's a huge number of protestants and roman catholics in the US. Why would it be so hard to have one unit on creation & one unit on evolution? I'm not American, so I really don't see the problem with this.

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by RsG · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1

>They believe the bible is the word of god because it says that it is the word of god.

First, to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion...

Oh well, maybe their "logic" will go in ever diminishing circles until it undergoes gravitational collape and the resulting singularity causes their collective skulls to implode.

--
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by MarkCollette · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

You guys had better be voting on the second, instead of sitting at home reading /.
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Greenisloved · 2004-11-01 06:50 · Score: 1

Just adding to your explanation , the chief reason why they dont use logic sometimes ("to say that life evolved over millions of years is in direct conflict with phrases in the bible that say god created the earth in 7 days.") is

Their self confidence and recuperation after disaster mechanisms are firmly relied on their belief of god.Stronger the belief , the better their chances of being happy.Therefore they accept a blind statement that "Bible is word of god and its the only truth". Imagine if they dont follow this they are weakened in their overall acceptance and credibility and consequentially derive greater confusion to their minds..And obviuosly science currently doesnt have answer and so they better rely on their personal beliefs..
Well its just may be my imagination.

--
Hello , this is my way.
Which way is yours ?
btw there is no right way
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 07:02 · Score: 1

Oh it's not that the bible-thumpers don't believe in dinosaurs. It's just that they alternately believe that they are fakes to test our faith or that they lived alongside humans and died in the flood.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Idarubicin · 2004-11-01 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Saved us from EvilDoers (does this sound like a bible term)...
Actually, I've always thought it rather sounded like a comic book term.
Seemed like he was talking down to Americans and the rest of the world. Perhaps he was trying to put it in terms simple enough that we--or he--could understand. Team America (fanfare) will protect the world from evildoers. Shades of meaning and nuance should never sully a good foreign policy, after all.
Oh, and what happened to the rest of the Axis of Evil? And where's bin Laden these days?

--
~Idarubicin
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by aiyo · 2004-11-01 10:13 · Score: 1

Im in university now and i have had my entire education in california. I remember the professors would always have to carefully tip toe around creationism when we discussed evolution. Cali is pretty lax about what we get taught so as long as you spend a minute mentioning creationism you can go on and lecture for a week about evolution. In a private convo with my professors i found out that it was entirely different in other states. Middle america and near the east it would have been completely opposite where you would get complaints from parents if their kids were told about Darwin. They would have to be informed when such a discussion will occur and possibly sign a waiver, or the kid will be forced to leave the classroom while the others learned evolution!
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 14:34 · Score: 1

the place for studying creation is in a class on religion. we can put it in history or in civics for all I care. because it's not about science we only have to give students a working model they can use to explain the behavior of religious people. we explain what each religion worth teaching (based on population and influence, like everything else we learn in school) believes in broad terms without passing judgement on it, and then we move on and talk about things that are provable, or at least that seem to work consistently.

I have no problem with children learning about faith. In fact, I think it would be good for them to learn a little more about it. I have a problem with them being taught to believe something. Any seemingly innocuous intrusion of dogma into what is supposed to be science is harmful both to agnostics and to people whose religious beliefs differ, this is why there is such debate over "Under God" being added to the pledge of allegiance in the fifties, over the national motto being "In God We Trust" (as opposed to the original E Pluribus Unum, aka From Many, One) and over people wanting to put our current national motto in classrooms. It is clear which God is being referred to, and it's God with a capital G, the Christian God Himself. We (supposedly) guarantee separation between church and state not only to protect us from the religious, but also to protect the religious from the other religious.

Anyway, you could teach creationism but it only takes a couple minutes ("Some people believe that God created everything in what to him was a week and it was good") and you can move on to teaching evolution, for which we have good supporting evidence.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by Txiasaeia · 2004-11-01 15:54 · Score: 1

"I have no problem with children learning about faith. In fact, I think it would be good for them to learn a little more about it. I have a problem with them being taught to believe something. Any seemingly innocuous intrusion of dogma into what is supposed to be science is harmful both to agnostics and to people whose religious beliefs differ..."
You know that neither evolution nor the big bang theory has been conclusively proven, right? I have a problem with kids being taught to believe something that hasn't 100% been proven to be correct. We're talking about kids here - you can put as many disclaimers on it as you want, but if you say "evolution is the best theory we've got and is probably what happened," they're going to come away with that thinking "evolution happened."
How about, for a compromise, we don't teach either evolution or creationism at the elementary or secondary level & leave that for Bio 100 at university?

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 16:59 · Score: 1

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Without a challenge from the intelligent design folks, evolutionary science would be in a rut.
It's the intelligent design folks who are pushing forward the more interesting questions: What mechanisms create information? How do you explain organic structures that appear to be irreducibly complex?
These are very interesting questions, and they would be getting nowhere near the attention they're getting if it wasn't for the intelligent design movement.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:What I find most interesting about this... by drinkypoo · 2004-11-02 14:43 · Score: 1

We're talking about kids here - you can put as many disclaimers on it as you want, but if you say "evolution is the best theory we've got and is probably what happened," they're going to come away with that thinking "evolution happened."

Yeah, and we also teach them Newtonian physics, even though we know them to be false, because they are a useful approximation of the universe. Later, when you are capable of understanding a more complex model, you can take a course and find out what more we know about the subject of physics.

The reason we teach evolution in elementary school is that evolution is the best theory we've got, and it's probably what happened. Note the word theory. Science is based on theories, and that's something that is not emphasized nearly enough in elementary school, but it's also something conveniently ignored by those who would abuse or deny it. Science provides a working model with which we can understand the world. Science dictates that when we discover a more useful model, we abandon the old model or use it only in situations where it is useful - at lower resolutions, basically - and we move to the new model when we're trying to explain the way the universe works.

Evolution may not have been conclusively proven, but it is the best explanation for the things we see around us. The majority of people interested in "disproving" evolution (mostly, they're just interested in denying it - they're not actually doing any scientific research) are doing so for dogmatic reasons. The very idea of clinging to your dogma without actually providing any kind of logic behind it is the antithesis of science.

To make a long comment short, we don't wait to teach evolution until people go to college because it's the most likely explanation and it helps us to make correct guesses about the way things will turn out. When religion can do that, it will have a place in elementary school. Unfortunately, each religion seems to have about as much validity as each other religion - because they are based on faith they cannot be proven. They can, however, be disproven, and assorted things in assorted religious texts have been subjected to such a disgrace. It doesn't stop people believing in them, however - they feel free to make up bullshit arguments like "god put those dinosaur bones here to test our faith."

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

What People Miss by grunt107 · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 1

Is that the two theories are not really opposing theories. Taking a less strict interpretation of the 'God created... in 7 days', the 'days' can mean almost any passage of time. God could have 'created' present-day man by developing them from a different 'man' that to God seemed like no time but was eons to the species. Same with other species evolution. God can have created one thing and allowed it to morph into something else.

After all, if God worked in actual days, wouldn't He be awful bored by now?

Re:What People Miss by OwnedByTwoCats · 2004-11-01 04:47 · Score: 1

The modern Creationism/Intelligent Design movement is founded in opposition to science. They object to the notion that observing the universe can lead to conclusions that contradict their interpretation of scripture. They object to teaching school children those conclusions, because it undercuts their authority to tell people what to think.

The details of biology and the Creationist interpretation of scripture are irrelevent.

tell the entire story of our evolution over time. by dpilot · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

versus versus verses by GillBates0 · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 1, Funny

Merriam Webster entry for "verses"
Main Entry: 1verse
Pronunciation: 'v&rs
Function: noun
(3) : POETRY 2 b : POEM c : a body of metrical writing (as of a period or country)
3 : STANZA
4 : one of the short divisions into which a chapter of the Bible is traditionally divided

Merriam Webster entry for "versus":
Main Entry: versus
Pronunciation: 'v&r-s&s, -s&z
Function: preposition
1 : AGAINST
2 : in contrast to or as the alternative of

While it's possible the "Verses" in the article title was a subtle pun/play on the fact the Bible is creationist and consists of "verses", I am apt to believe it wasn't so.

/spelling_nazi

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by xutopia · 2004-11-01 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Climbing Mount Improbable. He explains the eye, differences in eyes in different species (not only mammals) and shows that the evidence "out there" points us rather towards a no design or random design rather than a creationist view.

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.

Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by rjh · 2004-11-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

[Please don't view anything in this post as trying to show you the 'error of your ways' or any such nonsense. I'm just trying to show that even theologians are irritated by the same things.]

What you're talking about is a well-known heresy: in theological circles it's called the God of the Gaps Fallacy. Priests, ministers, rabbis, imams and pretty much everyone else with formal theological training despises the God of the Gaps, with solid theological reasoning. If we use God to fill in the gaps in human understanding, then to advance in human knowledge is to diminish God's majesty--and that is simply not allowed to occur. That means we have only two choices: we can either not advance human knowledge and let God live in those gaps, or else we can not put God in those gaps in the first place.

Of those two choices, we can't do the first: not just because it's the natural state of knowledge to progress, but because it's heretical to think that God should fit into the world where we want Him to fit. It turns God into a false idol, something we create for our own convenience, and that's major heresy.

Unfortunately, for all the sincere and educated theologians out there, there's an Al Sharpton or another self-appointed minister without theological training who says "no, no! Science is the work of the Devil!"

[sighs] God, you know I love you. But some of your followers are cause to make me doubt your existence, to say nothing of your wisdom.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by din · 2004-11-01 05:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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." (emphasis added)
I'll bite. And in response to the bolded selection of your text, I'd argue that what you felt then was your soul seeking the safety and truth of God; after you felt more stable you left that safety of your own volition because you felt silly believing in that sort of stuff.

And I'll clarify my position too, I am a Christian with creationist beliefs. Oh I like science too, God gave me a brain and the desire to understand. Fortunately he also gave me the good sense to know that both religion and science applied in tandem can serve a far greater purpose than either one applied alone.

And as an aside, yes, Einstein did say it better.
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/science_without _religion_is_lame-religion_without/15560.html

You say that you have become an athiest as a coping mechanism, I find that incredible. To me, that is tantamount to confessing that you swam out to sea to escape the life rafts. Have you actually listened to reasonable and practical people explain the belief structure? And I mean listened, not debated, I mean tried to understand, not tried to formulate counterpoints.

I guess it just doesn't seem to add up. I have found ridiculing the belief in God to be an extremely popular activity among the "Intelligentsia." And these are the very people who decry plebians as irrational and suggest that their choices are selected after an incomplete evaluation of all possible solutions. Perhaps you can help me understand this duality of belief, this unmentioned understanding that God can be summarily dismissed, but all other decisions and actions should be subjected to great scrutiny.

So then I pose this to you, how can you rule out the possibility of God, how can you decide that He does not exist when there is precious little evidence to support your belief, and what evidence there is (on either side) hasn't been completely (or, perhaps, even slightly) reviewed by you.

--
--\ din..
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Atheism is equivalently irrational to theism. When someone postulates the existence of an unprovable being, claiming you know that being doesn't exist is the same as claiming you know it does: "knowledge" based on faith.
Agnosticism makes perfect sense, since God as proposed by all major religions is defined as beyond proof (hence faith). Under those circumstances, saying "I don't know" is the only purely rational response.
Atheism, however, is a religion. Its adherents cling to the unprovable belief that there is no God just as vehemently as the religious cling to the unprovable belief that there is.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by xutopia · 2004-11-01 06:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I find it annoying how so many agnostics feel superior because atheist and religious people believe something which they cannot prove. This in no way takes away from someone who is agnostic for the good reasons (it is reasonable with what he knows to not take any idea fully).
I for one am atheist. I am convinced that God is a fallacy. Sure I cannot disprove God's existence but then again I cannot prove to a 4 year old kid that there are no invisible spirits haunting his bedroom at night. However I have strong reasons to believe that God is a virus-like memetic complex. We've used God to explain the sun (it was his eye, in ancient egyptian mythology and in more recent Christian beliefs). We used Him to put ourselves at the center of the universe (error committed by christians, muslims and Jews). We've used Him to make ourselves more important than all other species (error commited especially by Jews and Christians, don't know about Moslems). Every single time God comes in to explain our great design and how wonderful we are and how loved and important we are. The evidence points to a universe that couldn't care less about us. When go from a believer to knowing more about the universe, evolution and science we realize that the universe couldn't care less about us and that good or bad are human constructs.
If I take into account all of that I have strong reasons to believe that God is a fallacy we cling on to because of our limits. When we cannot explain something we use God, when we don't want to face hard questions we use God. It is time we stop using Him.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Tablizer · 2004-11-01 06:08 · Score: 1

differences in eyes in different species (not only mammals) and shows that the evidence "out there" points us rather towards a no design or random design rather than a creationist view.

Maybe God never learned about design reuse. He may be just a newbie hacker, but doesn't want to admit that to anybody. Just because a powerful being claims they are omnipotent does not mean they really ar....ZZZZZZTTT! Ow! Damn!

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by MicroBerto · 2004-11-01 06:37 · Score: 1

Right now I'm in the middle of The Selfish Gene. Absolutely incredible book, life-changing perhaps. It's put a new spin on everything for me. I've always been a believer in evolution, but not educated enough about it.
It's also turning me more into a capitalist libertarian. It's the only way things work best.

--
Berto
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by hanssprudel · 2004-11-01 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

No "atheist" means "not a believer", rather than, as you claim, "a believer in nothing". An atheist rejects the idea of religious belief entirely, and judges the world according to reason rather than dogma.

If anybody wants a good discussion of this, they should read this remarkable interview with Douglas Adams (which is also printed in "A Salmon of Doubt").

For an atheist belief does not enter into the picture. If asked whether there is a god, he will most probably answer, as Adams does, that he is convinced that there isn't. It requires neither belief, faith, nor dogma to be convinced about something you cannot know for sure (you cannot know ANYTHING for sure).
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by xutopia · 2004-11-01 06:44 · Score: 1

that book rocks. I'm in the middle of extended phenotype right now and I have to go to the glossary at the end all the time (biology classes are far away). I'd have to say that Selfish Gene was certainly more interesting though. It blew me away. Especially the last two or three chapters. Every chapter got better and better.
If you like that I think you'd enjoy something somewhat unrelated by Carl Sagan, Dragons of Eden. It's speculation on the evolution of human intelligence and you read it with a different eye once you read Selfish Gene! :)
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 06:55 · Score: 1

"Superiority" has nothing to do with it. I'm not an agnostic; I'm a Catholic. I'm fine with believing things you can't prove.
I object to atheists considering themselves superior to theists because they only accept that which can be proven, while simultaneously believing that there is no God.
In that sense, I do consider agnostics superior, insofar as I respect a person's ability to simply up and say "I don't know" when confronted with an unknowable. If someone chooses to only believe in the provable, then, naturally, that someone will not come to a determination on the existence of God. More power to him/her.
If that someone then proceeds to live as though there isn't a God, this is also a natural consequence in only accepting what can be proven. Again, more power to him/her. S/he has chosen a path, and is sticking to it, being entirely consistent.
Atheism, however, is in my experience espoused by those who, for some reason, hate the idea that other people believe in a God, as they themselves believe there isn't a God. This sort of competition of beliefs is pointless.
In any event, to address your further points regarding God as a viral concept with no validity: firstly, I'm certain you accept the progress of science and engineering over human history. We no longer believe that the sun orbits the Earth. By the same token, religion no longer holds that the sun is God's eye. Why you should feel that progress in thought in one area of human endeavor is valid, while "debunking" another based on it's state millenia ago is a little curious to me. By your rationale, I should discard all scientific discovery because three thousand years ago scientists thought the Earth was flat. Clearly, this is ridiculous.
Secondarily, the comment from anti-theists that God is used to explain that which is beyond human understanding has, believe it or not, been addressed by theists long ago. It's known as the God of the Gaps Heresy, and is explained elsewhere in comments on this article. Briefly, it states that using God solely to fill in the gaps in human understanding is a heretical limitation of God (since that would mean that expanding human understanding diminishes God, which can't happen). God, then, must be believed to be in all things, whether or not we understand them.
This does not prevent, of course, some people from resorting to God exclusively when discussing something they don't understand. On the other hand, science doesn't prevent "scientists" from claiming they've invented perpetual motion, either. But when someone does claim that, it is quickly disproven by science as a whole. Similarly, such wrongheaded relgious thinking is disowned by religion at large.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Kwil · 2004-11-01 07:04 · Score: 1

Agnosticism makes about as much sense as nihilism.

I take it you also don't dispute the possible existance of dragons, unicorns, responsible government, vampires, alternate realities, and pink elephants from the bizarro dimension either, hm?

The idea that "If we cannot prove it, we must not assume it" may be purely logical, it's also patent garbage when it comes face to face with the realities of living. You cannot prove that you won't win the time-travelling lotto tomorrow and have some relative from the future appear and give you a backpack full of diamonds from the future. However, unless you put your notice in with your employer for tomorrow, you're making an assumption that this won't happen.

Thus, it's perfectly rational to assume either a god or a lack thereof if it enables you to have a better understanding of your place in the universe, and such leaves you more effective in your day to day life than being confused about such matters would.

--
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 07:08 · Score: 1

Semantically, you are obviously correct. However, in my experience, most people who consider themselves "atheists" maintain not that they don't believe in a God, but rather that there is not a God.
However, it's possible that the self-styled atheists I've encountered are a biased sample, since they're only the ones who are aggressively atheist.
That aside, the problem of discaring religion still exists. It's one thing to claim that belief in God is irrelevant, it's another to claim that it's incorrect. Some degree of belief is required of all things, or you end up with nothing. Consider empiricism itself. Why should the past be an accurate predictor of the future? Because it always has been.
This is more than a trifle circular.
I find the example of the henhouse particularly illustrative: the chicken has every reason to believe that sunrise causes the farmer to come out and spread corn. Right up until the farmer comes out and wrings the chicken's neck.
All that being said, I don't subscribe to Hume, I accept causality, the validity of the scientific method, and even macro evolution. But that's not the point. As you say, you can't know anything for sure.
If it all comes down to beliefs, then why is a belief in an unprovable deity better or worse than a belief in an unprovable assertion that our senses relay accurate information to our brains? The only answer is because the latter leads to successively more complete theories and progressively more functional devices. Which is spectacular, but doesn't change the faith-based nature of the system.
As I alluded to earlier, if someone wants to claim that belief in God is irrelevant, more power to him/her. Belief in God does not lead to further, refined belief in God or in any tangible results. But dismissing it as wrong requires faith just as much as accepting it as right does.
But again, my objections to atheism are based solely on the atheists with whom I have conversed. A more benign version of atheism may well exist which wouldn't cause me these problems.
Nonetheless, I have so far found arguing with atheists just as incredibly frustrating and obnoxious as arguing with creationists.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by stanmann · 2004-11-01 07:26 · Score: 1

If you are convinced of something, you believe it dogmatically, changing the word choice, does not change the reality. When your argument that being atheistic and areligious involves being convinced vice belief, you have reduced yourself to arguing semantics.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Moofie · 2004-11-01 07:31 · Score: 1

What do Man's imperfect ways of relating to God have to do with God's nature?

Nothing.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by hanssprudel · 2004-11-01 07:46 · Score: 1

I am not the one who drew up the semantic separation between belief and reasoned conviction: the religious people are. I have never run into anybody who could honestly claim a reasoned conviction in the existance of a god: rather it always ends up coming down to "Belief" with a capital B, which stands for some kind of conviction that cannot be attained or questioned with reason.

I do not believe in any god in exactly the same manner as I do not believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, a flat earth, or that the moon is made of cheese. I am convinced that I had Kebab for dinner because I remember it and I can still taste the sauce, but neither of those things is proof positive. To claim that it is necessarily dogmatic to be convinced to about something leads to a reality where you have to claim agnostism to every fact, which is hopeless. // oskar
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by xutopia · 2004-11-01 08:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm just saying that evidence points me towards believing that God is a fallacy. I'm also saying that with time we'll have more and more evidence that this is such. Of course religions will evolve as any memetic complex or real virus would(pardon my depreciatory use of the word virus but it's easier for me to explain myself with it).
I was Catholic for years. I served mass, was a member of my parish council for two years. I believed fervently but when one is faced with ideas of memetic complexes, evolution, historical accounts of the inquisition and the God of the Gaps fallacy I found it hard to keep holding on to my faith.
We used to have numerous polytheist religions with Gods for everything from thunder, the sun, oceans, forests, fertility, etc... With time people realized that small moments in life showed that there were incompatibilities and the story just didn't have enough convincing arguments for it anymore. Or perhaps they were just superseded by more believable religions (monotheist religions) which didn't provide as many God of the gaps fallacies.
It's evolution at it's best. Now the religions that work best in the world are the ones which don't wet themselves as much. They still look like evolutions from older religions. We still have people praying for things to happen just like we used to do sacrifices for the God of rain to pour down on the crops.
Sure the Catholic religion is evolving but when it comes down to it God isn't required anymore to explain things around us. We have the system of science to help us learn about our universe. Sure science cannot answer questions about life after death but why should we pick and choose from whichever religion is most convenient for us? Why not ask God for some help? Why didn't you choose Islam to answer your questions about life? Let me guess you were born in a Catholic family or Catholic community. You got infected by the memetic complex too.
I can't tell you what to believe but I read my Bible through and through, twice. I've also read Dawkins, Sagan and Hawkin amongst other books. Why don't you read a few of their books and ask God for help in your prayers. I know I prayed and it didn't help my faith.
Now I'm not here to convince you. This is merely to explain that a person can make a decision based on the evidence he collected even though he has no proof. To date by looking around at the universe we cannot get anything that proves the existence of God but by looking at the universe we can get evidence that religions infecting us with the God memetic complex are wrong in many aspects.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Aetrix · 2004-11-01 08:10 · Score: 1

If you want to read the seminal work on this topic it was published by Michael J. Behe in Darwin's Black Box (Amazon.com). Behe has also published a number of scientific articles (He is a biochemist, you know). Search Pubmed (http://www.pubmed.gov) for "Behe MJ."

--

"One touch of Darwin makes the whole world kin." George Bernard Shaw
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Elkboy · 2004-11-01 10:54 · Score: 1

"It is time we stop using Him."

Funny how an atheist capitalizes "Him".
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by radish · 2004-11-01 11:08 · Score: 1

Atheism, however, is in my experience espoused by those who, for some reason, hate the idea that other people believe in a God, as they themselves believe there isn't a God. This sort of competition of beliefs is pointless.

This is interesting. I've always considered myself an Atheist, as I firmly believe there is no God (or other similar being/force/whatever). But I don't consider myself superior to theists, just different. I believe there is no God, you believe there is. We disagree. I don't hold your beliefs against you, do you hold my beliefs against me? It seems from your tone that you do.

My belief in the non-existence of God is about a weight of evidence - I see very little evidence (well actually, none) which I consider valid pointing to the existence of God. I see a fair amount pointing to the non-existence. So, I make my judgement. If things change, I may change my mind. If I see the Angel Gabriel on my way home from work today I may convert, or I may check into rehab. However, every day I see reports of things occuring which simply do not gel in my mind with the idea of a benelovent force looking after us. Seeing as that seems to be what the majority of organized religons are based on, that's pretty good evidence for the nay sayers.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by xutopia · 2004-11-01 11:11 · Score: 1

agreed. Bad habits linger on don't they? ;)
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Hexact · 2004-11-01 14:48 · Score: 1

Nice interview, really.

Here is the funny part:

"Also, the big news is that The Hitch Hikers Guide is being made into a movie by Disney with a planned release date of mid-2000."

He was off by *only* five years but it's nothing when you consider that it will be released 23 years after it was first optioned.

Clem.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2004-11-01 15:58 · Score: 1

Indeed. For it is entirely possible that there is a God who created the universe in a manner that He would've been unneccessary (through Occam's Razor), but He was there anyway. Any sort of logic can only say that this explanation is unneccessary or valid, not that it is true or false.

For all we know, 50 years ago humans might've simultaneously transformed into giant kittens with immense powers to transform themselves back while wiping their memories of the incident. Would there be any way to prove or disprove that? Then why do you think you can prove or disprove God? That's the point of having "faith": your beliefs can't be proven.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by MicroBerto · 2004-11-01 17:41 · Score: 1

Thanks for the pointer. Is the other Dawkins book that's mentioned here a lot going to be over my head too? I'm not a biology guy either.

--
Berto
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Revek · 2004-11-01 17:46 · Score: 1

atheist don't belive in god due to fact that there is no proof whatsoever that there is a god or higher being. Post his address or cell phone number and if he can prove himself by performing a small miricle such as ....bringing back 8 track tapes to the mainstream then maybe ill give it a try of course that isn't a small miricle.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by Darby · 2004-11-02 02:37 · Score: 1

Atheism is equivalently irrational to theism.

I am so sick of hearing this completely ignorant and idiotic lie being spread by people who are so insecure in their faith that they need to try and drag everybody else down to their level.

A theism without belief in a god.

You were born an atheist, I was born an atheist and everybody else in the entire history of the world was born an atheist.

People who believe in a god made an active decision at some point in their life to blindly and without evidence of any sort whatsoever start believing in some god.

I have seen zero evidence for any all powerful being, and the Judeo Christian is in fact logically inconsistent. All knowing all powerful and good is a fallacy.
Further to accept that god, you have to take as gospel that he loves you, and wants you to believe in him but the only way to get on his good side is to believe blindly or he will torture you forever.

The very idea that a being who could create the universe is hung up on whether or not you will accept his existence without proof is patently ridiculous.

The idea that he made us the way we are and then said he'd fry us for eternity if we acted in accordance with that design but he's really loving so much so that in order to forgive us for acting the way he made us he would torture and murder his own son is so utterly ridiculous that were it not shoved down the throats of little children from birth, it would have died out a long time ago.

So believing insane, inconsistent things like that is a religion.
Looking at it rationally and deciding that it doesn't make sense is not in any way.

So please stop repeating those ridiculous lies.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by akwash79 · 2004-11-02 08:58 · Score: 1

So there must be a real santa claus who drives around in a sled with magical flying reindeer, after all we cannot prove that he does not exist.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book by anon+mouse-cow-aard · 2004-11-03 16:19 · Score: 1

so... to all catholics/protestant/muslims out there, it is incumbent upon them to prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Thor, Zeus, Neptune, Poseidon, elves, dragons, mermaids, the Loch Ness monster, and innumerable thousands of Indian gods which said theist considers mythical do not exist.
makes sense to me ;-)

Natural Selection by jamis · 2004-11-01 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Ahh... natural selection at work...

The creationism website has been slashdotted.

That's all the proof *I* needed! Go Darwin!

Re:Natural Selection by SilentChris · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

So that means a younger, sexier version of the website that flaunts it plumage better is somewhere alive out there?
Re:Natural Selection by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 13:50 · Score: 1

Sometimes it behooves you to blend in with your surroundings... like when the slashbots are looking for a story to submit.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

no, just the creationists by squarefish · 2004-11-01 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

MC Hawkins says:

Fuck The Creationists

Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

--
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.

Re:no, just the creationists by eddy · 2004-11-01 05:14 · Score: 1

How about a little link?

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Re:Face It by DrXym · 2004-11-01 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

By which you mean they feel quite affronted that religious dogma masquerading as bad science should be taught alongside a scientific fact. Is it any wonder?

Re:Face It by micromoog · 2004-11-01 04:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

nooooo . . . evolutionists attempt to construct an explanation for existing evidence. This is very different from taking thousands-of-years-old mythology literally.

No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative

When facts like this keep popping up...

Family trees share roots in 1415BC Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found. American researchers created elaborate mathematical models ... The results are published in the journal Nature.

[Link to article. (free subscription required]

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.)

Re:No, it won't by NardofDoom · 2004-11-01 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
Re:No, it won't by Gilgaron · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sure, but you get a different common ancestor depending on what gene cluster you pick, which is to be expected.

It is an easy thing to misunderstand genetics and think that, say, Mitochondrial Eve could have been Eve of the Bible, but thinking so would betray a lack of understanding about what these mathematical common ancestors mean.

Mathematically you can back-calculate that since you have two parents, and 4 grandparents and so on, that pretty soon you'd outnumber the past population, meaning everyone is inter-related. Picking different genes you can find out how long ago the common ancestor for that gene was, but it does not tell you that the common ancestor was the only human at that time.

You and your siblings share common ancestry through your parents, but there are plenty of the rest of us around.
Re:No, it won't by zerblat · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Heh, you didn't read the article you linked, did you? All this shows is that people have traveled and mixed their genes. It doesn't mean that all genes originate from the same individual, only that we all have some of that person's genes.
Oh, and take another look at the Tasmania example at the end of the article.

--
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Re: No, it won't by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

> 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
Re:No, it won't by los+furtive · 2004-11-01 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice try, but you're ignoring some of the facts that are plainly visible on the first page of that article.
First of all, they tracked the possible movement and breeding of people for the past 20,000 years. How did they do that if man only goes back 6,400 years?
Secondly, it was an average date that went back to 1415BC. What do they mean by average? Well, the example they give is that Tasmianians were isolated from the Australian coast for the past 12,000 years (so there's yet another example of a group that goes back further than 6,400 years) but today there are no remaining Tasmaninians without some European or mainland Australian ancestry. The 12,000 years gets averaged out by the relationship with Europeans/Australians.
This is one of the reasons why creationism is a flawed belief, you can't just go ignoring facts and believe that all you need is a small subset to prove your point.
If you want to enlighten yourself, go read a Richard Dawkings book (I recomment Climbing Mount Improbable although others would point to the Blind Watchmaker) and maybe you'll have a better understanding of how weak an argument creationism really is.

--
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Re:No, it won't by Tablizer · 2004-11-01 05:18 · Score: 1

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.

Most likely, Gould would pick the alleged Jesus up and throw him in the ocean, and tell him, "Walk back and then I might believe you". SCIENCE IN ACTION!

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:No, it won't by Rikurzhen · 2004-11-01 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:No, it won't by smallpaul · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

That isn't true. There was a time when theists believed that the sun revolved around the earth and they were dissuaded of this view by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It probably took a long time for the evidence to become so compelling that no thinking person could dispute it. So it is with evolution. Don't give up.
Re:No, it won't by Tablizer · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 1

Heh, you didn't read the article you linked, did you? All this shows is that people have traveled and mixed their genes. It doesn't mean that all genes originate from the same individual, only that we all have some of that person's genes.

Similarly, every single one of us has at least one atom in us that was once part of George Washington. However, that does not mean we all know George.

It is possible that the "Eve" women being talked about simply has some trait that greatly aided the survivle of her or her children, and that is why it is such a popular gene. For example, some suspect there are a few key jaw mutations that allowed humans to speak clearer. If we all have the same key mutation, then we likely would share other genes from the person who originated that mutation.

Another way of saying this is that genes tend to tag along in groups. If one gene in a group is popular (selection-wise), then it carries the others with it for many generations, perhaps almost indefinitely.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 05:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

To save me some effort, I'll just quote a response I made in another discussion a similar question.

Here's the old discussion, with links to the three papers mentioned below:
Hello - > They are due to a purely theoretical bottleneck looking backwards up the tree of life. I understand you consider mEve and YAdam theoretical - but remember, in the absence of an eyewitness to this, this is a *hypothesis* put forward to fit the bottlenecking data (and perhaps, it does fit the data). But the data fits another hypothesis too: What if the bottlenecking is not theoretical, but real? i.e. There really *was* a single Adam and a single Eve. This hypethesis fits the genetic bottlenecking data too. Also, there is also an "eyewitness" account being claimed here -- God's word in the Bible. How do we examine the trustworthiness of this account? Consider the implications of the 3 papers from the posting: Paper #1) Danish and Middle East population could have diverged 4,500 years ago ----> Fits with the Biblical description of human dispersion occuring after the flood (around 4,500 years ago as well). Paper #2) 20 times faster observed mtDNA Mutation Rate ----> Genetic bottlenecking can be approximately just 150,000/20 = 7,500 years old. Fits Biblical description of "bottlenecking" down to Noah's family 5,000 years ago Paper #3) 1 male root lineage / 3 sub-lineages / only 1 of these 3 has 7 sub-sub-lineages that populate the world outside of Middle East and Africa. ----> Remarkable fit with Biblical story of Noah, his 3 sons, and the 7 descendants of only one of the 3 sons ("Japeth") populate the rest of world. The other 2 sons and their descendants populate the Middle East and Africa.
Re:No, it won't by duguk · 2004-11-01 05:38 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

Do you really think Jesus is going to come back after what happened last time?
Re:No, it won't by Moby+Cock · 2004-11-01 05:50 · Score: 1

I think the is a part in Crime and Punishment (but it may be another Dostoyevsky (sp?)) where Jesus comes back and the church effectively kills him because his ideas are different than theirs. It's much like you describe where even a divine pronouncement of evolution would not be enough. It isn't what they beleive is just that they do believe.
Re:No, it won't by hey! · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dude, Jesus is the one political philosopher the findamentalists in the "Christian" right least listen to.

Luke 6:27 - 6:29

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

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.
Re:No, it won't by mplex · 2004-11-01 05:53 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, anyone ever read it? Jesus comes back to earth and his beliefs are so different from the the church's at the time that they put him to death for causing too much trouble. It's an incredible story, check it out here: Grand Inquisitor It starts off a little slow but I promise you won't be disappointed.
Re:No, it won't by Dr.+Cody · 2004-11-01 05:56 · Score: 1

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.

What if Jesus came to their door and said he was a sex offender?
Re:No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oh, and take another look at the Tasmania example at the end of the article.

Which says:
People in Tasmania were one group who may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia from 12,000 years ago until 1803, due to the flooding of Bass Strait. This did not affect the results, because "today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some European or mainland Australian ancestry".
The article authors are simply trying to resolve a difficulty with another theory which states Tasmanians were isolated for 12000 years. If all humans descended from one man who lived about 3500 years ago, how could Tasmanians - who supposedly were isolated 12000 years - be descended from him too? So they conjecture that interbreeding with Europeans in the last 200 years has modified Tasmanians genetic data to look like the rest of the world's. This lets their conclusions not dispute the 12000 year isolation theory.

You said: "It doesn't mean that all genes originate from the same individual, ".

It does.

See quote below from an article called "The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves" in the NY Times (free subscription required)

The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and prehistorians ...
Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals ...
But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population.
The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct. ...
The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters,
This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches. ...
The tree is rooted in a single Y chromosomal Adam, and has 10 principal branches, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza reports. ...
Re: No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Answer: 4200-3500 = [acceptable scientific error]

Prior to the new 3500 years figure, the earlier figure for our common genetic ancestors was about 150,000 years.

Back in 2003, I posted this pointing out how that 150000 figure needs drastic downward revision (to be divided by 20) given:...
"Evolutionary Genetics tries to estimate how 'old' our current species is by dividing the number of mutations observed in a specific DNA region with the estimated mutation rate. The generally accepted figure is around 150,000 years, but..." A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet. 1998 Feb;18(2):109-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ent rez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9090380&dopt=Abstract ----- The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. ...We compared DNA sequences ... an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and ...
The link also contains other evidence including this paper which indicates the Danish population divered from populations in the middle east around 4500 years ago
Using rare mutations to estimate population divergence times: A maximum likelihood approach Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 95, pp. 1545215457, December 1998 http://www.rannala.org/papers/PNAS98.pdf -- --- In this paper we propose a method to estimate by maximum likelihood the divergence time between two populations,... When applied to three cystic fibrosis mutations, the estimatorRD could not exclude a very recent time of divergence among three Mediterranean populations. On the other hand, the divergence time between these populations and the Danish population was estimated to be, on the average, 4,500 or 15,000 years, assuming or not a selective advantage for cystic fibrosis carriers, respectively. ------
This study indicates a selective advantage for Cystic fibrosis carriers (see mean number of offspring of Cystic fibrosis families v/s control families)

What is an MCRA?
Re: No, it won't by gears5665 · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 1

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.

Um...he won't be able to find one...Christian bookstores don't contain fact books.
Re:No, it won't by mikael · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

From the article you will see that research studied two particular groups of genes:

(1) Mitochondrial DNA - This DNA never recombines. The genes are passed *exclusively* down the maternal side of the family tree ie. daughters have near identical mitochondrial DNA to their mothers (plus or minus the odd genetic mutation, which allows the scientists to timestamp the changes).

(2) The Y Chromosome - This DNA never recombines. The genes are passed *exclusively* down the paternal side of the family tree. ie. sons have near identical Y-chromosomes to their fathers (plus or minu the odd genetic mutation, which allows the scientists to timestamp the changes).

The mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA is around 1 change in 33 generations, or around 520 years. That gives people quite a long time to move around and form new settlements.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:No, it won't by Khasmo · 2004-11-01 06:34 · Score: 1

You're still missing the point of the study. It was not a genetic study to determine a common progenitor. It was a Mathmatical study to determine where and when the most recent common ancestor for all of humanity is likely to have occured. It does not prove this ancestor's existenec, but shows that his existence is probable. This theorized common ancestor, if he exists, is everyone's ancestor, but was one of millions of people on the earth at that time that are also ancestors of people today.

If the study were done to find a common ancestor of everyone living prior to the european visitaion of Tasmania, one would have to go back AT LEAST 12000 years. The fact that they are able theorize such a recent common ancestor for tasmanians as well in this study is because TODAY all tasmanians have some european ancestry.
Re:No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 07:02 · Score: 1

Thanks, I understand your point better.

You said:

"This theorized common ancestor, if he exists, is everyone's ancestor, but was one of millions of people on the earth at that time that are also ancestors of people today."

Two questions:

1. Is there genetic evidence that provides proof that "millions of other men" lived contemporary with our common male genetic ancestor? Can it disprove that we descended exclusively from just one man?

2. You also said:

The fact that they are able theorize such a recent common ancestor for tasmanians as well in this study is because TODAY all tasmanians have some european ancestry

Is this also true for Amazon Indians, and Red Indians, and Pygmies from the Congo, and every other isolated people group? The study implies these all have genetic data from a common male ancestor who lived merely 3500 years ago.
Re:No, it won't by LMariachi · 2004-11-01 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Not to mention Matthew 6:5-6
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Re:No, it won't by lawpoop · 2004-11-01 07:17 · Score: 1

This is what gets me. The Jewish calendar is currently around 5950 something. I think it starts with Moses. Yet, all the creationists' date of creation flies in the face of one of the main facts which it should comply with. If you're going to say the Hebrew bible is accurate, your timeline should match up with the calendar.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 07:28 · Score: 1

In response:

1. Re: tracking movement and breeding for 20000 years... it's a conjecture used in processing the data.
2. Re: meaning of "Average date."... quoting the article.

The team noted that if one group of people had been completely isolated until today, then, logically, the common ancestor must have lived before they went into isolation.

They then say the hypothesized Tasmanian isolation is not a difficulty due to 'no data' for Tasmanian aborigines (i.e. no data that they consider valid).

Please see my other posts in this thread for more evidence and clarifications.
Re:No, it won't by Ygorl · 2004-11-01 07:29 · Score: 1

Each of us alive has as many as about 2^(3500/18) or about 10^58 3500-year-old ancestors. Of course, that assumes no inbreeding, but the point is that each of us is descended from a whole bunch of people. That there should be one or even a lot of them in common isn't even surprising. If we had all exclusively descended from one couple, 3500 years ago (rather than there being somebody 3500 years ago who just happened to be one of the up-to-10^58 ancestors of pretty much everyone alive today) we'd all be an awful lot alike. To arrive at our present diversity after only 190 generations would require a ludicrously high survivable mutation rate.
Re:No, it won't by JeanPaulBob · 2004-11-01 08:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 08:16 · Score: 1

There is a double bottlenecking of both male and female braches, at about the same time.

"The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct. ...
The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters,"

"This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches."

Regarding genetic diversity, the Bible indicates the first humans _had_ excellent DNA - lifespans before the flood were of the order of hundreds of years, and began declining after the flood.

It's interesting how you there is a double bottlenecking.
Re:No, it won't by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 09:35 · Score: 1, Informative

The quote you cite is the only time I've ever seen anybody suggest that the mitochondrial and Y trees branched at the same time. Every other reference I've seen (including ones more recent than the 2000 NYT article you cite) suggest that the two lived some 80,000 or so years apart, rather than at the same time.

Also note that the existence of a mitochondrial Eve or a Y-chromosome Adam does not imply the existence of a population bottleneck. In fact, there is evidence that there was no such bottleneck at those times. (There is evidence of another bottleneck, mentioned in the article you cite, but it was at a different time.)
Re:No, it won't by algae · 2004-11-01 11:22 · Score: 1

Well, that would indicate to me that a historical document might have some accurate geneological data in it.

What does that have to do with a billion years of evolution?

--
Causation can cause correlation
Re:No, it won't by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-11-01 11:25 · Score: 1

The quoted scripture was as much about the "do"s as the "don't"s. You display love. You display good deeds. You display compassion. You display forgiveness. Those thousand or tens of thousands who are "restraining themselves" are not, by that act alone, meeting the minimum requirements.
Re:No, it won't by JeanPaulBob · 2004-11-01 11:33 · Score: 1

I realize that restraining bad behavior isn't the same as displaying good behavior. That doesn't mean there's any justification for the grandparent's accusation against conservative Christians as a group.
Re:No, it won't by nzkoz · 2004-11-01 11:50 · Score: 1

God spoke to me last night, and said your post was full of shit.

--
Cheers Koz
Re:No, it won't by Gilgaron · 2004-11-01 12:29 · Score: 1

I'm sure we could find many examples for any arbitrary time span.

What do you think happens once we start looking into highly conserved regions like ribosomal RNA?
Re:No, it won't by hey! · 2004-11-01 14:38 · Score: 1

I'm not making an accusation about conservative Christians as a group. I happen to be friends with the local evangelical church's conservative minister, who is a true gentleman, a scholar, and a model Christian.

Realize the conservative christian is not the same as fundamentalist. Evangelical is not the same as fundamentalist, Evangelical is not he same as conservative. It's very important not to mix these things up.

I have an issue with Fundamentalism, yes. I do not feel contempt for the many simple, sincere people who are Fundamentalists, but I do have an issue with Fundamentalist leaders, who should know better.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:No, it won't by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-11-01 14:40 · Score: 1

If you see five people speaking angrily, there may be a thousand restraining themselves.

hehe, and you can remove 1/5 them from office tomorrow!
Re:No, it won't by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-11-01 14:46 · Score: 1

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.

Kind of a preternatural John Holmes!
Re:No, it won't by Revek · 2004-11-01 17:35 · Score: 1

yes well I can't find a link right now but there was a study done on a tribe in africa (I think) where for several generations there were fewer than 5 male lines in this tribe with no outside infusion of genetic material. All of these people suffered from severe physical genetic problems. Its called inbreeding and there is no way so few could have repopulated the species. no noah no genesis just simple random breeding resulted in us. Not to hard to belive with scientist doing their job and constantly lowering the number of chromsomes we need to procrate.

Remember humans are the only truly random variable in the world today
Re:No, it won't by tehdaemon · 2004-11-01 19:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, but very often, when a new theory replaces an old one, the reason is not that the people were convinced by the compelling evidence. It is because those who held to the old theory got old and died, and those who took their place believed the new theory.
This happens far too often, for both religion and science. I suspect that the grandparent post was right. A lot of them would not believe, even if god came and told them so. Remember, god did that once. And his people for the most part still don't believe 2000 years later.

--
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Re:No, it won't by rudi_v · 2004-11-01 20:03 · Score: 1

One word (man):Ghandi
Re:No, it won't by akwash79 · 2004-11-02 05:28 · Score: 1

Human beings have been in existance a lot longer than 3500 or 4200 years. add another zero to the end and that should be a closer figure
Re:No, it won't by Khasmo · 2004-11-02 12:17 · Score: 1

You're the one who cited the article in the first place and inappropriately drew the conclusion that it was prof of a common progenitor only 3500 year ago. I was simply trying to explain what the study's actually intent was. I don't know how many people existed 3500 years ago, but from what I read of the study it did not seek to prove or disprove the existance of a single progenitor, though I would guess that the researchers assumed a larger population in their formulae. As for the 2nd question, again, you're the one who cited the study in the first place. The article did not mention any exclusions, but either way, it doesn't prove a common progenitor.
Re:No, it won't by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-03 07:17 · Score: 1

Thanks for your response.

Can you add some specifics about the evidence for no bottleneck? Also, what is the later bottleneck you refer to?

Here's the website of the original research: Joe Chang's website

The Joe Chang work I originally is just one thing. There is the NYTimes work we discussed with it's striking parallels in the Bible, there is the evidence to think higher observed mutational rates date mEve earlier, as well as other genetic evidence on recent divergence of populations. There seems to be some evidence for similar acceleration for Y Adam timelines. I recall reading about similar trends for agricultural plant and animal lineages.

There is also a different genetic study (see article) that concurs with the Biblical assertion that Jews and Arabs have a common ancestor. And other genetic studies back a similar assertion for a Jewish "Cohen priestly gene" (also mentioned in the article).

The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye... by turnstyle · 2004-11-01 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Another interesting detail to note is that cephalopods (octopus, cuttlefish, squid) have complex eyes too.

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

Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants by Pxtl · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Agreed. Tolerance goes both ways people. Religious right folk have just learned to ignore reasoned arguments after having too much anti-religious vitriol spewed at them. So correct or not, angry rants are counterproductive.

Besides that, people are too quick to paint all religious folk with the same brush. My wife is an Anglican, and believes that "Christian science" and literalism are ideological suicide. Faith is faith - whether a Christian-concept God exists or not, there will be no proof, no evidence, real-world implication that it exists... and an abrupt "creation" doesn't seem subtle enough for that. The universe shuold be taken at face value, and religion applied to wonder about what exists outside of it.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

Belief in creationism is not part of being a "neocon."

I don't believe in intelligent design by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 2, Funny

and I create software for living. Even designing a relatively simple distributed transaction mechanism is difficult. Designing a computer that will not overheat and die if the fan breaks is difficult. There cannot be intelligence powerful enough to design what we call the universe and all the things within it. It makes much more sense that the universe is an NDA where things can just happen at random given enough time than to imagine a grand design behind it. People who believe in the 'grand design' just don't get how difficult it is to design simple things. Forget the eye.

It is just unbelievable that in some places schools are not allowed to teach Darwinism but they can teach creationism.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:I don't believe in intelligent design by roman_mir · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 1

Yes, and the trolls too.

--
You can't handle the truth.

The Doctrine of Creation versus Creationism by zombiepopper · 2004-11-01 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am reminded of a quote from Saint Augustine when I see this issue come to a head.

"Whenever I hear a brother Christian talk in such a way as to show that he is ignorant of these scientific matters and confuses one thing with another, I listen with patience to his theories and think it no harm to him provided that he holds no beliefs unworthy of you, O Lord, who are the Creator of them all. The danger lies in thinking that such knowledge is part and parcel of what he must believe to save his soul and in presuming to make obstinate declarations about things of which he knows nothing."

The doctrine of Creation, that God made the world and called it "Good", is not incompatible with a Darwinian understanding of how our bodies came to be and how life on this planet has become so diverse. Scientism versus Creationism is never going to go anywhere. Creationists should, however, listen to the science.

--
remember, no matter where you go, there you are

Re:Face It by ThePDW · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1

I don't know why creationists feel lik they have to attack evolution (and vice versa). As a Christian, I can't quite believe creationists explanations and I know that I can't just take "scientists" explanations and blindly believe them. The problem is that that it becomes such a personal issue for both sides and both sides are willing to accept mistruths.

Please stop. by KillerHamster · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1

I'm sick of these stupid evolution vs. creationism arguments. Why can't we all just accept that:

- People have different beliefs
- It's okay to have different beliefs
- No one has the right to force his beliefs on others
- We can all get along despite out differences

Seriously, what is so hard about that? And I'm talking to both sides here.

Re:Please stop. by haluness · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 1

OK, so whats wrong with arguing? Or should we just accept that everybody has diferent beliefs and stop all discourse?

Its entirely possible that one set of beliefs are wrong. Or are you of the politically correct persuasion that 'all beliefs are relative to the believer and hence right'?
Re:Please stop. by The+Queen · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 1

Dude, if you could get people on a mass scale (and I think /. is massive) to accept all that, we would not currently be at war.

--

The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Re:Please stop. by seanellis · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Please stop. by jabber-admin · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps some should read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" which looks into the reasons that the midwest is so conservative. Yes, faith has a lot to do with it, but there also is a rebellion against those ('snobs on the coasts') who dismiss them as uneducated, ignorant bible thumpers.
Re:Please stop. by megarich · 2004-11-01 05:08 · Score: 1

Religion has always been a touchy subject with people that hardly any other subject can conjure up. Case in point, wet get fed everyday by corporations and advertisements on what to wear, what we should eat, how should we enjoy our free time,etc, no one cares. Well at least no one makes a big stink over it. Bring in God, you have wwIII.
Re:Please stop. by KillerHamster · 2004-11-01 05:53 · Score: 1

OK, so whats wrong with arguing?

Nothing. When arguments escalate to persecution and war, then we have a problem.
Or are you of the politically correct persuasion that 'all beliefs are relative to the believer and hence right'?

Of course not. That's absurd. Two conflicting beliefs can't both be right. However, telling someone they're stupid because they believe in God or they're evil because they believe in evolution is counter-productive to all involved, and often likely to provoke conflict (see above).
Re:Please stop. by jgardn · 2004-11-01 07:04 · Score: 1, Troll

It's all OK until:
- Someone else's religious belief get in the way of teaching my human morality and right from wrong.
- Someone else's beliefs mean my taxes are spent on convincing children to copulate before marriage and then to kill the child as it is being delivered.
- Someone else's beliefs prevent me from raising my child in the way I see most proper.
- Someone else's beliefs are used to determine what can and cannot be taught to our children.
- 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 reserver the right to disagree with them and oppose them if necessary.

--
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Re:Please stop. by huge+colin · 2004-11-01 09:04 · Score: 1

You're not as sick of these arguments as I am. Know why? Because there is exactly one thing in the universe that is absolutely correct, all the time: science. That's it; end of story. That point is not open to discussion.

If anyone has some idea or notion or moral code that isn't derived from science, they can argue until they're blue in the face without bringing me any closer to being convinced.

In short, it's 'okay' to have different beliefs as long as it's 'okay' to have a society that tolerates stubborn ignorance and has no general desire to move toward greater enlightenment.

You say that we can all "get along" in spite of our differences. This is apparently not the case. We certainly have differences between us, and look around -- we're not getting along, are we? There is fixed scientific truth in the universe, and if you choose not to believe it, you're wrong. --Colin
Re:Please stop. by PixelScuba · 2004-11-01 13:04 · Score: 1

I live in the Midwest... the coast has a strong, persuasive agument on their hands.

Both sides have it wrong by HeghmoH · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Both sides in this Evolution v Creationism flamefest have it totally wrong.

The creationists are wrong because they misunderstand their own religion. The key factor in religion is faith. It is not necessary to prove that God exists. In fact, that's missing the entire point. A true religious person will take the existence of God on faith, and will neither need nor desire to prove His existence.

The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong. Doing all of this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life seems a bit strange.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

Re:Both sides have it wrong by raytracer · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by HeghmoH · 2004-11-01 05:14 · Score: 1

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.

Militant creationists call themselves "Christian", even though the basic tenets of Christianity are faith in God (not proof) and tolerance. There are plenty of non-militant creationists, and I have no problem with them, but the militant ones are wrong in their affiliation, naming, or whatever.

Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong.

I never said they weren't wrong, just that there's no point. From a scientist's point of view, you are simply arguing science against someone's fantasies. Why would you work so hard to dispel someone's fantasy land just because it's 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.

Even the ones that need proof so badly are acting on faith, and you can't disprove someone's faith. If you're trying to get them to change their minds, this is the wrong approach.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 05:32 · Score: 1

Rather you would prefer to side with a group that says there is no reason for anything other than chance and that what we do in this world doesn't matter at all?

The Bible tells us that God gave the world and it's creatures to humanity to govern with care and thoughtfulness... not that "nature exists for the exploitation of humans"..

Bad people can subvert good teachings on both sides of the debate.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by internic · 2004-11-01 06:31 · Score: 1

"Evolutionists" as you call them, are just scientists who are trying to make sense of the world around them, which is a perfectly laudable goal. Some creationists have made the claim that understand is not correct, so it's definitely important to understand whether that criticism has merit. It seems it does not. This is particularly important because as creationists spread pseudoscientific theories like intellegent design and sell them as science, they undermine the spread of actual scientific knowledge.

--
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Re:Both sides have it wrong by vhold · 2004-11-01 06:38 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more with your basic idea that the fight from both perspectives makes no sense. Prove the unprovable? Disprove the undisprovable? How is the futility not obvious to these people? It's just fighting for the sake of fighting really.

In the future, I think the Evolution vs Creationism debate is going to be referred to as: "The 200 year Troll."
Re:Both sides have it wrong by npsimons · 2004-11-01 07:22 · Score: 1

The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong. Doing all of this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life seems a bit strange.

You know, I'm willing to bet most "evolutionists" (myself included), don't give a flying fuck about creationists or proving them wrong. We're just looking for answers and have found creationism to be lacking. Scientists aren't doing all this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life; they're doing all this work to better understand they world we live in.

--
Nathan's blog
Re:Both sides have it wrong by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2004-11-01 07:26 · Score: 1

Yeah, but the bible says a bunch of other things that are questionable at best. Do you really expect us to pick through them and use the ones we like? The scientific method has brought us much more tangible results (though not always desirable) in a shorter amount of time. So if I have to pick a side I will go with science every time.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by stanmann · 2004-11-01 07:29 · Score: 1

The bible also tells us that weed is good
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Note that meat there is literally food.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Both sides have it wrong by Xtifr · 2004-11-01 07:37 · Score: 1

The creationists are wrong because they misunderstand their own religion.

Yes.

The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong.

No. Or at least, not entirely. Some of the evolutionists are, in fact, members of the religion that the creationists misunderstand, and they try to prove the creationists wrong in order to defend their religion.

Others try to prove the creationists wrong simply because they are wrong, which seems like a not-too-terrible reason to me.

Anyway, this work wasn't done to prove the creationists wrong, it was done to increase our understanding of the eye and how it evolved.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by Moofie · 2004-11-01 07:53 · Score: 1

It's not a matter of getting them to change their minds, it's a matter of preventing them from ruling the country.

Which we have thus far failed to do. See where it's gotten us?

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Both sides have it wrong by raytracer · 2004-11-01 07:54 · Score: 1

Rather you would prefer to side with a group that says there is no reason for anything other than chance and that what we do in this world doesn't matter at all?

Just what group do you think promotes this idea? Science helps us understand the world around us. Science tells us that the earth looks old, that all living things appear to be related through a pattern of descent with modification via mutation, drift and selection, and that the survivability of the resulting organisms seems to be tied to their reproductive fitness.

I don't look to science to justify my morals.

--
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by raytracer · 2004-11-01 08:00 · Score: 1

I never said they weren't wrong, just that there's no point. From a scientist's point of view, you are simply arguing science against someone's fantasies. Why would you work so hard to dispel someone's fantasy land just because it's wrong?

Make no mistake: I'm not trying to dissuade them from their beliefs. Each person is entitled to whatever degree of denial or ignorance they choose. What I am arguing against is the increasing tendancy for these harmful, ignorant beliefs to become part of the political discourse of this country.

By the time someone becomes a creationist, they are probably irreparably screwed intellectually. The best we can do is hope to contain them to prevent the insanity from spreading.

--
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by Aetrix · 2004-11-01 08:18 · Score: 1

The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong.
Don't forget, however, that the creationists, working backwards from assumptions of faith, are demanding in places that their faith-based views on evolution be taught equal-time with scientific views on evolution.

The scientists don't demand that we get time in Bible School to teach about the way scientists believe that the earth and life were created...

Don't forget, they're both just myths or legends in two different cultures.

--

"One touch of Darwin makes the whole world kin." George Bernard Shaw
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 10:38 · Score: 1

The comment in the parent post wasn't directed at scientists... it was directed at Christians.. claiming that they all believed that nature is there to be exploited... which simply isn't true.

I am not a creationist, I believe completely in evolution but i also realize that all science is THEORY not fact... based on the data available a model is generated from which reasonable conclusions are made... those models can change at any time due to new and more accurate findings. So I don't discount any possibility but in the meanwhile I will use the models that are most accurate based on evidence... they are tools for further discovery not ends unto themselves anyways.

No one is expecting you to even look at a Bible but you can't very well criticize it or Christianity or any Religion without actually having read the primary text... RTFA, then comment based on an accurate understanding of the source material you are criticizing.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 10:46 · Score: 1

Only one translation (the King James Version) says 'meat' the rest say 'food'..

In addition the definition of 'meat' has been colloquiolized to mean 'animal flesh' in modern times where historically it has meant the inner fleshy part of any food... hence the phase "the meat of the problem" used as metaphor... or talking about the meat of a peach or apple or any other fruit or vegetable.

Yes 'weed' by which I assume you mean Cannabis is a food, it's seeds are very nutritious and full of protein, especially for birds... smoking it or eating it as a drug, no problem, do it responsibly and there's no problem with God.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 11:01 · Score: 1

Atheists which specifically promote anti-religious traditions are such a group and one which actively promotes universe as accident. They don't believe in spirit or higher consciousness or afterlife or collective unconscious or anything else greater than ourselves and the chaos of entropy with out direction.

Not all scientists are atheists and not all Christians are creationists.. we can leave it at that.

Science is getting closer and closer to understanding the genetic, environmental - biological and chemical constituents which influence your morals... you might want to take a closer look at that.

Morals aren't just a choice... they are the result of useful adaptations our species has adopted through evolution whether on an individual or societal level. Certain situations cause stress and release chemical signals from various organs that stimulate mental and physiological responses in our brain, body and mind... these are the raw materials for "morals" as well as "taboos" and other vague feelings toward behavioral self-direction. Society has codified these feelings through language so that we can all agree on what stresses justify what reactions and comparisons of behavior can be made and judgements taken regarding what resulting behaviors are allowed within our society and which are not allowed.

Science is in the process of re-writing those codifications based on direct observation of biology and chemistry rather than indirect observation of behavior itself... science may soon justify your morals after all.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2004-11-01 11:02 · Score: 1

Incorrect. Human nature thirsts for knowledge and understanding of our world. Scientific research has led us to evolutionism. Science is not biased. You come in neutral and let the evidence guide you.

Religion, on the other hand, says you must believe in something blindly, and no matter what evidence is shown to you to contradict it, it is always false.

Science is about learning. Religion is about recruiting and brainwashing.

--

eTrade SUCKS
Re:Both sides have it wrong by radish · 2004-11-01 11:13 · Score: 1

Evolution != Chance.

We came to be because we are the best (yet) tested design to solve the specific problems of living on this planet. What we do in this world matters hugely, because our children will inherit what we leave behind, and they must live their lives in it.

Evolution is slow, and we have the ability to screw up the environment far faster than we can evolve to adjust.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Both sides have it wrong by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 13:55 · Score: 1

Evolution is as much chance as anything else, in the short term. You might be better suited to survive but you happen to be unlucky enough to be eaten by something that generally makes short work of your kind before you can contribute your genes back to the species. Hell, you might be born with a trait that makes it impossible for you to carry out the unnecessary mating ritual of your species, which would ultimately benefit it, and prevent your genes from being passed down.

The only sense in which evolution could is not chance is that if every action is predictable at some scale, then there is no free will (as we are all then based on predictable processes, especially since thought can be perceived and thus obeys physical laws) and the universe is just a big clock running out. Of course, even without that it might not be safe to say that there is free will, which I find to be a depressing subject so I will stop talking about it. But you have to believe that chance exists or resign yourself to having your decisions made for you, which I think limits your ability to think for yourself.

Maybe. :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Both sides have it wrong by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 16:07 · Score: 1

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.
Why not?
I mean, humans are just another part of nature, right? For surely you accept that there is nothing BUT nature, no? What sense in there in protecting one arbitrary part of nature from some other arbitrary part? What is the sense in saying that a world in which humans exploit nature is better than one in which they don't?
For someone trying to come across as un-religious, you certainly betray a lot of religious fervor.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 16:13 · Score: 1

Oh so somehow evolution is just for the benefit of us homo sapiens? Countless species have become extinct for various reasons.. mostly the inability to adapt... sometimes because they used up all the available resources. Why are we some damn special in the grand scheme of things?

That is the big question after all isn't it? Are we special or just another product of a slow methodical evolution begun millions of years ago without purpose or design.

If you believe there is a purpose or design then you must also believe in a higher order, a mystery of the divine, a story of creation... what that was/is/will be, we can only guess at... or make into religion.

otherwise you believe in chance or better yet you give in to a dumb reality of chance where things just happen for no apparent reason but since we're here and we are self-aware, why not make the most of it and live it up to the fullest... and let chance and evolution sort it out in the end.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2004-11-01 16:14 · Score: 1

They do not misunderstand it: they define it.

It is not religion if you're trying to prove it. It is science. Frankly, proving the existence of Someone who asks you to have faith in Him seems contradictory, since you're not doing as He asked (you're proving instead of believing); besides, He probably wouldn't ask for faith if His existence were provable.

there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong.

A prime example of "begging the question" if I ever saw one. How about you show that we are wrong before you say we are as a defense? There is no way you can say we are wrong, just as there is no way we can say you are wrong. We can validly say we believe your understanding is narrowminded or incorrect, and you can validly say you believe ours is simpleminded or inappropriate. I doubt there's a way for you to put in absolute fact there.

I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set

Perfectly fine. Neither do I. Don't vote for rabid Bible-thumpers then. Even I realize that the government leaders have to act as agents of the state, not agents of their religion, no matter how much I may agree with their religion. And I believe that a lot of them realize that, too. To do otherwise is as wrong as using the office for personal gain.

nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming

I'm going to assume you mean Christianity here. This is not a Christian belief. Heard the parable of the talents? Use what is given you; don't use it up. I see no reference to "exploiting" nature in the Bible. Besides, your assertion of the "imminent" second coming is fallacious. The Bible's description states that the date of the coming is unknown; there's no way we can time ourselves to "use up" the Earth by then. Besides, can you not agree that there is moral benefit in always thinking that someone with authority might come along and ask for an accounting of your actions? This is more or less what the threat of impeachment does for political offices.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by radish · 2004-11-01 16:28 · Score: 1

You didn't read what I said. We're not so damn special, we're just one of a million species on the planet who seem to be getting along OK. We're actually doing better than most - we've figured out a bunch of stuff that other species haven't. So we're the best design _so_far_. Who knows what might be around in a thousand (million?) years time? Maybe dolphins will evolve to be better than us, and fix all our mistakes. Maybe something new will come along. I don't know. But I do know (or rather, believe) that we haven't been put here by any higher force, and we aren't in anyway ordained. We're just a type of animal, like a dog or a snake.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Both sides have it wrong by radish · 2004-11-01 16:33 · Score: 1

Well sure there's chance involved in the process of evolution, but it's much more than that, hence my statement. I mean chance creates the mutations, but statistics selects which one survives (over all). A lot of what I'm reading (not specifically from you) seems to be based on the premise that Humans are perfect and amazing, and thus can't have evolved by accident. I disagree. We're far from perfect, and I while our bodies are pretty great, other animals are as good if not better, in some ways. We, usefully, are a good all round design. We have no major flaws, and our brain is smart enough to allow us to work around whatever defecits we find. We're still evolving - if we're still around in a millenia or two, hopefully some of our weaknesses will be fixed.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 17:34 · Score: 1

I did read what you said... and now you've clarified your position.

Have you ever considered that becoming aware of a higher conciousness IS one of those things we figured out better than other species? It has been a part of human culture for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years... planning for the afterlife, worhip of nature spirits (nature as intelligent entity other than ourselves), gods, goddesses, deities, idols, etc.

This is not a small localized phenomenon.. it is world wide through multiple independent cultures with many beginnings many evolutions in theory, in practice, philosophy and understanding. Guess we were just mistaken though cause after a little over 500 years of science we've got it all figured out now.

Evolution is an even younger theory of how the world as we know it came to be. Don't misunderstand me, it is a very good and very well-documented theory that is an awesome tool in furthering discovery not unlike taxonomy, physics, economics and the other academic disciplines which have all come about as a result of the scientific method in application to a more complete understanding of natural and artificial forces.

IF there is no design then it's still all chance though... yep, a good ol' self-perpetuating logic loop. Until you can explain what was here before the 'big-bang' or great expansion or whatever description you want to give the beginning of the universe as we know it, then it's all just chance that weak forces act the way they do and strong forces act the way they do and hydrogen bonds are both weak and strong and waves of energy propagate at a predetermined speed and amplitude and frequency determined by the original amount of matter in the universe and the fucking relationships that were established in that first instant of being and how they interacted over time as expansion occured and eventually came to be in the relative locations at the relative speeds with the relative amounts of potential energy turning into relative amounts of kinetic energy dissapating at relatively useful speeds of entropy, ad infinitum and somewhere in that soup of relativism based on some initial strange attractor of mass and energy and velocity and momentum, we came to be and came to see all those interactions and observe them and understand them and appreciate them for their infinite levels of beauty....

never mind, I should just eat and shit and reproduce like some dog or snake and maybe not eat and shit too much or there won't be any left for my kids... never mind looking for any reason why or how or what's next... never mind cause the dolphins will fix it all millions of years from now and maybe they'll have a better idea of what to do with their new consciousness...

If not for a belief in a higher power, no one would ever have gotten past hunting and gathering, though they would have an insanely scientific understanding of how every little molecule of their tiny little world worked.

--rant that might not fully apply to you---

I detest you small minded self-centered can't think beyond your own generation so called activists who in reality are more concerned about your own well-being than anything else... you're scared, just admit it. The world moves too fast, there's too much change and you can't handle it. Global economy got you flustered? Multi-national organizations make you feel small and powerless?

Want to know why? It's because you have no concept of anything bigger than yourselves. Every life counts, peace not war, save the forest...

-but lets go ahead and kill millions of potential lives, abort them cause no one wants them, it's not really a life...

-no more wars cause we already fought ours and got what we wanted so nobody else gets to...

-3rd world nations can't deforest their own land or strip mine their natural resources cause we did it to our land and look how far it got us...

it goes on and on.. the only apparent explanation is that people who are comfortable in their liv

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 18:26 · Score: 1

BTW, when you say "best design" what are you trying to say, cause it's not 'design' if there's no thought or purpose behind it. When people talk about natural designs or design in nature they are humanizing and anthropomorphizing nature itself. Nature doesn't design. people design. You very language implies that you do believe in a higher power... what gives?

Nature is the way it is because of interactions and forces, no thought no purpose... clouds don't choose the form they take, trees don't choose their shape, rocks don't choose to break down into sand or gravel... they interact with and are acted upon by each other and cosmic forces such as radiation from the sun over time.. entropy, not design. Unless you believe in a higher power that is.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by RageEX · 2004-11-01 18:36 · Score: 1

>The evolutionists are wrong because there is no

They're called scientists, not 'evolutionists'.

>reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong.

Most scientists would agree that talking to creationists is a waste of time. However if these jokers are sucessfull in getting their ideas taught in public schools and messing with the perceptions of the general population/those in government/so on, then scientific funding and research could be in danger. So some scientists think that this trend needs to be countered so as to preserve funding and an intelligent pool of young people to carry on the science.

>Doing all of this work just to show that
>somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life
>seems a bit strange.

This work wasn't done to shut up creationists ... nothing can really do that. This work is called science, and it's what scientists do for a living. I'm sure in the future more work will be done that will disprove some classic creationist arguments, though I doubt the researches doing the work will take much notice.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 19:55 · Score: 1

I won't assume you're talking about me... ;-p but maybe just a little....

I think you're letting your prejudices regarding religion and specifically, Christianity get in the way of what you are reading.

Humans are amazing, and you can be a statistic if you'd like but I'd prefer to believe that we're a little more interesting than that.

The evolution of self-awareness which can not as yet be explained, we're working on it, is the single most amazing thing in the history of the universe as we have observed/recorded it, excepting only the evolution of life itself from inanimate chemicals to biological processes and the big bang or creation of the universe.

Again, I've mentioned in other posts.. your language is that of a creator, "no major flaws", "far from perfect", "good all round design".

Is this simply a lack of expressive capability on your part or do you think of the world in terms of it having been designed and put through quality control?

You really need to come up with some new terminology to explain your understanding of how the world works if you don't believe in a higher power... cause the terms you are using refer to purposeful decision making, outside of the forces of nature extra-natural or super-natural forces making 'design decisions' about how life has or will evolve, how we have and will evolve.

You talk about statistics selecting something... while artificial constructs used to make observations about natural processes are not cognizant and do not 'select' anything. I'm guessing that the words 'natural selection' are confusing you.

Additionally I have to point out that chance and statistics are one and the same. We say "1 chance in a million" or "not a chance" when we refer to the statistical likelihood of an event happening given the circumstances. So your statement "chance creates mutations, but statistics selects which one survives (over all)" could be re-written accurately as "statistics creates mutations, but chance selects which one survives (over all)" or either of the other permutations.

Just to be fair... nothing personal here, just providing a counterpoint that a belief in a higher power can incorporate science, evolution, stem cell research or any other hot button topic you want to throw in the ring... and it can do it without falling back on some magic moment of divinity.. and it can be intelligent and well thought out and based in logic and reason. What it can not incorporate is a blind acceptance that there is not a greater purpose to our existence.

How can someone who seeks truth simply accept that there is nothing more than what you can see ot touch or hear... do you refute quantum physics or the existence of gravity? We can not directly observe either phenomenon and only know them from their effects on a grand scale... do you deny them?

Can you say that God has any less evidence for existence? We also can not observe Him directly and we only know of Him from His effects on a grand scale... does it make Him any less real than a quark or a gluon? Talk about faith... how many people have ever even observed a gluon indirectly... how about dark matter which we know only from mathematical models that say it 'should' be there? There's a lot more evidence for God than there is for dark matter, yet in the scientific community the existence of dark matter is taken as a fact, because it 'should be there'.

We're still evolving - if we're still around in a millenia or two, hopefully we won't lose all of our useful adaptations.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Both sides have it wrong by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 23:16 · Score: 1

BTW I love Futurama...

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

Thank $deity_of_{your|choice} by ZB+Mowrey · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 1

This is the perfect time for me to post this link.

--

Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

Let's consult THE book... by NotQuiteReal · 2004-11-01 04:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

...the dictionary, that is.

faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

unreasonable: Not governed by reason.

Oddly, they don't show up as synonyms of each other. Why is that?

Definitions shamelessly cut-n-paste from dictionary.com

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Re:Let's consult THE book... by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 05:43 · Score: 1

Because if they started including as synonyms of 'faith' the words 'unthinking', 'irrational', 'unreasonable', 'illogical', 'foolish', and 'a childish mentality', they'd get sued by churches for hitting too close to the mark.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Let's consult THE book... by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-11-01 11:51 · Score: 1

faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

unreasonable: Not governed by reason.

And logical proof is a type of reasoning. It seems as though you've proven to me that faith is unreasonable.

Face It by dabadab · 2004-11-01 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative

How got this rated "Insightful"?

The idea of the evolution is of a scientific one. It is continously checked against new findings, modified, refined and is open to scientific rebate.
Creationism is something that some people dreamt up and is pretty much based on only two thing: "because the Bible says so" and "it is highly unlikely" (well, try telling a lottery winner, that because it was utterly unlikely to win, he, in fact, did not win), and it is unlikely, because they think it is).
Yeah, no difference, right?

--
Real life is overrated.

Proof of scientific hypotheses by Epeeist · 2004-11-01 04:47 · Score: 1

> However, history has proven that the science of today will always be replaced and corrected by the science of tomorrow.. That is, whatever has been "proven" by now will be replaced with something better in a year, or a couple hundred years.

There is no such thing as a proof of a scientific hypothesis. The best you can do is to get a high degree of corroboration between you theory and the data you measure.

All scientific hypotheses are tentative and open to disproof. This is what makes the difference between science and non-science.

The inefficient human eye by vivin · 2004-11-01 04:47 · Score: 1

One good argument against creationists regarding the "amazing eye" and how it is an example of "God's work" is this:

The human eye (for example) is not efficient. It is badly wired. There is a blindspot where the optic nerves exit the eye. The photoreceptors are upside down and the neurons and the blood vessels are in front of them. causing deficiencies in vision for humans. Is this an example of the creator's "crowning creation"?

On the other hand, the squid's eye doesn't have any of these problems. Looks like the "crowning creation" got a bum deal.

--
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net

I like

Re:The inefficient human eye by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 05:19 · Score: 1

Most creationist believe that humans where created perfect and become less perfect over time. That we have become more prone to sickness and disease since the time of creation. This would be the tangible affect of introducing sin into humanity in the Garden of Eden, the price for sin is death. In essence this could be thought of as a kind of devolution.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Re:The inefficient human eye by hb253 · 2004-11-01 05:57 · Score: 1

I guess that explains why average lifespans have increased, many formerly deadly diseases have been controlled or eliminated, and humans have reproduced like rabbits and covered the entire earth and now modify its ecology.

--
Self awareness - try it!
Re:The inefficient human eye by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 08:08 · Score: 1

The rise of medical technology does not indicate evolution. And from a biblical point of view lifespan are now much shorter than they where originally.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Meostro · 2004-11-01 04:48 · Score: 1

...and appears (to my non-biologist's eyes, at least) to be good work...

You forgot the [pun] [/pun] tags on that one

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Ithika · 2004-11-01 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dprust · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Pointless to Discuss by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Either you believe in supernatural phenomena or you don't. If you do believe, then all bets are off. There's no reason to discuss evidence or logic of any kind, as the guy upstairs could change the gamerules on you at any time.

For example, as a fun trick he might instantly create the world with trillions of fossils and fill outer space with countless photons all hinting that the universe is old and higher life evolved from lower life, then reserve the actual truth to a 20th-generation copy of one particular enigmatic book out of a selection of dozens of similar but false enigmatic books. If that's the case, then reality is so bizarre that there's no use arguing; clearly the world would be a minefield of false evidence and logical traps.

When did beer-goggles invented? by NotQuiteReal · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Have you seen the way some of those proto-humans looked?

Their eyesight must have been bad!

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Re:When did beer-goggles invented? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

Have you seen the way some of those proto-humans looked?
Their eyesight must have been bad!
Not at all. Their sense of taste simply hadn't evolved yet.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:When did beer-goggles invented? by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1

No, no, they must have had GREAT eyesight since they probably smelled very poorly indeed. Bathing hadn't been invented yet. Phew! :)

--
Dyolf Knip

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Dixie_Flatline · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Y'see, and the watch on the beach argument is something that I find really sad. I'd LOVE to think that it just appeared on the beach, or was somehow the product of a weird series of natural events. Creationism is so dull. The thought that there's someone pulling strings and making things is much less interesting to me than everything happening 'naturally'. Where's the wonder? Where's the discovery?

(I also believe in evolution and a natural universe because it makes more sense scientifically, and I think that all the arguments that Creationists have are bunk. But that's just me.)

Religion and Science by dpilot · 2004-11-01 04:49 · Score: 1

Some time read "Calculating God" by Robert J Sawyer. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081 2580354/103-2322954-5444657?v=glance) There's a lot of interesting philosophy in the book, though it is a bit high-school level.

But there's a fascinating approach in the book, in that pursuit of science has led the aliens to belief in god as a matter of fact, not just faith. Of course that doesn't necessarily square well with the concept of religion, however. I guess I must agree with you, that religion, as usually implemented by people, just doesn't square well with science. Ironically, one of the times religion and science were in best harmony was during the early Islamic days, when science was considered a good way to learn about God's Creation.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:Face It by ThePDW · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 1

Is evolution really a fact? Has it been observed in the amazing way that evolutionists describe it to have happened? (Yes of course there are mutations and adaptations.) Why should they feel affronted, regardless of whether Creationists are right or wrong? If Creationists are just a bunch of blind religious zealots, why not ignore them?

So what... by cmpalmer · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:So what... by mhale2243 · 2004-11-01 07:02 · Score: 1

That's funny. I have the depressing thought that nothing researchers can do will change evolutionist thinking. All the facts that we both have that clearly point to the truth of the Bible including a young earth and worldwide flood are forcefitted into the evolutionary model. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/foss ils.asp for starters.
Re:So what... by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2004-11-01 10:59 · Score: 1

Unfortunately you are wrong. Religion revolves around the concept of "faith". Faith is the antithesis of logic and learning. Once you accept it, no matter what evidence is put forward to you, you must still hold steadfast to that faith. It is blind and it is unyielding.

So, you can prove the entire universe to them and they still wouldn't believe you.

--

eTrade SUCKS

Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants by arose · 2004-11-01 04:50 · Score: 1

Why in the world should we tolerate ingorance?

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

It wasn't proven by millahtime · 2004-11-01 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, I know I will get bashed for this but it still wasn't proven

They showed that through modern methods they believe this is what happened. A hypothesis. They have not seen it actually occur or any stages of it occuring. It is one thing to put a hypothesis together but another to see it in action.

I would be interested to see if there are different stages of this hypothesis occuring anywhere.

--
Evolution or ID?

Re:It wasn't proven by dprust · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Great point! Much of our science is based on these hypotheses being taken for fact, particularly in the field of theoretical physics. Humans need to know, even when they don't!
Re:It wasn't proven by grannyknot · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 3, Informative

A hypothesis. They have not seen it actually occur or any stages of it occuring.

It's not so much a hypothesis as it is supporting evidence for evolution. Evolution makes the hypothesis that a complex structure like the eye can't come from nowhere, and since there are a bunch of animals with eyes out there, that there's probably a common ancestry.

What the researchers have found is that an organism that essentially stopped evolving a long time ago has photosensitive areas (read: extremely primitive eyes) that use extremely similar molecules as our eyes. This doesn't lead to any new hypothesis, but it does support the hypothesis that eyes evolved.

It's very similar to looking at the similar genetics and body chemistry of apes. Any animal that is 1% different from us is probably very closely related.

Finally, science never 'proves' anything. There's lots of supporting evidence for things like relativity, evolution, quantum physics, etc., but they've never been (and can never be) proven to be true. They work very well right now, but there may be a theory or method that comes along to usurp them (much like relativity usurped Newtonian physics in describing motion).
Re:It wasn't proven by Smidge204 · 2004-11-01 05:21 · Score: 1

The problem with this (rather empty) argument is that you are banking on someone's "lack of evidence" as proof that they are wrong. That doesn't work.

It also appears to assume that since A (Platynereis dumerilii with very primitive "eye") exists now, and Z (Humans with very advanced "eye") exists now, then somewhere B through Y (various intermediate steps) must also exist now. Clearly that is not solid logic.

So, just because there aren't dumerilii swimming about with human eyes dangling off of them is hardly damaging to their claim. What did happen though, is that a theory was proposed (evolution) which accurately predicted the results of a test. That is what science is about, and that is how theories are given credibility or discarded.
=Smidge=
Re:It wasn't proven by AdrainB · 2004-11-01 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Religion can't be proved and it's taken as fact by many people.
Re:It wasn't proven by Gi77+B4t35 · 2004-11-01 05:39 · Score: 1

Religion can't be proved and it's taken as fact by many people.
maybe because it can't be disproved either?
Re:It wasn't proven by AdrainB · 2004-11-01 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a sucker's argument. You can't prove a negative. I can say that there are such things as purple unicorns. You can say prove it. I say just because no one has ever seen one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Until you search every inch of the earth you can't say with 100% certainty that they don't exist. Several parts of the bible have been shown to be inaccurate but people still take is as 100% true.
Re:It wasn't proven by Catbeller · 2004-11-01 07:26 · Score: 1

is based on these hypotheses being taken for fact

Um, here we go:

We have a semantic problem here. Unless you know what the words "hypothesis" and "theory" means to a scientist, you can bandy this "argument" around all day and impress your friends.

To an average person, not a scientist, the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are interchangeable. They both mean "a notion", "a guess", "a unproven idea", "not a proven fact".

To a scientist, or even a person who paid attention in grade school during those boring science classes, the words mean:

hypothesis: a working explanation that covers the known facts. For example, if you discovered that the outer planets did not follow the orbits that current science says they should, you would offer up a hypothesis that another planet or planets unknown existed in other orbits even further away from the sun. Such a hypothesis predicted Pluto.

theory: a hypothesis that has been tested by fire. a theory is not a guess. Even if Pluto had not been found by Tombaugh(i think it was), the math backing up the hypothesis would have elevated the hypothesis to the level of theory. Even if Pluto was not yet found, in the absence of any other reasonable hypothesis the theory of its existence would be accepted.

the existence of elections is a theory. atoms. stars == suns is actually a theory -- have you ever been to one? maybe it IS a light held by an angel. but current theory says not.

you're free to prove the angel hypothesis. it's as valid a notion as a creator. but it's your job to prove it more valid that the star==sun theory. it's not science's job to disprove religious dogma.
Re:It wasn't proven by Catbeller · 2004-11-01 07:42 · Score: 1

"the existence of elections is a theory."

Sigh. Must be on my mind, for some reason.

ELECTRONS. Sorry.
Re:It wasn't proven by dprust · 2004-11-01 08:20 · Score: 1

It is impossible to prove that anything exists at all. It's useless to even try. Also, the Bible is collection of books that illustrate how to live a good life, it isn't meant to be a physics textbook.
Re:It wasn't proven by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 11:18 · Score: 1

If it can't get the verifiable things right, why should I take its advice on the unvarifiable?

Why this is good for Christians by QuantumFTL · 2004-11-01 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Why this is good for Christians by lmenke · 2004-11-01 06:09 · Score: 1

An excellent argument. I think that creationist do enormous damage to Christianity in that they give the anti-religious left ammunition to portray Christians as below average in intelligence, fanatical in behavior, primitive in thinking, and irrelevant in general. This approach allows the anti-religious left to avoid the central ideas of Christianity and its defining roll in Western civilization. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Re:Why this is good for Christians by eaolson · 2004-11-01 06:38 · Score: 1

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

Unfortunately, there exists a significant fraction of the population that disagrees with you, and believes [1] that everything in the Bible is absolutely, literally true.
Sixty percent of Americans believe that God created the world in six days, that Moses parted the Red Sea, and the Noah's Flood actually occured.
It's cognitive dissonance. No matter how much evidence you can accumulate, hard-line Creationists will still claim that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that God created man exactly as he is today. They are not willing to entertain any idea that will contradict their beliefs.
[1] A friend of mine often says that people like to say they take the Bible literally, but no one really does. To say that you believe the Bible is the unquestionable Word of God, to be interpreted word-for-word literally makes one sound much more devout than those silly liberal Christians that think parts of it are metaphor and allegory.
Re:Why this is good for Christians by p2sam · 2004-11-01 06:39 · Score: 1

There are folks in the world who pick and choose what they want to believe in religious text like the Bible and the Quran. They are fundamentalists.
Re:Why this is good for Christians by mhale2243 · 2004-11-01 06:57 · Score: 1

I strongly disagree. There is no way that the Bible is compatible with the teachings of evolution. Evolution requres millions/billions/trillions of years of death and suffering to whereas the Bible clearly states that death is a result of sin see Romans 5:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+5:12&tra nslation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) . How can you have eons of death and suffering that God decrees "good" before Adam sinned? Sin is not good. Sin is evil. You can't accept the Bible and evolution. Science is not incompatible with the Bible see (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), but godless junk science is incompatible with the Bible.
Re:Why this is good for Christians by MourningBlade · 2004-11-01 08:39 · Score: 1

Nice post, Justin.
I think of it more this way: a scientific explanation of evolution adds nothing to their lives, whereas the story of god creating all things as they are adds quite a bit to their lives.
On the one hand is dry fact, on the other is a first-to-last long-before-me-and-on-after-me element to their lives.
It's hardly a surprise that they'd take the latter.
Science alienates many because it focuses on what is (or *probably is*) and what we can know, rather than what things mean to us. Every time you see a new breakthrough in science, you'll always see what it *means* in mainstream papers.
When you discuss evolution with some people, they'll argue with you that you're saying a horrible thing: that their uncle is a monkey. Because that's what it means to them if you're right.
On another point: I believe religion is 10% philosophy and 90% culture. By this I mean that a very small minority thinks about their beliefs and actively chooses them because they believe them to be right. The rest accept the beliefs and primarily participate in the culture of the religion. There's nothing wrong with this - how they live their life is how they view their religion. Sounds good to me.
This "cultural participation" leads to some of the effects that we see: people trying to shape the rest of their lives in accordance with their religion (government, casual activities, etc), incorporation of statements such as "good Christian men" into the vernacular, and a further separation from peoples of other religions - other cultures.
I think these two observations explain quite a bit of what we see, and I live in the heart of Creationist Country.
Last thought: I think that a lot of the furor over "evolution in schools" could be solved by appealing to the people's desire for their children to be educated: the school's function is to teach current science and its foundations so that kids can understand what is going on in the scientific world. It is the parents' responsibility to teach about God.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

No such thing as "macro" vs. "micro" by vivin · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1

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. Think about it. What exactly is "macro" or "micro" evolution? Evolution doesn't occur through huge leaps and bounds; it happens through subtle changes. The reason we see huge changes is because there is a limit to the resolution we can get on fossil records. The subtle changes over a long period of time, do add up to a substantial change. This is what is misconstrued as "macro" evolution. To have macro, you need micro. You can't have one without the other.

--
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net

I like

Re:No such thing as "macro" vs. "micro" by bmj · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 1

True enough. But one of the critiques of the intelligent design camp is that macro-evolutionist can't successfully define those huge gaps -- "monsters" as they're know in evolutionary parlance.

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:No such thing as "macro" vs. "micro" by vivin · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1

Just the fact that different fossils exist and show clear progression from one for to the other, is enough to refute any sort of "intelligent design". So what if there is a gap? It doesn't mean that one form suddenly jumped from the other. If you date the layers you will see that there is a large time gap between those fossil layers too. Does that mean nothing existed during that gap? Or that there was only one form of that species that suddenly changed one fine day into a new one? Of course not.

--
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net

I like

Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants by Sj0 · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1

AH KILL YOU!

MY PARENTS GROUNDED ME SO I HATE THOSE OPPRESSIVE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BASTARDS! WE SHOULD KILL THEM ALL THEN BURN THEM AFTER STAKING THEM TO UPSIDE DOWN CROSSES!

Or not. Whatever's good for you. Personally, I think creationism is just vanity, and it's reality or falsity does nothing towards proving or disproving the existance of a god whose plans probably include self-modification of the species through natural selection. Humans would like to think they understand Gods plan(if there is a god), and the best way to do that is to argue against the obvious facts of nature and promote a narrow-minded worldview, even if it goes against most of what we know and have witnessed, just because we don't know everything there is to know about evolution.

Seriously, debating against evolution is like debating against the water table. Suprise suprise, God doesn't just spontaneously create rain when peoples crops are thirsty! Suprise suprise, life really does evolve and grow, and we're not trapped into the same original design for all time!

For the record, I'm an atheist, but that's no reason for me to attack religion, and in this case, I'm simply not a believer -- When I attack people like creationists though, I'm attacking vain humans who believe that they know the world of nature better than real scientists, and that they understand how god works, when "He works in mysterious ways", so Gods laws are automatically as they envision them. Creationism is stupid and small minded, just like atheists who attack religion when religious folks don't do anything to them(aside from partake in the odd forum debate -- whoopie) are stupid and small minded. The only difference is that one believes that their beliefs must be 100% correct without any evidence, and the others think that the gaps in evolutionary theory are enough to justify a radically different theory of creation.

--
It's been a long time.

Re:Face It by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:52 · Score: 1, Funny

yeah too right!

I mean, there's no reason at all to believe mountains of scientific evidence any more than to believe a book written by a bunch of wackos a couple of thousand years ago. the choice between the two is an entirely arbitrary act of faith.

Great... by Keebler71 · 2004-11-01 04:53 · Score: 1, Funny

Great...next someone will "prove" the Earth is more than 5,000 years old.... lunatics...

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell

Evolution and Intelligent Design by einhverfr · 2004-11-01 04:53 · Score: 1

IMO, part of the problem is that popular ideas about evolution are decidedly modernist and posit some sort of continuous progress-- i.e. a gradual and somewhat constant rise out of the primordial slime so to speak. In reality, evolution is a punctuated equalibrium-- long periods of little change are punctuated with short periods of great change due to changing conditions etc. One could argue (though I don't) that these changes are part of the intelligent design process.

Well you have two options, which are relatively identical-- both come down to "form follows function":

1) Because evolution is the process of successive adaption to an environment, it will over time produce optimal results for a given niche. As opportunities present themselves in neighboring niches, maybe we will see differentiation of species, etc.

2) The eminationist look of the Renaissance Neoplatonists is worth looking at too. If we are looking at two processes: adaption to challenge and adaption to oportunity, then we could see the argument that beings take on a form which is dependent on their function. Of course it si more complex than that, but it is an argument that can be made.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Frequently Encountered Criticisms by vivin · 2004-11-01 04:54 · Score: 5, Informative

I recommend this site: http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ It has a bunch of commonly used creationist arguments and rebuttals to them.

--
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net

I like

Re:Frequently Encountered Criticisms by balster+neb · 2004-11-01 07:39 · Score: 2, Informative

You shouldn't miss good old http://www.talkorigins.org/. Great site on the whole issue. Basically a bunch of comprehensive rebuttals to all the standard creationist arguments.
Re:Frequently Encountered Criticisms by Confessed+Geek · 2004-11-01 10:24 · Score: 1

My argument goes like this ;)

Humans are subpar outside of a very few capacities. The eco-systems are very fragile and easily broken.

There is lots of unnecesary pain, suffering, and general badness.

If this was done by desing then the designer is an asshole or insane (malovent deity and gnostic theorys)

If there was a guiding will behind it and it STILL turned out this way then the designer is a journeyman at best, or an incompetent at worst. Either way not worth worshiping.

Personally I lean towards paranoid polytheism. On odd tuesdays I believe that every divinity ever imagined or "revealed" to man is real and exists, but they designed the world by commitee, each behaving exactly as they are described in their holy texts -like greedy, arrogant, bratty, spoiled children. It explains alot.
Re:Frequently Encountered Criticisms by lxw56 · 2004-11-01 14:08 · Score: 1

Vuletic makes some good arguments, and rebuts a lot of faulty creationist arguments. However, I don't think he disproves creationism. Here are my responses to the some of his arguments: Various biological structures (the human eye) is flawed. The human eye, and flightless birds, function well. There are various imperfections in structures do to post-creation changes (evolution). For example, some flightless birds have hollow bones because they used to be able to fly, but lost that ability (became too heavy). There are transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. Assuming a single designer, it isn't suprising to find forms that have aspects of two groups of animals. There isn't any smooth transition between reptiles and birds. My argument is weak, but Vuletic says there are multiple paths between reptiles and birds, which seems equally weak. From an article that he links to: Which exposes a general problem with "irreducible complexity" -- it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex". Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental. But that problem is inherent to evolution: you start with nothing or next to nothing in evolution. There will be a lot of points where you can't get from A to B just by piece-by-piece change. This being said, I'm still keeping an open mind, and continuing to look at the issue. I give preference to the Bible, because that has other bodies of evidence supporting it. Disclaimer: IANAB (biologist)
Re:Frequently Encountered Criticisms by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-01 15:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Here's the theory for you!

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Re:Frequently Encountered Criticisms by Confessed+Geek · 2004-11-02 01:28 · Score: 1

Thank you! Quite amusing. I guess I'm not as original as I thought I was ;)
Re:Frequently Encountered Criticisms by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-02 12:08 · Score: 1

Perhaps not, but you are still right!

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

Why I like the buddhist approach.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 1, Redundant

If you're in a burning house you don't really wonder "Gee I wonder who the architect is?", "I wonder how much he got paid?", you just might want to get out and not really worry about it.

Even if you could answer the question regarding an intelligent creator (WHICH you can't), it's pointless.

Re:Face It by centauri · 2004-11-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you mean they hold to it doggedly and often take the words of books and authority instead of working it out for themselves, I'd say you're right. A lot of people take a lot of science on faith. However, they don't have to. If they disagree with anything scientific they hear or read, they can go and test it themselves until they're satisfied one way or the other. They don't even need expensive equipment for a lot of the work.

With evolution, it's not always easy to go out and dig up some bones, but anyone who's curious enough can learn about genetics and heredity, and test the principles of biology and zoology on which evolution rests.

Creationists and other people of faith have no choice but to take the word of some book or some person (who's taking someone else's word) that the tenents of a particulat faith are true. If they disagree with something, they have no recourse except to go to (or start) another religion or to give up religion altogehter.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.

"creationist thinking" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 04:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

now there's a contradiction in terms. Faith hinges on what can't be proven, so creationists will never be swayed by factual evidence.

"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."
- Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Contact

There is a major difference by DG · 2004-11-01 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:There is a major difference by Rostin · 2004-11-01 07:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think you are unfortunately correct about the thinking of some people, particularly most modern skeptics (like you, it appears) and "fundamentalists."

The more traditional (and superior, imo) view acknowledges God as the creator of the universe as well as the author of the scriptures. The scriptures are the ultimate authority, but they don't speak exhaustively, and our understanding of what they say isn't perfect. Christians should listen to scientists (who "read" God's "other book") when considering topics about which scientists may legitimately speak.

P.S. You probably mean "theist," not "deist."
Re:There is a major difference by FlopEJoe · 2004-11-01 07:24 · Score: 1

eh... can't we just get them to agree by saying, "shit happens"?
Re:There is a major difference by alexo · 2004-11-01 08:26 · Score: 1

> The more traditional (and superior, imo) view acknowledges God as the
> creator of the universe as well as the author of the scriptures. The
> scriptures are the ultimate authority, but they don't speak exhaustively, and
> our understanding of what they say isn't perfect.

Um, exactly which god and scriptures?
Re:There is a major difference by LMariachi · 2004-11-01 08:40 · Score: 1

You are badly misusing the term "Deist." It's pretty much the opposite of what you think it is. Deism is one of the most science-compatible religions out there, insofar as it could even be called a religion.

Before people lumping all creationists together... by Belisarivs · 2004-11-01 04:57 · Score: 2, Informative

While they can be roughly broken down between old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists, the talk.origins FAQ contains a more verbose breakdown of the community.

Poor Flipper by Disposable+Rob · 2004-11-01 04:59 · Score: 1

So dolphins shouldn't exist?

Re:Poor Flipper by AdrainB · 2004-11-01 05:34 · Score: 1

Dolphins and seals were land animals before they evolved into sea mammals.
Re:Poor Flipper by RevAaron · 2004-11-01 09:06 · Score: 1

Dolphins and seals were land animals before they evolved into sea mammals.

Umm... Not quite. There were ancestors of dolphins, seals and other water mammals which were land mammals before going back to the sea- but dolphins and seals themselves weren't land mammals that just changed their minds and went off into the ocean. It may seem like a small point, but it is a very common misunderstanding, especially by creationists and general layfolks. Just like chimpanzees or gorillas didn't "evolve into humans," rather, some common ancestor evolved into both chimps and humans. Likewise, dolphins never just hopped back into the ocean- dolphins were always ocean animals. But some prior species, some ancestor, lived on land... Then in mud puddles, then in the shallows and then full ocean dwellers. Many different species in that line.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by TheWanderingHermit · 2004-11-01 04:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course, this could be true. It could also be true that the universe was created last Thursday

Oh, great! It had to be a Thursday! I never could quite get the hang of Thursdays.

Mod parent up! by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:00 · Score: 1

Poor Slashdot moderation strikes again. The parent post is much better than the grandparent, yet its score is smaller.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."

Re:Mod parent up! by MarkCollette · 2004-11-01 06:11 · Score: 1

Let's say I come up with a theory, which is correct, but seems to go against common sense. Then you should not believe me, until my theory can be proven.

It would be unscientific to wish for the shortcut of accepting any new idea without evidence.

Re:Face It by grannyknot · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

the choice between the two is an entirely arbitrary act of faith.

That's not entirely true. There is a great deal of evidence supporting science. For example, no matter what you happen to believe, the speed of light is a measured constant - even if the bible were to say otherwise.

The biggest difference between science and religion is that science is designed to be disproven while religion forces you to make the a priori assumption that everything it says is true.

Well here it goes..... by megarich · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

Naturally this article was put on here to cause a big debate....

Anyhow I am a believer of Christ as my Savior. I'm not going to debate. Debating here is not going to change my views and vice versa. I may get flamed out for it, whatever, I don't care.

I'm just here for people to keep in mind if you do used the Bible for specific arguments, for both sides of the coin(non-believer and especially believer) at least make sure its right. Alot of times i see people trying to site Bible references and they just mess it up. Naturally its wrong to misquote or misuse any reference, the Bible is no exception...........

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Bill_Mische · 2004-11-01 05:03 · Score: 1

"Now if we can just find Jesus' skeleton,..."

If you believe the local legend it's in a rather nice tomb in Srinigar in Kashmir.

--
Boring Old Fart (40, married, 3 kids...er no...make that 49, married, 3 grown up kids...it's been a long time)

Evolution verses Creationism is a red herring by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

Because if God exist then he's very capable to create an evolutionary process. It's moot to try to use evolution as an argument to prove/disprove his existence.
Anyway everybody should live a good life regardless if God exist or not. I don't liek the way the religions use his name as a form of punishment/reward psychology, and I don't like the way atheists are completely close minded. Live a good life, and don't worry about God or religion. Everything will take care of itself. That's the only true way!

Who is an "Evolutionist" anyway? by vivin · 2004-11-01 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

At the very least, a person who believes in Evolution, or a person who argues for Evolution.

However creationists seem to believe that there is this huge group of Evolutionists -- like it is some organized camp with some sort of agenda. The fact of the matter is that there isn't anything like it. Evolution gets validated through studies done in different biological fields. There is no concerted effort, just validation. I frequently hear the argument "You evolutionists are zealots! You are out to undermine faith!" or something stupid of that nature. There is no evolutionist camp.

Another thing to remember is that creationists only attack evolution and never come up with an alternative explanation other than "God did it". They frequently like to attack scientific studies and claim that there is a bias against them and that they are never taken seriously. Has any creationist every put out a scientific paper?

--
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net

I like

Re:Who is an "Evolutionist" anyway? by jfengel · 2004-11-01 05:33 · Score: 1

Has any creationist every put out a scientific paper?

Yeah, they do. Surprisingly often. Even in the biological field. I used to work for an orthodox Jew with a PhD in biochemistry who believed in the Bible as the word of God. And it's even more common for scientists of other disciplines to be creationists. They do great work on non-evolutionary stuff (even if it comes tantalizingly close).

It's stunning to me, but they seem to compartmentalize their lives, taking a rigorous approach to their daily work but not applying it to their moral beliefs. It seems to work for them so I'll not quibble.

If you mean a scientific paper on creationism, well, that's pretty unlikely. Creationists frequently put out papers that they claim are scientific (often under the name of "scientific creationism"). You'll never see it in Science or Nature, since the peer-review process rejects them, but that's pretty stringent category; I've never been published in Science either. But I have been published in less-prominent journals which are no less well-respected in their domains; they just happen to be more specific and less important.

There are anti-evolution articles which are truly scientific, though I'm afraid I can't name them. They point out gaps in the evolutionary theory and as such are science, albeit of a somewhat poor sort since most such cases (flagella, eyes, mitochondria) seem to fit into "things we don't know yet" rather than "things for which explanations don't exist".

At least, those which avoid promoting "intelligent design" as an alternative hypothesis could be considered scientific, so they're scientific as long as they're of poor quality (since good quality papers would propose alternative predictive hypotheses). The Intelligent Design hypothesis can't be considered a scientific theory since it's largely non-falsifiable, and any paper promoting it cannot be considered scientific.

Christianity v. Science in the late 19th century by theMerovingian · 2004-11-01 05:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

The late 19th century was a time of great philosophical and theological upheaval. This period was also one of the critical defining moments in natural science as a discipline. Geologists and biologists began to observe the earth more effectively and with greater rigor. Scientists began to assert the validity of their observational and experimental procedures as being concrete and repeatable. They began to see beyond Aquinas and the Scholastic tradition, and to make new conjectures about the chronology and functional characteristics of our planet.

What do these new scientific discoveries have to do with religion on a theoretical level? Who were some of the key players, and what did they do (if anything) to stimulate the 'conflict'? What did Christians think at the time? What did scientists think?

Gregor Mendel, Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Francis Bacon are names synonymous with the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. These men are famous scientists, astronomers, and thinkers who are in large part responsible for propagating the modern intellectual culture. In addition to being men of such intellectual merit, however, one more similarity exists between them that is often overlooked. Gregor Mendel not only discovered the essential principles of genotype and phenotype, but was also a Catholic monk. His experiments were conducted in the bean patch of his Augustinian monastery. Copernicus was the first to accurately portray a heliocentric universe, but he also held the office of canon in his cathedral chapter. Galileo, although often troubled in his work by reactionary church polity, made a well thought-out attempt to reconcile his new scientific discoveries with the Christian faith. Francis Bacon made sweeping pronouncements about how science should be carried out, and played a pivotal role in formulating our modern scientific culture. In his writings, Bacon addressed the need for God, and His role in the life of an intellectual community (Moore 1986, p. 322). The Baconian Compromise has influenced many generations of thinkers and scientists, and this understanding is still widely held today by many in form if not in name.

Christianity is often viewed as being opposed to science. In order to determine whether or not the conflict exists in fact, it is important to go beyond cultural ideas and stereotypes. It is necessary to look at the historical records of both the scientific community and the historical account of Christianity, the Bible.

Owen Chadwick, a notable church historian, found it to be important to discern the difference "between science when it was against religion and the scientists when they were against religion" (Lindberg 1986, pg.7). The general consensus among historians is that two texts have set the present tone for the hostility between the scientific community and the Christian faith.

John William Draper, in 1874, wrote a History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. Draper, the son of a Methodist minister, was highly successful with this book, in which he applied the traditional forms of Christianity to a new doctrine of science and metaphysics. In the preface, he pointedly stated that, "The history of science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other" (Draper 1874, p. vi). He frequently makes allusions to the battle of good, as human intellect, versus evil, as faith. He refers to the previous period in Europe as "intellectual night... passing away... into daybreak". These themes are reminiscent of passages in both the Old and New Testaments, such as 2 Samuel 22:29 "the Lord turns my darkness into light", Psalms 112:4 "even in darkness light dawns", John 1:5 "the light shines in darkness", and 2 Corinthians 6:14 "What fellowship can light have with darkness?". Donald Fleming, Draper's biographer, descr

--
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by SwissCheese · 2004-11-01 05:06 · Score: 1

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.

Oddly enough I've seen the same quote attributed to Extreme Programming. Just replace the Neocon at the beginning with XP.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by nine-times · 2004-11-01 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

...but I'm not sure why creationism got dragged into it. [...snip...] For the most part, people decide what they want to believe, then go looking for evidence. Not the other way around.

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.

I don't get it ... by marvinalone · 2004-11-01 05:08 · Score: 1

So the way I see it, the scientific fact, the new discovery, is, that there are light-sensitive cells in the brain. The deduction, unsupported by further evidence, is, that that means evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

I don't get it. How do you get from the one to the other? Was it disputed that light-sensitive cells can evolve? Does this result now prove it?

I always thought the whole controversy about the evolution of the eye was that the leap from a light-sensitive cell to a full human eye was a rather large one, and most of the steps in between are believed to have little survival value. In other words, the fitness to quality-of-sight curve has a huge dip between the extremes "light-sensitive-cell" and "human eye". Or am I on crack?

Re:I don't get it ... by Mr.+No+Skills · 2004-11-01 06:02 · Score: 1

There's another level on this, which is how could the eye evolve on a cellular/chemical level? While there are a lot of chemical processes that are light sensitive, the specific chain of chemical events in the eye are a multi-step process that is difficult to imagine evolving, since any of the intermediate steps are worthless to the process. The analogy is to place eggs, flour, and sugar next to a geyser and come back and find a donut sitting there.

The components of the eye, while complex, could evolve from more rudimentary components. But the chemistry of the eye has no rudimentary components and is a complex chain reaction. Other body chemistry, like blood clotting, is even more complex.

The article starts off with the cell functioning, and seems to be more about its migration of purpose. Although it is a short, undetailed article, it doesn't address the cellular chemistry which was always the stickier issue with the eye example to me.

(You're not on crack - at least on this point. The complex mechanics of the eye were often thrown out by non-evolutionists as the argument against).

The wikipedia link in the original post contains a lot of the links to details and supporting theories - I recommend it (like all Wikipedia links). Also, the Wiki article references the Behe work (not sure of spelling - the writer of "Darwin's Black Box") which is interesting on the discussion of molecular biology.

--
Sleep is for the Weak

Re:Face It by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-01 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 05:09 · Score: 1

"if you find a watch on a beach, you assume someone made it"

eeeeeeew!

I have a vision of a beach where a lot of watches are mating, and after their sex orgy, they bury their eggs in the sand and crawl back to their drunken owner's' wrist and await the next mating season to subliminally induce thoughts of tourism to sunny beaches with their ticking, and blinking...

Where's my hammer? I need to have a "word" with my watch...

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Corporal+Dan · 2004-11-01 05:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Neocon philosophy is *never* wrong. Any mistakes happen because the philosophy was not put into practice vigorously enough.

Sounds exactly like the excuses my professors gave me for why socialism/communism failed...

A couple of questions about your Christianity by anomaly · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

1. What is a 'lifelong Christian?' According to my understanding of Christianity it is simply impossible to be born a follower of Christ. One makes an informed choice about whether to follow or not. I'm happy to discuss this further if you'd like.

2. Strictly speaking, macro-evolution is inconsistent with basic Christian belief.

To describe this incompatibility simplistically, the Bible claims that a single man was created with a single woman. They chose to rebel against God's rules and as a result, they were denied the blessings of relationship with him.

That blessing was restored to the followers of God through the Old Testament because of their faith in God to save them, and specifically revealed to mankind through a single person - the God-man Jesus Christ.

Originally sin entered the world through one man, and death follows sin. Man's redemption was accomplished through faith in a one man's sacrifice - that of Jesus Christ.

If there's a long cycle of life, followed by death, followed by life, when does the separation between God and man occur? Without that original sin, there's no need for a savior.

Make sense?

Regards,
Anomaly

--
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?

Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by wes33 · 2004-11-01 05:32 · Score: 4, Funny

you are not reading the bible metaphorically enough. When it speaks of God creating the archetypal Adam and Eve that is metaphor for the creation of baryons and leptons.

Original sin is simply a metaphorical way to talk abou the primordial disparity between matter and anti-matter with which the universe has been stuck since early after its inception.

The Jesus story is a metaphorical reference to the time when electrons coupled with matter, and the universe became clear to light.

I think the bible is amazing :)
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

You are misrepresenting Christianity. I say this as a Catholic who accepts science wholeheartedly.
Your first point, that one cannot be "born" Christian is, technically, true. After all, a newborn can't meaningfully be anything in terms of philosophy or religion. However, if one has been raised Christian for one's entire life, "lifelong" Christian is a perfectly good description of it. In Catholicism, at least, you are expected to make a conscious choice after reaching adulthood (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) to continue being Catholic, but that doesn't mean you weren't Catholic growing up. This is similar in the other Christian faiths with which I am familiar, and I assume in most, if not all, of them.
I don't mean to give offense, but had your second point not been surrounded by what seems to be reasoned text, I would call troll. Your statement that Christianity and Evolution are fundamentally incompatible is simply ridiculous. You are equating "Christianity" with "literal belief in the Bible as written," which is, quite plainly, false. There are Christian faiths, of course, which do subscribe to a strict-to-the-word belief in the Bible, but most do not.
The belief that man is fundamentally flawed and therefore can (and does) succumb to temptation does not rest upon the (patently false - after all, who did Cain marry?) strictest interpretation of the Bible. It rests solely upon the observation that man is flawed, and does sin. To reconcile this with a perfect creator (the "problem of evil") is a non-trivial philosophical task, but that's a different issue, and doesn't conflict with evolution whatsoever.
At its root, Christianity is simply the belief that there is a God who created everything (one way or another), and that His son, Jesus, died to redeem man of his sins after explaining how people should behave.
Everything else is added trappings and expansions (and, as a Catholic, let me tell you that various flavors add a lot of trappings and expansions). Some of those, such as strict intepretation of the Bible, do conflict directly with macro evolution. Others, such as the Assumption, don't.
In any event, in no way is Christianity fundamentally opposed to macro evolution. Strict interpretation is, but not Christianity.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by TheLink · 2004-11-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Nonono. The Jesus story is reference to God putting himself in a quantum-like superposition in his own creation so that the observers (having also been put in a superposition - "made in the _image_ of God") by just believing or having faith can actually influence their final place in the ultimate interference pattern- patterns of light and darkness.

I think the Bible is amazing too :).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by anomaly · 2004-11-01 08:55 · Score: 1

First, it seems that we are in agreement that one can be 'raised in a Christian home' without being a Christian.

I think that we disagree on a second point. A person raised in a Christian home, who does not make a personal commitment to Christ is, according to scripture, a person destined for an eternity apart from God. Can you show me biblically that my understanding is incorrect?

"literal belief in the Bible as written" is *not* what I believe. Only a fool believes that. Poetry, narrative, prophecy, symbolism, and parable are a few of the styles inherent in the Bible, and one must use intellect in interpretation.

WRT your question about who did Cain marry? I think the most likely explanation is that he married one of his sisters.

How do you reconcile your apparent rejection of the doctrine of original sin with Romans 5
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=NKJV&passage=romans+5%3A12-19&x=0& y=0/

"just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men" ...
"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

The Bible claims that we were conceived in sin. How is that not as a result of the curse on mankind established in Genesis 3?

Also, I can claim to be Superman, but if I can't leap tall buildings, stop trains, and catch bullets, I don't match the definition of Superman. In the same way, one can claim to be a Christian, but if that person does not conform to the essential beliefs of the Christian faith, that person is not a Christian any more than I am Superman.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

--
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 10:25 · Score: 1

No, I cannot show you Biblically where you are incorrect - but then, that's not my point. Christianity does not rest on the Bible, it rests on the belief that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of mankind.
This is a story told in the Bible, but that doesn't mean the Bible is its source. The source is that it happened.
Moreover, I don't reject the doctrine of original sin, I reject the doctrine that it was caused by one particular woman who tempted one particular man. Which is really a natural conclusion given a belief in an all-just God, isn't it? For the record, I also reject the doctrine of Hell, since it is obviously impossible to merit infinite punishment for finite sin, given perfect justice (and I'll leave out for the moment the all-merciful God).
The point of original sin is that we, as humans, are flawed, and make wrong decisions. We are, through the death of Christ and baptism, forgiven the flaw, but we are thereafter expected to personally not submit to the flaw. When we fail to do so, we need to seek forgiveness for the specific wrong which we did.
WRT to your Superman analogy, you're exactly correct. But Roman Catholicism, to pick the Christian faith with which I am most familiar, has comparatively few articles of dogma which one must accept in order to be Catholic. That Christ is God become man, for one. The virgin birth and the Assumption, for two more. It has tons of doctrine that you are taught to believe, but need not to be Catholic. In point of fact, there's a specific procedure for rejecting certain beliefs within the Church.
Christianity as a whole is even less restrictive. Anyone who believe in Christ as the son of God and the general tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic is a Christian.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by o'reor · 2004-11-01 10:51 · Score: 1

All rrrright...
[Scratches head after considering for a while] Err, wait a minute. What do the apple and the snake stand for in that metaphor ?

--
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity by Eravau · 2004-11-02 07:45 · Score: 1

For the record, I also reject the doctrine of Hell, since it is obviously impossible to merit infinite punishment for finite sin

Punishment is not based solely on the extent of the crime that was committed. Punishment is also based on who or what the crime was committed against.

For example, if you torture and kill a mosquito, there's no punishment. If you torture and kill a dog, you'll probably be paying a fine. If you torture and kill a human being...don't expect to see the light of day again (either because of the death penalty of the dungeon cell in which you're incarcerated).

How much greater should be the punishment for a crime (let's call it a sin) that is committed against the eternal, infinite God?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WoodenRobot · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible.

...And neither does the Pope, so you're in good company. I'm not a theist, but evolution does seem to be one of the more impressive phenomena in the universe - and saying God couldn't do it that way is just... dumb, really.

--
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Tsiangkun · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 1

a scientist is always supposed to be ready to discard a theory>

Nice point, gathering enough data to outright discard a theory is often a bigger publications bragging right than throwing another brick on the pile of support for an idea.
Part of what advances science is a cooperative effort to solve problems, another part is the ego stroking some people get out of proving everyone else wrong.
Creationist seem to be discarding the part that shows flaws in the theory.

What's up with all the misunderstanding? by AxemRed · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by TomorrowPlusX · 2004-11-01 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

True. But those people are very loud about their credo. Plus, they tend to try make PUBLIC schools teach children their RELIGIOUS credo as if it were legitimate science, with legitimate science being sidelined as merely one of many opinions.

I think many people here would have less problems with creationists if they weren't so damn evil about it.

yes, you heard me: evil. I think it's evil to trick children into believing this stuff. If you want your kids to learn creationism, fine -- teach them: yourself. But it's not the public school system's business to do so. Schools should teach things outside of religion -- e.g. math, history, language, science.

I'm not going to try to forcibly teach your kids and everybody's kids that the earth is flat, or that vampires are real, or that visual basic is the One True Language, just because I happen to believe it is the case. I will make my own children ignorant and incapable of critical thought, not yours.

--

lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by The+Bungi · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 1

The problem is not that christians (or religious folk as a whole) think it's a metaphor - the problem is that they actually think it's fact. Metaphor or not. To consider it "fact" is dumb; to insist it's literal fact is ridiculous.
Your faith does not fact make, at least in the face of scientific evidence or lack thereof.
And I'm not going to even go into for how long everyone took that literally. It's called "flip-flopping" when you take a rigid stance on an issue and then progressively relax it as fact assails the viablity of the issue. It's that simple.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by Verrou · 2004-11-01 07:37 · Score: 1

Totally agree... I don't think schools should teach anything that isn't grounded purely in facts. I wish schools would learn that they stay away from other "soft" topics too such as philosophy (which is really just religion for atheists) and art (which is always pushing some sort of agenda). To make things really fair schools should also stay away from any literature that draws any moral conclusions because who knows what agenda is being pushed through those avenues; of course technical books are ok since they are grounded in facts, but a lot of other text clearly push an agenda that someone may disagree with. Also history can be a tricky one... Seems we are always revising it. Schools should refrain from teaching any history that isn't totally provable and agreed upon by everyone since teaching otherwise means that someone has interject their own opinion - which we clearly need to stay away from.

The sooner that schools learn to stop pushing any moral agenda what so ever the better off our misinformed children will be.

--
If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image. -Aubrey de Grey
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by bloggins02 · 2004-11-01 08:53 · Score: 1

Only a small percentage of people take it to be literal.

You must not live anywhere near the southern United States.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-01 09:01 · Score: 1

True. But those people are very loud about their credo. Plus, they tend to try make PUBLIC schools teach children their RELIGIOUS credo as if it were legitimate science, with legitimate science being sidelined as merely one of many opinions

Who are these people? All the times I've heard that creationism was to be taught in school was as an alternate theory on the origin of life...which it is. There is no scientific proof for the theistic or the atheistic view on the origin of life. Why the atheistic gets the favored son status in schools is beyond me, when both viewpoints have the same credentials scientifically.

I think many people here would have less problems with creationists if they weren't so damn evil about it.

Those who reject creationism are most likely atheist, so I'm assuming you're an atheist here. This raises the question, how can an atheist call anyone evil? This is curious behavior. I mean if all we are is bags of chemicals, who are you to impose your morality on me? How can you call anyone evil? You may say "I don't like what creationists say" and whatnot, but you can never make the statement that someone is bad or evil because you have no grounds to make a moral judgment like that.

On the other hand, if you believe in God and moral absolutes, you are able to say someone is evil because at least you have a basis for your moral framework.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by cmpalmer · 2004-11-01 10:04 · Score: 1

Well, I am a southerner and I would *love* to argue with your statement, but, alas, I cannot.

Once, after I started working at a small company, we were on a installation trip, about 10 of us -- developers and salespeople. We had been out drinking the night before, we'd gone through every dirty joke we knew, we were dog-cussing our product and the slow servers that it was running on. In other words, I wasn't with a bunch of preachers or choir boys. One day, at lunch, I was reading a newspaper article about a local school board voting to allow teaching of "creation science" and I commented out loud that there must be a lot of stupid people there.

Dead silence.

Then, all of sudden, *I'm* going to hell because I'm "callin' God a monkey" and I've been brainwashed by the grand atheist conspiracy that denies the truth of the 6,000 year old universe. The whole gang did everything but convene an impromptu prayer meeting to make me see the light and forget my evil ways.

I was stunned. All but one of my coworkers were on the creationist side. Completely creeped me out.

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-01 10:25 · Score: 1

What does being a bag of chemicals have to do with morality?

Everything. If there are no moral absolutes than your moral framework is whatever you feel is right. You decide for yourself what morals you will adopt, but you have no complaint when someone else adopts a different moral code. You're being arbitrary. There's no room for arbitrariness in rational dialogue.

Likewise, who are you to say that atheists can't have a basis for their morality?

Because my worldview can account for moral absolutes. The atheist cannot. They can arbitrarily declare that their moral framework is the proper one. But if declaration is all that's needed in rational discourse, then I declare that my moral framework is correct and we can all stop arguing. I'll arbitrarily declare that I'm the winner, too, while I'm at it.

But this sort of behavior is irrational.

I can call someone evil, if their actions go against my moral code. The fact that my moral code might differ from theirs, or the question of where I got my moral code from, is irrelevant to that fact.

Then I can declare that I'm right and you're wrong, too. Without absolutes, your opinion on whether someone is evil or not is irrelevant and useless to fruitful dialogue.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2004-11-01 10:55 · Score: 1

That's the thing with creationists. They find 1000 ways to interpret their bible, to suit their needs. Truth should be non-evolving and absolute. If one were to not take such a book literally and instead take it metaphorically, then there would "literally" be a way to interpret the book to justify ANY actions you wish, such as killing (eye for an eye), killing of gays, etc etc.

--

eTrade SUCKS
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by zsau · 2004-11-01 11:16 · Score: 1

What other forms of creationism are there? (I was taught nothing but evolution in a Catholic primary and secondary school. Everything I know about creationism has come from American websites...)

--
Look out!
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by radish · 2004-11-01 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are you saying that an Atheist cannot have morals? Are you saying that I, as an Atheist, cannot differentiate between right and wrong?

Do you not see what an absurd thing that is to say?

I base my morals on my beliefs. On what I believe is right and wrong. Murder is bad, speeding is also (although less) bad. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about speeding. Does that mean it's OK for Christians?

Does what I just said make any sense? No, of course not. Everyone has their own moral code, where they get it from varies, but to say that someone can't have one because they do no believe in God is rubbish.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 14:06 · Score: 1

A lot of religious people believe that all morality comes from religion. Moral comes from a word meaning "custom" so really morality is just based on dogma. We say that it's wrong to kill someone, for example, but why? Basically, because it's what we're used to doing. Besides, just about every society believes that it's appropriate to kill in certain circumstances - maybe not everyone, but certainly the majority. Sometimes we go to war, sometimes we execute people, and so on. Regardless a lot of people believe that the only valid source of these morals is a religious one, because the issue is too large for us humans to tackle ourselves. After all, we are fallible, hence the need for a parental figure to tell us what to do.

I had a conversation about this with some mormons I was riding to a class with and I had to admit to them that the majority of my moral code came from science fiction. I know anyone still reading this is recoiling in disgust but I'm not going to go on to say I speak klingon or something. Generally speaking science fiction authors write stories with happy endings which contain a person who I consider to be virtuous getting into tough situations. The good stuff isn't just an action movie, however, and the characters are faced with real moral dilemmas in the sense that they have to decide what is right. The idea of rightness is one of the hardest things to define because it is so objective. Some people really don't see a problem with killing someone they disagree with. (On the other hand, some people feel that abortion is murder; they probably feel the same way about me as I feel about them. It's hard to say who's right, and even harder to talk about it without getting into an argument.)

Anyway, law is one thing, and religion is another. Most people agree that law is not always tied to morality. The people who I find to be the problem are those who try to make law fit morality, which is different for everyone.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by AxemRed · 2004-11-01 15:42 · Score: 1

I was taught mostly evolution in a Lutheran highschool. Creation was just briefly mentioned. The creation that most Christians (that I know anyway) believe is that evolution is generally true, but that God influenced the changes that happend.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by AxemRed · 2004-11-01 15:52 · Score: 1

Schools teach that life began in some chemical mix, billions of years ago, but that isn't rooted in fact either. We have good evidence that species change over time. We also have some evidence that these changes have resulted in the variety of species that populate the planet. What we don't have, is definitive evidence how the first lifeform came to be. Natural selection leading to the evolution of a species is all but proven, but the original of all life in general isn't. I think, in this particular area, all theories are fair game. Although, schools shouldn't waste too much time talking about theories that can't be provden for the time being.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 16:19 · Score: 1

I'm not going to try to forcibly teach your kids and everybody's kids that the earth is flat, or that vampires are real, or that visual basic is the One True Language, just because I happen to believe it is the case.
No, you're forcibly teaching them that everything that happens must be explained solely by mechanical, material forces and interactions. Just because you happen to believe it is the case. But that's different.
I guess.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-03 09:58 · Score: 1

Are you saying that an Atheist cannot have morals?

Not at all. I'm saying that an atheist must also recognize that their moral system is based upon an arbitrary framework that she has chosen for herself. The atheist has no grounds to call another person's moral system wrong because their worldview cannot account for moral absolutes. Everyone chooses a moral code for himself or herself and each one is valid, without an absolute to base this moral code upon.

I base my morals on my beliefs.

Exactly, which proves my point. Your moral code is not absolute, but you've simply declared your moral code based on your whims and worldview. Because your moral code is arbitrary, you cannot impose your arbitrary moral code on someone else.

You can have morals, but you can never say your set of morals is superior to anyone else's because you've just declared them.

As a Christian theist, however, my worldview accounts for moral absolutes (and laws of logic for that matter) and can say that someone is right or wrong. My worldview flows from a God who created the universe with absolute laws and an absolute moral code.

Without this worldview you're left with arbitrariness and laws of logic that cannot be accounted for.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by mdwh2 · 2004-11-07 12:45 · Score: 1

Exactly, which proves my point. Your moral code is not absolute, but you've simply declared your moral code based on your whims and worldview. Because your moral code is arbitrary, you cannot impose your arbitrary moral code on someone else.

You can have morals, but you can never say your set of morals is superior to anyone else's because you've just declared them.

As a Christian theist, however, my worldview accounts for moral absolutes (and laws of logic for that matter) and can say that someone is right or wrong. My worldview flows from a God who created the universe with absolute laws and an absolute moral code.

Er, no. You may believe that your morals are absolute, but that doesn't mean they are. Indeed, that you have accepted that other people may come up with different morals means that morals are not absolute.

I could use just the same argument as you, and say that whatever method I have used to derive my system of morality is the correct one, and the absolute one, and therefore say that you are wrong. Whether God is involved or not has nothing to do with it.

To say that atheists' morality is based on whims is completely false. One can build up a system of morality from some basic principles, just as theists do.

When someone says that someone is morally wrong, they are either pointing out an inconsistency in their system of morality (something which can be proven), or they are saying that they disagree with the person's method of coming up with those morals (eg, I think saying something is right or wrong just because God says so is absurd), which ultimately is more a matter of opinion (though still one that can be justified with reasoning).
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-07 15:59 · Score: 1

I could use just the same argument as you, and say that whatever method I have used to derive my system of morality is the correct one, and the absolute one, and therefore say that you are wrong.

That's exactly my point. WHAT is the atheist's basis for her system of morality? You still haven't given it.

To say that atheists' morality is based on whims is completely false.

Atheist morality is arbitrarily chosen by the person employing it. In the atheist worldview, one can adopt any moral code he or she wants, who are you to say someone else's moral code is wrong?

You gave two ways in which the atheist can say someone's moral code is wrong: (1) pointing out inconsistencies and (2) disagreeing with the basis for one's moral code. (1) relies on the laws of logic being absolute (which is an assumption that atheists cannot account for), and (2) is arbitrary, which you pointed out.

When someone says that someone is morally wrong, they are either pointing out an inconsistency in their system of morality (something which can be proven)

But how would you prove it? Using laws of logic? How can the atheist account for those? Have you read Hume or Russell's critique of the Inductive Principle?

The laws of logic rely on the worldview that nature is uniform, which the atheist assumes without proof. How do you know the sun will come up tomorrow? Because it did so today? Why do you assume the uniformity of nature when your worldview prohibits it? There are no absolutes in the atheist worldview--even laws of logic can't be relied upon because there is no "proof" for them.

To prove that laws of logic are absolute, one must prove the uniformity of nature. How would you prove uniformity of nature? You can't say from human experience, because human experience assumes uniformity of nature.

I'm not saying atheists don't use laws of logic, they do. They are absolute, too. But the very fact that the atheist assumes they are absolute, when the atheistic worldview cannot account for them, is like telling me that you're not breathing air...right after you took a breath to tell me.

But the Christian Theist can say that nature is uniform because the God that created everything designed it that way. My worldview accounts for laws of logic, moral absolutes, and human dignity. The atheist borrows these from the Christian theistic worldview only to reject it. The atheist is being inconsistent. If the atheist were being consistent she would need to admit that she cannot rely on the unproven laws of logic and Inductive Principle. The atheist is reduced to a skeptic who cannot "know" anything.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by mdwh2 · 2004-11-08 02:35 · Score: 1

That's exactly my point. WHAT is the atheist's basis for her system of morality? You still haven't given it.

My basis or morality generally stems from measuring the harm or suffering an action causes people. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of atheists have a similar view, but there is no one basis - just as not all theists have the same basis of morality.

You gave two ways in which the atheist can say someone's moral code is wrong

Actually I meant those are two ways in which anyone can say someone is wrong. I fail to see how you can disagree with my two methods, and then say that a Christian can still say that others are wrong.

When you say your morality is coming from God, that is your personal choice of a basis of morality - when you say I am wrong, you are going by the second method I gave, and disagreeing with my basis of morality.

Sure, you may believe that your basis of morality is the absolutely correct one - but I believe my basis just as much (I find it hard to believe that all sorts of actions could be justified just because God says so, and also we have no way to know what God wants anyway; it seems hard for me to believe that anything else matters other than harm that may be caused to people).

But the Christian Theist can say that nature is uniform because the God that created everything designed it that way.

I'm not sure I understand how something abstract like logic requires nature to be uniform - but anyhow, you are on no better ground than the atheist, because you cannot prove that uniformity came from God.

I can just as reasonably say that nature is uniform because the universe started that way.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-08 05:24 · Score: 1

My basis or morality generally stems from measuring the harm or suffering an action causes people...but there is no one basis - just as not all theists have the same basis of morality.

Thank you for that admission. There is no basis for the atheistic moral code--it is arbitrarily chosen. Therfore, you must allow that other people may arbitrarily choose their moral code, too. Because you have no basis for your morality, you have no grounds to declare someone else's moral system "wrong." On what authority can you say someone else is wrong? Your own? If you can invoke your own authority, then I'll do the same. I declare myself the winner of our little slashdot debate--on my own authority. But then I wouldn't be rational, but arbitrary, just like the atheist who says Hitler was wrong without grounds for doing so.

Actually I meant those are two ways in which anyone can say someone is wrong. I fail to see how you can disagree with my two methods, and then say that a Christian can still say that others are wrong.

Oh, I agree with the methods. I'm just saying that my worldview accounts for these things. The atheist's does not. When an atheist assumes laws of logic, human dignity, and the uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview because the atheistic worldview does not allow for them. The Christian theist is consistent, the atheist is not.

When you say your morality is coming from God, that is your personal choice of a basis of morality

What we're arguing about here is our presuppositions. Christian theists presuppose God created the world with absolutes: moral and scientific. The atheist can not presuppose these things, because their worldview cannot account for them (but they still do). So yes, it is my personal choice for a basis of morality. But at least my worldview is consistent.

I find it hard to believe that all sorts of actions could be justified just because God says so

Your not liking God's nature has nothing to do with whether he exists. I don't like beets. They still exist, though, whether I like them or not.

you are on no better ground than the atheist, because you cannot prove that uniformity came from God.

Again, we are arguing worldviews. The Christian Theistic worldview is superior to the atheistic because it can account for human dignity, laws of logic, and moral absolutes. An atheist, if he were consistent, would not rely on these absolutes without first proving them.

I can just as reasonably say that nature is uniform because the universe started that way.

You're moving the problem one step back. How would you prove that "the universe started that way?" How can the atheist account for uniformity of nature? You're just assuming it without any basis for doing so.

Christian theists have a basis that comports with their worldview. Atheists do not.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by mdwh2 · 2004-11-08 10:49 · Score: 1

Thank you for that admission. There is no basis for the atheistic moral code--it is arbitrarily chosen. Therfore, you must allow that other people may arbitrarily choose their moral code, too. Because you have no basis for your morality, you have no grounds to declare someone else's moral system "wrong." On what authority can you say someone else is wrong? Your own? If you can invoke your own authority, then I'll do the same. I declare myself the winner of our little slashdot debate--on my own authority. But then I wouldn't be rational, but arbitrary, just like the atheist who says Hitler was wrong without grounds for doing so.

Hang on - my reason for arguing here is that you claimed that atheists cannot call someone's morality wrong, where as Christians can. I'm not trying to pretend that it's the other way around, I'm saying that everyone has just as much or as little right to call someone else wrong. I'm not the one appealing to authority; you are.

You said "you have no basis for your morality", actually I do, I just told you it in my last post.

I think much of the problem comes because you lump atheists all in one group, then seem surprised that they don't share the same moral basis. Since no one ever claimed that atheism was a moral system, this isn't surprising. If you were to select, say, humanists as your group, you would find that they share a moral code.

Also, you ignored the bit where I pointed out that theists do not share a moral basis; each religion chooses its own.

When an atheist assumes laws of logic, human dignity, and the uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview because the atheistic worldview does not allow for them. The Christian theist is consistent, the atheist is not.

Atheists do not take these ideas from Christians, they take them from observing nature. Where we differ is that atheists admit things we don't know, where as Christians make up a story along the lines of "God did it" (which still doesn't explain it).

The Christian Theistic worldview is superior to the atheistic because it can account for human dignity, laws of logic, and moral absolutes. An atheist, if he were consistent, would not rely on these absolutes without first proving them.

You still haven't proved where they come from. Saying "they come from God" isn't a proof.

I'll elaborate more on my moral basis - it come from noting that:
(1) There exists things which I don't like happening to me.
(2) It seems that (1) is true of other people.
(3) Therefore I shall strive for a world to minimise these things not happening.

(1) is a fact, which is as provable as just about anything (ie, short of saying how can we prove that we trust our senses, and so on).
(2) is an assumption, but a reasonable one. Even if we reject this and assume that others cannot suffer, I still benefit by promoting a world where harm does not happen to me, and even if all I care about myself, I still have to cooperate with others for long term benefit.
(3) is the action to take, which is basically a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Now, to me it seems that the only question is whether this set of reasoning is a basis of "morality" in the sense that it is similar to what Christians call a "morality". Given that in both cases, we are deciding what things people should and shouldn't do, and in which ways people should behave, I think it is reasonable to say we are covering the same area.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-09 07:47 · Score: 1

Hang on - my reason for arguing here is that you claimed that atheists cannot call someone's morality wrong, where as Christians can....I'm saying that everyone has just as much or as little right to call someone else wrong. I'm not the one appealing to authority; you are.

Of course you have the right to say someone else is wrong, the question is does your worldview account for right and wrong? Is the atheist consistent when he says someone else's moral code is wrong?

I'm not the one appealing to authority; you are.

I beg to differ. When an atheist says, for example, "Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews," the atheist is appealing to his or her own authority. The basis for any atheist's moral system is his personal beliefs, so when he makes moral judgments he is ultimately appealing to his own belief system.

Also, you ignored the bit where I pointed out that theists do not share a moral basis; each religion chooses its own.

I'm not sure what you mean by "religion" here, but I would agree that there are religions that have different moral codes, but non-Christian religions still cannot account for abstract universal absolutes. Each of them is either internally inconsistent or undermine human reason and experience. For example, the god of Hinduism, named Bhrahman, is defined as the universal soul of which all things are part. Hinduism teaches that all thinking (maya) is an illusion because it presupposes distinctions between different objects in the universe. How can 2 + 2 = 4? Well you shouldn't make a distinction between 2 and 4, says the Hindu. Therefore, Hinduism destroys any system of rationality. The same is true for other religions.

You still haven't proved where they come from. Saying "they come from God" isn't a proof.

But you're missing my point. The very fact that we are using logic and reason proves there is a God. The Christian Theistic Worldview (CTW) is the only one that I have found which provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience, human dignity, logic and sceince. Without the CTW, we cannot use laws of logic nor can one make moral judgments. Absolute laws do not exist in an atheist universe.

Your continuing to use laws of logic presupposes the Christian God.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

Re:Lets just get a few things out of the way, by Concerned+Onlooker · 2004-11-01 05:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Creationism is a myth.

Now, hold on a minute. The poster should not have gotten modded flamebait for this. Religious ideas of creation are myths, but people get so touchy about it because it their myth. What about the myth of earlier cultures who believed that a god created a giant turtle and that the world is riding on the back of it? Perfectly valid as long as you're going to ignore scientific reasoning and evidence.

There's nothing wrong with myths, by the way. They just have no place in the rational part of our world.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Coos · 2004-11-01 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

This view has been referred to as "Last Tuesdayism". If God could have created the world with built in lies in the geological record (and everywhere else that refuting evidence for young earth creationism can be found), She could equally have created us with lies built in to our memories - the world was in fact created last Tuesday, and all our memories of, say, series one of Buffy, are lies told to us by our deity.

A completely irrefutable argument, but one that completely fails as a hypothesis in the scientific sense, because it is irrefutable: it could apply equally to every possible instant from now backwards... Oh, and it also requires that you beleive in a God who has perpetrated the biggest lie ever! I prefer to think that any possible deity would look favourably on me using the best mental tools I've got to form the most consistent picture from the information I'm given...

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ha, HA!

"Good eyes"???
Functionally, your eyes are good as they have to be to fulfill your role in the vast scheme of things. The lowly cephalopod is just hoping you watch where you walk or what ocean you test your nuclear weapons in, or where you spill your oil slick.
The human brain is the real force behind the human visual capacity. Further the 'pod' does not have our spectral range in his visual context.
Yes, of course you think he has better vision,....but would you want to be one once you SAW one?!
That is all we have know to appreciate who we are on this big bluse marble!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

a/It isn't a religious discussion/It shouldn't be a religious discussion/g

Although I'm not religious myself, I agree that there doesn't seem to be any inherent conflict between creationism and evolution. Neither disallows the other. The only difference is that one requires facts and one requires faith.

The problem, of course, is that this is in a perfect world, where even discussions of faith are based in logic at some level. And that's not where much of the world is right now. Fundamentalism is a way of looking at religion which sees science as a threat. There are other ways to look at religion, but this view currently holds sway in the US and elsewhere. The few, silent, rational Christians such as yourself are likely to end up burnt at the stake with us atheists.

Arguing Religion with Philosophers by eutychus_awakes · 2004-11-01 05:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

When the Apostle Paul traveled to Corinth to spread the Gospel, he had just come from Athens where he attempted to "convince" the people that Jesus Christ is God's Son using reasoning, scripture, apologetics - you name it. The Bible goes on to tell us that maybe one or two people in all of Athens believed. You see, the place was the world center for reason, philosophy, science, etc., and we all know how difficult it is to argue with someone for whom the argument itself is more than half the fun. Paul changed his tactics in Corinth, however, which resulted in the founding of one of the great churches. This is documented below:

1 Corinthians Chapter 2

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him" -- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Each must make up his own mind who Christ is, and what He's done for them. After that, we'll all sit around the throne in Heaven and talk with God like neighbors around the '67 Mustang --"So, THAT'S how you supercharged the intake." -- "So, THAT'S how you micro-mechanically sequenced the RNA to replicate the DNA so that the photo-sensitive proteins in the eye would transfer from one generation to the next."

--
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.

Who cares? by Erwos · 2004-11-01 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm not exactly sure why it matters whether God made us the way we are or whether we evolved that way. I mean, we're here now, and it's pretty obvious that we're not changing significantly in the near future.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.

Re:Face It by Alci12 · 2004-11-01 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm, not sure it is about education. I think it is more cultural. The US has a separation of state/church and needs it, many other countries have a cultural acceptance of that position that negates the need.

No smoke, no gun, not even a debate by TheLoneCabbage · 2004-11-01 05:14 · Score: 1

Why do people find it so absolutly necesary to make everyone else think like they do? Honestly, it's the wort kind of religion, wheter you call it Baptist, Budist, or Secularist.

In the mean time, this doesn't answere the complexity of design question. It does show an intresting form a transition from one type of nerve cell to another, and demostrates the power of a new method of research. But if your looking to find G_d's corps in it, your way off course.

Creationists fall into allot of categories, none of witch would respond to this in there argument. Mostly because this is limited to example of only one feature (yes which suggests others), and not an all encompasing, testable, hypothosis about the formation of complex structures without intermediate benefit. The case of the eye, while classic, is a bad analogy, since as Darwin pointed out "any eye is benefit". There are also dozens of question left unanswered, all much bigger than this, though it's always nice to see a classic one solved.

Also because THEY DON'T CARE! People rarely become religious because they looked into microscope and sayed "By Scott, none of it makes sense! Quick dunk me in some water!" More often then not, religion is the result of upbringing, or a long series of 'growths' that bring you to a place where you feel your life has most focus.

Personaly I agree that taking Genisis litteraly is more than a bit silly. But even still the story it's self is powerfull and brings us to profound insite, and personal growth.

--
I would rather be ashes than dust!

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:14 · Score: 1, Funny

Proof that Cthulhu is really in charge

why don't we have more eyes? by lashi · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

While I do believe in evolution, I have always wondered why certain things are the way they are. For example, why don't we have more eyes? No mamals have more than 2 eyes. Surely having eyes on the back of the head would be a great advantage in avoiding predators.

Ok, let's not go that far then. Why don't we have a wider field of vision? Some creatures like deers have almost 360 degree of vision.

Ok, I understand the importance of viewing depth, how about ears, why don't we have larger ears? Surely it would help to hear each other and predators better.

I confess I sucked at biology but I just wonder about this stuff sometimes.

Re:why don't we have more eyes? by Tucan · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 1

If the axe is sharp enough to cut wood, why waste time at the grinding stone?
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-11-01 05:29 · Score: 1

Surely having eyes on the back of the head would be a great advantage in avoiding predators. Ok, let's not go that far then. Why don't we have a wider field of vision? Some creatures like deers have almost 360 degree of vision.

The evolution proves that our brains (and by "our", I mean the entire biosphere, not just human beigns) possess limited capability of processing information in a given amount of time. In theory, you could assume that a creature with falcon eyes, dog nose and bat ears would be unbeatable, because it's supreme set of senses could detect ANYTHING in any condition. In reality this creature would probably get eaten alive quite early, while trying to analyze all the information coming from all senses ("wait? what was that sound? no, wait - what's this smell? no, wait - what's that object on six hour? no, wait - what's that sound again?", etc) The nature of our brain forces us to focus on the most useful piece of information. Since your main evolutionary asset is the ability to use tools - your eyes are designed in a way facilitating to focus on whatever you hold in your hands. Many animals can indeed see the full 360 degrees, but they can't focus on anything. If you think better ears and wider sighting angle would help you survive, just try to work on a computer when 5 persons talk to you, 3 other listen to (different) radio stations and you have other monitors within your sight, distracting you from what you are doing.

Damn, looks like I have just described my workplace. But that's why I use iPod when I really have to focus.
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by PortHaven · 2004-11-01 05:41 · Score: 1

But it's not...

We have trouble seeing in the dark...

We have been driving in the dark for years now...

We have been walking in the dark for centuries if not millenia

Why are we not increasing our night vision?
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by TheLink · 2004-11-01 06:15 · Score: 1

Coz despite all that our ancestors still reproduced.

And that's all that's needed. Which is why I find it strange that some scientists can say that we behave in a particular way because it is evolutionarily advantageous, "selfish gene" etc etc. e.g. male peacocks having fancy tails because it's a sign of health to the female peahens.

Such BS. In the milder climates almost anything goes due to the abundance of energy and raw materials. Go to the harsher climates and then you can see that a creature behaves a certain way because if it didn't it'd be dead in 5 minutes.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-11-01 09:05 · Score: 1

So we can cut through more wood with less effort?

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by entrigant · 2004-11-01 11:54 · Score: 1

In order to be an evolutionary success story all you have to do is survive. So until we come up against a predator that requires us to have such finely tuned senses to survive we'll just have to make do :).
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by pvg · 2004-11-01 14:14 · Score: 1

One reason is that evolutionary change is quite gradual and doesn't really "backtrack" so it's pretty hard for a two eyed, bilateral creature to suddenly start sprouting new eyes. Spiders have more than two eyes, for instance - but the common ancestors of humans and spiders are awfully far back. It is a lot more likely for small changes to the eyes to happen (through mutation) and for natural selection to make select eyes that somehow improve survivability. Once you start evolving a couple of eyes (and you got two because you were bilaterally symmetric) evolution starts evolving those - that's why it's evolution not, say, intelligent design. This is gradualism - a key element in the theory of evolution.

A more important point is, natural selection selects on one criterion alone - better fittness, better survivability. It doesn't care whether you have better eyes, it cares whether you live long enough and successfully pass on your genes. Since you framed the question in terms of predators, it makes sense to analyze it in those terms - "why did we not evolve at being massively better at avoiding being eaten by predators?". The answer there is obvious - we did, we evolved an organ that is immensly more powerful at ensuring survival than incredibly acute senses - the human brain which allows for traits and capabilities like social grouping, language and and more generaly, immensly adaptive behaviour. Incidentally, we got the big brains partially to handle the glut of complex information we get through the eyes.
Once we started getting smarter, acting in groups, developing the capability for more and more sophisticated communication, those advantages made many of the "brawn" advantages far less likely to be selected for. Once the evolutionary process hits on any kind of advantageous development, it tends to operate on that because it is only existing traits that can be varied through mutation and sexual selection. The bigger brain that was necessary for better vision turned out, accidentally, to be so universally useful that it became one of the primary objects of selection. Eventually the brain became so capable the adaptive capacity it conferred on individuals completely outpaced the random, slow process of natural selection. Once language and its corollary, cultural memory, became possible an adaptive method vastly more expedient and directed than natural selection became available. This was a watershed moment. A key constraint of natural selection is that aquired traits generally cannot be passed on to subsequent generations - only inhereted ones can. With the development of more sophisticated comminicataion (essentially, language) everything changed. While predators were stuck in the random, millions-years-long process of getting better at what they do, humans had, evolutionarily, developed a process that helped pass on aquired traits. We no longer need sharper eyes, bigger ears and better noses to avoid getting eaten by sharper eyed, better hearing, finer smelling wolves - our overall adaptive capability is so much greater than theirs that their sensory advantages are essentially irrelevant.
There is some evidence that suggests that some of the other higher primates are capable of passing on the advantageous aquired traits, such as the ability to use simple tools or use water to separate edible wheat from contaminats such as sand. The difference is that through the evolutionary roulette, we got there first and were able to use our evolutionary advantage. We face no threat from the almost-as-smart chimps, orangutans and gorillas. We easily displaced similar but competing species like the Neandrenthals. We are still assaulted by primitive organsisms such as viruses and bacteria, and yet, while we cannot claim an overwhelming victory on that front, our giant, adaptive brains have successfully fought these rapidly mutating organisms to a highly advantageous standstill.
Why do we not have more eyes, bigger ears, or an acuter sense of smell? Because we evolutionarily developed an organ that is enourmously more capable of confronting a nearly immeasurable number of threats.
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by lashi · 2004-11-02 05:28 · Score: 1

>If the axe is sharp enough to cut wood, why waste time at the grinding stone?
I know you are saying that it's survivability that matters. But think about this way, if one man had a sharper axe, he is able to cut more trees and trade that for more food.
Then he is able to provide for his family better, ie. have better fed, healthier kids, even more kids, then chances are his genes gets passed on to more descedants.
In other words, traits that do more than let you survive can be passed on too. Traits that lets you prosper is important and can be evolved.
So why don't we have better sights, better hearing, etc. then?
Re:why don't we have more eyes? by lashi · 2004-11-02 05:44 · Score: 1

>The evolution proves that our brains (and by "our", I mean the entire biosphere, not just human beigns) possess limited capability of processing information in a given amount of time.
Having "evolution" and "limited" in the same sentence like that just doesn't seem right to me. Our brain has already evolved tremendously, what's stopping it from evolving more?
If you dump a caveman in our present society, I don't think it can cope with all the additonal information either. All the traffic sounds, all the bright lights.
Evolution is about adapting. I am saying we should have evolved more senses and our brain should evolve to be able to cope with the additional information too.
Also, why can't we see in the dark in IR? There is no other sights to distract us from that.
>The nature of our brain forces us to focus on the most useful piece of information.
That's right, you bring up a good point. Our brain is already able to focus on certain things while ignoring other things. We have no problem holding a coversation in a room full of people talking. So extra/sharper senses shouldn't hinder us.
Oh, since our eyes focus in the front, does that mean we are predators? I am not sure about that.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Decaff · 2004-11-01 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Functionally, your eyes are good as they have to be to fulfill your role in the vast scheme of things.

Actually, no. Human eyes have blind spots, which would not be present if the eyes were better designed. Cephalopod eyes evolved independently, and don't have blind spots. Their eyes are very good indeed, and can see a wide range of colours (Octopuses and Squid hunt using binocular vision).

Why does everyone think 6 days??? by GFLPraxis · 2004-11-01 05:16 · Score: 1

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.)

I find this incredibly ridiculous. Do those people who think the Earth was made in 6 days, 6000 years ago, even bother reading the Bible? Anyone who has read a large amount of the Bible knows that days are used FIGURATIVELY, often representing decades, or even centuries or millenia. For example, the "40 weeks" of Daniel...40 weeks = 280 days, if each day is a year you get 280 years, and the prophecy came true 280 years later, not days.

I wonder if it ever occured to them that maybe those "6 days" in the Bible is FIGURATIVE and not literal? Say, 6 million years?

Re:Why does everyone think 6 days??? by Edie+O'Teditor · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 5, Funny

days are used FIGURATIVELY, often representing decades, or even centuries or millenia.
Are you a project manager, by any chance?

--
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by fyngyrz · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 4, Funny

No, no. See, your memories of not getting the hang of Thursdays are not real because the universe was only created last Thursday. So the message of the Thursday Genesis scripture is that you can be who you want to be, do you see? With your knowledge that the world is really only a week and a few days old, you know that all the things you thought you did wrong, you didn't! It's all false memories! You're FREE! It's all about Original Non-Sin Due To Thursday-ish-ness! Praise Be!

Now, repeat after me:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of Friday, I shall fear no Weekend, for a hot chick is with me; My Rod and My Staff, they comfort me, especially when rubbed the right way; Thou preparest a table on which I may lay down my chick in the presence of mine video camera; thou annointest my chick with water-soluble lube, yea, even as her cups overflow. Surely lewdness and merriment shall follow me all the days of my life, perhaps even unto next Thursday, when the World Will End, and I shall dwell in the house of lewdness for ever, and ever. Ah, man.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Genetic diversity by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 05:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

You asked:
Didn't Noah's sons include his daughters-in-law in the Arc? If he had daughters, did they bring their husbands?

Where did that genetic diversity go?

Noah had three sons. Noah, his wife, and his sons and thier wives, were the only humans beings who entered the ark. The Bible records a male genetic bottleneck 4200 years ago -- i.e. all the males in the ark were descendants of Noah.

The following quote is from a NY times article about an interesting genetic study from a few years ago. It speaks about how the male lineage began to descend, referring quaintly to the Y-chromosome originator of the lineage as 'Adam' (could more correctly be 'Noah'). Note how it talks about three sub-lineages:

Of these sons of Adam, the first three (designated I, II and III) are found almost exclusively in Africa. Son III's lineage migrated to Asia and begat sons IV-X, who spread through the rest of the world ...

This is shown clearly by this figure(NY Times subscription may be required).

In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was:
- A single male chromosomal ancestor
- With three descendant male lineages
- The third male lineage had seven sub-lineages
- These seven sub-lineages from the third lineage populate all the world except the Middle East and Africa.

The Bible says the same thing:
- We are all descended from a single male ancestor - Noah
- Noah had three male descendants
- One of the three sons, Japeth, had seven sons
- The Japeth lineage (his seven sons and their descendants) populated all the world except the Middle East and Africa.

Re:Genetic diversity by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:49 · Score: 1

YES, the criteria cannot, but if the common ancestor is found within the 4-10k year window instead of the 20-30k window, it lends credibility to the creation viewpoint.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Genetic diversity by Tyreth · 2004-11-01 11:19 · Score: 1

Those who are Christians and believe in Darwin's evolution think that the Bible is not accurate on matters of historicity. In particular, the first 6 chapters of genesis, including the flood. To show this as true gives credence to the Bible as a historical source. It doesn't prove either side, but it increases the probability that creationism is correct.
Re:Genetic diversity by Yunzil · 2004-11-01 12:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was:

You are overstating the importance of the Y-chromosome "Adam" (and the mitochondrial "Eve"). Yes, our Y-chromosomes all come from one man and all our mitochondrial DNA comes from one woman... but so what? Indications are that these two people were separated by vast spans of time, and anyway: what about the rest of the genome?

Also, just because all our Y-chromosomes come from one man does NOT mean that was the only man around at the time. It just means that his lineage is the only one that survived until the present. Read this.
Re:Genetic diversity by otopico · 2004-11-01 17:20 · Score: 1

you assume that scripture detailed everyone that entered the ark.

using a literal interpretation, the genesis account of a flood basically says 4 men and 1 woman survived.

so, noah's kids were banging their mom?

only one woman.
please explain.
Re:Genetic diversity by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 21:03 · Score: 1

You're a sad case - the Bible says Noah's sons entered the ark with their wives:
I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark--you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

BTW, Adam's sons had their sisters as wives.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by gfxguy · 2004-11-01 05:18 · Score: 1

I don't see how this is an argument against creationism... God's design is God's design, who are you to question it?

For the record, I believe in evolution, but because of the way the bible is written and because everything is subject to "interpretation", you can't really argue against it. It doesn't matter how many scientific facts you have.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.

Missing the point by milliwattb · 2004-11-01 05:20 · Score: 1

It seems both sides are arguing with more rhetoric than fact. Intelligent design and evolution (via random mutation and natural selection) are both theories. Both are "testable" only to limited degrees. Intelligent design doesn't exclude naturalistic causes (first cause may have been the only "divine intervention") and ID theorists are not necessarily traditional creationists. "The earth brought forth.." Genesis 1:12 sounds more like naturalistic causes than divine intervention in that specific scenario. If/when it is discovered that life/complexity came about through naturalistic causes (excluding first cause) other than random mutation and natural selection, both sides will claim they won. www.iscid.org has the best scientific and most objective discussion from both sides

The scarey thing is... by QuasiRob · 2004-11-01 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

...your current president believes in all this religious stuff!

Lets hope he isnt the current president for much longer.

Mind you, our prime minister seems to dabble in it as well.

Bah, all these cultists running major governments, no wonder theres so many wars.

--
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by fyngyrz · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

Now, of course - I did make an assumption - you're not one of those sinful folk that takes "last Thursday" to mean five days ago now, are you? Because obviously, well, that is heresy. The world was created last Thursday, not just this past Thursday. I know this for a fact, because I remember last Wednesday, and obviously, we had to have one then, didn't we?

And don't start with that "false memory" stuff, either. Or I'll crusade all over your heretic ass.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WindBourne · 2004-11-01 05:22 · Score: 1

And some of them still believe that the earth is flat and others in there think that the earth is the center of the universe. So what? Let them believe in whatever they wish, facts be damned.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Interesting. by nukeade · 2004-11-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Notice how all of the creationist slashdotters blame the evolutionists for starting the argument and not respecting their beliefs and the evolutionists blame the creationists for the same thing.

Maybe next we should start debating the chicken versus the egg... or would that be the same debate all over?

~Ben

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by cens0r · 2004-11-01 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

socialism seems to be working in northern europe just fine.

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Doesn't Scale Well by PetoskeyGuy · 2004-11-01 05:23 · Score: 4, Funny

To paraphrase again...
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king."

I believe in most cultures it would be more like
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is a freak".

Or perhaps
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king where x = 0"

Re:Doesn't Scale Well by Cragen · 2004-11-01 08:00 · Score: 1

Actually, if you were to prove that there was a one-eyed man P(1) as your base case, then would the P(n+1) inductive clause be inductive proof that there are creatures with any number of eyes? (I think I made myself cross-eyed with that one.)
Re:Doesn't Scale Well by fbg111 · 2004-11-01 08:32 · Score: 1

"To paraphrase again...
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king."

I believe in most cultures it would be more like
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is a freak"."

Sorry, I don't understand. If somebody is cross-eyed, what does it mean to add 1 to that? Would that be like a cyclops where the two symetrically opposed eyes are crossed, but the third eye is free and normal? If so, then I would think that in the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man would be both a king and a freak, assuming everyone else could somehow contort their head, neck, and eyes enough to see that he had a third, normal eye.

--
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Re:Doesn't Scale Well by bobbuck · 2004-11-01 09:23 · Score: 2, Funny

To paraphrase again... "In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king."
I believe in most cultures it would be more like "In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is a freak".
Or perhaps "In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king where x = 0"
Isn't this the start of the old joke about do you pick the girl with X eyes, (X+1) eyes, or (X-1) eyes, and the answer is the one with the biggest tits?
Re:Doesn't Scale Well by Jim+Starx · 2004-11-01 12:35 · Score: 1

Um.... no.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:Doesn't Scale Well by PsiPsiStar · 2004-11-01 13:54 · Score: 1

Congrats.
You've obviously evolved eyes.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.

just me? by macaran · 2004-11-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Is it just me, or does the picture of the worm they show already have what look like eyes? And if it already has eyes, why would these rod and cone cells still be in it's brain? As far as I can tell this doesn't seem much diffrent than the slashdot story about the Redskins loss, sure it looks like it suports what we want it to suport, but we had to do a HELL of a lot of searching to find it. Shouldn't there be at least 3 or 4 unique situations before we start running around declairing this the writ of god? Your no better than the creationists if you jump on something with so little evidence. Seems to me like poor science to declare yourself as having "concrete" proof when all you have is a single case study. Imho I think both evolutionists and creationists suffer from "my opponent is wrong" mentality. When you get down to it you can't PROVE either one wrong, so you should give the assumption that it might be right. I could be wrong I supose.

question for those against teaching evolution... by 18769 · 2004-11-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Can anyone give me a reasonable answer to why anyone would ever want to ban teaching evolution in schools?

The fact is that evolution is based on a very subtle, interesting argument, that is, granted, hard to understand. The techniques and concepts needed to make the argument function are incredibly powerful and useful for all sorts of analysis. Capatilism, for instance, runs on lots the same principles (survival of the fittest, etc). Why would anyone ever be against teaching these arguments in any school? Particularlly when people are motivated to really engage the pro-evolution arguments and see what sorts of counter-arguments they're susseptable to? Banning the teaching of evolution just feels like an attempt to limit a student's intellectual capability...

Combining this with the fact that creationism runs off a thoroughly uninteresting argument (not for it's potential to be correct or incorrect, but simply because it must appeal to God instead of actually trying to explain phenomena). That isn't proof that it is false, it just makes me feel that teaching it should be less of a priority.

(all of the above is said under the assumption that both are valid theories for which no school should assert as true)

The Religion of Science by flinxmeister · 2004-11-01 05:24 · Score: 1

A quick peek under the covers of modern "rational", "reasoning", and "free thinking" science will reveal that most science today has just as much religion and dogma as most religions and dogmas.

If the study in the article had found anything contradictory to evolution, and if they'd had the courage to publish such things, they'd have quickly been derided as quacks. They'd have lost any grant money or other funding, and would have lost all respect anywhere, even if their data and reasoning were solid.

For a good start in this, read Kicking the Sacred Cow by noted Sci Fi author James P Hogan. He argues that the only real un-religious science is in the fields related to engineering. I'm inclined to believe him.

This study is all cool and everything. But modern science has made up it's mind, so don't fool yourself into thinking you'll hear all sides of evolution/darwinism from religion or science.

Re:The Religion of Science by oneiron · 2004-11-01 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Very true... Which religion is more beneficial to the progress of our species, and further, our planet? That's the question, I think, that should guide us to our chosen dogma. Dogma seems unavoidable. It seems we would benefit from a wide adoption of a dogma that might, eventually, eradicate itself. Science is linked too strongly to commercialism. Creationism and other extreme ideologies seem ludditish... I tend to think that it lies somewhere in between Buddhism and Science. Taoism is probably the closest approximation that has been explored fully. Vedanta is great, but the mystical aspects can be hard to swallow for many.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by rho · 2004-11-01 05:24 · Score: 1

Actually, if you found Jesus' skeleton, there would be a whole lot of very upset Christians. "Whaddaya mean Jesus is dead?"

I've said before, creationists come in all flavors. Some are real loons, sure, but so is Stephen Jay Gould. Here's a guy who wants us to accept his interpretation of dirt and rocks and fossils from millions of years ago; but when he's presented with current economic evidence, he's a goddamn Marxist. That screams "bad judgement" to me, and predisposes me to assume his science is equally flawed. Anyway, there are perfectly rational creationists who do want to find the truth, and think the modern evolutionist spiel to be less-than-convincing.

I know that I, personally, have never been sufficiently convinced that We Were All Worms Once. The proof I've been offered over the years has been the weakest sort of hand-waving. Species diversification is not evidence of species evolution--it's a poor engineer who does not build in flexibility. Similarity between fundamentals is not evidence of direct relationship--it's a poor engineer that builds each building with unique, revolutionary structure, unrelated to all others.

Indeed, the language of evolutionists, like yours, that paint all creationists (or anti-evolutionists, which are not neccessarily the same group) as fanatics and lunatics strike me as vicious propoganda. If the science is so pat, the science would speak for itself. Instead, the science is a lot of connected dots, which is fine as a working model--but if somebody can connect the dots in a different way, and invokes something the other scientists find objectionable on philosophical grounds, that doesn't give them free reign to start in with ad hominem attacks.

Part of the ID critique is that science is only looking at the evidence through the eyes of evolution. Not fully objective, it's only used to buttress pre-existing ideas. The complaint of evolution as a mere "theory" has been abused by some creationists, but the underlying idea is actually a good one. For science to work, you have to report everything, even that which may contradict your beliefs. Always seeking to prove even yourself wrong, and through that discipline, you trend towards the truth. It's good stuff, but people who don't have pet theories and pet hypothoses don't get published. They don't get funding. And "pure" science is an expensive, iterative process that provides little direct benefit other than to satisfy intellectual curiosity. So, you get the same territoriality you find in wolf packs in science as well, (proof of evolution!) and with similar results--lots of perfectly innocent trees covered in piss.

--
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.

Dawkins made a prediction by jmichaelg · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Dawkins described the likely evolution of the eye as a progression from a heat sensitive patch of skin to a pit as found on pit vipers to a camera obscura peephole to a rudimentary lens to keep the camera obscura clean. The final step in Dawkin's speculated path would have been the eye. When I read his path it made sense but at the time, I figured, without the creatures Dawkins was merely speculating.

The pit viper was already known so that wasn't hard. However, about 5 years after I read Dawkin's speculation, some oceanographers brought up some blind shrimp that had heat sensitive patches on their topside. The shrimp apparently use the ability to "see" heat to find smokers which provide the energy basis of the food chain at the bottom of the ocean.

Anyone know of a creature that uses a camera obscura for an eye?

God of the gaps by dubl-u · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1

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.

Ok, this argument always makes me crazy. Not only is it weak science, but it's lousy, lousy theology. I hear Christians describe it as a God-of-the-gaps approach to science.

What these guys do is say, "Well, in these areas where nobody can refute the science, we'll call that the domain of science. Micro-evolution? Heck, plenty of evidence, so there's no hand-of-god stuff there. But in the areas we don't understand yet? That's clearly the work of an all-powerful creator, and you evil secular humanists should stop poisioning the minds of the children by suggesting otherwise. Oh! Think of the children!"

Now I'm not religious, but I have friends who are sincere Christians, and they like this as little as I do. Since science is always peeling back the veil of mystery, if you figure that God is only in the shadows, God has been getting smaller since Galileo's day. Poor, tiny God! No wonder the creationists need to leap to his defense; he might disappear altogether!

Instead, my friends' take is that God is behind everything, in everything, sustains everything. By doing science, by a making careful examination of what they see as God's works, they feel like they are exposing the magnificient beauty of the creator's work. To them, science is to the universe what art history is to art: not a threat, but a sincere tribute.

Let It Go by thealmightyegg · 2004-11-01 05:26 · Score: 1

I think it's time for humankind to let go of it's ego and admit that maybe, just maybe, we don't know, and that it's possible that we never will.
I do hope, however, that I am someday proven wrong.

--

-----
120 chairs?! What the hell am I supposed to do with 120 chairs...?

Next stop: Bombardier Beetle by 5n3ak3rp1mp · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

My favorite creationist example of something that looks like it had to have been "by design" is the explosive defense of the bombardier beetle. It takes 3 simultaneous ingredients to make it work, and having all their production and injection systems arise simultaneously by chance seems to be highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it that any eye (or photosensitive cell) is better than no eye, and that better eyes are more likely to survive. In other words, every feature we possess was advantageous in its lesser forms also.

Re:Next stop: Bombardier Beetle by raytracer · 2004-11-01 08:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

My favorite creationist example of something that looks like it had to have been "by design" is the explosive defense of the bombardier beetle. It takes 3 simultaneous ingredients to make it work, and having all their production and injection systems arise simultaneously by chance seems to be highly unlikely.

Of course one is left with the job of explaining precisely why God needed to create a beetle which shoots corrosive chemicals from its abdomen.

For more information on the bombardier beetle, try checking out the talk.origins FAQ on the subject.

--
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Re:Next stop: Bombardier Beetle by Tim+C · 2004-11-01 10:50 · Score: 1

one is left with the job of explaining precisely why God needed to create a beetle which shoots corrosive chemicals from its abdomen.

Easy geeky answer - God's a geek, and just had to scratch that itch...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Next stop: Bombardier Beetle by xethair · 2004-11-02 10:50 · Score: 1

It takes 3 simultaneous ingredients to make it work, and having all their production and injection systems arise simultaneously by chance seems to be highly unlikely.

You have overly limited your thinking. I would suppose, rather than your explanation, that some kind of explosive system evolved first (defensive advantage==more survival) and then further developed into a more reliable system (fewer misfires==more survival) by further separating needed chemicals and their systems.

Nothing just suddenly/simultaneously appears, on an evolutionary scale.
Re:Next stop: Bombardier Beetle by 5n3ak3rp1mp · 2004-11-03 05:27 · Score: 1

See the discussion on this topic at talkorigins. I may have explained it inadequately. I believe I recall some factoid about the presence of any 2 of the ingredients (but not all 3) being very negative for the continued existence of the beetle- it would require all 3.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Prune · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

He was making an analogy.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by God!+Awful+2 · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

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...

You probably read it in one of Richard Dawkins' books. The Blind Watchmaker, I think.

-a

--
/. users can't

Re:Face It by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Your argument is flawed, in that there is a great deal evidence supporting the science behind creationism. And no true creationist argues against the validity of science or even the idea that creatures evolve to better survive over time. They argue that evolution is not the mechanism of creation and is only part of the design. I think to say anyone who is a creationist is not a scientist is short sided and quit frankly shows a lack of understanding of the issues.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary

Object Oriented Programming or Spaghetti Code by PortHaven · 2004-11-01 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Object Oriented Programming or Spaghetti Code

The debate of Evolution vs ID(Intelligent Design or Influence) is really one of programming philosophy.

Please read the following quote:

"She found an opsin, a light-sensitive molecule, in the worm that strikingly resembled the opsin in the vertebrate rods and cones....This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin."

The following statement claims that said discovery is de-facto proof of evolutionary origin. But in truth, it is not. It could be applied as evidence for support. But as there are other simple explanations it cannot be used as proof.

To me, evolution is "spaghetti" code. Is the world written sloppily or is there a framework? are there functions?

One could look at the above example in the quote and assume that it is proof that said molecular arrangement originated in worm and was carried thru to vertebrates as they evolved and got more complex.

However, there is a simple explanation, code re-use. In an Object Oriented model of programming one writes functions that perform a particular task. One later writes functions that call other functions/routines to accomplish a large task.

So the thought of ID, explains the above discoveries equally well. Both the worm and the vertebrates include some of the same function libraries. So such a development philosophy easily offers another rational for the observed phenomen. Thus I do not see this as some 'concrete evidence'.

In fact, code-reusage and modular development also explains the instances where scientists state that there is code in the DNA for primitive functions we do not use.

Might I ask how many programmers use a "library". I know in my first C++ class we had to import a library for which to utilize certain functions. Furthermore, I know that I did NOT use all those functions. So how can we look at such code and claim those as arguments for random development and than go to our bosses and expect a paycheck for our labor?

Just some food for thought

- The Saj

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by AdrainB · 2004-11-01 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Had it ever occured to you that the reason cephalopods have better eyes is that Cthulhu created the earth?

Definitions: Get your belief out of my facts by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 05:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Religion is based on the Fact that God exists

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere

4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

or

Main Entry: belief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH,

"God exists" is a belief, not a fact.
No matter how much you believe it, it doesn't make it a fact.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:Definitions: Get your belief out of my facts by Traa · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 1

"God exists" is a belief, not a fact.

This is just part of the screaming. If a religious person tells you "no, no, no, you are wrong! God exists IS a fact", how are you going to convince him/her?
Analogy: You are having a discussion about the meaning of a word with someone who uses a different dictionary then you (with a different meaning for the word you are discussing). Hopefully you would recognize that it is pointless to discuss the word and start discussing which dictionary to use.

As for my abuse of the word 'fact', yeah sure I use the same dictionary and recognize my misuse of the word. Someone else put it like this: "creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic". I meant it along those lines.
Re:Definitions: Get your belief out of my facts by Scrameustache · 2004-11-01 08:22 · Score: 1

If a religious person tells you "no, no, no, you are wrong! God exists IS a fact", how are you going to convince him/her?

I'm not gonna.
Once I've told them they are wrong and why, and they refuse to accept it, its about who's wrong, and their denial.

There's no point in reasoning with the unreasonable : )

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Definitions: Get your belief out of my facts by Frans+Faase · 2004-11-01 21:00 · Score: 1

"God does not exist" is also a believe and not a fact.
If you really think about it, many things that are stated as "fact", are not things you can be absolutely sure about. Just think about "The Matrix". There is not much we can be sure of, not even that we will die. It basically comes down to that we are aware that something exists.
Faith and science (including the idea of our world around us) move in completly different dimensions and they cannot be compared.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WindBourne · 2004-11-01 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are other ways to look at religion, but this view currently holds sway in the US and elsewhere. The few, silent, rational Christians such as yourself are likely to end up burnt at the stake with us atheists.

Personally, I do not think it is just a few silent christians. I think that it is the majority of America. I see that the fundamentalists are more akin to the 1980's moral majority, 1990's Al Qaeda, the 1930's German nazi party, or the 1900's USSR communist party. That is, just a small group with a very vocal opinion carry a message of their own choosing. The vast majority of people really just want to live and enjoy life. They are not concerned with changing it. These aforementioned groups are all small, but ....

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

M$ is killing evolution by lNxUnDeRdOg · 2004-11-01 05:29 · Score: 2, Funny

since humans are still "evolving" isn't M$ killing evolution, since it's making ppl dumber. We will be a race of point and clickers and M$ will be the great evolutionary god......all worship billy gates.....

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ynohoo · 2004-11-01 05:29 · Score: 1

yeah, I knew those Extreme Programming loonies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advocates were bent on world domination. One too many "rah-rah" workshop..

--
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?

It's all about creationism by wine · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 1

The argument that "if you find a watch on a beach, you assume someone made it" isn't going to go away.

With life, we didn't just happen to find it "on the beach". We are able to view the history of it, through fossils, DNA-resemblence of species and the fast procreation of bacteria.

The question here is wheter this history can be explained by competative behavior of species in changing circumstances or wether it has to be guided by an intelligent design.

Intelligent design is a way of saying evolution cannot be a autonomous process. It's a new way of saying God created life, but without claiming he also created the fossils and subsequently using the the watch on the beach argument.

Intelligent design is indeed the modern creationists view.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would also like to point out that scripture is mum on the mechanics of how God worked, and continues to work. For a creationist to blabber on about his or her theory, and try to back it up with scripture in the face of contravening facts, is blasphemy.

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

Re:Two Big Lies by jimmy_dean · 2004-11-01 05:31 · Score: 1

Thanks for your comment! I just ordered the book your recommended off of amazon.com. I look forward to reading it and reading it again!

--
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.

6K nonsense by samjam · 2004-11-01 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Non-creationists rarely take the trouble to understand creationism any more than they think they need for a superficial debunking and therefore do the whole world a dis-server.

Many christians also fail to study their own sources.

6 thousand years is supposed to be the approximate time since Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of eden and made mortal.

There is NOTHING in the bible to indicate
1) how long they were in the garden of eden as immortals before this point
[hence 6k is rubbish]

2) nothing PLAIN about how long each of the six creative periods ("days") were or even if they were the same length of time as eachother.

All I've done here is show that the parents posts debunking is groundless.

Creationists don't all believe the same things, and that grouping them together and debunking some combined creationist idea may not be equivalent to debunking any particular creationist idea at all.

For instance I believe in God and the creation account as given in Genesis - buts a pretty brief account, heh? Not rich on the details. I also believe God is a perfect glorified man with a physical body. But then again many humanists hope that man will one day be perfect and immortal, and have the power to create worlds. Whats wrong with saying it has already happened?

Sam

--
blog.sam.liddicott.com

Re:6K nonsense by wynterx · 2004-11-01 17:10 · Score: 1

There is NOTHING in the bible to indicate 1) how long they were in the garden of eden as immortals before this point [hence 6k is rubbish]
While this is technically correct, it is also completely irrelevant.
See Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died
Adam was 930 years old when he died. No way could he have spent thousands or millions of years in the garden as an immortal.

Re:Face It by toddt · 2004-11-01 05:32 · Score: 1

If Creationists are just a bunch of blind religious zealots, why not ignore them?

For exactly the same reason that you might be a little grouchy if the Ku Klux Klan showed up to teach your kids social studies. They're easily ignored, too, but you probably don't want your kids thinking they're the experts in the field.

If you're an adult, though, and you want to believe the world is flat or evolution is a sham or that the sky is red, more power to you. Just don't tell my kids you know jack shit about science.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Lumpy · 2004-11-01 05:32 · Score: 1

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.

I can say the same thing about ANY extremest segment of any group.

Basing an entire people's value on the words of an extremist group is nothing more than racisim.

I suggest that you do not fall in that trap.

I do not think all Muslims are in a Jihad against all americans for they are the devils, only a smaller extrimst group is.

Only fools or the simpletons that can not understand relativity believe that the earth was created in "6 days". The words are specificall those of GOD's and therefore are from GOD's point of view. the bible goes on to say that an eon can pass in the twinkle of GOD's eye. So discovering that the earth and universe is 90 quadrillion years old (or whatever huge amount of time it is) should not be suprising to anyone.

it just happen's to upset a small subset of very narrow minded and woefully uneducated group of people.

Suprise, I'm a Christian. Yet I do not believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that we are the only living beings in this universe. Hell, there were people probably publically killed if they suggested that the earth was round and had people like noone has ever seen on the other side of it.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

This is all a waste of time! by huge+colin · 2004-11-01 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Intelligent design implies a designer.

If the evidence for the existence of this designer consists only of circumstantial evidence such as the "brilliance" or "elegance" of a biological mechanism (for example), then the existence of the designer has not been conclusively proven. Direct physical evidence is required.

History indicates that religions survive and gain popularity if they can stand up to extreme scrutiny. Religions that cannot stand up to scrutiny die out. This results in the common "God works in mysterious ways" explanation being used as an all-purpose response to the questioning of skeptics. (Unfortunately for the religious proponents, using 'God' in that explanation represents an unproven assumption -- the existence of a god.)

Because modern religions must be able to explain their way out of any absurd scenario, god has, by definition, become undetectable by any scientific means. (If god were detectable, the necessary experiment would be conducted, and god would be found to not exist. This is not acceptable for the religions that require a supreme being.)

A completely undetectable supreme being is exactly equivalent to no supreme being at all.

Suck on that.

--Colin

Re:"Evidence" by 17028 · 2004-11-01 05:34 · Score: 1

It's interesting how you bring up the big bang theory in a discussion on evolution, seeing as it has nothing to do with evolution. You seem to have a problem with science controverting your narrow religious beliefs?

And by the way, to assume (wrongly) that all or even most simple organisms have an opaque skull the same way humans do is kind of ignorant. Go read up on some biology, brother!

Very interesting. by WebCowboy · 2004-11-01 05:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Neocon philosophy is *never* wrong. Any mistakes happen because the philosophy was not put into practice vigorously enough.

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, I've made the very same observation about "new liberalism", socialism and even Communism: Socialised medicine's failings are blamed on private clinics, inequalities in the workplace are still a problem because affirmative action is not adequately enforced in education and industry, the Soviet Union collapsed because of corrupt officials who did not follow the ideals of Communism and acted in their own interests before the state's, etc.

I suggest you further "modify your view" and google for more "facts" using terms related to liberalism and socialism. You'll find that philospohies that deviate from the "common sense middle" you are simply looking at two sides of the very same coin.

Incidentially, one of the most "neo-conservative" people I knew was an honours student in physics and a rather "devout" athiest. I also find that apart from some of the more evangelical churchgoers that devout Christians tend to be more liberal in a lot of ways (advocating more socialised medicine, subsidised housing, international aid, etc.) so I think the issue of evolution vs. creationism cannot be classified simply as a conservative vs. liberal issue.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dgatwood · 2004-11-01 05:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

I always saw Genesis in terms of a joke a priest once told back in Tennessee. It went something like this:

Man: Lord, how long is a million years to you?
God: Only a minute.

Man: Lord, how much is a million dollars to you?
God: Only a penny.

Man: Lord, can I have a million dollars?
God: In a minute.

It is naive of us to believe that Genesis is to be interpreted as literal fact, in much the same way that it is naive of us to believe that anything so transcribed, translated, and retranslated by fallible men is the infallible word of God.

Further, it is naive to assume that someone several thousand years ago could have understood evolution if God had described it to him/her. Jesus spoke in parables as a way of boiling complex issues down to a simple metaphorical truth. It seems perfectly consistent to assume that Genesis is similar: God taking a very complicated subject (for the time period) and distilling it to its very essence so that primitive minds could understand.

Creation versus evolution is not inherently a conflict except for those weak in faith. A faith that cannot be challenged---that cannot accept the possibility that it might have gotten some details wrong---is not true faith. True faith must grow, change, sometimes even die entirely to be reborn anew in a stronger, more vibrant form. That's what the Bible says, but some people forget this and angrily defend the exact words of the Bible as God's absolute truth, thus refusing to allow their faith to be tested. A faith untested cannot be strong, for it is in being tested that our faith becomes deeper than a superficial understanding of God.

God did not come to this Earth thousands of years ago never to return. He did not abandon us. He works in our lives every day, whether we're scientists or random church-goers. Does it not, therefore, stand to reason that evolution might be a new truth that God has revealed to us? Not all new truths are heresy. Earth is not flat. The Sun does not revolve around Earth. Women and men are equal. God created the world in billions of years. No difference.

That said, I could be wrong, but so could everyone else---and that is the point.

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re: inside-out vs outside-in-Faith-based seeing. by Black+Parrot · 2004-11-01 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

> 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

Maybe you do by Gene77 · 2004-11-01 05:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

We just use the concept of God whenever we reach personal limits.

Some people do, some people do not. The generalization doesn't hold.

God is generally portrayed as a "coping mechanism" by atheists, within my personal experience (others may differ). Putting aside religious people trying to sell something, most of the rest of us deal with the reality that Life with God is more complex and often more difficult than Life without God. There is no "coping" for me.

--
"Man has always been his own most vexing problem." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Nature and Destiny of Man"

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism-Self-observence. by Elledan · 2004-11-01 05:35 · Score: 1

Can one even answer a question which contains an undefined term?

--
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com

Why can't they both be right? by zaren · 2004-11-01 05:35 · Score: 1

There was an article in my church bulletin this week explaining how the Catholic Church actually does accept "in theory" the concept of evolution. I even managed to reationalize it myself back in grade school: if a million years is to God as a day, and a day as a million years... and the process of evolution took millions of years...

The book of Genesis even says (if I remember correctly) the first life forms created lived in the ocean, and then on the land... kinda how evolution played itself out. Our priest also takes great pains to point out that the Bible is not a history book, it's a book about how the Church *thinks* that things happened. So one methodology or the other could be horribly off and nobody would know :)

--
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!

Re:A topical repost by JohnnyCannuk · 2004-11-01 05:35 · Score: 1

BTW, the above post is mine. Damn post anaonymously button too close to the preview button...not enough coffee...

Anyway, flame me here...

--
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by wavedeform · 2004-11-01 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny

We are all Devo:
"God made man, but he used a monkey to do it"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by TheWanderingHermit · 2004-11-01 05:36 · Score: 1

for a hot chick is with me

Hey, that's right. If the world is still new, than all those memories most of us /.ers have of NOT having a hot chick with us on the weekend are false -- so that means Geeks can do fun things and can even date!

I guess that means my memories of the "old days" when K-Kool had meaning are false, as well...

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by cellocgw · 2004-11-01 05:40 · Score: 1

Thursday? You mean the Red Sox' Series win is just another implanted memory from before time?

Figures....

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

George Bush's tattoo by revscat · 2004-11-01 05:41 · Score: 1

I think we should take that quote and tattoo it on George Bush's forehead.

And thank you, I do realize how painful that would be.

Penn and Teller do it better by geneing · 2004-11-01 05:41 · Score: 1

There was an episode of P & T's "Bullsh-t" about creationism. Highly recommend it.

Good scientific work is a strong argument for me and other nerdy types, but not for the ID types. They are just nuts. Listen or read the stuff that ID supporters put out. Every other sentence is complete bull.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Ithika · 2004-11-01 05:41 · Score: 1

That's probably the explanation I've been looking for all these years ;)

--
the layman's guide to computer science

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Tablizer · 2004-11-01 05:42 · Score: 1

I have a vision of a beach where a lot of watches are mating, and after their sex orgy, they bury their eggs in the sand and crawl back to their drunken owner's' wrist and await the next mating season to subliminally induce thoughts of tourism to sunny beaches with their ticking, and blinking...

So that explains that those weird arm rashes I keep getting. I thought "Relox" looked suspicious.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:They have a very weak argument, it proves nothi by Gi77+B4t35 · 2004-11-01 05:42 · Score: 1

Just like all great programmers cut and paste code from one project to the nextNo they don't, crap programmers do that. Good ones create libraries.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by glsunder · 2004-11-01 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most christians don't have a problem. However, the number of fundamentalists is growing in the USA, and they are a problem. They prey on people who can't deal with the real world, have never learned any critcal thinking skills or developed any form of skepticism. These are people who claim to be persecuted in the USA, they are victims, and their religious groups give them a sense of community. They are members of a cult, and one that is rapidly growing with people who can't deal with modern society. In return, the leaders of this cult make millions of dollars and get tremendous political power.

This leads to another problem, non-christians think that the fundies represent all christians, that all christians are fascist-like who would murder anyone who disagrees with them. Of course, that affects all religions -- a segment will always use it to prey on the weak minded.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by bloggins02 · 2004-11-01 05:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Ummm, I'm an atheist, but I live in the fundamentalist bible-belt of the world, so I think I can give you two pretty good reasons why biblical literalists cannot accept evolution:

1) The bible is the literal, breathed, inerrant Word of God. For this to be the case (so the argument goes), the stories of creation in Genesis cannot be mere alegory, they must be literally true. Otherwise, who's to say what else is not literally true. Yes, I realize that this is a weak argument.

The second, and IMHO, MUCH stronger argument is the following:

2) Fundamentalists believe in a literal heaven where you go to live after you die. That's not metaphorical. They also believe that non-believers literally go to a hell after they die, which is also not metaphorical. In fundamentalist Protestantism, the only thing that will get you into heaven is belief in Christ. That's it. End of story. But the fundamentalists have to explain WHY this is (in other words, if I live my life in a good way, why do I still go to hell if I'm not christian?). Here's why (again, so the argument goes):

- God is perfect. So perfect, in fact, that He must not allow imperfection in his sight. To avoid this, all those who are not perfect go to a place without God (Hell) and so will not be in His site.

- The fall introduced evil into the world. In so doing, God's creation (Mankind) was made evil. That's ALL of his creation, not just the original "evil doers" (that would be Adam and Eve). As the new testament says "All fall short of the glory of God." And "Man's best deeds are but dirty rags." So basically, since you are inherently imperfect (hence away from God, or "sinful" technically) there is nothing you could possibly do to earn your way to heaven. Woo hoo! We're all going to hell!

- But, what if God made a sacrifice to atone for the fall on behalf of all mankind? The argument is that Jesus did this. In so doing, whomever would accept that Christ did this for him would basically have their own sins atoned for by Christ Himself (who was also God), so that when that person stood before God in Heaven, God would see the atonement of Christ (himself) instead of that person's sins. Hence, heaven is possible, but only for believers.

There's protestant theology in a nutshell. Now, here's where creationism comes in (again, so the argument goes):

If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.

Usually this combined with the first argument about biblical literalism ensures that it will indeed be a cold day in Hell before protestants can reconcile their beliefs with mainstream science.

Just thought you'd like to know. Christians, feel free to correct me if any of the details are wrong.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dustinbarbour · 2004-11-01 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Neocon is not a term used by those described as being so. So, obviously, your time spent on Google was wasted as you are asure to only have received one side of the story. You conspiracy theorists blow my mind.. really.

--
What is your penile percentile?

Idle theology by abb3w · 2004-11-01 05:43 · Score: 1

one of God's days is much longer than one of our days

If it makes you happier:
The bible oft compares God to light.
The mind of God may well "travel" at near light speed.
Relativity says that when you travel close to light speed, time distorts.
Ergo, a day for God conceivably is a billion years for mankind.

You can also use general relativity, and park god next to a black hole. There's also an information theory arguement involving god's omniscience which gives the same result, although I didn't know enough physics to remember and understand it when I first encountered it.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

Light Reactive Cells in our Brains? by joshuao3 · 2004-11-01 05:43 · Score: 1

Silly question, but, what happens if we cut open our head and shine a light on these light reactive cells? Would they register as vision, or something completely new? Any links to experiments?

--
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/

Re:Face It by joib · 2004-11-01 05:45 · Score: 1

You don't see this sort of nonsense in Europe...

I'm afraid you're wrong. At my university there was a creationism (oh sorry, "intelligent design") seminar a few weeks ago. We tried to stop it (i.e. kick it off campus and the educational program of the uni) with a petition signed in a few days by hundreds of faculty and students, but to no avail. :-(

Of course, you're right in the sense that over here the number of christian fundementalists who actually believe in this bulls*it is marginally small, so they have no real impact on public policy as opposed to the USA. And hopefully they never will have..

the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by eno2001 · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Damn! And I just had mod points yesterday. The parent certainly deserves a +5 Insightful. While, I don't hold anyone's particular belief system in contempt, I do think it's unproductive to try and shoehorn the world into your particular way of thinking. The bible is a nice book with some guidelines for living. Some of those guidelines are good, others are WAY OFF BASE. It's not so much a history but more of a text based version of the telephone game. Use your heads people. This is about science and completely exclusive of religion. These guys didn't say , "god doesn't exist". They said, "Oh look! There is a similariy between rods and cones and the light sensitive brain cells of lower creatures".

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by bbtom · 2004-11-01 08:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Damn right. That reminds me of my first day in Ethics (I'm a phil student) where the teacher stated up front that...
1. I'm a Christian.
2. The Bible is about the most useless piece of crap for drawing moral conclusions from.

I've just read Stephen Jay Gould's Rock of Ages book, which proposes the NOMA theory - non-overlapping magisteria. This is precisely what you are stating. Science deals with some questions and religion deals with other questions. Of course, if you are not religious, there are also ways of looking at those questions.

Also, it's worth checking out Michael Ruse's "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" where he looks in more detail and states quite emphatically that Yes, Darwinism and Christianity are completely compatible.

--
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by ryanmfw · 2004-11-01 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is this a problem with America or with religious rednecks? Is it America's fault that some arrogant jerks decided to abuse what America so gratiously gave them, their freedom? Those people are sad, not America. America has it's problems, but this is not one of them. This is what makes America great, but unfortunately could tear it down.

--
Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by OzRoy · 2004-11-01 10:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

"What developed the West, what set it apart from the rest, was *science*, not religion."

Actually I would say it was the other way round. Religon has always been the "power" in western society. The Church has always dictated the direction of thinking and belief. If something doesn't agree with their rules they persecute it. Galileo for example.

Eastern culture has always been based more on spiritual guidelines than hard doctrine and made many technilogical advances long before western society.
Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-11-01 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Eastern culture has always been based more on spiritual guidelines than hard doctrine and made many technilogical advances long before western society.

I think you're buying into broad cultural stereotypes about "Western" and "Eastern" culture which don't hold up to close scrutiny. First of all, there is no line between East and West. Those cultures we consider Western have had extensive cultural interaction with those we call Eastern: Buddhism, for example, was influenced to a large degree by "Western" philosophy as far back as the first century C.E., when a syncretic "Greco-Buddhism" emerged in central Asia; likewise, early Christian mysticism borrowed from Hindu religious practices. There's not even any clear consensus as to who is Western and who is Eastern: Islam is considered "Eastern" by Christians and "Western" by Hindus, and in the Balkans various religious and ethnic groups have seen Russia's influence as an example of both the "decadent West" and the "primitive East."

As for the claim that "hard doctrines" are easier to find in the West than in the East, history disagrees. China gave us both the extremely rigid social organization of Confucianism and the easygoing individualism of Taoism, at times recognizing both doctrines simultaneously; while here in the "West" we've seen everything from Catholics to Wiccans, businessmen to hippies.

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" by vax · 2004-11-01 15:18 · Score: 1

how are they so different? Both seek to explain things that dont have an immediately obvious explaination. Both claim to be the best thing since sliced bread, but leave us hanging instead. Science has gotten to the point where its running into the divine and unexplainable, and christianity is so focused on money and power that it will never see the light. They both fall short of thier promises and it really is no suprise, they are both are ran by a bunch of egocentric people who over analyze things so much that they have no common sense anymore. I personally feel for Jesus, you know the man they made a martyr and bannered as the savior, while ignoring his words and indulging in the well intentioned disciple's church making. The man was anti church, anti temple, for the sole reason that he was awakened and realized the trivial nature of such buildings and how they blinded the congregations from realizing the obvious, no ammount of faith in a building, or its dogma, or its books, or its dieties, is going to save you. a church is no more holy than a tree, honestly I would say its less, because It was made by man, its only devine influence is second hand. its everyman for himself, and luckily were not all alpha male gun toting postal americans, so you can get a helping hand but ultimately to wake up and see the real wisdom of christ and all the other "messiahs" you have to stop listening to these self proclaimed authorities and get down to the essence. you got to help yourself because there is no ammount of religious fervor thats going to grant you some "place in heaven" you already got one, but its funny how people fail to see the obvious and feel the need to complicate the hell out of everything.

Re:Face It by eviloverlordx · 2004-11-01 05:46 · Score: 1

I think you've got a fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding of the issue here. No scientist is out there asking you to blindly believe him or her. All of the evidence that they are working from is available in any college or university library. Creationists, on the other hand, have no evidence for their position. I would have trouble believing any scientist is willing to accept 'mistruths', as you put it.

--
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.

noooo...... by phyruxus · 2004-11-01 05:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

>>If there was concrete evidence that we were all created from God, there'd be scientists denying the fact.

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

Re:noooo...... by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 11:31 · Score: 1

You're confusing science with atheism. BTW, scientists have a tendency toward agnosticism, not atheism.
*standard "please don't mischaracterize atheism and/or agnosticism" post*
Re:noooo...... by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-11-01 14:59 · Score: 1

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.

must......resist,.....using....mind....tricks..... .

Re:Two Big Lies by trongey · 2004-11-01 05:49 · Score: 1

I disagree with the "fundamentally wrong" part of your statement. For those who use evolution in their day-to-day work the broad, general theories provide a valuable and reliable framework.

The biggest problem with evolution theories is incompleteness. They really don't provide a picture that is a whole lot deeper than what's offered in Genesis.

In Paleontology classes one of the basic things we learned was that evolution theory in it's current state is full of holes. It actually appears to be fundamentally right, but only fundamentally. Unfortunately, that turns out to be the case for a lot of the important theories in Earth Science.

After all, there will always be a finite amount that we know, and an infinite amount that we don't know.

--
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.

Re:Evolution=accident, not design by einhverfr · 2004-11-01 05:50 · Score: 1

Evolution = statistical response to changing environment, in my view. This can have temporary effects (i.e. animals generalize when resources are scarce and specialize when they are plentiful), or long-term impacts when resource implications change.

The accidents you refer to are contained in that statistical response. Now, if you believe in God (btw, I am a polytheist), it would be relatively easy to argue that these environmental changes are the mechanism by which the designer works... I have a different point of view, of course, so I am just pointing out how something could easily be argued.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by NoMercy · 2004-11-01 05:50 · Score: 1

I view god as the creator, but the story in the bible is simply a story so that the people of the time could imagine how the world was formed.

Mabie in the ancient text in the ancient way of understanding the words there were a few bits of clue as to how it all worked, mabie there wern't but any subtlety has been lost to the sands of time. The story of genesis is now just a interesting story, and were starting to uncover how god really did build the universe.

Isn't it blasphemous that people can't believe god would be inteligent enough to use physics and evolution to build his universe?

Re:Face It by Jameth · 2004-11-01 05:50 · Score: 1

"You don't see this sort of nonsense in Europe or the more develped countries in Asia, where they have better education systems."

Oh, yes. Because, we all know that they've managed to convince people not to keep doing cremations and everything else in the Ganges, resulting in just about the least sanitary drinking water on earth.

Creationism origins by Coos · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 1

Long post - the introductory stuff is neccessary to understand the relevant point (in bold) at the end.

The introduction of evolutionary theory should not have precipitated any direct conflict with Biblical literalism. Its advent served only to undermine the accommodation that had grown up between scriptural interpretation and certain philosophical theories that had been prevalent in the Western Church for two centuries. In particular, Christianity had adopted Plato's Idealist doctrine of specific forms, theologically interpreted as "ideas in the mind of God", and Aristotle's teleological doctrine of final causes, giving rise to a hierarchical scala naturae and the conception of biological forms as unchanging (consistent with a Divine creation). The theory of origins native to these ancient authorities was largely incompatible with Christian ideas of the time, but these specific philosophies taken out of their cultural context had combined well with a Biblically-inspired doctrine of creation ex nihilo and the state of the art of natural history and taxonomy in the 18th century (itself much influenced by Aristotle) to form an authoritative theory of origins, referred to by John Durant as the "special creation theory":

"By identifying the Platonic demiurge with the Christian, and giving this creator the task of fashioning out of unformed matter a formal array of exquisitely adapted species, it is possible to arrive at an idealistic synthesis according to which each species (or other chosen natural kind) of plant or animal is the embodiment of a transcendent idea in the mind of the creator, or, with a little more subtlety, perhaps, to arrive at a synthesis in which each species is seen as an individually tailored variation upon a far smaller set of transcendental themes."

As exploration vastly expanded the known number and variety of species, rendering problematical the concept of a personal creation and leading more researchers towards evolutionary ideas, no longer could God's 'Second Book' be viewed as a fixed and unchanging text. Durant controversially argues that the discovery of natural selection:

"represented the unexpected fulfilment of the promise of the theory of special creation [...] in the sense that it accounted for the observed pattern of organic form and function with the aid of but a single overarching theoretical principle.[...] but it also destroyed that tradition by undermining the particular alliance of philosophy, theology, and natural science upon which it rested."

As a secular activity, evolutionary biology should not have troubled the theological doctrine of creation. Darwinism contradicts only the philosophical baggage which the theology had accumulated, and it was only through advocates like Paley who in his 'Natural Theology' "attached the credibility of the Christian doctrine of creation to a particular set of philosophical and scientific beliefs about species with which it need never have been directly associated" that the conflict was fostered.

On the religious side, the objections to the new biology were four-fold (as discussed in Barbour, 1966, pp89-98):

Evolutionary theory contradicted such "self-evident truths" as the argument from design
It undermined the dignity of Man by placing him as integral to nature rather than being set apart.
Belief in a continuing progress of society towards perfection mediated by natural law rather than Divine providence created the possibility that moral and ethical norms might be taken from biological rather than Biblical example.
The questioning of the origins interpretation derived from 'higher criticism' of the Biblical sources was a direct challenge to Biblical (and hence secular Church) authority.

The Church wanted only a science which would underpin their "hierarchical moral cosmos with all eyes lifted towards a benevolent Sustainer" (Desmond, 1987, p102).

Linux fork by hey · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Cristian Widnows has CreateProcess() but scientific Linux's processes always evolve from other processes with fork().

Re:Linux fork by BillyBlaze · 2004-11-01 11:47 · Score: 1

Some say /sbin/init is created by the "kernel," but I just don't see evidence for that. The user must have manually twiddled the bits in the "process table." Though good luck learning that in our *cough* unbiased OS design classes!

Re:Face It by eviloverlordx · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 1

I don't think it has anything to do with church/state separation, except so far as it has to do with teaching religion (i.e. creationism) in school. When you get polls that state that 50% or more of the population believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, you have a more fundamental issue than church/state. It's the same way with the large percentage of people that don't know that the earth revolves around the sun.

--
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by peragrin · 2004-11-01 05:52 · Score: 1

>>Are we reading what the ancient Hebrews understood, or merely the best translation into the written word that their language allowed.

It's actually this thought that I wonder most about. The ancient hebrews wrote down what they saw, and passed it on as best they could. They wouldn't understand as much as even an observer from today.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by jorleif · 2004-11-01 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by SomeGuyTyping · 2004-11-01 05:54 · Score: 1

I am a catholic conservative. I believe in creationism, but I also "believe" in evolution. The catholic church does not say that the human body body was created instantly (years of evolution are a good theory) but the human soul was created by God.

Any catholics (or other christians) who don't get it read this.

--
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 05:54 · Score: 1

Dan,
Like you, I consider myself a devout Christian. In fact, while an admirer of Hugh Ross, I'm a member of a pretty stereotypical how-conservative-can-we-get ABA church. So, let me offer you a typical response to why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible:

If you accept the Bible as truth, and

If you accept the literal read of Genesis, God went from null to reality in 168 hours, then

Any other explanation triggers a buffer overflow, allowing arbitrary doctrine to execute in the service (and boy, does some of that doctrine get arbitrary).

Furthermore, allowing unsupervised evolution into the dialogue is the first step towards atheism. Life can be (foolishly) seen as a vast, extended chemical reaction of vague origin and uncertain destination.

Taking the purely Darwinian route, for me, seems to come up nihilism. All statements go relative, and subjective. How do we differentiate between Stalin and Ghandi?
Now, maybe my life experience, which heavy exposure to Paul Tillich makes me a wierd duck; I read Genesis as a true, but poetic, qualitative abstract of the implementation. God taking it easy on the wet-ware. I don't think the sum of human knowledge more than the tip of the iceberg. And I look forward to a full debrief in the afterlife, when it might be possible to grasp all.
So, while all real instances of Christianity are quite open to criticism, I still haven't heard anyone mount a bulletproof attack against Christ, argued through the Gospels.
Remember, Jesus was a Jew, and have a nice day.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Communism is the same way by HBI · 2004-11-01 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Marxist true believers to this day say that the Soviets failed because they didn't implement 'true' communism, ditto for their former satellites. China is a complete perversion of the Marxist ethic.

If the right person or people came along, with the right level of moral conviction, the system would work. At least its champions say so.

It's human nature to believe such things.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Same result, different reasoning by BadDream · 2004-11-01 05:54 · Score: 1

I share your conclusion. But I see science as the business of questioning the unknown and religion as the business accepting the unknown. I believe that one can not accept and question at the same time.

To understand the unknown, science must question all things. Take it apart, put it back together, predict, measure, start again.

This often ends up with theories that can be proven wrong, but are difficult or impossible to prove right. If your theories predictions are false, your theory is proven wrong. If your predictions are correct, that does not prove your theory correct. It will simply become accepted until a better theory comes along.

To accept the unknown, religion relies upon faith. Faith that comes from some source of wisdom; a book, a priest, etc..

This results in theories that "could" be proven right, but are difficult to prove wrong. Could, in this sense requires the object of faith to cooperate. Any counterevidence is only shown as a test by the source of faith. I asked a Jehova's Witness about dinosaur bones once, and was told they were put in the earth by the devil to make us question god.

If a scientist accepted the unknown, they could not question that unknown, and would not be a scientist.

If someone who placed thier trust in faith questioned the unknown, they lose the ability to accept, and faith suffers.

--
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by perdu · 2004-11-01 05:56 · Score: 1

We can physically be made of the same stuff as all of the other creatures and still be spiritually distinct

This aspect of Judeo/Christrian religion has always bothered me: why do we think we are so different from other creatures? Why can't my dog hava a soul too? If we take the viewpoint of Eastern religions that all life is god or even that all creation is god then we are not highly evolved, just a little more complex in certain respects...

--
You only use 2% of your DNA

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by LordK2002 · 2004-11-01 05:56 · Score: 1

Actually I don't think most scientists give a hoot about whether creationists are right or wrong.

In contrast to the attitudes of religious institutions, the validity of a scientific position is not affected by the number of people who believe in it. Most scientists are interested only in the truth, and if that means discarding well-established scientific theories in favour of new evidence, then so be it.

why the backlash by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm amazed at the backlash that ideas like 'intelligent design' get from people at slashdot. While I assume that it is because ID becomes associated with religion, it seems to me to be somewhat of a relevant idea. Has anyone ever looked at the ID books and ideas?

I began as a creationist because of my religion. I have since abandoned creationism for several reasons. What I haven't let go is ID. If it is one thing that history proves it is that the best scientific theories often fall. Flat World, Sun Goes around Earth, and those physics guys are constantly going over their theories.

Why is it such a bad thing to question Evolution?

confused by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 05:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't understand; if all this is random chance - humanity, the study of science, life; why is it so important to these people? If they truly believe they are right then why does proving they are right matter to them? Further more, if they are right, then nothing matters at all. There is nothing greater and there is absolutely no valid reason to pursue understanding any of it because it doesn't actually mean anything. If they truly believe what they believe is correct, then all their efforts are actually a big waste of time. Their actions and passion seem to be a contradiction to their convictions.

Re:confused by mzieg · 2004-11-03 10:48 · Score: 1

It matters because your beliefs dictate your choices. If you believe that you were created by a God, then you are justified (arguably obligated) to spend a portion of your life paying respect and giving thanks to that God.
If you believe that you are an independent, unique, unsolicited, and temporary spawn of an otherwise uncaring universe, then you presumably have to make up your own mind as to the value of your life and how it should most productively be spent.
However, it is false to suggest that the absence of a Creator means that "nothing matters at all" and "everything is a waste of time." Regardless of how we got here, we generally have 70+ years of experiences and choices to navigate. Some of us do have the ability, will, and determination to define meanings for our own existence.
Part of the premise of free will is the choice to craft the meanings of our own lives. Neither Creationism nor Evolutionary Theory abrogate that.

Argument from design by why-is-it · 2004-11-01 06:00 · Score: 1

According to the wiki:

The 'Who, why, when, where and how' are theoretically excluded from the debate, although the idea is more often than not identified with religious arguments, with inevitable extension into those other domains. Religious proponents of ID use the argument from design to argue for the existence of a god

I thought that argument from design was pretty much destroyed by David Hume in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. So, anyone who invokes the argument from design in order to prove the existence of God must respond to Hume's objections. Are the ID people doing any of this?

It seems to me that ID does not work as a theory because it cannot be falsified. It presupposes the existence of God from a prioi thinking, there really is no way to invalidate the theory of intelligent design. It is not so much a theory as a belief.

--
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?

Re:Argument from design by why-is-it · 2004-11-01 07:23 · Score: 1

sed 's/prioi/priori/'

Serves me right for not previewing...

--
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?

Re:Face It by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:That is frightening and sad. by guidryp · 2004-11-01 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

If some of scriptures wrong, why not all of it? by GunFodder · 2004-11-01 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the reason why fundamentalism continues to enjoy strong support is that acknowledging flaws in your scriptures of choice is a slippery slope. If there are a few passages that are just plain wrong then the validity of the entire work is challenged.

One might argue that the spirit of work is the important part. In that case it would be prudent to distill the various scriptures into a pamphlet with the essentials; a higher power, Golden Rule, etc. This would enjoy much broader support. But I guess a lot of people enjoy taking a stand on stuff like a 6000 year old Earth, homophobia, contraception, submissive women, and other obsolete mores of ages past.

Re:If some of scriptures wrong, why not all of it? by Ithika · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

In that case it would be prudent to distill the various scriptures into a pamphlet with the essentials; a higher power, Golden Rule, etc.
Roll up, roll up!
Buy a copy of my revolutionary new Reduced Christianity, in ten easy-to-follow rules ;)

--
the layman's guide to computer science
Re:If some of scriptures wrong, why not all of it? by Zenzilla · 2004-11-01 08:24 · Score: 2, Funny

10? George Carlin got it down to 2:

Don't be dishonest to the bestower of the nookie.
Don't kill anybody usless they pray to a different invisible man in the sky than you do.
Re:If some of scriptures wrong, why not all of it? by big-giant-head · 2004-11-01 09:45 · Score: 1

He did'nt say they were wrong, he said they were interpreted incorrectly, big difference. If you go with the day being a very long periond of time even Billions of years then from an evolutionairy stand point it makes since. First we know the earth had a thick atmosphere, probably little light got in. THen as the atmpsphere changed light started to hit the surface probably some simple lichen and moss started to form as the very early plants. Hence the first things genesis are plants. THen in Genesis we see animal life started in the seas. Which we know from evolution..

Just because you read it figurativly instead of literally doesn't make it wrong.

--

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Re:If some of scriptures wrong, why not all of it? by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 11:05 · Score: 1

It most certainly does not make sense; for instance, Genesis 1 says the plants were made before the sun. To make the Bible fit the facts requires a very liberal reinterpretation.
Re:If some of scriptures wrong, why not all of it? by ahodgson · 2004-11-01 12:06 · Score: 1

The Bible is a work of fiction. Seriously. Most of the stories are variations of stories that appeared in many ancient civilizations. Some undoubtedly had a historical component, but really, it has no more validity as a historical reference than the Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Narnia.

How anyone can delude themselves into believing that it represents some literal truth is astounding. The power of brainwashing children is truly awesome.

And who says we're evolved? by perdu · 2004-11-01 06:02 · Score: 1

Even if you could answer the question regarding an intelligent creator (WHICH you can't), it's pointless.

Also, if we see are not different from the 10,000 things then we are not "superior" or "more evolved". You dog has Buddha nature, and so would a tape worm I suppose. I guess you can say we are differentiated in different ways, here in this differentiated world we live in...

--
You only use 2% of your DNA

Not a big deal? WTF? by awhite · 2004-11-01 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some of the posts on this thread disturb me. They imply that people aren't taking intelligent design (ID) seriously enough as a threat to science. The posts say that maybe ID is compatible with science after all: maybe it only applies to speciation; or maybe a god started things off at a certain point, and evolution took over from there; or if you interpret "day" to be some indeterminate length of time, maybe you can make the bible's creation story match facts (hint: you can't -- the creation story has plants appearing before the sun, for example).

The point is not whether it's possible to somehow reconcile ID with fact if you try hard enough. The point is that ID is being presented as a science, when it is clearly nothing of the sort. Are there unanswered questions in evolution? Of course. But saying "god did it" answers a small mystery with an enormous, or even completely unknowable one (god). It explains nothing, and encourages intellectual laziness. If we accepted "science" like this, we'd all still think thunder was the sound the gods make when they're angry.

I don't care if people choose to believe in god or ID based on faith; that's their right. What terrifies me is when it is presented as science -- especially in our schools. There is absolutely no doubt about it: if it weren't for the fact that ID puts a pseudo-scientific face on a certain demonstrably false and contradictory "holy" book, and the fact that proponents of that book fund ID well, it would have long since been thrown out as crackpot nonsense. Instead, it is being accepted by some school districts as science. Teaching ID as science undermines our entire theory of knowledge.

So discoveries like this possible explanation for the eye are important! They can potentially narrow the gaps in our scientific knowledge, which is the only attack against "god of the gaps" arguments like ID (the fact that ID is almost impossible to completely falsify is another big "tell" that it is not scientific).

p.s. [political rant]
Defending science is especially important with Bush in the white house. This is a man who says the "jury is still out" on evolution. This is an administration that approves a National Park Service booklet saying that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood. This is an administration with the worst environmental and scientific record in recent memory.
[/political rant]

Re:The mammalian eye & the cephalopod eye... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 06:04 · Score: 1, Informative

Hello. If I may chime in...

You are absolutely correct that cephalopods have quite lovely single-chambered eyes in which much of the anatomy evolved independantly of the vertebrate eyes. The cephalopod photoreceptors are pointing "outwards" and thus are not covered by several neural layers as in vertebrates. As a result, cephalopods have no blind spots (the blind spots of vertebrates occur where the photoreceptors must be pushed aside to permit passage of the neural axons that will form the optic nerve... there are many nice diagrams to be found via Google I'm sure).

Many cephalopod species have eyes that provide quite high resolution (Nautilus being a wonderful exception with its pinhole eye), but of those whose retinal photopigments have been characterized, few have been found to have colour vision. I am aware of only one squid that has more than one pigment (the firefly squid). However, some cephalopods are known to perceive the polarisation of light. This is not colour vision as we know it (which is based on the wavelength of light), but it is possibly _perceived_ by the animal in a similar fashion to our perception of colour. They certainly do exhibit binocular vision though.

And while I'm here... I find there's a great deal of misinformation to be found on animal perception. I've come across many a' webpage devoted to explaining what animals see, and the majority (that I have investigated) offered information that was outright false, even one offered by an alledged PhD (anyone that claims raptorial birds are monochromats is nuts). I know it's asking a lot, but I urge anyone with an interest in animal vision (and animal perception in general) to be very suspicious of information obtained outside of academic literature, textbooks (Animal Eyes by Nilsson & Land is awesome and accessible to the non-specialist), and first-hand accounts by one who has worked in the field.

Should anyone have any questions pertaining to animal vision, I will make myself available to reply to followups in this thread.

Cheerio

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Darby · 2004-11-01 06:04 · Score: 1

Thursday? You mean the Red Sox' Series win is just another implanted memory from before time?

Yeah, but the long years since their last victory was all a false memory as well, so the victory they really didn't have wasn't really that big a deal anyway.

"Imperfect" eyes would still be very useful... by patniemeyer · 2004-11-01 06:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:"Imperfect" eyes would still be very useful... by trongey · 2004-11-01 08:38 · Score: 1

If you like to point that out often then I bet you don't get invited to many good parties.

--
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Re:"Imperfect" eyes would still be very useful... by easter1916 · 2004-11-15 17:06 · Score: 1

Hi Pat! (Irish) Ray from the AG Edwards days here... I see from your posting history that you got married. Congratulations! Bye for now.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-11-01 06:05 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Irreligious tract by Peter+Trepan · 2004-11-01 06:05 · Score: 1

Here is an online 'Chick' tract that humorously debunks the watchmaker argument.

--

Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by daveashcroft · 2004-11-01 06:08 · Score: 1

Damn, now i wished i had chosen the red pill...it would all have been so much easier.

(picks up his leather jacket, shades and uzi on my way out)

Perhaps... by cr0sh · 2004-11-01 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

...they are both wrong and right at the same time?

Seems paradoxical - but it really isn't. First off, let me state that I consider myself to be a recent transhumanist convert. The way to this conclusion was long and arduous, but upon reviewing the evidence, it seems clear that something is selecting for increasing levels of intelligence in the universe. We are not the pinnacle, not by a longshot. Our machines, however...

Both of these camps need to do some reading: Dyson's "Darwin Among the Machines" would be a good place to start. Kelly's "Out of Control" should be on the list, along with Johnson's "Emergence". Also, Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's "Linked". Finally, Drexler's "Engines of Creation" and Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science".

There are few other texts which could be recommended, but the titles to these will be run across in the above reading. Careful reading of all of these texts will reveal something that we are only beginning to understand, the basics of which is that complexity arises from simplicity (namely, simple algorithms and UTM-like mechanisms), that feedback is a necessary part of the equation, whether it is evolution or development of conciousness, and that networks (of all kinds - chemical, electrical, social, etc) play a central part.

All of this (mainly in the human/machine symbiosis) seems to be leading, via combinitorial exponentialism (ie, exponential increases in power in one area translating into further exponential increases in other areas, which feedback onto prior areas, etc) to what has been declared the "technological singularity".

Of all of this, I have only read one dissenting opinion (not that there aren't others - but I have yet to have them pointed out) - that of Lanier's. While his theory is interesting - that software has not made the same strides as hardware, and that since it is still fragile, it is not likely to lead to a singularity - his thinking seems like that of a top-down AI researcher: that such leaps will come from complex software.

If you only look at it from the macro level of current software, one can easily see that such software is nowhere near capable. However, we know that complexity can arise from simple instructions: oOur own DNA points out that this is the case. Wolfram's experiments also lends credence to the idea of simple algorithms producing complex results. This is the direction that software and hardware will have to take in order to continue the trend toward singularity, a very "bottom-up" approach. Our own universe may be the result of such processing:

Are we merely software running in an emulator we call the Universe?

No one knows, and no one can know. We are inside the system, we can't be objective to determine the truth (assuming there is such thing as "truth"). A bottom up approach to software is what is needed. We are only beginning to take steps in that direction. Much of the problems with this research has been lack of understanding over "top-down" vs. "bottom-up", thus the "bottom-up" researchers get lumped in with the "top-down" failures, and funding is lost or otherwise not invested properly. We need more investigation on neural nets, particularly large hardware based systems - even if the current electronics would fill a building or more. We did it with serial Von Neumann architechture machines, we do it today with parallel processing supercomputers. We should be doing it today with neural networks...

The whole creationism vs. evolution is a tiresome debate. On the surface, one seems to favor over the other. But when you really start looking into it - it seems like there is a driving force - most like, a vastly distributed UTM driving all of the possible outcomes in the universe, with perhaps quantum particles making up the interacting "bits", which has been running simple algorithms over a very long time span. We are only beginning to touch these levels, only beginning to understand this stuff.

Of course, all of

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by syrinje · 2004-11-01 06:09 · Score: 1

nope - he doesn't - poor kid thinks it has to do with seeing faraway things close-up magnified by a system of lenses.
could be a shortcoming of the public school system, but sounds like a good education wouldn't help either if his brains keep leaking out through his mouth...

--
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long

Re:Here is the fuss by Rirath.com · 2004-11-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

> The fuss is that some people read "God's book" with a literal eye. The bigger fuss is that the strongest nation on earth is now led by one of those people.

Indeed, that is the problem with the debate. First off, there IS difference between Creationist and Christian. Secondly, there is a big difference between the 'literal type', hardcore, Christian types and the rest of us. Many hardcore Christians and Creationists see the bible as 100% PURE UNCHANGEABLE FACT, and nothing will -ever- change their idea of that. (I've had this debate a few times.) Some still believe the world is flat, I hear. Something about a mountain one can climb and see everything. Seek out the article 'Things Creationists Hate' online.

These Creationists can not comprehend or won't even attempt to comprehend that one's faith, one's idea of faith, can evolve and change over time -just like science does-, and not be some kind of infidel heathen. Yes folks, it's possible to not believe every word of the Bible, but merely take it as a well meaning guide, and still have true faith! It's not all or nothing, Creationist or Atheist.

I believe strongly in science, but I also have strong faith. To me, the bible is simply man's understanding of faith and religion a few thousand years ago. It is a wonderful tool, but believing it word per word as infailable law is every bit as far off in my opinion just as if a scientist were insisting that the scientific theory of two thousand years ago is still 100% accurate today. There is absolutely no reason why a logical person's understanding of their faith can't grow with their understanding of the world.

Needless to say, this too is unacceptable by the 100% crowd. I'm considered some kind of fake Christian by closed minded friends, just because my views are willing to grow and change. I'd rather not have my views limited to the understanding, politics, and stories printed in a series of books ages ago, or told to me by a church. Faith sure seems rather weak to me if you need a book or a church to tell you it's true in order to believe in it.

But folks, the alternative to Creationist thinking is -not- only atheism. I see too many friends put off by the narrow mindedness of religion and giving up on it. One can be both religious, and open minded. They are not mutually exclusive in any way, no matter how many people decide that they are.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by xyleen · 2004-11-01 06:10 · Score: 3, Funny

"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

This sounds a lot like those "all characters in this book are fictitious. Any similarity to an actual person is unintended and completely unintentional.
The Testament's own CYA

--
This is not my sig

One small step for science.. by ahodgkinson · 2004-11-01 06:10 · Score: 1

In fact, it fills in one small link in fairly long chain of evolutionary events that have been extensively researched over the past decades. The particular discovery mentioned in the article is one of the early links in the evolutionary sequence of the eye.

Back in 1986, Richard Dawkins, in the Blind Watchmaker wrote one example of how an eye could evolve from simple light sensitive cells to a fully developed eye with a lens, all via a sequence of plausible evolutionary steps. See Chapter 4 of the Blind Watchmaker for details.

The subject is also covered in considerable detail in Dawkin's paper 'Where d'you get those peepers'. This Dawkins paper remarks that multiple independent 'eyes' (in different species) have evolved, and that at least nine different design principals for these eyes have been identified.

While this is interesting news, it's hardly a revolution or likely to put creationist claims to rest.

--
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.

Re:"Evidence" by StupidKatz · 2004-11-01 06:11 · Score: 1

Big Bang: True, it didn't belong here. Consider it dropped.

Skull: I don't recall any *simple* organisms that have skulls, or ever would, being *simple*. We're still leaping far past the point of life produced from chance so remote as to be utterly negligible.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ddewey · 2004-11-01 06:11 · Score: 1

That's what the Bible says, but some people forget this and angrily defend the exact words of the Bible as God's absolute truth, thus refusing to allow their faith to be tested.

Here is a Bible Test for those who want their faith in the Bible tested.

I just stumbled upon this test some time ago and thought it looked interesting, although I have nothing to do with FFRF and don't know what they're all about.

--
Manufacture in China

I don't understand that. by khasim · 2004-11-01 06:11 · Score: 1

Okay, Noah is at the top. He is represented as the top line.

Noah had 3 boys. They are represented by the 3 lines from the one top line.

Now, since Noah didn't reproduce asexually, how can we determine what his original line was since we only have the three lines of his sons?

Instead of the three lines merging to 1, they should be only the three original lines. Unless you could dig up Noah to map his genetics.

The same with Eve.

Also, those lines seem very tidy. Two of Eve's lines don't change at all while one of them changes based upon the geographical area. Why would it change based upon geography?

If it was because of radiation or food or whatever, wouldn't we expect to see a few more branches happening over time?

One of Eve's lines hit Asia and branches 6 times. And 2 of those branches never split again. In Asia, those original 6 branches are still shown. They only branch when they change geographic location.

To me, that indicates other tribes not connected to the original Eve and inter-breeding.

Re:I don't understand that. by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 06:40 · Score: 1

> Now, since Noah didn't reproduce asexually, how can
> we determine what his original line was since we only
> have the three lines of his sons?
> Instead of the three lines merging to 1, they should be
> only the three original lines.
> Unless you could dig up Noah to map his genetics.

Well, we're armchair generals here. All the hard work is done by the scientists and this is really their statement. If we accept their statement that there are three lineages, we should also be willing to accept their statements that the 3 lineages converge to one.

I'm simply pointing out similarities between their data and the Biblical record.

> One of Eve's lines hit Asia and branches 6 times.
> And 2 of those branches never split again.
> In Asia, those original 6 branches are still shown.
> They only branch when they change geographic location.
>
> To me, that indicates other tribes not connected to the original Eve and inter-breeding.
It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched.

Here's the original article.

Re:You haven't been in Germany lately. by cens0r · 2004-11-01 06:13 · Score: 1

When speaking of northern europe I was speaking of norway, sweden, finland, etc.

We can't afford capitalism in the US either, but you don't see us dismantaling it.

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Icephreak1 · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 1

But there are those who insist that the Earth was created "with age" 6000 years ago.

If there is anyone that tells you the earth was created at any point other than the immediate moment, they're wrong. Serial time is synonymous with thought. When thought moves, time results. When you sleep, time stops. When your thinking slows, time slows. Given time's interdependence with space and matter, it isn't a stretch to say space and matter are strict variables themselves. Time, movement, distance -- the brightest quantum physicists would all have stories to tell.

The only creative force in the universe is mind. It's where it begins and ends. Outside of awareness, nothing exists.

- IP

A Question of Emphasis by Aguila · 2004-11-01 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

First, let me state that I believe in evolution, both macro and micro-evolution. However, I do not believe in Darwinism or Creationism. Second, let me state that I believe in the Big Bang. I also believe that God created the universe. I find no contradiction between any of these beliefs, nor do I find any contradiction between my life as a scientist (B.S. Chemistry, B.S. Physics, pursuing PhD), and my life as a Christian (Roman Catholic).

The key to being able to reconcile all these viewpoints is that as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the Bible as an inspired work, but read it in context. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, nor as a book on geography, but as a guidebook for faith and morality. Using it as a scientific textbook is about at rational as using a freshman biology book as a latin grammar book. Certainly, there will be some latin in the biology book, and you might be able to figure out a few of the rules of latin, but how much? There may also be some mistakes in the latin, especially in interfacing latin words into english sentences. Does this mean that it is a bad biology textbook? No! It means that for some reason (perhaps the high cost of textbooks), you're trying to avoid getting yourself a proper latin textbook. The book of Tobit provides a good example of where the Bible clearly is not written as a geography textbook. Throughout the book the distance between two points that were several weeks walk apart in real life was referred to and treated as a couple days journey. That does not bother me in the least, because the Book of Tobit was not written to teach me about geography, but about God. If you wish to tell me that the book of Genesis is a good proof that the Bible is not an accurate physics or biology textbook, I'd be the first to agree. Where I draw the line, though, is when people try to claim that the Bible is a bad physics or biology textbook, since it is not a physics or biology textbook.

I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible... in teaching about God, about morality, etc, but would never use it as a physics textbook. I accept the teachings of Genesis, that God created man in his image... I have no problem with people who believe in evolution, micro or macro, as I do too. I do, however, have a problem with those who then attempt to use evolution as a proof against the existence of God. Why does evolution disprove the existence of God? I can accept that science can disprove strict creationism (world 6000 years old), but how does it disprove the existence of God? How does evolution disprove that God created man in his likeness? There remain plenty of ways to do this. First, even a few non-random changes of an apparently random event could alter the evolutionary path tremendously. Second, God created the universe, and the laws of the universe. Why not create evolution in such a way that it would head in the direction He intended? Finally, what does it mean to be in the image of God? If evolution results in humans gaining a set of wings, I wouldn't be forced to say that we are no longer in God's image. (I'd probably be to busy doing aerial acrobatics to be discussing it, but that's beside the point.) To be made in the image of God has to deal more with the fact that we are not creatures purely of the flesh, but also of the spirit... that we have an immortal soul, and make choices. Here, science actually supports the existence of something it cannot explain. Science, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output (or probability distribution if you've learned quantum). There is no such thing as a choice, or free will. Yet, even without knowing you, I would be willing to bet that you believe that you make choices every day, in fact our whole society is based on the belief that people's actions are their own choices. While I do not know your moral code, I know you must have one. Yet, if our every action were predetermined based on internal chemistry, all actions must be morally neutral, there can be no right or wrong. So, since you

Re:A Question of Emphasis by Eric+S.+Smith · 2004-11-01 10:41 · Score: 1
Science, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output (or probability distribution if you've learned quantum). There is no such thing as a choice, or free will.

This may be true for neutrons and billiard balls, but it needn't apply to people. That people are less predictable than planets should not be such a surprise that the supernatural is the only explanation: different rules apply at different scales even within physics, and I doubt that any biologist would claim to be able to predict the exact behaviour of "a pile of advanced symbiotic bacteria".

And while you say that "[s]cience, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output," you fail to note that science is not at all the world, but more an investigative technique. Faced with situations in which inputs and outputs do not correlate cleanly, we resort to chaos theory, or, in the case of people, a psychological or sociological view.

Yet, if our every action were predetermined based on internal chemistry, all actions must be morally neutral, there can be no right or wrong. So, since you share with me the belief that certain things are right and others are wrong (even if we may disagree about which things fall in which category), the only way to be self-consistent is to believe that there is something beyond science.
1. Yes, metaphysics.
2. Neuro-chemistry may be deterministic, but this does not require the choices made by a given brain to be predictable or predestined. Brain behaviour is strongly influenced by external stimuli, and given the phenomenon of memory, for example, different brains will respond differently to the same stimulus.
We are begging the question of the existence of free will. It may be that there is no such thing. But, taking free will for granted, we can't really say that it must be caused by an immortal soul. And, if we were to accept for the sake of argument that free will is a function of an immortal soul, we still have the question of where the soul came from.

The third reason is that the big bang itself also points more directly to God. Something had to cause the big bang (or cause the thing that caused the big bang, appplied recursively as necessary).

Surely one could require something to have caused God, as well. At some point, one is left with "it just happened," and the question is only which "it" one stops at...

However, if you want to have all of modern scientific theory plus God, having God cause the Big Bang is a good accomodation. The problem, in my opinion, is in making moral arguments founded solely on the assertion that such-and-such a position is supported by the word of God, and the word of God must be absolutely authoritative due to the existence of the universe.
--
Mind the Gap

Wow are you ever wrong. by Stoutlimb · 2004-11-01 06:16 · Score: 1

Einstein's theory was proposed a hundred years ago. So I don't know what plural centuries you're talking about. Also, his genius was recognized almost instantly, and sent shockwaves through the entire physics community at that time. Some still doubted his theory was true, but shortly therafter the measurements of the precession of Mercury proved Einstein to the point where his theory was generally accepted.

So... this IS the world where Einstein's genius was appreciated when he was alive.

Scary, huh?

Re:Wow are you ever wrong. by Darby · 2004-11-01 08:33 · Score: 1

That sound was the OPs point flying right over your head.
Your sarcasm detector is broken.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by pnatural · 2004-11-01 06:18 · Score: 1

Actually I don't think most scientists give a hoot about whether creationists are right or wrong.

LordK2002, I have an offer for you! It's a bridge, and it's cheap!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Delucia · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 1

You're right. They can be compatible. But, the original controversy started because evolution is not compatible with the Bible's story of creation.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by JamesP · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course!!

If christians can see that the Bible is more of a "legend" than pure reality, they would see that evolution (and the big bang, etc) would have been the most "smart" way to create the universe, not taking care of it piece by piece.

But they're so attached to the Bible they take it at face-value...

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by nomadic · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 1

You probably read it in one of Richard Dawkins' books. The Blind Watchmaker, I think.

That's why he said octopus eyes were better, he was comparing them to the eyes of blind watchmakers.

evolution is the best if you have a long time by t_allardyce · 2004-11-01 06:21 · Score: 1

If I was God and I was trying to think up the perfect way of creating life I would go for evolution. It just seems to fit the idea of God being some sort of metaphorical thing, instead of a dude, because the latter would just create even more un-answered questions! the one that springs to mind would be who created God? I read an answer to this once it went something like this:

"So who created God?"
"Well, have you stopped kicking your cat?"
"What?"
"Yes or no, have you stopped kicking him?"
"But i've never kicked my cat!"
"There you go, some questions can't be answered."

Well thats a total cop-out if you're a kid, but on some deep level, some metaphorical level, you could say that its an explination that God is the laws of physics and therefore determines evolution through chaos. Sometimes I think religion is just a way to explain this to people without trying to teach them physics.

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:22 · Score: 1

All well and good, but it seems to do quite a bit of cherry picking, and several have multiple "correct" answers.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Creationism and Evolution are NOT compatible by gnuman99 · 2004-11-01 06:24 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

Here, let me make it *very* clear.

Creationism is a *belief*. It is something that is proposed in the *Bible*. Creationism is not based in facts, it is based in beliefs. Saying that creationism is another "theory" is a disgrace to both religion and to science.

Evolution is based on scientific *observation* of how things change as they adoped to different environments. There is no belief here - it is based on observations of life in different places and see how it adapted to the environemnt. This is based on current observations of life as well as fossil and geological records.

Creationism states things from beginning to end. From moment of creation to now. It talks how the environment was shaped for life.

Evolution states things from end (now) to the past. It talks how life is shaped by the environemnt.

Creationism basis in the real world is on equal footing of that of the Greek gods. It was *believed* that only gods could make water flow downhill. Well, now we know better and gods responsible for water flowing down are not relevent anymore.

Whenever the church wants to impose creationism on a theory of evolution, it will just embarrass itself. Only a decade or two ago the Roman Cathlic church finally admited that Galileo was not spreading heresy when he was talking about Earth not being the center of the universe!

So please. Don't mix the two. They are NOT compatible.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by intheory · 2004-11-01 06:24 · Score: 1

Creationism and evolution are not compatible if you are a "devout Christian" that adheres to a basic tenant of the faith--that the Bible is authoritative and literal--because if you believe in evolution, then you believe that millions of years of death, disease, dying and suffering took place PRIOR to the creation and thus fall of man.

Death, dying and suffering did not occur, Scriputurally speaking, until after Adam & Eve's sin.

If Christians admit (or assimilate) the belief that death and suffering were present prior to sin, then the what good is the atonement for sin present in Christ's sacrificial death?

Millions-of-years evolutionary theory attacks this foundation of Christianity, which is why "devout Christians" are up in arms about it.

That is why it is a religious discussion.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by lateralus_1024 · 2004-11-01 06:24 · Score: 1

Master of code-reuse is right, but don't tell Diebold.

--
If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by marcop · 2004-11-01 06:26 · Score: 1

Evolution and creation cannot co-exist. Here is why: Evolution implies death - the weaker/inferior species die out and the better ones remain. Acording to scripture, death was not present on Earth until Adam sinned - which is after creation.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Rostin · 2004-11-01 06:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

I would also like to point out that scripture is mum on the mechanics of how God worked, and continues to work.

One important thing for both Christians and others to understand about "creationism" is that the "common sense" or "literalistic" interpretation many/most modern day conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists apply to the creation narrative is a newcomer to Christianity.

Prior to the early 1900s, many conservative theologians (most notably, B.B. Warfield) had no problem with evolution.

See "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds" by Os Guiness or "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll for examinations of when and why American Christians took a turn in this direction.

Re:Face It by plenTpak · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

I think the point is that there are many who simply accept whichever view they're taught. It's not that the developers of the theories are idiots; it's the end-users (if you'll allow the analogy) who don't know much of the underlying thoughts and reasoning, and just take up one viewpoint or another, because it makes more sense in their minds. Sure, you can say that's because they're stupid and they don't think, and while that's true for some people, it's a rather shortsighted assumption, since no human can hold the sum of human knowledge in their head.

But anyway, the point is that there are people on both sides of the argument who just echo the arguments they've heard, and don't care to explore the viewpoints on the other side of the fence because they already see clearly how right they are, and how blind and closed-minded the other side is.

Re:The mammalian eye & the cephalopod eye... by HHumbert · 2004-11-01 06:28 · Score: 1

information that was outright false, even one offered by an alledged PhD (anyone that claims raptorial birds are monochromats is nuts)

...would this be eyedesignbook.com's Curt Deckert (Ph.D., MBA, MSME; Certified Management Consultant)? Of eagles he says "One expects they would see less overall color than humans."

I'm prepared to believe that he obtained his PhD without the benefit of any science courses at all.

Evolution is not a theory. by Lethyos · 2004-11-01 06:29 · Score: 1

Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution).

Incorrect. Evolution itself is not a theory. However, there exists a theory that attributes the development of complex life to the process of evolution (that is what you are most likely referring to). I suggest you read a brief article over at talk.origins titled Top Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution . It should help clear up some confusion about what evolution is and what scientists mean when using the term.

--
Why bother.

God does not deceive. by p2sam · 2004-11-01 06:30 · Score: 1

The standard argument against "God created the world in 7 days in 4004 BC, along with fossils and other evidence that the world was actually 15 billion years old", is that it is not God's nature to deceive.

Re:God does not deceive. by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 16:57 · Score: 1

There's a better one. That philosophy is commonly called The Church of Last Thursday. Because, after all, if god could fake a 15-billion year old universe 6000 years ago, he could just as easily fake one that was created last thursday. Next to counterfeiting fossil records, radioactive decay evidence, ancient astronomical phenomena, and the genetic history tying together every organism on the planet, whipping up a few human memories and relics of civilizations should be child's play.

--
Dyolf Knip

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by rpdillon · 2004-11-01 06:30 · Score: 1

Funny you should bring this up. I came from a Christian (Protestant) family, grew up and atheist, and have recently taken a great interest in Zen Buddhism.

One of the concepts in Zen is that everything is constantly being reborn, in every instant. Essentially that not only was the whole created last Thursday, but also in the last minute, second, and now.

This is actually quite liberating. There really is no age, per se, but just a state of things right now. And that state could be creating that way in any moment, and, in fact, it is.

It challenges our common conceptions of time, while making you realize that each moment is really new, and that you are not the same person you were a minute ago. This doesn't mean the world is manufactured, just that there is no inertia. Rather, it is an series of states, each with no "memory" of another. (Then again, what is memory if not a state?)

Gosh, I hope this makes sense to people that haven't been doing Zen reading. I'm afraid I'm not very good at explaining the idea, and why it was an epiphany for me.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:31 · Score: 1

And fyi, I got 33 of 50, due to the selection of which correct answer they desired, I got 4 actually wrong.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Rei · 2004-11-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Here's the arguments that they'll make (I've spent plenty of time over at evcforum and theologyweb debating them):

The less intelligent among them will read the first paragraph. They'll then say that now we're trying to argue that humans evolved from worms, but previously we've said that we evolved from monkeys, and (insert a bunch of things that it's never really been suggested that we evolved from here). Some of the really dumb ones will ask why, if we evolved from worms, why are the worms still around?

The more intelligent will actually read the article. They'll call the evidence circumstantial. They'll ask you to *prove* that such a brain can evolve into an eye with an actual experiment (i.e., putting the onus on a task that could never be completed in a reasonable timeframe). Even when you present a full, down-to-the-molecular level pathway it can take, they'll accuse you of creating a "just-so" story with no backing that your proposed route actually occurred. They'll cast aspersions on the probability of all such events, and when you evidence how high the odds are, they'll switch routes and start to attack how the basic components of your proposed evolutionary pathway got there to begin with.

My favorite ones to debate with are YECs (Young Earth Creationists). My favorite line of attack, I've never seen answered: the missing isotopes:

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html

--
POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.

Science v. Religion? by mailman-zero · 2004-11-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Science searches for tangible provable truth. Religion searches for proof that cannot be measured scientifically. How science and religion are related to one another may be debated. Neither is competing with the other. God never said he didn't create evolution, and evolution doesn't say there is no God. Assuming the God of the Bible exists, I don't believe he would want arguments to ensue about details he never revealed to us. We are given to learn and to think and to debate, but disputation that leads to hatred is not good for anybody.

Religion and Science are not competing for a monopoly on truth.

--
Let's play video games with mailmanZERO

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ThosLives · 2004-11-01 06:33 · Score: 1

This reminds me of one of my favorite random things to tell people:

"It is not possible for me to have died yesterday."

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 06:37 · Score: 1

Well, we've made a brace of subjective statements.
Could we prove anything objectively within the scope of time, the economic effects would be profound.
As long as we hold fast the distinction between what we choose to believe, and what we can make stick (very little), then we can lovingly tolerate all folks and pleasantly ignore stuff with which we fall short of agreement.
Big Daddy is the power supply of life within my worldview; other views are, thus, ungrounded.
YMMV.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by stanmann · 2004-11-01 06:37 · Score: 1

Further, There is no reliable dating method to determine how old our universe is.

The apparent size of the universe can be explained by the decaying(apparent we won't know for sure for 50-100 years if it is actually decaying, or the apparent decay was due to measurement difficulties)
Carbon dating is very nearly useless, providing dates of 5k-120k years for fossils known to have been created in the last 5 years.

Ocean Salinity indicates an apparent age of 6-25k years
Dust accumulation theory was revised due to the lack of dust on the moon

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

For further reading by Digz · 2004-11-01 06:38 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

--
SYS 64738

How is that? by khasim · 2004-11-01 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Scientists that throw out the idea of any "god" figure performing an intelligent design on our planet just because they can make theories that fit the extremely limited view of time we have makes the scientists even MORE at fault than the religous people that ignore all of sciences facts.

Why is that?

The core of science cannot refer or rely upon a God figure who magically imposes his will upon the universe.

It is nothing but hypocrisy to claim you are doing everything scientifically and provide your theories as facts and automatically dismiss the theories of any other argument.

Learn what "hypocrisy" means. Again, the core of science cannot refer or rely upon magic.

If the omnipotent God that I believe in as a Christian decided to make the world in 7 days I don't see ANY evidence in any scientific journal that says or even implies it is impossible. Yet daily scientists rebuke religious types as "uninformed radicalists".

By definition, if it is an "omnipotent God", then nothing is "impossible".

Yet it is also 100% useless to refer or rely upon that in science. Science depends upon reproducible events. Miracles are not reproducible. Act of God are not reproducible.

Makes me think of a talk one professor of mine had in an archaeological discussion. Have you ever heard of an ancient civilization being dug up and the researchers finding a children's doll? Now we all know that kids must have played over the ages. Yet because scientists must place a meaning on everything and often preconceive that meaning we end up with hundreds of thousands of "statues" to this or that God when in reality a bunch of them were the prehistoric version of a cabbage-patch-kid.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug 02/sund/dreamgirl/preind.html

Some did have religious links, but others seem to have been toys for children. Archaeologists have been digging up toys for years.

Re:How is that? by Gaewyn+L+Knight · 2004-11-01 07:37 · Score: 1

Learn what "hypocrisy" means. Again, the core of science cannot refer or rely upon magic.

"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness"

If you profess to follow the scientific method then you should not debunk other theories just because they do not "fit" with your own. If you have proof to the contrary then state it and you have successfully debunked the opposing theory. However until you have done this don't term the user of that theory as an "unknowledgable radicallist".

Some did have religious links, but others seem to have been toys for children. Archaeologists have been digging up toys for years.

Yes... but when first found they ASSUME it is of religious significance unless they already know for a fact that it is not.

Modern scientists are brought in with the assumption that they believe in macro-evolution. This very assumption skews their work from day one and hence creates a bias. In science an unfounded bias (even when their are theories backing it up) is still not the correct usage of the scientific method.

Yet it is also 100% useless to refer or rely upon that in science. Science depends upon reproducible events. Miracles are not reproducible. Act of God are not reproducible.

I saved this one for last... we can't prove this... we won't be able to prove God exists until he comes.

However... How come all people in the known world seem to diverge from a single female and male pairing ~4500 years ago. Now the story of the flood seems to totally explain this were on the other hand I have yet to see science explain how only 2 homo-sapiens survived some climactic event that destroyed every other living homo-sapien. Several other species have had these same studies done and also seem to trace back to a small set (oddly enough coinciding with clean vs unclean animal pairings for the ark) ~4500 years ago.

To have evidence of this nature and yet call those that believe in the Bible, and hence the story of Noah's Ark, "uninformed radicallists" is wrong... just plain wrong.

There are divergent views... neither can prove the other wrong until God comes (I say until because I believe in him... others would say 'if a god comes').

--
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Re:How is that? by scot4875 · 2004-11-01 09:28 · Score: 1

You might want to mention that mass extinction to the Chinese. Maybe they need to revise their written history that predates that 4500-year mark you mention to include that they all died.

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal

Statistical extrapolation does not a fact make by jabber01 · 2004-11-01 06:42 · Score: 1

Ignorance LOVES statistics.

To wit: If we're all unemployed, the "unemployment rate" will be ZERO, and that will be good for the economy.

--

The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life

Re:Statistical extrapolation does not a fact make by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-01 12:16 · Score: 1

Wha??? If we are all unemployed, the unemployment rate will be 100%, not 0%. The unemployment "rate" is not actually a a rate of change, as you seem to be implying, it's the proportion of those looking for working expressed as a proportion of the total workforce. Or have I totally misunderstood your point here?

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

The eye is an old debate the new one is... by mhale2243 · 2004-11-01 06:42 · Score: 1

gentic mutation. Even Richard Dawkins a leading proponent for evolution can't give a single example of a genitc mutation that adds information to the genome. The obvious conclusion is that we are degenerating from a state of created perfection. Exactly what the Bible describes in Genesis 1:1-11.

Re:The eye is an old debate the new one is... by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 08:52 · Score: 1

Please cite your sources for the following line:
"Even Richard Dawkins a leading proponent for evolution can't give a single example of a genitc mutation that adds information to the genome." I am very interested in hear where this came from.

Anybody can make anything up on the spot, please do prove it or else no one should/will listen to it. For example, even the Pope, a leading proponent for creationism, can give a single unified proof for the existence of God and the validity of Christian viewpoints.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by grammar+fascist · 2004-11-01 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your details are correct.

If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.

You've left out one important point: your #2 argument hinges on this paragraph, but this paragraph depends necessarily on #1 (the Word of God in the Bible is inerrant and literal). It's not actually a stronger argument, because it depends on the first, weaker one.

Here's the problem. Fundamentalist Christianity rejects the idea of continuing revelation from God through any single source. Prophets - as they were understood in the Bible - don't come around anymore, as a matter of doctrine. The only thing left they have to base their faith in is the Bible. It's their only witness of Christ. If parts of it can be allegorical, Christ himself doesn't really have to have existed, and there goes the religion.

So #1 actually exists out of necessity. That's where the circular arguments come from ("the Bible is literally true because the Bible says so [in our interpretation]", etc., etc.) - it's because they haven't actually got anything better.

I'm LDS, and I go to BYU. In this school - which is run basically by my church - we actually don't have a problem with evolution at all. We even (gasp) teach it. Why? We believe that God still speaks through a single source, and we have more than one witness of Christ. The idea that parts of the Bible might be allegorical or severely watered-down for the people of the time doesn't bother us at all.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by commodoresloat · 2004-11-01 06:44 · Score: 1

...and Eye, for one, welcome our cephalopod overlords!

Re:Food for thought..-God barrier. by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-11-01 06:44 · Score: 1

The Big Bang is a theory. That which was before the Big Bang is hypothesis. Creationism is at best a hypothesis and at worst purely conjecture. If you feel better believing in God to explaining things that are not and/or can not be explained with science, then I am glad that it comforts you. If you feel compelled to dismiss other beliefs or conjectures, I am glad that it comforts you. If you feel compelled to dismiss a theory over your conjecture, I will pity you. If you feel compelled to dismiss a theory over your hypothesis, yet you refuse to provide proof to make your hypothesis a theory, I pity you. If you manage to make your hypothesis a theory, I will consider your theory.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by mdielmann · 2004-11-01 06:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason cephalopods have better eyes is that they didn't have porn?

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

In the Blink of an Eye by gopher_hunt · 2004-11-01 06:48 · Score: 1

I thought I remembered this book being reviewed on /., but I can't find the link.

Here is a link to a review of it, and a sample.
Link

reviewed by Gert Korthof. 22 June 2003. version 1.2
In this book, Parker describes his solution for the famous Cambrian explosion. What is the Cambrian explosion and why is it a problem? The Cambrian explosion is the fact that 543 million of years ago there were 3 animal phyla and 538 million of years ago there were 38 animal phyla. So in 5 million years 35 phyla originated. Darwin already recognised this as a problem for his theory of gradual evolution. It seems too fast for gradual evolution. Religious critics routinely use it as an argument against evolution. But even some non-religious critics use it to refute gradual evolution. Critics often distort and exaggerate the problem, but hardly study it. There are several good popular science books describing the Cambrian Explosion, but Parker is the first who describes it and solves it.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Spoing · 2004-11-01 06:48 · Score: 1

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.

*BLINK*

Ohhh-Kayyy...well, I'm just going to go over here. No! No no! You stay there and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus will be right along. I *PROMISE*. Sure. No no! Wait! Stay! That's it!

[runs away from nine-times as fast as possible]

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Glock27 · 2004-11-01 06:48 · Score: 1

This is offtopic...I noticed your handle, and thought you might like to consider this for your .sig line:

In theory, practice is the same as theory. In practice, they are different.

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait

Evidence consistent with the Bible by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 06:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

Unfortunately for your theory, the genetic evidence is not consistent with a small bottleneck -- male or otherwise -- 4200 years ago. For that matter, Y-chromosome Adam lived significantly longer than 4200 years ago. The existence of a Y-Adam does not imply a genetic bottleneck -- meaning a population reduced to a small number with limited genetic diversity -- either; it just means that other males' descendents didn't make it this far.

Of course, you could choose to reject this genetic evidence against the existence of such a bottleneck, but then, you couldn't consistently choose to accept the genetic evidence favoring the existence of a Y-chromosome Adam, either.

Re:Evidence consistent with the Bible by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 07:43 · Score: 1

Unfortunately for your theory, the genetic evidence is not consistent with a small bottleneck -- male or otherwise -- 4200 years ago. For that matter, Y-chromosome Adam lived significantly longer than 4200 years ago.

Here is evidence that implies he lived sooner:
[ Original discussion]
Evolutionary Genetics tries to estimate how 'old' our current species is by dividing the number of mutations observed in a specific DNA region with the estimated mutation rate. The generally accepted figure is around 150,000 years, but... A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet. 1998 Feb;18(2):109-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ent rez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9090380&dopt=Abstract ----- The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. ...We compared DNA sequences ... an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution. -----
> The existence of a Y-Adam does not imply a genetic bottleneck
> -- meaning a population reduced to a small number with limited
> genetic diversity -- either; it just means that other males'
> descendents didn't make it this far.
Well, that's your take on the genetic evidence. Tell me, does the same genetic evidence _disprove_ that Y-Adam was the first man?
Re:Evidence consistent with the Bible by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 08:29 · Score: 1

> "For one, mitochondrial DNA is totally irrelevant
> to Y-Chromosome Adam; it's only relevant to mitochondrial Eve."
That's true. Thanks for the clarification.

> And yes, the genetic evidence does disprove that
> Y-Adam was the first man, because mitochondrial
> Eve didn't live at the same time.
No, the NYTimes article indicates they lived together:
"This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches."

The original (150000 year dates) research indicates the bottlenecking for _both_ sexes happened approximately at the same time.

Now that we've seen a paper talking about faster mDNA mutation rate, take a look at this article, which suggests the same for the Y-Chromosome:
What weve learned from studying the Y chromosome ... The mutation rate scientists have used in the past was based on circumstantial evidence because there was just too much DNA to sequence. Until now. For the first time, groups in Indiana and New Hampshire have figured out a mutation rate based on sequencing huge amounts of DNA from lots of the roundworm, C. elegans. How much DNA? An astonishing 4 million base pairsan impossible number just a few years ago. What the researchers found was that the mutation rate was 10 times higher than previously believed or around 2 mutations/generation for C. elegans. There are possible reasons that given the way the experiment was done, the mutation rate might have been artificially high. But, if the new number is true, it calls into question all sorts of things. For example, partly based on DNA evidence, scientists believed that chimps and humans separated about 5 million years ago. Was it actually 500,000 years ago? Humans began their migration out of Africa 100,000 years ago. Or was it 10,000? Did Adam live 50,000 or 5000 years ago?
Re:Evidence consistent with the Bible by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 09:42 · Score: 1

> What NYTimes article?

This one.

This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.

It mentions the earlier estimates.

"Origin of Species" not "Origin of _the_ species" by mikemacd · 2004-11-01 06:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Darwins work did not have the word "the" in the title. The full title is: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

It a very important point to be aware of. It greatly affects the meaning of the title.

That work discusses how it is that species develop. There is virtualy no reference to humans in it as would be inferred by a title which referenced "The Species".

Here is a link to a copy of that work:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mainlylinux · 2004-11-01 06:51 · Score: 1

This has to do with the Bible being the "inerrant word of God". Either you believe the bible is mostly right, completely right, somewhat right, or not right. Believing in evolution means that you believe the bible is not "completely right" - that it's not a fact, it's a story. That's a slippery slope to go down. If it's not right in one area how are we to know when it is in another area? That's the human's problem, that we can depend on ourselves and our own judgement. Speak to someone who really really knows ancient hebrew to see what he/she thinks the Creation in Genesis means. Then decide. Dan

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by fish_in_the_c · 2004-11-01 06:53 · Score: 1

I believe that Judeo/Christian thought goes something like this. Although it has different hues depending on denomination. We ( human beings ) are the only creatures on earth that are capable of really doing evil. We can choose to disobey God and attempt to oppose His will or desire for us. No other creature is capable of doing so. All other creatures simply are what they are and do what God intends them to do. It is a persons decision to be without God that the all loving God chooses to respect. Being without God after death IS hell. No other creature is given the ability to reject God so they are neither able to Merit heaven or it's absence. I think most people would at least agree that we are far more capable of being evil then any other creature on the planet. If , of coarse, you agree that such a thing as evil exists. Which , first requires you to believe there is a Right and a Wrong. ect.

--
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mirio · 2004-11-01 06:53 · Score: 1

ersonally, I do not think it is just a few silent christians. I think that it is the majority of America. I see that the fundamentalists are more akin to the 1980's moral majority, 1990's Al Qaeda, the 1930's German nazi party, or the 1900's USSR communist party. That is, just a small group with a very vocal opinion carry a message of their own choosing. The vast majority of people really just want to live and enjoy life. They are not concerned with changing it. These aforementioned groups are all small, but ....

Well..your point is well made...but I do have one problem with your assertion that the Nazi's were just a small vocal group. At the height of his bloody reign, Hitler enjoyed approximately 95% approval from the German citizenry.

BEFORE Arguing with a creationist by The+Slashdolt · 2004-11-01 06:53 · Score: 1

Before you go arguing with a creationist, ask the creationist one thing. Ask him/her, How can I prove to you that evolution is correct? Seriously, ask them what exactly it would take for you to prove to them that evolution is real. I've gotten answers from "nothing", to skeletal remains of every change from the beginning of time. No matter what the answer, you'll realize that your attempt is futile. If you start out your argument with this basic question, it'll be over before you start.

--
mp3's are only for those with bad memories

Re:BEFORE Arguing with a creationist by stanmann · 2004-11-01 07:13 · Score: 1

Before you go arguing with a evolutionist, ask the evolutionist one thing. Ask him/her, How can I prove to you that creation is correct? Seriously, ask them what exactly it would take for you to prove to them that creation is real. I've gotten answers from "nothing", to a burning bush. No matter what the answer, you'll realize that your attempt is futile. If you start out your argument with this basic question, it'll be over before you start.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:BEFORE Arguing with a creationist by The+Slashdolt · 2004-11-01 09:09 · Score: 1

Its actually very simple going the other way. Show me one creationist scientific theory that is backed by scientific evidence.

--
mp3's are only for those with bad memories

another anti creationist, scientifically based by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 06:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

The eye seems perfect, but it is not. Mamalian eyes have arteries/veins that lie between the photoreceptor cells and the source of light. This means that some incoming light is scattered or absorbed by the veins.

However , squids have the photoreceptor cells on top of the supporting circulatory system, so no light is blocked from the cells. So really the squid eye is more perfect than human eye. Why would God make our eyes defective while making squid eyes more perfect?

Re:another anti creationist, scientifically based by trongey · 2004-11-01 08:11 · Score: 1

Because they live in water and need better light gathering ability.
Humans don't have the best of any physical attributes. We're just a compromise that allows for incredible adaptability.
Not an argument for or against anything, just an answer to your rhetorical question.

--
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.

Simple Thinking by novakane007 · 2004-11-01 06:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!!

Re:Simple Thinking by jbridge21 · 2004-11-01 10:53 · Score: 1

Often these values are upheld, but more and more people are straying from the basic ideas of what religion was indeed to teach us.

More and more? Dude, it's been this bad all along. Random google searching found me this.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by tompaulco · 2004-11-01 06:56 · Score: 1

Genesis is probably what you get when a non-scientific old man tries to write down what God gave him in a vision. It's not wrong, per se, but it was just the best way he was able to cope with what he saw.
Imagine if God were to give someone from 2000 years ago visions of airplanes and nuclear bombs and stuff. You'd probably get a book that read a lot like Revelations.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dmonder · 2004-11-01 06:56 · Score: 1

I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible.

Let me help. The Bible clearly states that the world was created is 6 days and it was good. It was not until man sinned that death entered the world. For evolution to work, death must have been at work before man's sin. Clearly a contradiction. If you are a Christian, then you must reject evolution. If you want more information, I would refer you to Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/), Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/csc), and Answers in Genesis' Creation Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp) . David

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by bloggins02 · 2004-11-01 06:59 · Score: 1

Ahh. Thanks, I didn't see that angle, but I think you're right.

Octopus eye vs human eye by ihsu · 2004-11-01 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative

This argument is pretty old, and not very impressive. Refer to http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp for details. Use some critical thinking. It's really helpful! (this goes for both evolutionists and creationists)

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by jgardn · 2004-11-01 07:00 · Score: 1

Well, lions and tigers and bears are stronger and have better claws and teeth. Even a baboon could easily rip a grown man to shreds. I guess because there are animals that are better than humans out there in some aspects, that this whole God thing is a farce. You have me convinced.

Oh wait. There's this thing that just happened. It's called a thought. Wow. I just had several thoughts that put together made a plan. And the plan became a sentence and the sentences formed an argument. And I just used irony, or the intentional arguing of your opponent's argument to make your opponent sound stupid.

See, we humans are not superior physically to most of the creatures on the earth. But the one area where we kick serious butt is our intellect. Got a bear problem? We'll make spears and arrows and knives and high powered rifles to take care of that! Squid can see better than us? Still, they end up on our plates as a delicious appetizer.

Even though lions and tigers and bears and squid are more advanced than us, where are their highways and cities and skyscrapers? Where are their works of art and literature? Heck, where is their language? All they can do is grunt and squeal, while we worry about grammar and spelling and irony.

The glory of God is intelligence - not good looks or advanced eyes or a buffed bod. We humans have that gift because we are divine children. Let the animals have their advanced eyes and teeth and claws. I'll keep my divinity. While the animals were created, the humans had the breath of God in its soul. We were given the whole earth as ours, and we were charged to take care of it. We are masters of this world. We are mini-gods. They are animals, and live out their existence without understanding how they ended up in my belly.

--
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 07:00 · Score: 1

I'm a devout Christian and evolution is just another one of God's miracles to me.

You aren't a young-earth creationist, then. You are a religious moderate as far as scientific inquiry is concerned. I hope that also means you believe inquiry is and should remain a secular activity (or at least one in which your reasoning skills are something given by your God as a means of understanding the world.)

I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible

Creationism can allow Evolution only in the broadest of terms, stepping well outside of traditional interpretations of the Book. Creationism, in that sense, denies that man evolved via speciation through natural selective pressures. That is the argument usually at hand when Creationists lock horns with the scientific community.

It isn't a religious discussion.

Isn't that a secular point of view?

The strength of speciation through natural selection as a theory is as strong as that for a heliocentric model for the solar system, and yet there are still those creationists who would argue there is no proof. This is why the discussion takes on aspects of religiosity that, though settled to a rational mind such as yours, will simply not go away.

If you would like to know more about some of the (pseudo) scientific arguments made against evolution, point your browser to Frequently Encountered Criticisms In Evolution vs. Creationism.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:Evolution vs. Creationism-Self-observence. by stanmann · 2004-11-01 07:01 · Score: 1

WAILL, IF, scientists successfully create life in a laboratory, have they proven evolution or ID?

Does it matter which one they are attempting to prove for the proof to be valid. This of course assumes that the scientists creating life in the lab are of course intelligent.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Ayaress · 2004-11-01 07:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm a Christian, to some extent. Depends on who you ask, I suppose. I decided a long time ago I was through with my fellow Christians, and I'd try to get back to the lofty ideals and morality that the religion is supposed to be about. Everybody else is becomming very hung up on miniscule historical trivia and particulars of a book that's lost so many of those particulars through poor translation and intentional modification by kings and popes seeking to use it to their advantage.

The problem with biblical literalism is that they gleefully abandon, ignore, or even deny the existence of most of the bible in their quest to support one or two lines. Who cares that sodomy meant what we now call beastiality until only a few centuries ago, let's go out and burn down gay people's houses. Forget the tax collector who prayed quietly in his home and recieved his blessings, let's be like the pharisee who tore his shirt in public and cried out to God and country in thanks that we aren't as bad as everybody else.

One of the key things that gets harped on is Noah's flood. Three divergent bloodlines are mentioned before the flood (if I had my bible, or even one of my books my Rev. Polkinghorne, I could look them up and tell you), and their currently (currently as in when the old testament was assembled) living descendents are related (one was the ancestor of "all such who live in tents and keep herds" (probably the Arab and south Asian nomadic peoples), and two others. Noah was from one of these three bloodlines, and all three clearly survived the flood. Also, Goliath's bloodline is mentioned both before and after the flood (both by name and as "such people as have great stature"), so that makes three definite and one probable bloodline (and by their descriptions, indeed entire civilizations) that survived through the flood. Combine this with the use of "everything under heaven," (Which is used to describe cities that cover all things under heaven, and armies which span all lands under heaven. Obviously, earth has never had a global megalopolis, but its very easy to imagine a city or army spanning horizon to horizon), Noah's flood doesn't even sound global by the litteral wording.

Worse again, the parts they cling to are the parts that are not eye witness. They are humans interpreting divine revalation. "His thoughts are above your thoughs". Imagine the difficulty an ant would have making sense of what a human is telling it to describe a city. Not having seen a city, and having minimal understanding of our speech (pretend its one of those semi-intelligent super ants that eat dogs in movies or something), it would produce an image of a city that, although it would bear certain correlation with a real city, could not be taken for a literal description of one.

The test of how much they understand is if they deny the city exists when they see it and it doesn't look like what they imagined from the description.

A century ago, it was refusal to reconcile Christian beliefs with mainstream science, and things held together fairly well. If I lived then, I doubt I would have bought into evolution either. But now, especially with people like Henry Morris, it's gone beyond that: Changing Christian belief to preclude any and all mainstream science. It was unfortunate when one creationist published a book for preists saying that "It's better to lie to the people than to risk them seeking the facts for themselves. There is no sin in lying for God, and no sin in believing a lie." I see far too much of it now, wich churches outright lying about science, politics, medicine, business, current events, and religion (both their own and others) to manipulate congregations.

And as long as I've lost the point, a quote: "Oh, no, religions never kill people. Religions have lofty ideals and pure morality. Religious followers, on the other hand, are closed minded, hateful, spiteful people who will kill one another for no useful cause."

Re:So what...Raw Conclusions. by cmpalmer · 2004-11-01 07:03 · Score: 1

I think that I would have to publicly admit that I am a total moron if I were to say that, assuming I understood the technology behind the time machine/viewer to be valid, that I would not believe the results if it showed a white-bearded gentleman forging the earth and all life on it 6,000 years ago.

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness

Ignore Creationism by {tele}machus_*1 · 2004-11-01 07:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Ignore Creationism by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 16:28 · Score: 1

. 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.
Science is dogma.
That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality.
Have you ever been within 100 miles of academia, let alone know anyone there? Must be nice to have such a pure, virginal view of the academic world.
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.
What's the Ghandi quote, "First they ignore you, then they persecute you, then you win?"
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by hackwrench · 2004-11-01 07:04 · Score: 1

The only difference is that one requires facts and one requires faith.

So in other words, no difference at all, really.
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
The sole criteria of creationism is "intelligent design". It is completely possible to define that in a way that scientific scrutiny can be applied.

you forgot by bmajik · 2004-11-01 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

about those that will think "that's the way it panned out because thats how God meant for it to pan out", irrespective of what happened.

There isn't a required scientific discrepancy between modern science and biblical christianity. (It's up to christians to resolve such questions as 'were those 7 24 hr days or 7 god days that it took to make stuff?')

You'll find very few fundamentalist christians get upset about discussions of subatomic particles because discoveries in subatomic theory are never used by anti-christians as the foundation for a "see, you stupid christians were wrong!" argument. Macro-evolution and even micro-evolution are unfortuneately often used exactly for this purpose.

The notion that earth based life forms are related and seem to have differentiated themselves from others in discoverable, explainable ways seems reasonable to me. I mean, if i were a deity and wanted to "make world", i'd use lots of shared libraries :)

"the scientists" are at least as guilty as the hardcore creationists in the antagonism that has lead to the cultural divide in america. "science", where it appears to contradict traditional christian thinking, is the new religion for a sub-society that hates traditional religious thought.

Strictly speaking, science has never been "right" about anything - the scientific process merely produces output ("knowledge") that asymptotically approaches "truth" as our observational techniques become more advanced.

I mean, consider that newton thought his laws of motion adequately described mechanics. This theory broke down in some scenarios, requiring the relativistic theories accounting for time/mass/distance expansion/contraction. Special relativity wasn't sufficient to explain photolovaics and that problem led to the thinking of quantum mechanics.

I sincerely hope that after 3 groundbraking world-view changes on just the basic rules governing how things _move_, in _only_ 400 years, nobody thinkgs that we are now at the end-destination of scientific thought, and that we completely understand mechanics, and there will be no more refinements to our understanding of mechanics.

I thought so.

It is perfectly acceptable to me to accept scientific progress as learning about the incredible universe that was engineered for us by God, the "designer" if you will :)

Infact, it used to be the case that the worlds best scientific minds were strong thelogians as well, and studied under the context of discerning how God's universe operated.

You should be suspicious of scientific "progress" that is touted as being contradictory to Christianity.

Let the Christians figure out how to reconcile what is observed in nature and what they think their biblical understanding is.

Let the scientists concentrate on making the best possible observations and the best possible theories to explain them.

That will leave just the pundits - the real people causing the rift between science and religion.

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

Re:you forgot by cmpalmer · 2004-11-01 07:40 · Score: 1

I like to think of myself as being extremely open-minded, but skeptical.

There are a lot of tantalizing problems in evolution and I fully expect there will be several Darwin-sized shakeups in the future as new things are discovered, but I don't expect the rabid anti-creationist element to blindly stick to Darwin any more than they did to Lamarck.

Unfortunately, the problems in evolution that the "creation science" and ID crowd keep spouting are, for the most part, ridiculous.

As for being suspicious of scientific "progress" that is contradictory to Christianity, I'm not sure if I can buy that proposition as-is. I am reasonably sure that you can prove scientifically that physical transubstantiation does not take place during communion, for example. That scientific research would be contradictory to certain Christian groups, but to most people, religious or not, it would not invalidate the spiritual aspect of the act.

As I, and many others, have stated repeatedly, my big beef with creation science, ID, young-Earth, etc. is that (a) it is *not* good science, no matter how you look at it, (b) it is based on untestable premises (see (a)), and (c) IMHO, it isn't even good theology.

I think it is poor theology because it comes down to being forced to accept a premise that is contrary to actual, observable facts and experiments. It leads to absurd arguements about whether rabbits chew their cud like cows (the Bible says they do). It means that "good Christians" should either ignore the preponderance of physical evidence such as geological formations, the fossil record, and basic cosmology or accept the idea that either God is testing their faith by apparently deceiving people or that Satan has so much power over the physical universe that he can create fossils and strew the universe with the evidence of a 15+ billion year history to lead people away from the true teachings of the Bible.

Finally, any argument that "God created man through evolution" or "God used the big bang to create the universe and defined the laws that govern it" are valid, but on closer inspection, they are no more valid than the idea that God wouldn't be necessary for the same solution or the "Last Wednesday'ism" idea that, if the universe was created with a built-in history that predates it's creation, it might as well have been created last Wednesday and *all* of human history was implanted on the moment of creation.

Suggested reading: Permutation City by Greg Egan, particularly the parts about the Church of the God That Doesn't Matter.

Oh yeah, the universe was *actually* created just now. Wait, no, just *now*.

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
Re:you forgot by chialea · 2004-11-01 09:44 · Score: 1

>You'll find very few fundamentalist christians get upset about discussions of subatomic particles because discoveries in subatomic theory are never used by anti-christians as the foundation for a "see, you stupid christians were wrong!"

I read a Jack T. Chick "scripture tract" thing, where one of the characters is trying to prove evolution is wrong. This character claims that there is no such thing as the strong force, and nuclei are held together BY JESUS.

My cat resented the spray of tea resulting from this panel.

Lea

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, a pretty good summary of Protestant thought, but with one fundamental error:

If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.

This isn't a particularly Protestant view. It might be more Catholic. I don't know, I'm not Catholic. Protestant thought is more along the line that Adam introduced mortality, i.e., death, into the world. Christ's resurrection enabled all men to be resurrected and live forever.

1 Cor. 15:
[20] But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
[21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is the impact of Adam and Eve on humanity today. So to need a resurrection and therefore a Christ, one need only believe that mankind is mortal, not in a literal Adam and Eve, though most Protestants do believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

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:

Romans 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

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.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by geoffspear · 2004-11-01 07:05 · Score: 1

Sure, and the Communists had 100% support of the Soviet population, as proven by election results.

It's hard to get accurate opinion polls when your options are "Do you support Hitler, or would you like to be killed?" or you face a ballot with one name on it.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.

Politics, not belief by Tony · 2004-11-01 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I never said they weren't wrong, just that there's no point. From a scientist's point of view, you are simply arguing science against someone's fantasies. Why would you work so hard to dispel someone's fantasy land just because it's wrong?

There is a large grass-roots movement within the US to teach "intelligent design" side-by-side with evolution as a competing theory. Although ID makes no direct reference to God, or even to creation, the concept is a dressed-up creationism. (How can you have intelligent design without some form of intelligence?)

Even the ones that need proof so badly are acting on faith, and you can't disprove someone's faith. If you're trying to get them to change their minds, this is the wrong approach.

I agree completely. The idea isn't to change minds, although it would be helpful if people used a modicum of sense in their beliefs. The idea is to politically block the teaching of a non-science in science class.

I think this debate goes a long way to prove the fundamentallist nature of the US. Intelligent Design cannot be disproven, and so isn't even science. Yet there is a huge political push to teach it side-by-side with evolution, as a competing theory. I agree that there are holes in evolution, but the basic concept of evolution by natural selection has withstood every possible test thrown at it.

As natural selection works on phenotype variance within a population (and not on individuals), the holes in evolution are the general mechanism through which the genotype varies. The crude concept of "mutation" covers this variance, but the mechanisms of mutation aren't well-understood. It's not just a matter of stray particles striking a strand of DNA, or random recombination through sexual reproduction.

Because we don't understand it all yet, there is a huge gap in our knowledge that allows people to say, "God does it." Just like ancient maps with "Here be dragons" scrawled across unknown areas, those with religious beliefs apply their belief to everything that is unknown. This pushes many of them to teach everyone else that "God does it." That's fine in a relgious setting, but taught as knowledge, it is unacceptable. To present it as scientific is downright dishonest.

Anyway, that is the point of these scientific exercises. Not only does it add to our body of knowledge, but helps fill in the blanks in which people have previously written in flowing script, "God works here, in mysterious ways."

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:Politics, not belief by jsebrech · 2004-11-01 09:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just like ancient maps with "Here be dragons" scrawled across unknown areas, those with religious beliefs apply their belief to everything that is unknown.

That's why some people mockingly call Him "the God of the gaps." What a lot of people who fight so hard to bring religion to non-religious regions of life don't seem to realise is that they are taking a huge gamble. The one guarantee you have to be free to hold the religion of your choice is that society doesn't consider you a treath, and so has no reason to be offended by your religion. As soon as you start to behave in a way that most people consider harmful (like insisting in teaching religious dogma in public schools), your religious freedom becomes heavily undermined.

Ofcourse, I've heard it argued that the religious people who do this have such weak religions that they require the religious persecution and the fight to hold on to their faith despite all their doubts and trials.

Homo floresiensis by Chembryl · 2004-11-01 07:11 · Score: 1

... So what does the bible have to say about this? Homofloresiensis

--
- This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice

Re:Homo floresiensis by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 08:01 · Score: 1

What do you have to say about pygmies from the Congo jungle?

[An Indonesian island reveals the existence of an extinct group of pygmy humans]
Re:Homo floresiensis by Chembryl · 2004-11-01 11:38 · Score: 1

What do you have to say about pygmies from the Congo jungle?
I would hope that was the first possibility that they ruled out.
An Indonesian island reveals the existence of an extinct group of pygmy humans
The Flores discovery fits very nicely into a biblical view of history
You are joking right? Troll.

--
- This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
Re:Homo floresiensis by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 20:31 · Score: 1

From the article:

NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human. They are those of a (miniature) Homo erectus, a variant of the modern type, but within the human kind (see also How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?). Like the evolutionist anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and his allies, who are also aware of the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens, we are saying that Homo erectus (and thus also the Flores people) should really be classified as H. sapiens. The human kind/species had a greater range of variation than exhibited today.

No, I don't see that. by khasim · 2004-11-01 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, we're armchair generals here. All the hard work is done by the scientists and this is really their statement. If we accept their statement that there are three lineages, we should also be willing to accept their statements that the 3 lineages converge to one.

No. It is very possible that the person doing the research has a bias and will present the information in such a way as to reinforce that bias. From the material presented, there isn't any reason to link the original 3 lines to 1.

I'm simply pointing out similarities between their data and the Biblical record.

Yep. And that is your bias. Because having a single link supports your bias, you don't see anything wrong with it.

Whereas I look at the information and ask why they are linked.

It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched.

Incorrect. Unless there are other people to breed with there, they should have the same DNA as the original tribe.

That was their whole point about using "mitochondrial DNA" for the female tracking.

From the article:

Mitochondria, which live inside human cells but outside the nucleus, escape the shuffling of genes that occurs between generations and are passed unchanged from mother to children.

"unchanged". Then.

In principle, all people should have the same string of DNA letters in their mitochondria. In practice, mitochondrial DNA has steadily accumulated changes over the centuries because of copying errors and radiation damage.

So why is are there so few changes and those changes only happen when migrating to a new geographic region (aside from the afore mentioned 3-become-1)?

In other words, 2 of Eve's 3 original lines have been 100% resistant to change over all the years. While 1 of the 3 has undergone change after change after change after change, but only when moving to new locations.

Rather, it appears that they are charting sections of the DNA code, and placing an arbitrary limit on what constitutes a "new" "line" and tracing back these "lines" to support their bias.

Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals, according to a calculation published last December. But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population. The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.

Yet it then goes to branch 3 times. To me, that indicates at least 3 individuals, not the one. Unless they can dig up the original and the 3 daughters.

I find it interesting that they seem to indicate that the original 1,000 women would have 1,000 different sets of mitochondrial DNA.

Which gets back to bias. If you take the religious point of view, then believing in 1 Eve is easy.

If you take the evolutionary bias, then believing that those 1,000 women could all have the same mitochondrial DNA is easy. They are all descended from the same stock and there was inter-breeding.

Which would also support my belief that they aren't talking exact matches but are imposing an arbitrary limit on what constitutes a "line".

Re:No, I don't see that. by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 08:21 · Score: 2, Informative

I said: "It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched."

You said: "Incorrect. Unless there are other people to breed with there, they should have the same DNA as the original tribe."

I say: No!

Once there is no more mixing of 'A' and 'A.1' because 'A.1' has migrated away, their DNA lineages _would_ diverge, even if A.1 bred exclusively among _themselves_. This is because the mutations that A.1 accumulates will have almost no means of being transmitted back to A. And the mutations that A accumulates after A.1 brached off have few ways of being transmitted to A.1.

Your own bias is clouding your thoughts. If you can't accept that 3 braches converge to 1 original, what makes you accept 7 branches converge to one of the 3?

It's obvious also that the research underlying the article done by scientists who _agree_ with mainstream genetic and evolutionary theory, not with a earth created 5000 years ago as stated in the Bible.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 07:12 · Score: 1

Well if it was truely divinely inspired, they woud have understood it perfectly. What lacked were words to describe it. Frankly, you really can't explain to someone else something he or she never saw or experienced before. You can try to relate it to something similar, but you can never be sure they really understood what you meant. Conversely, when someone tries to explain something to you that you have never experienced before, you can never be sure you understood them.

It would be like explaining how some new exotic dish tasted to someone else. You could only say that it tasted similar to, say, chicken or curry. But really it tasted like itself.

Heck, just read the descriptions of supernatural beings in the scriptures. You could tell that the author was desperately trying to think of adjectives to describe it, but it's really hard to develop a mental image of a creature with 6 wings, or a wheel in the sky. Heck, even the color of these things seem hard for prophetic writers to describe.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by hackwrench · 2004-11-01 07:14 · Score: 1

1. I accept a certain translation of the bible as truth.
2. I accept a literal read of Genesis where the word conventially translated "day" is properly translated "era"

Consider this environment by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

Consider the /. environment. After many thousands of years of geekdom, /.'ians have the ability to self-procreate due to the lack of girlfriends.

ba da bing

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Cpt_Kirks · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

How long would a "day" be to God? A day is 24 hours on Earth. The 24 hour day is not universal.

A "day" to God could be a billion years on Earth...

Well done! by big_groo · 2004-11-01 07:15 · Score: 1

You've just managed to flame Evolutionists and Creationists -- all while getting modded up. Now all you need is an honorary membership to the GNAA.

Wrong by Boronx · 2004-11-01 07:16 · Score: 1

It's just wrong that the main opponent of a series of rational theories based on the scientific method and centuries of carefully recorded and rerecorded evidence is a fairy tale told to the children of desert nomads 4000 years ago.

For God's sake, people, it's a goddam fable. Do you think the little sheperd boy, who listened wide eyed to stories about Adam and Moses, grew up to be a grizzled old man who still believed that crap? He'd seen life. He'd seen his goats grow old, give birth and die. He'd seen his family do the same thing, he'd seen the hypocricy of the priests and nobility of the outcast. He'd seen the complexity, wonder, horror and complete unfairness of life that no children's story even begins to explain.

--
Play Command HQ online

From a different perspective.. by gillbates · 2004-11-01 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:From a different perspective.. by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2004-11-01 10:49 · Score: 1

A common perversion of religious people is to twist the arguments of those who favor science and logic.

There's a HUGE difference between saying there's no clear evidence pointing to the existence of god, vs. saying god does not exist because of lack of evidence.

The burden of proof lies in those who proclaim the existence of god.

And no, science isn't a "religion". To malign the most basic form of human intelligience and logic, by comparing it with "faith", is rather ludicrous. One is based on learning and refining by evidence and logic. The other is based on total ignorance and acceptance of something without questioning any of it.

"I am superman. Accept that by faith."

--

eTrade SUCKS

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 07:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually no. Paul was writing in response to a question about what are the most important parts of the scriptures to teach. In essence his answer was: All of it.

Keep in mind that when Paul refers to the scriptures, he isn't talking about the Bible. That didn't come about until centuries after his death. He was referring to a library of religious teachings that spanned the texts of the ancient Hebrews, to the writings of contemporaneous Prophets.

Our modern Bible is a fraction of the material they were working with back then. Many of the omissions are editorial. But there are those scholars that say that politics went into the selection, or omission, of several texts into the Canon.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

1950 encyclical Humani Generis by michaelmalak · 2004-11-01 07:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Why not quote the original document (covered by papal infallibility):

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. [...]
37. [...] For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

The Cliff Notes version of what Catholics are required to believe about evolution:

Maybe our bodies came from evolution (under God's will), but God Himself creates our immortal souls [at conception].
There was a first man and a first woman, whom we call Adam and Eve, who committed the first sin.

Re:1950 encyclical Humani Generis by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 14:21 · Score: 1

It'll be interesting if we someday figure out that there is a soul, and then go one to describe its behavior and it turns out to be transmitted through something like genetics. That'll really mess up religion...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by jorleif · 2004-11-01 07:20 · Score: 1

Yes both definitely require some faith to believe. This does not mean that both are empirically as likely to have occured. The issue is not one of "pure faith", but a complex scientific question with religious implications.

Common ancestry might not disprove God, but disproving common ancestry disproves darwinism (or at least the currently prevalent darwinistic theories of a single first organism and an evolutionary tree as opposed to many first organisms and an evolutionary graph).

Re:But wait... by Shrique · 2004-11-01 07:20 · Score: 1

There is a difference between starting with a Belief and starting with a theory. When starting with a theory you should to be open to altering your orinal hypothesis if your findings lead towards a different conclusion. A Belief that requires faith tends to be much less flexible.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by timjdot · 2004-11-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Or it could be that some bloke wrote down history wrong. Humans screw up alot. Nothing was better or worse about them than you or me.

--
Expect Freedom.

OOps. by Nopal · 2004-11-01 07:22 · Score: 1

That's supposed to be orange-ade, not lemonade.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WindBourne · 2004-11-01 07:22 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Bush is a fundamentalist, and he still has a good chance of being elected, so perhaps you are in denial?

Bush will not be elected BECAUSE he is a supposed fundamentalist. He will not be elected due to his support of human rights (if he was really worried, he would have gone after North Korea, or any number of other countries), or ability to balance the budget (speaks for itself), or his ability to involve everybody in a common cause(we as a nation are more divided than ever before), his ability to "protect" America from terrorist( he had a nearly free ability to go after Bin Ladin for more than 3 years and still has not got him), his moral standings (he allows a traitor in the whitehouse, the Haliburton deal is showing to be a farce from above, etc...) or his ability to stop possible attacks on America in the future (North Korea now has a missle that can hit the east coast, and thought to have nukes; Iran will shortly have nukes with missle that can hit europe).

It will be because he is able to cause fear-mongering amongst normal Americans.

But you are right, he may be elected. But so may Kerry, which is unusual to have a president knocked out of office.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Ieshan · 2004-11-01 07:22 · Score: 1

Science makes falsibiable predictions. Religion does not.

Your argument cannot be proven false, hence, it is not scientific and therefore an incompatible link between science and religion.

Moral of the story: You're either one or the other. Scientists are willing to accept that their arguments are incorrect, Religious folk aren't. There are no conditions under which you'd say, "God couldn't have done this". That's the problem.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 07:25 · Score: 1

All statements go relative, and subjective.

Wouldn't that be compatible with free will? And doesn't

[reading] Genesis as a true, but poetic, qualitative abstract of the implementation.

demand that you are taking a relativistic reading of the Bible (i.e., relative to your understanding?)

How do we differentiate between Stalin and Ghandi?

Wouldn't we do that through acceptance of justice, and a common interpretation of what is just and good?

And doesn't our common acceptance of that vary with time? Doesn't that mean that our collective perception of what is right is relative to the times?

I can't understand your confidence in your views.

As for a bulletproof attack against Christ, I don't think anyone has that. It is an unverifiable claim. It could be true, but who knows?

What has suffered erosion over the years are merely many views about the world that have been upheld as God's activities, and unchangeable. Geocentric solar systems, young-earth creationism. Stuff like that.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by meiocyte · 2004-11-01 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

The nautilus by Tony · 2004-11-01 07:27 · Score: 2, Informative

The nautilus has only a peephole for an eye. It is fundamentally just a camera obscura.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WoodenRobot · 2004-11-01 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or maybe God uses metaphors so you can understand him better. Or the Bible is the wrong version of what God did.

There's two options you left out, and I'm sure there are plenty more. Try thinking a bit more laterally and less literally.

--
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."

I'm Confused-light-sensitive neural vs. skin cells by DeckerEgo · 2004-11-01 07:28 · Score: 1

I need help with parts of this...
The article says that "light sensitive cells" in the brain influence our lives and migrated to our faces. But what do the light sensitive cells in my skull do? How to they work now? Do they work now? What were they there for earlier?

Also, I know some animals have photo-sensitive skin cells instead of photo-sensitive neural cells (i.e. some can repair their retinas, others can't). How did that divergence happen? Do these animals also have light-sensitive cells in their noggin' too?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-01 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

While we are on that topic, the idea that Alcohol and drugs are somehow evil unto themselves is a wholly artificial dogma, propogated by the Temperence movement.

It is hiliarious to hear their explaination of Christ's first miracle (turning water into wine), and the beverage that is part of the rite of communion (wine). They claim that in the ancient tongue that "Wine" meant a strong grape beverage. Never mind that no such word exists, nor that the effects of said beverages are also described quite accurately in the scriptures.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:Here is the fuss by jc42 · 2004-11-01 07:30 · Score: 1

Some still believe the world is flat, I hear. Something about a mountain one can climb and see everything.

Such people have probably never done much mountain climbing. ;-)

One of the problems with this whole idea is that people throughout history have figured out the shape (and sometimes even the approximate size) of the earth without any high-tech equipment.

The usual textbook example is sailors. It doesn't take much sailing on a large body of water until you realize that you can "see" the curvature of the surface. The most obvious clue is the way that things appear and disappear at the horizon. They don't just shrink or grow. A ship sailing away disappears from the bottom up, and from the sailor's viewpoint, tall objects on shore also disappear from the bottom up. As you approach land, the opposite happens. After a while, your brain integrates all this, and the shape of the world is obvious. If someone tries to say that the world is flat, you just dismiss them as ignorand landlubbers.

Mountain climbers can see the same thing, especially if you're climbing a mountain on the edge of a range where you can see out over an expanse of relatively flat land. As you climb, things farther away "come up over the horizon". Then, as you descend, things disappear in the reverse order. Again, if you do this very often, the overall curved shape of the plains becomes obvious. Anyone who says otherwise is merely displaying their ignorance of easily-observed fact.

There was a cute puzzle in Scientific American many years ago. The puzzle was: Using no more equipment that was available to surveyors centuries ago, and standing in one place, measure the radius of the Earth.

The solution was to carry your transit (or whatever you call your device for precisely measuring angles) to a shore where you can't see the opposite shore. You need a calm day so that there aren't any tall waves. Sight on the horizon and measure the angle with the transit's plumb line. This will be slightly less than a right angle. Draw a diagram of the curved surface with two radii, one to the horizon and one to the transit. Measure the height of the transit above the surface of the water. The line from the transit to the horizon forms a right angle with the remote radius. You know the other two angles. The hypotenuse is the Earth's radius plus the height of your transit. Solve for the radius.

There was a comment that Roman engineers could have done this and gotten the radius to within a few percent. Their main limitation was the accuracy of their equivalent of trig tables. (Actually, you'd probably have done better by asking a Greek nautical engineer. ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Could your belief be wrong? by xnot · 2004-11-01 07:30 · Score: 1

I think this is the question that so many people ask, which is why people get obsessed with these types of questions. The effort to prove who is right and who is wrong typically has a bad end thoughout history (anger, wars, death). Instead of asking why things are different, we should be asking why things are the same.

- Evolution proves that all life is inter-linked, which is expected even if you believe in God. God created the lower life forms before he created Man, so it's logical to assume He improved His designs over time.

- Science is never going to be able to explain the universal truths, because that is not it's goal. Science only figures out HOW things work- it doesn't prove what things ARE. For example, Einstein's Laws exist, we know they exist. But nobody can explain WHY they exist, or how they came to exist rather then some other laws. Therefore, trying to fit them to some universal truth that proves what existance is doesn't make any sense. Even if evolution were "proven", what purpose would that serve? Eveolution still doesn't explain why living things move and innanimate objects don't. So it's obvious something created life, that it did not come out of non-life. That thing is God (or whatever you want to call it.)

- Science provides the how, religion provides the why. The two are complimentary, not exclusive.

Re:Face It by renoX · 2004-11-01 07:31 · Score: 1

>many other countries have a cultural acceptance of that position that negates the need.

I don't know for Asia but in Europe this separation of state and church is not something so obvious: people had to fight to get it!

I agree that now it is a accepted in some parts of Europe (France for example) but in other (Italy) for example this is much less obvious: church has still a big power on the state even though it's separated..

This is also linked to the number of non-believers: France has something like 30% of non-believers, so of course church and state are quite separated!

Re:That is frightening and sad. by HokieJP · 2004-11-01 07:31 · Score: 1

You're right that religon vs. secularism is a dividing line in the so called "culture wars" that frame our political discourse, but I think you're overreacting when you say that the forces of religion are winning. Of course, they are winning skirmishes, a textbook here and there, laws on parental notification, etc., but they are losing the war.

Consider that 40 years ago it was illegal not only to have an abortion, but even to buy contraceptive devices (even if you were married!) in some U.S. states. Consider that 80 years ago it was illegal to teach evolution in schools in Tennessee. The forces of religion have lost all these fights, and they continue to lose them (Lawrence v. Texas), and are now reduced to trying to chip away on the margins. They succeed sometimes because the secular forces have become complacent in victory, but short of total social collapse, there won't be any significant backsliding.

This is a very large, very slow transition that dates back to the renaissance, when humanism started chipping away at theocracy. When you consider that in the middle ages the church had the power of life and death, we've come a long way indeed.

important alternative by Xtifr · 2004-11-01 07:31 · Score: 1

You're forgetting an important alternative: maybe God is just a really lousy engineer. Maybe, in the land of the Gods, our universe is just a third-rate high-school science project. Maybe our God is just an incompetant dumbass! :)

Re:important alternative by Wescotte · 2004-11-01 19:38 · Score: 1

You're forgetting an important alternative: maybe God is just a really lousy engineer. Maybe, in the land of the Gods, our universe is just a third-rate high-school science project. Maybe our God is just an incompetant dumbass! :)

Then i'm totally gonna sue his ass for shotty craftsmanship! Anyone wanna start a class action against God?

Blaaaaagh. by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-11-01 07:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Is the Sky Red or Green?

This is THE idiot argument of the century. Nobody is right because the question is broken.

Religion is the tool of darkness and control.

Science fulfills the same function because it has been over-populated with borderline autistic practitioners who have deliberately turned off their intuitive powers through a form of virtual self-lobotomy in a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Organized Religion is Insane. --Which is like refusing to play D&D because one kid jumps in front of a subway train yelling, "Black Dragon!"

Now everybody be quiet put your heads down until recess. Sheesh.

-FL

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by obby.net · 2004-11-01 07:33 · Score: 1

Nice points, I think. But it seems a thinly vieled attempt to fullfill your missionary duties.

I'm LDS, and I go to BYU. In this school - which is run basically by my church - we actually don't have a problem with evolution at all. We even (gasp) teach it. Why? We believe that God still speaks through a single source, and we have more than one witness of Christ. The idea that parts of the Bible might be allegorical or severely watered-down for the people of the time doesn't bother us at all.

That's great and all, but it's a shame that Mormonism is based on lies. The seriously blatant kind. The sort that are absolutely discredited by genetics, archeology, anthropology....

I don't have time to go into all the details, but these links should provide more than enough debunking regarding this false religion:

A seeminly unaffiliated perspective.
A christian perspective.

Key points:
The papyrus John Smith translated contained NO INFORMATION about abraham or golden plates. He made it up.
Black people are suppoed to become lighter skinned through practicing mormonism.
They believe that a certain native american tribe was descendent from the Jews.

I still do not comprehend how people do not place the LDS(mormons) in the same class as Scientology.

Re:Lord. by stanmann · 2004-11-01 07:33 · Score: 1

Think of it this way: There is a car by the side of the road, it is deserted and there are no tiremarks. We could look at these clues and posit that the car was parked and rain has since washed away the tire tracks. OR... we can claim that random chance brought this car into being based on a bicycle that rolled past.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 07:34 · Score: 1

death was not present on Earth until Adam sinned - which is after creation

Can you cite it, and wasn't it merely in reference to Adam's descendents? And, what did lions and other carnivores eat before the fall of man?

(nb: I like the argument, just want to know how strong it is.)

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by IdahoEv · 2004-11-01 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree that stating that God couldn't is utterly stupid, however the question is on whether evolution occured or not.

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.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WindBourne · 2004-11-01 07:42 · Score: 1

Actually, I am really not in favor of Kerry. But the real problem is that W. is an absolute disaster to America and to my daughter. And I am in a swing state (Colorado) witht he ability to change the outcome.

As to having power, I do not think that there are really as many neo-cons in office as people like to believe. A number of them are simply good republicans (people such as McCain, and Powell are what I classify as good Republicans who are absolutely not neo-cons and certainly are not fundamentalists). It remains to be seen what will happen

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Cerebron · 2004-11-01 07:46 · Score: 1

Actually, the octopus lives under water. The water provides protection from the sun. The sun burns eyeballs. Our eyeballs are designed to protect us from the damaging effects of the sun, whereas the octopus' eyeballs do not have to worry about the sun at all, ergo their design.

--
xyzzy - operation overload.

It's better because we have bloodvessels in front by kanweg · 2004-11-01 07:46 · Score: 1

They are better, indeed. In mammals, the bloodvessels are in front of the light sensitive cells (that is, between the pupil and the retina. Stupid design, which led some to believe that god was an engineer.

Bert

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 07:47 · Score: 1

Someone pointed out that as there was no death in Eden prior to the fall of man evolution, requiring selection (weeding out the unfits) could not have occured prior to the fall of man and is therefore incompatible with even a liberal^Wloose interpretation of the Bible.

Can you comment on that wrt your view evolution and Christianity/Creationism are not mutually exclusive events?

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by sirhc7 · 2004-11-01 07:47 · Score: 1

Well the theory of evolution and its processes excludes any form of guiding hand or God. It really is a theory that is there to explain the existence of life as we know it without having to resort to a creation story. So if you believe that the current theory of evolution is a good description of the way it actually happened, then you are saying that there was no guiding hand in the process. One can't really believe that evolution occurred (which excludes a designer, or guiding hand, or God) and also believe the earth was created in some way. However if you decide to believe that God used processes that fit within the theory of evolution to create the world then you really are subscribing to a hybrid theory. Evolution is a way to explain the earth without a creator. Whether it's a good explanation, or believable is another question without an easy answer for most people.

Science is practiced by people by Tony · 2004-11-01 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Science is merely an epistomology based on rationalism. It is by far the most successful epistomogy in widespread use today.

The flaw in science is not the scientific method. Rather, science is flawed in spite of the scientific method. Science if flawed the same way every human endeavor is flawed: it's run by humans.

It's difficult to topple an existing scientific belief, but it happens. The same way quantum physics displaced the prevalent Newtonian physics, evidence for something other than evolution would receive widespread critisism, but as a new generation of scientists replace the old guard, the new evidence (and the accompanying hypothesis) would become accepted as canon.

This study is all cool and everything. But modern science has made up it's mind, so don't fool yourself into thinking you'll hear all sides of evolution/darwinism from religion or science.

Modern science hasn't made up its mind; modern scientists have made up their mind. Incorrect theories will topple as evidence mounts against them. Within science, dogma grows old and dies. New theories replace old all the time. Sometimes it just seems to take a long time-- often, a professional lifetime.

So far, there isn't even a logical hypothesis to compete against evolution via natural selection, so there's very little "mind" to make up. Until there is a logical, scientifically-verifiable counter hypothesis, there's very little room for debate.

Now, within the framework of evolution via natural selection, there's a lot of room for debate.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Religion != Christianity by sakti · 2004-11-01 07:54 · Score: 1

Remember that there are other religions out there than the offshots of Judaism.

--
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus

Re:Face It by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-01 07:56 · Score: 1

Okay, you avoided all my points and came back with an ad hominem attack on Slashdot as a whole. I admit that there are some vocal people on this forum more interested in flaming than discussing, but that has nothing to do with the relevant points I made.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WoodenRobot · 2004-11-01 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course evolution can be guided, as can be seen with reference to domesticated dogs, for example.

--
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."

Re:The "mammalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye. by IdahoEv · 2004-11-01 07:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

This is quite right. The difference is simple: the photoreceptors all have to feed into a neural network for processing, and then the outputs of that neural network are connected by axons (wires, basically) that run down into the optical nerve to transmit the information from the brain.

The cephalopod retina does this the way you'd expect: photoreceptors up front receiving the light, neural network behind it, axonal connections behind that.

The eye in all chordate (spinal-cord bearing, i.e. mammals, birds, reptiles) organisms is built the other way around: the photoreceptors are at the back of the retina, with the neural net in front of them and the axonal network in front of that. Before light reaches your photoreceptors, it has to pass through several layers of cells. Your "blind spot" is the area right on top of the optical nerve where the axons go back through the whole layered structure, taking up the room that might otherwise be used for photoreceptors. Take a look at the photo on the wikipedia page about the retina. In that cross-section of the retina, the light comes in from the left.

From an engineering point of view, it's totally retarted. But evolved organisms have this kind of kludge all the time, because once you have a structure locked in, it's really hard to get away from it by mutation. You could concieve of a series of organisms with a few mutations at a time where by the end the structure of the retina was reversed and they had better eyes. BUT, the organisms in the middle of the series would probably be blind so you'd never get to the end.

Another fantastic example is the fact that our lungs are above and in front of our stomach, but our nose is above our mouth. This requires our air-path and food-path to cross each other, opening the possibility of choking to death. How stupid is that?
But the number and combination of mutations required to restructure the entire neck and jaw so that your trachea could be behind your throat ... just too unlikely.

Particularly things like body-plan order that happen early in development tend to get really locked in by evolution. This is why we can see so many "bad engineering decisions" in biological organisms.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

A bunch of nerds playing hooky at work? by sideshow · 2004-11-01 08:02 · Score: 1

Somewhere Osama is smiling because this is certainly the outcome he wants for the world.

Yeah, he is certainly destorying the free world.

I think about how happy some old man living in cave must be destroying the world sometimes while I drive my new car along the beach.

--

Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by renehollan · 2004-11-01 08:02 · Score: 1

This leads to another problem, non-christians think that the fundies represent all christians, that all christians are fascist-like who would murder anyone who disagrees with them. Of course, that affects all religions -- a segment will always use it to prey on the weak minded.

Kinda like non-Muslims thinking that all Muslims would murder anyone who would disagree with them?

I happen to be agnostic, but find the parallel hard to ignore.

--
You could've hired me.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by MysteriousPreacher · 2004-11-01 08:05 · Score: 1

You're right about that. Also, they can't suffer detatched retinas like we can.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005

Re:Face It by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-01 08:06 · Score: 1

So you are suggesting that meaningfully all scientists working in the biological sciences are just ignoring this "great deal" of evidence for creationism? Nobody denies that evolution, like any other scientific theory, is a model that has been adapted to better fit new data that has arisen over the years, and that historical biological data is by its nature incomplete. But why don't you enumerate some specific arguments, and explain how they aren't addressed by the Talk.Origins FAQ and the rest of that site.

I have yet to see your compelling evidence and I look forward to hearing more about it.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by 0x12d3 · 2004-11-01 08:06 · Score: 2, Funny

We've finally evolved beyond Tim?

Greater Humanity 1
Tim 0

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-11-01 08:09 · Score: 1

the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe

You seem to be operating with some strange definition of "scientist" with which I have never been acquainted.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Pedant Time by StarKruzr · 2004-11-01 08:09 · Score: 1

"Amen" means "I believe it."

Therefore, I completely agree with you. :D

--

+++ATH0

problem is by just+someone · 2004-11-01 08:11 · Score: 1

That you can't teach people how to think.

It's not allowed. Teach them how to take tests, and come up with answers. Teach them how to come up with a question (hypothesize), and test the question.

Creationists would like to think that they have attempted to come up with theories. But mostly they spend their time bashing other peoples theories, and not developing their own framework and supported studies.

Let us teach students how to think. Not all of them will get it.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dwlovell · 2004-11-01 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I dont think the argument historically is about Creationism vs Evolution. It is more about the implications of all the theories that go along with Evolution and how they differ from the Biblical view.

ie;
- Old earth view -> Some Christians believe this
- Natural Selection -> Pretty much accepted by anyone who has an education, Christian or Atheist or other.

The place where the two crowds split is with respect to what is "created". A lot of evolutionists believe in the "Big Bang Theory". The bible says that God created the heavens and the earth as well as man and woman from him. This would contradict the idea that God would create gases that might later evolve into living creatures. If God did not create us directly, I think the Bible would say so. Some Deists might see the garden of eden as symbolism and see the possibility of the Big Bang Theory coexisting with creation, but that would just be a faith-based opinion just like any other religious belief.

So to sum it up for me:
- I am a Christian
- I believe in natural selection/altruism as a built-in mechanism for purifying and strengthening the gene pool
- I believe in a short-aged earth, but if proof were found that the earth were millions of years old, it would not invalidate my faith, it would simply be a different scientific viewpoint of how the earth progressed after eden.
- I believe God made the earth and humans based on scientific laws and those laws allow us to exercise free will. (ie: those trapped in a world they dont understand and attribute everything to "magic" is not free will. By giving us science and natural laws, we can better understand his creation and his design.)

I respect you if you do not believe in a god or have a different religion. I lose repect when people say religion is incompatible with science.

Thanks,
David

The truth is out there by Reapman · 2004-11-01 08:19 · Score: 1

ya ya hokey line but i'm busy at work so sue me :)

as a "Creationist" I think this is great, although I did'nt RTFA, I imagine that at least some of the drive for this was based on Religion asking these questions of science, and science responded. I have no idea if the earth was made in 6 days literaly or figuratively, and really, that part isn't what I call a defining characteristic of my faith.

Science definitly does not rule out Religion, and Religion definitly does not rule out Science... anything that furthers our understanding of the work God has done, to me makes me appreciate it all the more.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by bbtom · 2004-11-01 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly.

Rule one: get a good commentary. Preferably access to a few of them.
Rule two: get some good translations.

As much as evolutionists bitch about creationists taking them out of context, that's nothing when compared with the possibilities of mis-quoting and mis-interpreting the Bible.

--
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }

Evolution vs. Stupid Design by radtea · 2004-11-01 08:20 · Score: 1

The issue isn't evolution vs. intelligent design, the issue is evolution vs. stupid design. If God made Man, God is an idiot.

The eye is a case in point. Retinal detachment... Lousy self-repair... Medicre acuity... Macular degeneration...

Any decent engineer could have fixed all of these problems (many of them are much less of a problem in species other than humans, so we know they can be solved.)

--Tom

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by gryphokk · 2004-11-01 08:22 · Score: 1

is unusual to have a president knocked out of office.

With any luck, it runs int the family.

--
And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.

Re:Evolution and Creationism are not compatible by trongey · 2004-11-01 08:26 · Score: 1

God didn't say that, the writer of Genesis said that, and he doesn't attribute it as a quote from God. You're already taking man's word on that one.
The second "law" is already facing problems from cosmology so it's not a great argument for anything. Let's face it, even if nature does have laws, we don't know most of them.
Sadly you're pretty much right about evolution, and much of the rest of science, being treated like religion by many people who should know better.

--
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by softspokenrevolution · 2004-11-01 08:27 · Score: 1

It's all about the arboreal dwelling of primates. We simply have a greater need for depth perception than for a lack of blindspots, after all we have ears and a reasonable sense of smell. Form follows function.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dpilot · 2004-11-01 08:29 · Score: 1

I use "neocon" because it's a modern moniker, and for the most part, people recognize it. In reality, I didn't spend so much time searching that term as I did with "Hoover" and various other additions. Start with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and then look into peoples' comments about it and the espoused philosophies, and you find essentially the same things as "neocon" will tell you.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mchenrytl · 2004-11-01 08:31 · Score: 1

To me you'd think any book that's 2000+ years old could be updated with modern editions and used, but only in religion is this frowned upon. Can you imagine using a history book or a science book from 2,000 years ago? It'd be horribly out of date and this is pretty much how I view the bible. I think there's some good stuff in there, and from a historical standpoint required reading, but to base your life, ethics, and laws on something 2,000 years ago without any major revision seems downright silly. Heck, I can't even use the same history or science textbook from last year, since there are constant revisions, corrections and additions. What if something was inaccurate in the bible? Who's going to stand up and say "you know what, this first part doesn't jive with this second part". Let's change it for a more consistent vision of our God, and his love, etc.

I live in Lynchburg, VA home of the Jerry Falwell and his University and it's sad. Everyone is closed minded, elitist, and prefers the hellfire and damnation interpretations and messages to the polar opposites later on. They try to "scare" people into Christianity which to me can't be the right way of converting individuals to your faith. It's funny to see Baptists running around doing things Catholics did 1,000 years ago in trying to convert people.

Oh well, slight rant, but this has been a topic in my mind since the cover article in Wired last month. I think this whole not teaching evolution in our school and now showing it in the same light as Intelligent Design is taking steps back in our knowledge of the universe and how it works back to before Darwin. I honestly think some of these fundamentalist would be happier if we went to a church-state and gave up our freedoms of speech.

Re:Not what the debate is about by Nopal · 2004-11-01 08:33 · Score: 1

Again, no. This point has been made before but it's inacurate. The debate is not just one side trying to convince the other. Is about multiple sides trying to convince each other. Or do you mean to tell me that you haven't heard about anti-religion arguments trying to use science as a club to attempt to bludgeon ALL organized religion with?

In other words, the debate is, as you've pointed out, about people that think the world was created in a way inconsistent with the scientific evidence. However, it is also about people that argue that the scientific evidence is inconsistent with faith. This is an important distinction that needs to be made.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by bmj · 2004-11-01 08:33 · Score: 1

If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.

You've stumbled into a mighty large theological question there. Catholics and some Protestants believe in free choice of the will, but reformed protestants don't. They believe (and there are plenty of scriptural references to support this) that God pre-destined all this to happen. He knew when he "created" Adam and Eve that would they would sin. He knew He would send Christ as a sacrifice/savior for humanity. So, your last sentence is true, but the path to get there just depends on what flavour of Christian you are.

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Doctor+Faustus · 2004-11-01 08:34 · Score: 1

The Quakers also believe that God still reveals truth regularly, but they seem to be a lot more laid back about it. I'm pretty fond of them; my son goes to a Quaker school, and I'd almost certainly be Quaker if I was still a Christian.

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 08:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually Darwin's theory *was* natural selection. Evolution was already believed beforehand by a large number of scientists, the problem was that the mechanism by which evolution occured was not known. One example of this is Lamarckian evolution, which was postulated many years before Darwin came around. Thus, the idea of evolution was already in place, and all Darwin was doing was arguing the mechanism by which it occured, natural selection.

I happen to disagree with you when you say that natural selection is wrong. There is indeed a large amount of proof showing that natural selection does take place. Simple experiment: take a petri dish of bacteria, load with antibiotics. There will be some bacteria that will survive to reproduce. Viola! Thats the basis of natural selection. How was that wrong?

Where's your evidence stating that nothing has proven natural selection to take place?

you started off nice :) by bmajik · 2004-11-01 08:36 · Score: 1

at least you didn't come right out and start mocking me, you saved that for the end ;)

re: problems with creation science, ID, etc.

I agree with you. These movements are political in nature, not scientific. The "need" for these arose from people using macro-evolution to push a political/religious (anti-religious) world view in public schools.

If the rhetoric around macro-evolution-disproves-the-bible were toned down somewhat i dont think it would be so upsetting to people.

Regarding being skeptical of scientific findings that are publicizied to be contradictory to christianity - ask yourself what the motivation for doing the study and/or publishing the results as contradictory was.

I can't see anyone actually doing a scientific study on the transubstantiation of juice->blood without the point of the study being to cause a problem with catholics. Christianity has the nice axioms built in that 1) god can do whatever he wants 2) just because your feeble mind doesn't understand how it could work doesn't mean god doesn't 3) people with evil intentions will try attacking your beleifs and what you have been told

So its really easy to suggest, from a catholics point of view, that such a study is irrelevant since it's up to god to figure out how to make that transformation happen (assuming they beleive it happens in a physical way instead of a spiritual or allegorical way) and that furthermore, the motivations for such a study are highly indicative of someone who has heard the truth but refuses to beleive (thus, an enemy)

as far as observable "facts" contradicting religious doctrines - i've NEVER found one of these that i cannot come up with a satisfying remediation for. It usually involves careful examination of the religious text, and discarding an assumption about the text that is not explicitly stated. There is NOTHING in the bible that suggests that the first time you read it, you will fully understand God. Quite the opposite - no man can ever know how God works, and all christians are to be continually praying / re-reading the bible and trying to evolve their understanding of the word.

In your last major paragraph - you are framing the problem wrong. Christians don't necessarily beleive that God was essential for the creation of the universe - just that he made it anyway. It's something like arguing wether or not God was the critical instrument in the design and construction of a truck. Show the truck to someone in the 1400s, and they'd insist that it was made by a deity, because they have no understanding of its construction, and cannot possibly fathom how it might be made by men (or by any other means). Yet humans of today can fully design, understand, and build pickup trucks.

Humans have already been able to design and create new/modified forms of life, and designing new life is one of the things traditionally reserved for the role of "creator".

People that use God to explain things they dont understand today will always be disappointed in the future when more of God's plan (the observable "how") is discovered.

God always and forever is about the question of "why". It seems unlikely that science will ever answer that.

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

Re:you started off nice :) by cmpalmer · 2004-11-01 09:54 · Score: 1

I'm really sorry if my post decended into a mocking tone.

I was raised and still consider myself religious. I do "believe" in micro and macro evolution the same way I "believe" in Newton's laws of motion (in that they are good approximations of physical reality which are subject to future tweaking and refinement).

I do also agree that no one would seriously attempt a scientific test of transubstantiation for any other reason than an attempt to discredit religious thought, I just threw that out as an example.

My remark about the Greg Egan book was fairly serious -- I actually *liked* the idea of the Church of the God That Doesn't Matter (even if it was bit like the current Unitarian church). The idea was that the members believed in God, believed that God created the universe, and that God had a direct influence over their lives, but he does it in such as way as to be indistinguishable from not doing so. Therefore, you could thank God for all of the good things in your life and, at the same time, curse God for your misfortunes. For some reason, I don't have a problem with that :-)

Where we do part company in agreeing is your truck analogy. Long ago on talk.origins, someone presented the same argument about a laptop computer being shown to Leonardo da Vinci or even Ben Franklin. The poster argued that they would clearly think it was magic/created by a supernatural being. On the contrary, no matter how much they might be amazed by it, you could probably give them a rough idea of its "evolution" in a couple of hours. If you told them that it was "magic", I'm sure they would not believe you.

Way back when, I also posted my opinion on the blind watchmaker. Suppose you paid a craftsman to build you a nice pocket watch "from scratch". You watch him cut and polish the glass, measure and create the gears, cast and etch the case, put the whole thing together, etc. As you leave the shop, a gentleman steps out, waves his hands in the air and produces an almost identical watch from thin air. No matter how much you examine the two, you can't find any differences in quality, although a few details may vary. Which watch would you value the most? Which one would you trust? Would you think the man was a magician, or a trickster?

I find the "how" of scientific enquiry very exciting, even when it creates more new questions than it answers. And, while I'm not in the group that says the "why" is always in the realm of religion, I find the "why" interesting as well on a scientific as well as philosophical level. Why did the Big Bang occur? Why are the cosmological constants conducive to the formation of heavy elements, planets, and eventually life (aside from the "because we have a sample set of 1 to compare it against")? What is below the level of quantum mechanics and why does matter and time even exist (see Greg Egan again -- that book gives me serious existential nightmares)? Is human consciousness purely a result of macro-biological processes (suggested reading: The Mind's I)?

To me, all of that is much more interesting than trying to contort facts to convince myself that dinosaurs and man co-existed, that the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood, or that the physical and mental aspects of humanity are directly modeled on the image of God. Why is saying that apes and humans share a common ancestor calling God a monkey, when it is demonstrably true that, genetically and biologically we are so extremely close (and yes, I know, we are also genetically close to cockroaches or whatever the CS and ID people are using for examples these days). If they don't ignore those facts, are these people saying that chimps are 99.7% in the image of God?

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness

Re:That is frightening and sad. by Jason+Hood · 2004-11-01 08:36 · Score: 1

Whoever said us evil conservatives didnt believe in the Scientific Method(tm)?

We believe in it completely. We (me and my very conservative christian friends anyway) just do not believe in all theories relating to macro evolution. Either theory takes a considerable amount faith.

Remember how it was a fact in grade school that Jupiter did not have a surface and was just a giant planet of condensed gas? I still have an astronomy book that describes it in detail. Then on day some metoers hit and created impact explosions on... the surface...

I as a Christian, do believe that God created the universe. (let me guess, I have no credibility anymore on slantdot, boohoo)

Did He do it in 7 days? 7 earth days? Was it preexisting and He just polish it?

Did he _create_ man? Did He create primates and then turn them into men? Did He simply use the same basic characteristics from other animals to create various species?

The answers to the above questions are irrelavent to a Christian's faith. What we have is the account of men from 2000+ years ago that needed a simple way to relate the Word of God to men for people living in a simpler time. But most importantly what we have are the faith, experiences and vision that verifies Gods existance to us everyday.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your theological, political or scientific position of the history of earth. There however is something wrong when you canvas over and misrepresent other people's beliefs in an attempt to quash their voices. If you dont understand whey they believe what they do, you might want to do some research to find out.

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?

*laugh* by anomaly · 2004-11-01 08:38 · Score: 1

I bet you do! :)

--
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by jorleif · 2004-11-01 08:40 · Score: 1

:) My my :)

I'm sorry if I used sloppy terminology. I was using the term evolution to mean the emergence of the species that currently inhabit the earth. That certainly is an event. On the other hand, we are in the domain of history, so strictly speaking the scientific method can only be used to point whether a certain scenario could have occured. It's quite impossible to perform repeated experiments of an event.

On the other hand the process of evolution can be studied empirically. If it can be shown that complex species cannot arise through an evolutionary process, then also the event of evolutionary emergence of species cannot have occured.

I thought that microevolution refered to variation within a group of similar species (dog, wolf), and macroevolution to a fish evolving into a frog. Why is the distinction nonexistant? I'm sincerely curious.

My original point was that the article mentioned that there are similar cells in the human eye and a living fossil. How does that show how the human eye could have evolved in small steps and not in a giant leap? If evolution happens in huge leaps, what is the mechanism for that?

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 08:42 · Score: 1

BTW, if you happen to disagree with this, I must ask if you've actually read the Origin of Species. In the book he attempts to draw a parallel between artificial selection and natural selection. His strategy for proving natural selection valid is why he brought up artificial selection up in the first place.

Same old same old. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-01 08:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

'Evolutionists' say common features means common a ancestor.

'Creationists' say common features mean a common designer.

So finding common features doesn't prove on case over the other.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dprust · 2004-11-01 08:44 · Score: 1

Actually, I don't know how the universe was formed, or what the universe is, or whether there really is one at all for that matter. I'm open to the idea that the universe "program" (to really stretch the analogy) stared only 5,000 years ago. We don't know anything outside of the scope of that program and all these arguments we make is based on that limited information. Were any of us there 5,000 years ago? To get technical, we have no axioms (self-evident truths) to build upon and any proof requires them -- they are the very structure of a proof.

Genesis seems reasonable to me, for all I know, which is nothing. Why wouldn't the holy spirit manifest itself and spontaneously create man, woman, and all the beasties? Who am I to say it didn't happen that way? It is, in my opinion, an amazing act of arrogance to say in any certain terms how the world started when all of my arguments are based on such a limited stream of information in such a constricted context.

A lot of these discussions is based on the need to know and the frustration that arises from not being able to know. An aspect of faith is to just accept that we cannot know certain things. We don't have to know everything, although it certainly doesn't hurt to try either; it can be fun. God wouldn't give us this need unless there was a reason for it and I'm sure it brings Him joy for us to even talk about such things.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Retric · 2004-11-01 08:46 · Score: 1

Hmm I always thought of Zen Buddhism as: "All things are as they are."

The past and the present are STILL linked but look at the world as it is now not though history's lens nor though your fears of tomorrow.

If a berry tastes sweet it tastes sweet it is sweet which is unchanged by your upcoming death. You may have just watched your family die in a horrific slaughter but should still enjoy the next sunset.

Zen Buddhism is a peasant or soldiers philosophy; a way of dealing with horrific suffering while promoting a passive lifestyle.

Re:Face It by eheldreth · 2004-11-01 08:49 · Score: 1

Actually, no. I have met many creationist working in the biological sciences. The resent debates on Mitochondrial Eve are a prime example. While this evidence is nether proof or disproof of a single creator, any one who views this as evidence of the true biblical eve is treated as a nut case practicing fringe science. Evolutionary scientists are just as much closed minded zealots as any creationist has ever been. For a very good scientifically sound view on what creationism is and is not go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary

The boundary between science and religion by shambalagoon · 2004-11-01 08:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

I see no reason why "intelligent design" implies or supports creationism. Obviously every living thing is an intelligent design. Nearly every tiny part of any living organism has a known purpose. This is not the result of randomness. There is intelligence here, whether it be the combined intelligence of the physical parts involved, the intelligence of a being who could design new creatures (that could be us in 100 years), or some mass consciousness (god?).

Science's unscientific view that random mutations fuel evolution is as ridiculous as religion's personification of god. Both are wrong and the answer lies somewhere in the middle: development and change through time, according to intelligent design, perhaps guided by the collective consciousness of a species, or of all the life on the world.

The history of science and religion reveal where these ideas came from. Science, in order to exist alongside religion, had to divide the world into the physical and the spiritual. And it's that old old habitual materialist view which gave birth to the idea that evolution had to be random. There wasnt any other option! Admitting intelligent design was treading in the realms of religion. And religion's all-powerful god HAD to have created the world, or else it might seem that there was a power greater than god. So we landed in this bizarre in-between land of two theories that both hold clearly wrong but ancient beliefs.

Personally now, I believe the rest of the theory of evolution is pretty sound. And creationism doesnt hold much validity beyond the idea of intelligent design, which I hold to be an all-important addition to the theory of evolution.

Re:The boundary between science and religion by arminw · 2004-11-01 18:20 · Score: 1

...religion's all-powerful god...

Isn't it curious that very culture has some kind of religion? Man it seems is incurably religious. Why is it that many object to the possibility of an all powerful God? Is it not the thought that if there truly is such a God that a person might be accountable to Him for their behaviour?

If a person lives their life in a loving and good way to please God and then it turns out there is no God and no Heaven and no Hell, what has such a person lost? On the other hand if a person lives a selfish and unfruitful life with no regard to God and it turns out He is there after all, along with a heaven and a hell to which the sinner is now consigned forever, what is the better risk in how to live?

Either give up some short lived sinful pleasures in this life and live an upright life in relation to God or live as you please without regard to God and lose for eternity. Which odds are you taking?

--
All theory is gray
Re:The boundary between science and religion by mdwh2 · 2004-11-02 02:04 · Score: 1

If a person lives their life in a loving and good way to please God and then it turns out there is no God and no Heaven and no Hell, what has such a person lost? On the other hand if a person lives a selfish and unfruitful life with no regard to God and it turns out He is there after all, along with a heaven and a hell to which the sinner is now consigned forever, what is the better risk in how to live?

Hi Pascal,

And if it turns out that there is a God, but you weren't living your life in a way that pleases him after all, because you picked the wrong religion, then you go to hell anyway.

Living a loving, selfless, fruitful life has nothing to do with it - it's all about picking the correct one of an infinite number of possible religions. Since I'm bound to pick the wrong one, I'll live my life without caring about what people think God supposedly wants.
Re:The boundary between science and religion by DerWulf · 2004-11-05 06:11 · Score: 1

The answer lies in your question. You condem all who are 'selfish'. In your ideal world, you should care and look after me while I'd do the same for you. Yet, some people just don't see the greatness of your plan. And since you are the one that is affected by my negligence, you wish for some form of sanction in the afterlife to scare me into being 'unselfish'. Now, what I don't get is, why can't we just cut the crap and say that everyone only is responsible to himself?

--

___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Re:The boundary between science and religion by geminidomino · 2004-11-09 17:32 · Score: 1

Now, what I don't get is, why can't we just cut the crap and say that everyone only is responsible to himself?

Because then they have to take the blame for their own fuckups.

Pimping Evolution by --daz-- · 2004-11-01 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd like to make a point that's slightly related to this topic.

First let me say that I don't preclude the possibility of macro evolution. It certainly could've happened and would not be incompatible with the Torah. It seems that Kool-Aid Evolution Scientists have gotten themselves into a logical pickle with the Big Bang. Precluding God precludes Big Bang because if there is a singular event to start the universe, there must've been a cause. The logical trail always ends up with an uncaused cause, an uncreated creator, etc.

What I'm frustrated about, is that modern scientists (most of them, not all), rule out religion at the outset. Don't even give it the slightest possibility. They then next move on to other things. This seems silly. Granted, scientists are frustrated by things they can't explain, or that aren't adequately defined/explained, so I can understand their natural tendency away from religion, but to absolutely rule it out is folly. It's akin to those scientists around the time of Newton who simply ruled out his theories because... well... no one knows why, because that's just what they've always thought.

As a scientific theory, Evolution is pretty poor. It inadequately defines the problem and presents no real solution. There is no evidence yet to suggest macro evolution actually occurs.

There seems to be a core of anti-religion scientists who accept Evolution as The One True Answer despite tons of evidence to the contrary. In fact, the blind acceptance of Evolution is a religion in and of itself. It takes far more faith to believe in Evolution then in Judaism or Christianity. Seriously! There's a lot more physical, scientific, logical, and forensic evidence to support that Jesus rose from the dead then there is to support that macro evolution has occured even once.

Certainly there must be other explanations (even non-religious ones) that scientists can explore. It seems they are so committed now to evolution, that they will not abandon it no matter how bad it becomes.

This is sad because science cannot progress under these thick-headed circumstances. Trying to prove another group wrong is a bad way to conduct scientific research. There should be a focus and goal on persuing the Truth, whereever it may be found. I think that some scientists are unwilling to consider the possibility that there is a God and he did create the universe.

Skepticism is one thing, and it's very healthy and productive, but outright sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing for anyone.

If you're a scientist or academic researcher, I implore you, please look honestly and objectively at the junk science that so far surrounds Evolution and try to come up with another theory that is more plausible and is verifiable with evidence and research. You may actually find out Evolution is the right answer, or you may not. Just please stop blindly accepting Evolution simply because you don't want to give some type of sophmoric victory to the Jews/Christians.

Re:Pimping Evolution by gilliboo · 2004-11-01 09:42 · Score: 2, Informative

"There's a lot more physical, scientific,
logical, and forensic evidence to support that
Jesus rose from the dead then there is to
support that macro evolution has occured even
once."

Are you serious.... physical,scientific and logical, evidence that a man rose from the dead, how many years ago! I'm going to resist the temptation to to dispute that claim outright and ask you to put your money where your mouth is. Show me!

As for your claim that most scientists reject the possibility of religion outright, that may be true, but only because science is based on following logical progressions from one proven step to the next until an answer is reached. Not faith that some previously accepted notion (read: religion)is true. If it's true, let science proove it. You NEVER start a proof by assuming what you're trying to prove is true.... makes no sense.

Science only tries to move the ball forward one yard at a time, and whenever it seems to be at a stand still, in step the religous folk and say "see... after this it must be God". Sorry... that's not proof! If you don't need proof fine, but I do. I have never accepted anything on blind faith in my life and never will.

--
"Scattered showers my ass" -Noah
Re:Pimping Evolution by --daz-- · 2004-11-01 10:59 · Score: 1

gilliboo:

Thank you for being respectful and not being immature and insulting. I find that when you bring up the subject of religion, many non-believers or skeptics will immediately resort to childish behavior. It's very discouraging. You are very respectful and I appreciate that.

As far as proof, the list is far too long to reference here. There are many books on the subject, my personal favorite, and one that really convinced me (I was a skeptic and mostly atheist before this. I was raised Lutheran, but rejected faith in my teens. It took me 15 years to be convinced again) is Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ".

He's a former investigative journalist who was atheist and was married to a Christian. She challenged him to prove her wrong and in the process ended up proving her right. It's a very thorough, exhaustive study of all the possible questions and doubts raised by various stories in the Gospels and other similar texts. It establishes the voracity of the Gospel books, the identies, intentions, and motives of the writers, accounts for subjectivity and bias and establishes the actual facts.

Just so you don't think I'm pimping his book, you can get a used paperback version on amazon for like $3 plus $2-3 s/h (that's how I got mine).

If you want, I can start posting excepts from that book and others, or I can try to summarize, but I'd hate to do that since I'll probably screw it up and leave you with half the information and probably confuse you in the process.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, I will happily try to answer, but I'm just afraid you won't get the correct, full answers from me. The pursuit of truth is not something to take likely.

Perhaps a better way would be for you to ask questions and I will try to answer them.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence to account for the resurrection (i.e. things that would not likely have happened, or could not have happened unless the fact we're trying to prove actually happened). For example, if the Gospel writers were trying to deceive people (as the most common criticisms of the Gospels usually state), they would most certainly not have had a woman or women finding the empty tomb.

Women at that time were not even able to stand trial on behalf of themselves, a responsible male must stand trial to defend the woman. They could not testify in the courts (Jews had an advanced legal system for their day, despite it being anti-female), they couldn't own land, own anything, for that matter, etc.

The thought of a woman being the sole discoverer of a momentus occasion is inconceivable for that time. It's so laughable, that most Jewish scholars and priests laughed at it and discarded it on it's face and wouldn't hear any more of the silly notion.

That's but one argument. There's also another good one... if there wasn't a perponderance of evidence linking Jesus to all the prophecies (there are over 300 prophecies predicting every aspect of Jesus' life, about 190 of which are unique or don't match nearly exactly with another prophecy and he matched every single one), the Jewish priests wouldn't have posted guard near the tomb.

Granted, they thought the apostles would try to somehow steal the body (even though the boulder was moveable only by special engineers). Yet, in the morning, the guards were gone completely (depending on which account you read). Such a hugely important task would not have been taken lightly by official guards of the Jewish Temple. Why did they just leave their post?

Another point, later in the Gospels and other accounts of the days and weeks following the ressurection, the Jewish priests were not arguing the fact that the tomb was empty, or that it was emptied under suspicious circumstances. For example, if it was simply the wrong tomb, we would have prolific writings by the priests at the time (they wrote prolifically on everything else) talking about how the Christians were fake because it was the WRONG TOMB! If it were that the tomb was obviously
Re:Pimping Evolution by gilliboo · 2004-11-01 12:48 · Score: 1

Nice job Daz, but I'm still not convinced! Most of your arguements still rely on the Gospels, and I have a hard time giving credit to any argument based a piece of work which may or may not have changed numerous times throughout history depending on who was reproducing it.

(I have to admit, I have only just started reading the Bible, so my knowledge on that side of the debate is still weak)

I will however go and buy Case for Christ. Sounds like an interesting read. You might find "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies interesting. He talks from the other side of the table on this debate.

--
"Scattered showers my ass" -Noah

I'm probably wading into deep waters here, but... by DG · 2004-11-01 08:50 · Score: 1

Ayoi, here I go breaking my own rule...

If you want to believe that some sort of Supreme Being kicked off the Big Bang (or whatever cosmic event triggered the evolution of the Universe as we know it) either with or without the foreknowledge that Humanity would one day arise from the muck, and He has been sitting back benignly observing the unfolding of His Plan... well... I don't share that belief, but it really doesn't matter, because that particular manifestation of Deity would have no interaction with the operation of the world.

The existance of such a God would be unprovable and irrelevant - ie, if He chose to go pay attention to some other universe for a while and left us unguarded, the lack of divine attention changes nothing in the daily course of events.

But as soon as you introduce a Scripture in which supposedly resides ultimate authority, now you've got a problem, because any time Scripture self-contradicts or is contradicted by the scientific (natural) world, you throw the ultimate authority of that Scripture into doubt.

This problem is made worse by th efact that the Bible is (mostly) presented as historical narrative - meaning that the stuff in there supposedly actually happened. This means it becomes subject to historical and scientific analysis - one "book" intrudes into the province of another.

If the Bible was a list of God's Laws and Commandments along the line of the text of the Ten Commandments, then there'd little room for debate (unless in one place God says "Do X" and in another spot, "Do Not Do X") So when God says "Thou shalt not murder", via Moses, there's no place for Science to get involved.

But when the Bible claims the world is 6000 years old, or that all life save the contents of an Ark with a known volume was wiped out via a flood that "covered all the lands of the earth" (for example) now you have wandered into areas where Science can definitvely prove that those statements lack truth. And if one portion of Scripture is to be found in error, how much of the rest of it is?

DG

--
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book

An accidental thanks, perhaps? by WgT2 · 2004-11-01 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

-- C.S. Lewis

Re:An accidental thanks, perhaps? by hunterx11 · 2004-11-01 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Regardless of whether you believe in determinism when it comes to the human mind, I don't think anyone would debate that the physical world affects our minds (for example, we have senses). Astronomy is not the result of a thousand monkeys typing randomly in a room, it is the result of observation. Here he is using "accidental" to mean "without a purpose." However, such "accidents" are not non-causal. I suppose it's an "accident" that we don't believe that the moon is made of cheese. This, however, does not invalidate the validity our knowledge that the moon is not made of cheese.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:An accidental thanks, perhaps? by Squiffy · 2004-11-01 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

That argument is completely daft. We are able to think critically regardless of how that ability came about. The Scientific Method works, whether or not it's an accident.

Those who question the efficacy of the Scientific Method seem to be overlooking Schroedinger's equation, the Standard Model, modern medicine, weather forecasts, landing a frickin' space probe on *Mars*...please.

Re:"Origin of Species" not "Origin of _the_ specie by LMariachi · 2004-11-01 08:55 · Score: 1

Darwins work did not have the word "the" in the title. The full title is: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

[emph. added]

Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants by huge+colin · 2004-11-01 08:55 · Score: 1

What, then, is the point of religion? By saying that there's no proof/evidence for the existence of god(s), you've essentially admitted the falsehood inherent in religion.

--Colin

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by Idarubicin · 2004-11-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Creationism got dragged into it because the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe, that creationists are wrong.

That's like saying that heliocentricity got dragged into it because the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe--that heliocentrists were wrong.

Yep. Galileo was just interested in pissing off the Pope. It had nothing whatsoever to do with observing moons orbiting Jupiter, or developing a hypothesis that explained his observations of planetary motion better than masses of Ptolemaic epicycles.

What has prompted so many scientists to reject Creationism or Intelligent Design? Why have they chosen to attack that one particular dogma with such fervor? Is it just some curious obsession that scientists develop because they work with too many organic solvents? Maybe--just maybe--it has something to do with interpreting evidence. Scientists get dragged where the evidence takes them--not where they want to go.

--
~Idarubicin

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by sik0fewl · 2004-11-01 08:59 · Score: 1

I went to church this past Sunday (I'm Catholic) and to very briefly summarize the priest's homily: God is still creating the Earth.

--
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler

Re:Face It by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-01 09:05 · Score: 1

You must be confused. That site you sent me to starts with the premesis of proving literal truth in every word of a book written by people (mostly my own ancestors) several thousand years ago.

And you consider this to be well argued? It cites a bunch of resources, all of which are either on its own website (their own 'Creation' magazine). The "argument" involves taking one basic fact about the fossilization process as disproof of the entire scientific study of fossils, all techniques and data used to make conclusions about the age of fossils and so on. And that was just the first link in their FAQ I happened to click on.

This is not a scientifically sound site, I'm sorry to tell you.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wescotte · 2004-11-01 09:07 · Score: 1

- God is perfect. So perfect, in fact, that He must not allow imperfection in his sight. To avoid this, all those who are not perfect go to a place without God (Hell) and so will not be in His site.

Hmm, if you're the creator of all things and you're perfect how can you create something that in not perfect?

Eyewitness account - God's word by phyruxus · 2004-11-01 09:11 · Score: 1

>>Also, there is also an "eyewitness" account being claimed here -- God's word in the Bible. How do we examine the trustworthiness of this account?

Sheesh, talk about obvious. All ya' have to do is ASK God. I mean, all seeing, all knowing, everywhere always.. it doesn't get easier or more obvious.

I asked God what the deal was with the whole "human origin" and "prime mover" (source of the universe) thingies the other day.. And God was all "Oh that? Like, I totally have some theories. Those biblical dudes couldn't deal with the ambiguity so they chalked it up to me. And I totally told them not to! Now everyone says I created everything and it's really been annoying me. I mean, I'm real laid back, I mostly get off on watching stuff happen. If I created people, they'd be totally more chill and stuff."

Like dude, now you know the real deal. It's the word of God.. like, dig it!

In all seriousness, what does "the bible" say about Hinduism, Greek polytheism, shinto, confucianism, janism? Should all those (perfectly valid) religions be ignored because they're not referred to in "the bible"? Not to mention that Buddhism does a damn good job of providing a conceptual framework and moral ground, without god At All.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

Re:Eyewitness account - God's word by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-01 20:40 · Score: 1

I'd rather believe my maker than believe you.
And I know Christ. :)

In all seriousness, what does "the bible" say about Hinduism, Greek polytheism, shinto, confucianism, janism? Should all those (perfectly valid) religions be ignored because they're not referred to in "the bible"?

No, a lot of these are really a blend of culture and religion. Good cultural traditions are worthy of being carried forward, no matter what their origins. But those parts of it that opposes what the Bible teaches, especially fanciful Gods -- that bit must be dumped.
I used to be Hindu, I know what I am talking about.
Also, it's "Jainism", not Janism.
Re:Eyewitness account - God's word by phyruxus · 2004-11-02 06:54 · Score: 1

Thanks for correcting my spelling of Jainism, I appreciate it :)
>>But those parts of it that opposes what the Bible teaches, especially fanciful Gods -- that bit must be dumped.
You're wrong, the bible must defer to the Torah. Jesus was a false prophet and all his followers are subject to the laws of Yahweh.
Both are stated positions are now arbitrary. The more you think you're right, the more I'll take it as a sign that I am right.
This is the only way I can express to you my faith - that religion is a personal choice which should not be pushed on others. The bible should neither supercede nor defer to any religion, nor should any religion do so.
BTW, I was raised nominally within western religious circles. I'm reading the Gita right now. Where you've left, I am headed. Where I've left, you're headed. Sort of parallels my opinion. We both disagree with each other. The difference is that you think I should change to be like you and I think you should stop thinking I should change to be like you. We both think the other should change; you think we should both be christian, I think you should accept that everyone makes their own choice.
But hey, maybe it's all a dream and we're both wrong. Or right for that matter, although I can't see how there could be two mutually exclusive ultimate foundations to a single reality, but then I'm just a human.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Re:Eyewitness account - God's word by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-03 04:52 · Score: 1

> You're wrong, the bible must defer to the Torah.
The Bible includes the Torah.

> Jesus was a false prophet and all his followers are subject to the laws of Yahweh.
Of course, we are subject to the commands of Yahweh. And Jesus is both the son, and is one with Yahweh. (See the address at the temple where he tells the Jews, "before Abraham was, I AM".

So Yahweh's commands to us are love your enemies, forgive them their sins, and obey Jesus.

As for Jesus being a false prophet, take a look at Daniel and the 70 week prophecy made about Jesus.

> Both are stated positions are now arbitrary.
I had a good look at many choices. Jesus was the only one both valid and alive.

> The more you think you're right, the more I'll take it as a sign that I am right.
I can't solve that problem my friend.

> This is the only way I can express to you my faith
> - that religion is a personal choice which
> should not be pushed on others. The bible should neither
> supercede nor defer to any religion, nor should any religion do so.
You have faith in this position, yes? What about when things are definitely wrong. Do you get to cherry pick your own personal Frankenstien-ish faith? Is such a faith valid? Is it even real?

> BTW, I was raised nominally within western
> religious circles.
Ditto. for me, s/western/eastern/

> I'm reading the Gita right now. Where you've left, I am headed.
Head over to Chapter 9, Verse 32, will you? Where Krishna is preaching to Arjun...
32: "For, taking refuge in me, they also, who, O Partha, may be of a sinful birth - women, Vaisyas, as well as Sudras - even they attain the supreme God"
33: "How much more (easily) then the holy brahmins, and the devoted Royal saints (attain the goal). Having reached (obtained) this impermanent and joyless world, do worship me devoutly

Note, the Gita is remarkably tolerant compared to some other scriptures, say - Manusmriti, some Vedas). But it still can't help paying tribute to the concept of Aryan supremacy that riddles so many Hindu texts (for instance consider what the world Varna means).

> Where I've left, you're headed. Sort of parallels my opinion.
> We both disagree with each other. The difference is that you
> think I should change to be like you and I think you should
> stop thinking I should change to be like you.
No, no , not "be like me", its "be like Jesus".

> We both think the other should change;
> you think we should both be christian,
> I think you should accept that everyone makes their own choice.
But of course.

> But hey, maybe it's all a dream and we're both wrong.
True. "But I doubt it"

> Or right for that matter, ... unlikely, see above.

> although I can't see how there could be two mutually exclusive ultimate
> foundations to a single reality,
Aha! you're exactly right.

"If english was good enough for Jesus..." by ajc314159 · 2004-11-01 09:12 · Score: 1

My favorite quote has been attributed to several people, including someone trying to outlaw the teaching of foreign languages in one of the Southern States:

"If English good enough for Jesus Christ, it should be good enough for you."

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by eventhorizon5 · 2004-11-01 09:14 · Score: 1

>have never learned any critcal thinking skills or developed any form of skepticism

Well I'm a Christian, and consider the following criticism document I wrote and determine if I've ever developed critical thinking skills or skepticism (I've self-analyzed my own faith plenty of times) - This will show the arguments from the other side. Also to assert that the number of creationists is growing in an unprecedented way shows that you need to do some research on the population (and the founding fathers') belief patterns over the past 200 years; otherwise I'll just conclude that you're using history revisionist thinking, and morphing history into what you "want" it to be.

---
Problems and Inconsistencies with Evolution
http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology

By Ryan Thoryk, philosophical analyst

9/9/04 version

This document is an updated version of my arguments against the theory of evolution, written in a direct and concise manner. These points are made to be analyzed and discussed. This is not a sermon on Christianity, and is not intended to be a point-by-point basis for showing that Christianity is true; but is designed to reveal serious flaws in evolutionary and atheistic worldview perspectives and reasoning, and to show the areas in which they lack critical information. Since society generally accepts evolutionary theory as fact, instead of theory (what it actually is), I try to reaffirm the point that it is just a theory. This paper tries to encompass the entire worldview perspective, instead on focusing on just natural selection for example. The evolutionist/atheist (also called secular humanist) worldview would be comprised of:

-Atheism as the theology standpoint (declaration that there is no God)

-A naturalist philosophical standpoint (that everything that exists is only natural and can be analyzed by the senses)

-A completely relative ethics standpoint (the view that ethics are entirely based on interpretation and that there is no true ethical belief or fact)

-Darwinian evolutionist biology (for the explanation of how living beings developed over time)

-Monistic self-actualization psychology (belief that just the persons body exists, and that material and physical needs are the only way to fulfillment, and that man is inherently good)

-World-state sociology (that society is what makes people evil; and is not their fault)

-Positive law (since man is the final word, laws are based around current world states and opinionated viewpoints)

-World government/globalist politics (single controlled structure for "peaceful" living)

-A socialist economic system (centrally controlled and distributed resource system)

-And historical evolution (the view that history evolves and gets more complex without supernatural influence).

These elements are what I try to address in this paper.

1. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of dimensions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc). It also doesn't explain the origin of time itself. Time is a linear single-dimensional entity. Each moment for a living being is a point on the time scale, and a being cannot see or experience anything outside of the single point. The existence origination stories require time-based processes (such as the big bang theory), and do not and cannot explain how time itself came about. Something outside of time would need to exist to create it; everything related to evolution only tries to explain things within a single dimension, and only based on time.

2. The Big Bang theory (and other origination theories) doesnt explain the origination of the origination. For example, what brought the large matter in the Big Bang theory into existence? Also, what made the circumstance that brought the matter into existence? Something cannot exist without a predecessor, if it is on a linear time scale.

3. Certain measurements, such as carbon dating and now the speed of light are inaccurate.

4. The speed of ligh

--
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Sj0 · 2004-11-01 09:14 · Score: 1

I'd just like to point out that unlike religion, most science can be quite easily proved to within a reasonable degree. Put two charges next to one another, and you'll be able to predict what they'll do thanks to electric field theory. If you push an object with a certain mass with a certain force, it will go a certain distance, equal to the conservative and non-conservative forces. That's kinematics. If you apply a certain charge across two points, you'll be able to accurately predict the properties of the resulting resistive network. That's metalurgy.

Now, show me god. Show me prayer acting upon an object in a quantifyable manner. Show me molecular alteration of an object which can't be explained through purely scientific means brought upon purely by act of faith.

You can't. As long as you can't, calling science and religion the same faith is intellectually dishonest. One is faith that a set of laws govern the world, backed up in part by the technological marvels which each and every one of you reading this message with(Do you think that your monitor will show you something other than this text if you pray hard enough?). The other is reading an ancient book whose only proof is vague similarity with the world as it is, while disregarding the differences between the way the universe is understood as not important.

It's just like the people who think that the matter which during the big bang is god, or that quantum mechanics are god because we don't understand them yet.

Trying to honestly replace things like doppler red shift, atomic physics, biology and evolution(which has been witnessed in bacteria, which lives many generations very quickly) with an invisible being who doesn't affect the universe, but paradoxially does, who is all powerful and all knowing and all caring, while not excersizing any power, wisdom or benevolence upon the world, then saying that scientists ascribe to 'faith' just as much as those people just isn't honest. There's nothing wrong with believing in a god, but don't drag people who actually know a thing or two about the universe to the same level.

--
It's been a long time.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by jorleif · 2004-11-01 09:14 · Score: 1

Am I to blame for misunderstanding rhetoric such as:

Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved (so the human eye has evolved, and these guys showed how)

So how did EMBL researchers finally trace the evolution of the eye? ("finally" implies that it is obvious that the eye has evolved, just nobody could show how)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2004-11-01 09:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Years ago, Richard Dawkins pointed out that 1) simple light sensitivity is an advantage over none at all, as (for example) if a predator is swimming over you it may mess with the light source at which point you might decide to "freeze" or hide, 2) that some simple light sensitive cells in a small depression can confer some directionality sensitivity which is better than not having any, 3) larger depressions with more cells are even better at it, 4) a depression that becomes a "pore" can confer some level of pinhole-camera vision, and a 5) pore that fills with mucus can provide further improvements over that. Each of these steps have more useful light sensitive mechanisms over the previous step, and with EACH of them, there are examples of actual animals in nature who have such features.

There's no "poof" here at all, that suddenly we've "magically" figured it all out--, multiple progressive incremental scenarios exist and it's not new news. All that is new here is a specific detail has been filled in.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by dabigpaybackski · 2004-11-01 09:16 · Score: 1

Thanks for the tip.

Eye was wondering about that.

--
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"

creationism arguments will evolve as well by phyruxus · 2004-11-01 09:17 · Score: 1

... but they'll deny it :)

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mojogojo · 2004-11-01 09:18 · Score: 1

Yep, that's been my opinion for years also - both beliefs fit nicely together. God, as creator/programmer... He created our universe using an "Evolution" framework. Set things in motion, and it's still working today. And there you have Creation and Evolution together.

Isn't every program you write something created out of nothing? I know this is oversimplification, but it's an analogy that works for me.

As for Creationist vs Evolutionist... I say nuts to the left, nuts to the right. That's why I stick to the middle!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dgatwood · 2004-11-01 09:19 · Score: 1

Spooky. Do you go to my church?

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by spitzak · 2004-11-01 09:21 · Score: 1

I agree. Creationists basically are saying that God was not smart enough to design evolution to lead to the result he wanted. They are thus insulting their own God's abilities by saying there is something he could not do. But are too stupid to realize that.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by marcop · 2004-11-01 09:24 · Score: 1

Don't have a lot of time on my hands, but I found this article. It references this passage:

Genesis 1:29-30
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.

All creatures were vegetarians in the garden of Eden.

Then see section Ten (Roman numerals) from this article.

Couple final items:
1) Genesis mentions that animals produced "after their kind" several times. Therefore, the Bible specifically says Evolution cannot occur.

2) If you ever get a chance to hear Ken Ham on his "Answers in Genesis" series - don't miss it.

Re:the focking sorry state of American "thinking" by cubicleman · 2004-11-01 09:24 · Score: 1

Very interesting to see that such think of evolution compatable with religious ideology..

I consider myself an atheist (I prefer the terms secular post-modern rationalist or functional realist), but have studied a bit about religions.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 09:24 · Score: 1

Heretic! "Yom" == "24 hour time period"
Oh, wait, earth's rotation speed is not a constant...

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Martin+Blank · 2004-11-01 09:30 · Score: 1

The distinction is non-existent because you can't say where one ends and the other begins. What some call microevolution is really the smaller-scale stages of what the same people refer to as macroevolution. In your example of the fish evolving to the frog, at what point does fish become amphibian? When it can breathe air? When it can walk? When it can leap? Along the way, there are things it takes with it, such as the need to lay eggs in water and to spend the opening stage of its life in the water as it develops.

Re-reading that, it's a little clumsy, but I think you can see where I'm going.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

'Perfect Creation' vs Created with 'Free Will' by grolschie · 2004-11-01 09:32 · Score: 1

Hmm, if you're the creator of all things and you're perfect how can you create something that in not perfect?

Key words: "free will". If you want a bunch of people to have relationships with, it's gotta be out of 'free will'. 'Free will' is not 'free will' if there are no viable alternatives. To have actual relationships with people, you don't want mere robots. No-one wants that in a relationship. To achieve this, God has to allow people to choose between Him and a life without Him. There has to be a viable (or seemingly viable) alternative. The alternative has to be equally as tempting, I guess, otherwise it's like asking someone whether they want to eat pie or dirt (not really a viable alternative). So that is perhaps why a perfect God had to create man as he did.

Think about your own relationships. Would you want someone to act like they love you because you pay them or because they have to? Or would you rather they choose to love you? God gives each person enough hints to find and choose Him, without forcefully bursting in on your life. Anyone who truly seeks Him will find Him.

BTW, to all you people who think Adam and Eve ate the apple, the bible never said that! Read the first few chapters of Genesis if you don't believe me.

Re:'Perfect Creation' vs Created with 'Free Will' by Wescotte · 2004-11-01 10:57 · Score: 1

Key words: "free will". If you want a bunch of people to have relationships with, it's gotta be out of 'free will'. 'Free will' is not 'free will' if there are no viable alternatives.

Free will always confuses me.. I mean if free will really exists than wouldn't we have complete power? I mean if I truely had free will shouldn't I be able to do anything I want unrestricted? I can't just fly so I have to create a device to allow me to based on the laws of physics.. To me that negatives free will right there..

creationism vs. evolution by VanillaCoke420 · 2004-11-01 09:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Creationism is not based on science.
Evolution is a real part of a real science field - biology.

There is nothing to discuss regarding this particular so-called "controversy".

Re:creationism vs. evolution by Aeolusz · 2004-11-01 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Biology is a real science. I can say, I have a theory, I think that cameleons skin adapt to the colour of their surroundings. I can then prove that this is true by taking 100 chameleons and observing that their skin changes color.

I can then say, their skin changes because the chemicals in their skin react to UV rays in sun (or something like that..) I can prove that by observing that the skin won't change in the absence of UV light and I can find out which chemicals are in chameleons' skin, and try an experiment to see if I can make color change on my own.

But, science stops when I say, ok, now I believe that chameleons evolved to have this ability to change color because I can not set up an experiment to prove it. I cannot observe the changes and I cannot repeat the changes. Therefore, it is not true science.

Of course, the ability to prove something is not absolutely related to its repeatability. Historical study is a prime example of that. I can't "scientifically" prove that Julius Caesar even existed. But, I can use the evidence of literature, archaeology and the like to be pretty certain about it.

So, in the case of the eye, the scientists have proven that we have certain materials in the brain that are light sensitive and that these kind of materials could have possibly, over millions of year developed into eyes. This creates a certain degree of possibility that it could have happened, but, it in no way scientifically proves that it did.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 09:33 · Score: 1

Thanks... I learned something today.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 09:34 · Score: 1

Wow, I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in natural selection, then please do tell, what is the underlying mechanism that explains how organisms evolve?

Natural selection isn't some strange mystical force that you seem to believe it to be. It is simply a phenomenon that arises out of, as you say "basic biology". It *is* simply "life itself and reproduction". To put it simply, those who have advantageous features are more likely to survive. Life/death. Reproduction. I don't understand why you want to argue this point, it appears to me we are in agreement.

As for the test you would like from me, I don't know what you're really expecting. Please be reasonable. Can an experiment on evolution really be done considering the span of our lifetimes are so short?

BTW, not having a reference doesn't mean that the theory is wrong, it only means that it is unproven. If not having a reference means that an assertion is wrong, then I challenge you. Where is your reference stating that natural selection is wrong?

"But by mid 20th century all and any doubt that NS was possible was erased."
How so?

"I dare you: give me one reference of a falsation test of NS (H1) being accepted because evolution by other mechanisms (H0) was rejected. ONE reference."
So then where is the falsation test where natural selection was rejected and another mechansim proven true? If you're willing to take the offense, at least have a good defense as well.

Then the article does not support that. by khasim · 2004-11-01 09:34 · Score: 1

Once there is no more mixing of 'A' and 'A.1' because 'A.1' has migrated away, their DNA lineages _would_ diverge, even if A.1 bred exclusively among _themselves_. This is because the mutations that A.1 accumulates will have almost no means of being transmitted back to A. And the mutations that A accumulates after A.1 brached off have few ways of being transmitted to A.1.

But the article shows 3 branches off of the original Eve line.

That is with a small population in a confined area, yet they still manage to maintain 3 pure lines.

If they can do that for a longer period of time than the lines in America, then it does not make sense that the American lines would diverge from the original.

If they do mutate over time, you'd see more lines in 140K years of the original 3 lines than you'd see in the 30K years of the American lines.

But it is REVERSED.

The original lines stay pure for 140K years.

While the 60K year lines split over and over and over.

WHY is there a difference that does NOT include breeding with other tribes?

Your own bias is clouding your thoughts. If you can't accept that 3 braches converge to 1 original, what makes you accept 7 branches converge to one of the 3?

I am not accepting it. I'm asking WHY they show that and HOW they determine a "line".

That diagram is easy to accept IF you ignore the article and accept that they inter-bred with other tribes.

If you read the article, that chart does not make sense. NO mutations in 2 of the 3 lines over 140,000 years while 1 of the 3 lines mutates THIRTEEN TIMES in ONE HALF THE TIME and EACH mutation coincides with a geographic relocation.

The question is WHY does that 1 line differ so remarkably from the other 2 lines?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by CheeseTroll · 2004-11-01 09:35 · Score: 1

I'm sure a lot of Catholic priests share sermon themes, depending on the week of the Church year. Some weeks it's more obvious than others, and some priests do a better job of bringing the subject matter to life than others. The priest at our (former) church always sounded like he was reading the sermons out of some kind of sermon-o-matic machine.

I wonder if there are priest-only websites out there with downloadable archbishop-approved sermons, just as there are sites with downloadable term papers?

--
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.

Falsifiability is NOT the key to science. by NereusRen · 2004-11-01 09:40 · Score: 1

Consider the statement "intelligent life [or any sort of life] exists in the universe." I would consider this to be a valid scientific hypothesis, especially combined with the ideas driving Drake's equation. However, it is not falsifiable. You will never be able to tell me that it is definitely false, although I *will* be able to tell you if it is definitely true, if we ever come across an example. Don't try to parade falsification as the single measuring stick for whether something is valid science... that was a popular idea once, but now it's a bit dated.

Cornell Evolution Project by Shadwell · 2004-11-01 09:40 · Score: 1

Greg Gaffin of Bad Religion fame recently released his doctoral dissertation on evolution vs. creationism. It's not available online in it's entirety, but I ordered by paper copy last week.

Gaffin is an excellent writer even outside of the songs he's written for Bad Religion. If you'd like a peek check out some of the essays he's posted.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by CheeseTroll · 2004-11-01 09:43 · Score: 1

Mom, what are you doing, posting on Slashdot?

--
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.

Very interesting indeed. by WebCowboy · 2004-11-01 09:45 · Score: 1

It seems some "neo-liberal" disagreed with my contention that they share common characteristics with "neo-conservatives" and have dismissed my opinion as somewhat overrated.

That, or a certain brand of conservative can't believe that a Christian could hold socialist values, or that a conservative could possibly be athiest.

I dunno...perhaps my observation really is too obvious. It does demonstrate that not only do those who gravitate towards a more hard line posisiton think they are always right, they both tend to dismiss and/or try to supress those opinions they find disagreeable.

argument # CB310 -Snopes for creationist arguments by geekotourist · 2004-11-01 09:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

If anyone tries to bring up the bombardier beetle, or any of a very large number of hackneyed old arguments (including ones which even even the creationists say to not use), the index of Creationist arguments is a great place to start. It is like Snopes for these arguments.

And there it is, argument CB310, a standard argument from incredulity on this beetle and how it could have come into being.

Re:How it could have happened... by DaEvolutionGuru · 2004-11-01 09:50 · Score: 1

I have a teory, God created evolution, God created science. Da Devil's Puppets like to twist the truth.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dgatwood · 2004-11-01 09:50 · Score: 1

It is naive of us to believe that all the minds before ours were unable to understand the things we can. They did not yet have the technology that we have, but that does not mean that they had a lack of understanding.

Actually, yes it does. If your notion of time was such that you only had a few hundred years of recorded history, the concept of a billion years would be utterly meaningless to you. Knowledge is only meaningful if you have the context in which to process it.

Four hundred years ago, if someone had handed you a modern-day computer and told you that it worked by means of thousands of microscopic switches sending electricity around on a piece of silicon, they wouldn't have a clue how to handle that knowledge, as they would not know what a switch was, what electricity was, or even what silicon was.

In much the same way, God telling someone two thousand or more years ago that the Earth was several billion years old would be utterly incoprehensible. Their idea of numbers was "I have a hundred cows" and that seemed like a huge number. The concept of a hundred hundred (10,000) would seem insane. Earth is more like thirty or forty hundred hundred hundred years old. There's no -possibility- that they could have comprehended a number like that, and conferring enough knowledge on them to understand such numbers would have probably caused devastating consequences. (Think "Prime Directive" and you'll get the idea.)

The Bible was written in terms of the understanding of the people at the time. It must be interepreted in that context for it to have any real meaning. The alternative is that you must marry any woman who you capture in battle after shaving her head and allowing her to mourn for a period of time for the loss of her husband, you must not eat the meat of any animal with cloven hooves, you must always rest on Saturday, and more importantly, if someone commits adultery, he or she must be stoned in the public square.

You can't pick and choose what you want to take literally. Either the Bible is a book of law that you must always interpret literally or it is a guide of values to live by, written in the context of the laws of the day, intended to be a living document, adapting as our understanding of our place in the world evolves. You can't say that Genesis is divine truth while the rest of the old testament is a bunch of old rules that no longer apply.

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by ajs318 · 2004-11-01 09:52 · Score: 1

Exactly! It's my belief that the universe is "just" a huge automatic machine, but one that's so automatic that it actually created itself {hence the speech marks, I realise it's actually a pretty big just}. That to me is a far more exciting proposition than the idea that someone just made it one day. Also, the whole idea of a creator is problematic because there would have to be two separate sets of laws of physics -- one for the creator, and one for the universe just created. And although I can just about get my head around the idea of alternative sets of laws of physics, anything that obeyed a different set than the ones we know about would be totally unobservable to us, and might as well not exist for all intents and purposes. Matter as it was being created would have to switch from obeying one set of laws to the other.

And then you have the problem of how a creator would be created, and why create a creator and a bunch of raw materials rather than an actual ready-made universe? The Big bang was a sudden input of energy, and the Universe is just a means for that energy to distribute itself evenly. Matter always favours the lowest energy state; that explains everything from the spherical shape of soap bubbles to the death of stars.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Ithika · 2004-11-01 09:52 · Score: 1

Well, lions and tigers and bears are stronger and have better claws and teeth. Even a baboon could easily rip a grown man to shreds. I guess because there are animals that are better than humans out there in some aspects, that this whole God thing is a farce. You have me convinced.

But, we're talking about design and structure here, not scale. Do lions/tigers/bears (Oh my!) actually have better teeth and claws, or just bigger?

Saying something is more advanced in design just because there's more of it is absurd. I don't know the biology of it but I imagine that if a human canine grew to the equivalent size of a bear's it would be just as strong. So where does your argument lie now?

In truth you're arguing something else entirely.

And I just used irony, or the intentional arguing of your opponent's argument to make your opponent sound stupid.

Well, you may think yourself a fine proponent of the art of Socratic irony, but that does not make it so. What you're doing instead is closer to a straw-man approach to winning the argument. (Is it just me or are there an extraordinary high number of Wizard of Oz references in this post?) You see, your statements first have to be relevant to the situation at hand. Which they aren't.

--
the layman's guide to computer science

Better Picture by unwaivering · 2004-11-01 09:56 · Score: 1

I am surprised to see how few geeks actually do research into the fundamentalist Christians beliefs they continually slam in this discussion. I had hoped that surely we would have risen above and beyond the art of stereotyping. I suppose not. Afterall we must demonize everyone who does not see things our way and if there are a number of them we must make sure that everyone sees them as "backwoods Fundamentalist Rednecks." Hmmmm...you guys are going to win a lot of arguments that way...morons...if you have a point even if you believe in it passionately show some courtesy and maybe you will win some to your side through your logical CONCRETE arguments, which unfortunately none of you have. Do not get me wrong a lot of valid points have been raised concerning evolution but IT HAS NOT BEEN CONCLUSIVELY proven. Is there evidence that supports species adapt to their surroundings over time??? Definitely. Is there evidence that supports my pet Chimpanzee will turn into a human being? NO. Is there evidence that there are similarities between species? Yes. Can similarities exist and they simply be similarities and not proof of evolution? Yes. It would be folly to assume otherwise. It seems that scientist who seek to prove evolution look at their experiments soley from the veiw point of proving it and no matter how small the connection may be (real or imagined) every "new discovery" is the "missing link"...except it's not. I do not believe what I believe simply because I have been brainwashed by some clan of Fundamentalist Rednecks. I believe what I believe because NO-ONE has been able to DISPROVE it. The people who claim they can are so bent on making everyone who believes differently than they do look and feel like idiots that everyone else who sees their "lack of intellect" must surely agree with them or else they are just another "poor dumb dote" who refuses to ignore the truth. Hmmm....tolerance of my intolerance is intolerable??? Showing similarities between species does not prove that one came from the other. Showing how one species has changed over time is not a good indicator that one specific species has changed into another. Of course I am sure that many who read this will assume I am being completely illogical and other might agree with me. Come on though. Wake up. Accept that you cannot prove something and that some people choose to think and believe for themselves and leave it alone. IF you CAN CONCRETELY PROVE something and it is ignored come back and rant and rave. Until then. Leave us poor uneducated rednecks fundamentalist rednecks alone.

Okay... by Dozix007 · 2004-11-01 09:57 · Score: 1

First, I would like to note that I find creationism to be dead wrong. That being said, I have little respect for the the theory of evolution as well. Statistical analyses of evolution are filled with assumptions. Rates of mutation, order of mutation, and environmental challenges are largely assumed. There is no fossil record to support this either. It is just a thought process that "works" and many find to be easy to believe. Anyone remember Walcott's study featured in Scientific America back in 1992 ?

huh? by phyruxus · 2004-11-01 10:00 · Score: 1

I wrote a 3 page flame but then I realized I'm just wasting my time. So I'm just going to explain this like I would to a 3 year old.

>> the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe, that creationists are wrong.

1) Scientists don't go looking for evidence that creationists are wrong.. they go looking for evidence, period.

2) Creationists don't even look for evidence, they just spew venom and use their personal beliefs as "proof".

A typical scientific assertion is "the data are best explained by hypothesis X. Therefore, until a better explanation is posited, I the scientist will work under the theory that X is a valid description of reality." A typical religious assertion is "You're going to hell! You sinner! The bible tells us that Y! Therefore Y, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic! Burn the witches! Burn the heretics! Death to the unbelievers!"

This is how it's been since science hit the scene, and probably will be until either religion stops being so vindictive and neurotic, or religious zealots bring about a second Dark Age, or religious zealots kill us all. I'd like to include the alternative "or until religious people stop trying to deny reality", but honestly, I don't think that pig will ever fly.

PS, who modded parent insightful? Please wait until after your crack wears off before modding here. Also, ironically, despite parent's total ignorance it makes an interesting point. If scientists have indeed found proof that creationists are wrong, where does that leave creationism? :P

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

a flawed creator by phyruxus · 2004-11-01 10:04 · Score: 1

"The worst thing you can say about god is he's basically an underacheiver."

I wish I could remember where I heard/read that :)

Lesse.. all seeing.. check. All knowing, check. All powerful, check. Creations able to go 5 minutes without raping, torturing, enslaving or killing each other... //drunk now, fix later

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

Re:a flawed creator by phyruxus · 2004-11-01 11:06 · Score: 1

thanks :) I think you're right.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by focitrixilous+P · 2004-11-01 10:07 · Score: 1

So, along that same line, because human arms make poor wings, and birds have better wings, birds are more loved by God? Thus, creation is false.

Living underwater (IANACephalopod) would most likely demand diferent eyes. That is not a good argument for or against creationism.

--
SAILING MISHAP

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-01 10:08 · Score: 1

>Wow, I really don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in natural selection, then please do tell, what is the underlying mechanism that explains how organisms evolve?

LIFE! Life itself. That's how life *works*. You just can't have life and reproduction without evolution, is like evolution without metabolism; it just does not happen. Nothing else is needed that what makes life life and reproduction (you *can* have life without reproduction; not for long, but that's besides the point).

>So then where is the falsation test where natural selection was rejected and another mechansim proven true?

It is not necesary. Parsimony. Life and reproduction are enough for evolution (H0) vs. NS is needed (H1). H0 has never been rejected, in fact, evidence for H0 (evolution) is *assumed* to imply H1 ! NS a *non-parsimonious* mechanism that contradicts the body of science (biology, cybernetics, thermodynamics). If you postulate it, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for it: "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" alright!

Now, I'm not arguing that simpler explanations *must* be right, but that's how science works, and as SOP it's not half bad.

Scientific theories, by def, are never proven, they are either corroborated or disproven. And if it can't be disproven it's not a scientific theory, it's a myth, i.e. an untestable explanation for something. After a theory accumulates enought evidence, it's considered fact. Evolution is a fact; Evolution by Natural Selection is a myth, just as Creationism or Intelligent Design are.

I do not believe NS is any kind of mystical force or anything (BTW: I have a MS in Biology!). It's just a *myth*, i.e. it does not explain nor predict nor can be tested. The myth comes from the very concept of "advantageous" and "fitness". Define fitness, and you get to survival; define survival and you get back to fitness; define fitness and you are back to survival! This is just a circular argument, one that needs we utterly ignore what we *really* know about life (e.g. it's an autonomous system), and of course it's not science but mere sophystry.

> Can an experiment on evolution really be done considering the span of our lifetimes are so short?

Yes! Yes it can. Oh, there are many experiments we cannot perform because of the timeframes involved, but sure, there are very many we *can*. You just need to design them properly and base them on a serious theoretical fundament. BTW: don't bother unless you have independent funds available; you'll *never* get them funded by Science Inc. In fact, you would have commited academic suicide by presenting such a proposal. You have been warned.

As I wrote, just another "mandatory comment"; I'm getting tired of the issue, and have *lots* to do (including theoretical developments on evolution and speciation). I just can't let such steaming piles of bovine feces to pass by without even taking a token exception of them. Please, read Maturana, Varela, Bateson, and other real biologists, and understand them *first*. Then you can discuss evolution.

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WhyCause · 2004-11-01 10:08 · Score: 1

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.

Please, please, please do not lump the Pope (and by extension the Church) in with the group that holds on to creationistic thinking as a religious ideal. The Church teaches that the Bible, no matter which translation you read, is devinely inspired, not devinely dictated. Thus, the text contained therein has to be viewed within the context it was written, and to whom it was written. Did the original author of Genesis have any concept of evolution? Absolutely not. Was it more effective to convey the concept that humans (and all of nature) were created* by a loving God via a story where the development of the universe is condensed into seven days? Definitely, when you consider who was writing to whom.

While the Church has had a rocky history with the science community (see Gallileo), as humanity as a whole has become more enlightened, the Vatican has taken a more "hands-off" approach to science, reasoning that God also created* science and human curiosity, not as a diversion for the inherently wicked, but as an avenue for humanity to better itself. Nothing God created* is evil (ergo, humans are not predestined to a certain fate), it is what you do with that creation* (e.g., terrible medical research on living people) that may be evil.

While this has turned into a much longer defense of the Catholic Church than I initially intended, the short of it is this: The Church does not take a 'Creationist' line. The Church (now a days) leaves the science to the scientists, and only holds court on that which is moral and spiritual. How things happen is science. That they happened at all is a matter of faith.

* I use 'create' here as a catch-all word implying that, through the process of willing the universe into being, these things came about. The way in which these things developed is (as seen here) the subject of intense debate and research.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by timjdot · 2004-11-01 10:10 · Score: 1

last I lookde at it, many years ago, thought it was 144k post-rapture... e.g. all dead folks and Christians pre trib. are gone. So that number converts from remaining non-Christian pop. Something like that.

--
Expect Freedom.

US Creationists by solanum · 2004-11-01 10:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why is that creationists only have this kind of influence in the US? Sure they exist in the rest of the world, but there isn't any other western nation that would take this debate seriously. Even on Slashdot, I have never seen so much misquoted crap. Presumably it's something to do with the education system?

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

Re:US Creationists by Bush+Pig · 2004-11-04 17:37 · Score: 1

We have a significant number of them demanding equal time in Australia as well, unfortunately. From what I've observed, our education system is in the same kind of trouble as America's, just not as far along, which I believe explains it. I don't understand how an intelligent, well-educated person could possibly swallow creation "science".

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.

Ah yes, CS Lewis. by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-11-01 10:14 · Score: 2, Funny

The great literary mind, and great Apologist.

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Karma to burn, I'll keep defending religion ;) by Control+Group · 2004-11-01 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

As I'm sure you were sure, I was raised by a Catholic family. I was also raised by two Catholics who each have a graduate degree in chemistry (one a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry, one an MS in organic). Personally, I have a BS in computer science (and a complete lack of sufficient ambition to pursue a postgrad degree...but I digress). I don't say this as some sort of bragging, but to try and explain that in no way do I wish to diminish or disagree with the scientific method, scientific thought, or empiricism. I consider myself both rational and logical (of course, who doesn't?), as well as at least reasonably intelligent.

As such, I look around at a universe which not only contains no evidence of God, but also appears more and more to be entirely explicable absent God. The further we push the bounds of human thought, the clearer it becomes that God need not exist for the universe to make sense.

Anyone who argues with that statement is demonstrably wrong.

And yet, despite that, I still believe in God. Yes, it's possible that I'm an unwilling victim of indoctrination, and cannot help but think this way. I wouldn't know.

On the other hand, it's also possible that I simply believe that there is a purpose in the incredible beauty and wonder that the universe reveals to us with every discovery. I can marvel at the incredible - almost literally - elegance of a system wherein a very few fundamental particles introduced in sufficient quantity, along with (I believe) a few simple rules (which we have yet to tease out of the universe's structure, but I which I believe exist) have necessarily formed the universe as we perceive it. Not because someone tinkered to make it work, but because the very nature of the system demanded it.

To me, the universe is awe-inspring. As a programmer, I know the difficulties in setting up a complex system such that it does anything interesting whatsoever. The fact that the universe not only exists as it does, but that it has to, and that it all sprang from such a comparatively simple set of basic "settings," as it were, is humbling in the extreme. Even more impressive, to me, is that the system is complex enough to give rise to a subset of the system capable of analyzing the system itself.

And that is God. I don't appeal to God because I don't know what happened to start the universe. I appeal to God because the universe is beautiful, and it wouldn't have to be. Have you read Just Six Numbers, by any chance? If you haven't, I recommend it, it's an excellent book. Even if not, I assume you're familiar with the idea that there are a few fundamental numbers that "just are," and because of those numbers, the universe as it is exists. The fact that those numbers are what they are is equally likely to be sheer happy chance as it is to be divine intervention, as far as we are able to determine.

Personally, I prefer to thank God that the universe is than to thank an odds-against roll of the dice. But it's those sorts of things that are God - not the unknown, but the unknowable. God is the one who set the initial conditions, knowing what would result. God is the one who knows the position and vector of every particle in the universe.

God is not, in my view, and explanation for anything. He can't be. We are expected to explain the universe on our own, it's why we're reasoning creatures.

I'm rambling and disjoint, and I apologize. I'm trying to explain the ineffable...and I'm at work.

What it comes down to is that I have ultimate faith in science to explain the how of anything, given enough time. I have no faith in science to provide a why for anything, regardless of time. Science provides ever-more-accurate representations of what is. Religion, however, attempts to provide a reason for what is.

Of course, it's easy to believe that there is no reason, that it's all pure chance. But that's the point - that is a belief, and is unrelated to science. To me, the belief that creation has no reason is no m

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...

Re:Karma to burn, I'll keep defending religion ;) by xutopia · 2004-11-01 11:06 · Score: 1

you did clear alot of things out for me! :)
It's so hard to have a discusison on religion and give your view clearly. You did a better job than many other people I've spoken to and a better job than I have to date.
Re:Karma to burn, I'll keep defending religion ;) by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 13:39 · Score: 1

I really liked your comment, I found it to be highly rational. This is probably because it is similar in some ways even though opposed to my view. I am an agnostic of the type that feels that we simply do not have enough information to prove or disprove God, as opposed to the type which believes it is not possible to know if there is a God. Actually, that's a good point itself, however; God doesn't necessarily tell us everything, so anyone who appears to be God to us... we simply have to accept. Since God is necessarily superior, we would never know if we'd really met Him because we're not even capable of understanding everything an all-powerful deity grasps, by definition.

One thing that I have been thinking about often lately, though I am not a mathematician by any stretch, is the oft-made assertion that mathematics must be the language of the universe because it all works and there are these numbers. Some/many of them are even simple whole numbers, which lends them special significance to us since we are fond of integers even though they are merely a matter of scale. These numbers seem to describe the workings of important things, and they just keep cropping up. I have to wonder however whether it's simply a coincidence. There could be many valid ways of handling physics, each of which would let us in on various "constants" of the universe, some of which are possibly not even understandable through the assorted schemes of understanding, and some which will be revealed to all of us. The fact that we perceive and describe them with numbers does not deify mathematics, although it does make it very interesting and useful.

Without even understanding it, I find mathematics beautiful, if mystifying... but I don't accept that any of those fundamental numbers are meaningful in their own right. They are useful because they approximate or perhaps describe the behavior of the universe, but they themselves are only our way of understanding them.

Whatever, I'm just free-associating at this point. Stay tuned...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 10:20 · Score: 1

Ok, after looking around and thinking a bit, I have to say I don't see that there "was no death on earth," only that Adam and Eve may have been deathless.

Genesis 1:31 - What God made throughout creation was all "very good." If death existed then, it would be a part of that which was "very good." Why then does the Bible present death as an enemy which Jesus must defeat (1 Cor. 15:26)?

I think here the death of the soul in the eyes of God was meant. Jesus defeated that by offering salvation from eternal banishment. Nothing is said about earth being without death except regarding Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

Adam's and Eve's mortality could have resulted from banishment from Eden, long after the creation event.

Hebrews 2:14,15 - The devil has the power of death. Jesus had to become a man and die and be raised to defeat the power of Satan, thereby delivering man from the fear of death. In heaven we will experience none of these problems brought on by the curse of sin (Rev. 21:4; 22:3).

But if death existed even during the days of creation as a part of the natural creative process, how can it be the power of the devil and why should it be something for men to fear? How can it be a consequence of sin, since it existed before sin occurred? Why would Jesus want to defeat it?

This says that the Devil has the power of death, not that it is his alone.

Also, evil existed before the fall of man (Lucifer fell before Adam and Eve: that's obvious since he lied to Eve while seducing her to eat the apple.) So naturally, death is not an effect of the fall of man, except insofar as it was a punishment meted out in consequence of their sin, but rather something independent.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 10:21 · Score: 1

the Vatican has taken a more "hands-off" approach to science, reasoning that God also created* science and human curiosity, not as a diversion for the inherently wicked, but as an avenue for humanity to better itself

Almost. The Church is still taking the line that birth control, specifically condoms, is useless for preventing the spread of STDs, which is demonstrably not true. Or at least, all the assholes they train or send to AIDS-riddled Africa are saying so and the Church isn't offering them a warm glass of STFU, which in my book amounts to the same thing.

But the Creationist thing, yeah, that's a real homegrown fruitcake movement.

--
Dyolf Knip

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mark-t · 2004-11-01 10:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of dimensions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc). It also doesn't explain the origin of time itself.

Correct... Evolution only attempts to explain how we go here from the stuff that was already here, not how the stuff got here in the first place. That's another area of study completely, which brings us to your second point....

The Big Bang theory (and other origination theories) doesnt explain the origination of the origination. For example, what brought the large matter in the Big Bang theory into existence? Also, what made the circumstance that brought the matter into existence? Something cannot exist without a predecessor, if it is on a linear time scale.

This argument doesn't hold any merit for the premise of God creating the universe, as it leaves the question open of who created God. And if God could have always been, why couldn't whatever phenomenon which ultimately led to the big bang have always been?

whats the purpose of the pleasure during intercourse? Why orgasms?

This one is prety simple... if human beings weren't stimulated by pleasure during sex, we wouldn't actually _have_ sex (or at least not nearly as often)... the human race would have died out ages ago and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

According to the Big Bang origination theory, if matter was sent flying in all directions, then the formation of planets and solar systems would be very difficult, first because of the inability for the matter to slow down in space and generate orbital patterns, and second of all for celestial bodies to develop multiple types of orbits, including even reverse ones, going against the force that propelled the matter (naturally the matter would form an orbit in the general direction of the force applied by the bang). If other bodies became attracted by gravity to other bodies, then a thrust force would be needed to create an orbit; instead they would collide. Gravity alone would not solve this problem, since for an orbit to be created a downward gravitational pull is needed PLUS a tangential velocity across the surface so that the object ends up in an eternal fall. Since an explosion sends an object moving at a single velocity, massive velocity changes (without colliding into other objects) is impossible.

This would only apply if the big bang were an outwward explosion in only the visible dimensions. Try this one on... the big bang pushed all objects outward along a dimension that we recognize as time. This is why there is no spatial "center" of the universe... the center would actually be a point in the distant past, not a point in 3 dimensional space. Further, objects actually _are_ moving away from eachother (commensurate with the premise that the universe is expanding). It just so happens that gravity is able to overcome that motion from time to time enough to be able to form large blocks of coherent matter.

Since the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, the moon would be defying the force that originally placed it in the orbit; an argument normally can't be made against, that since in order for that outward velocity to be natural, the moon would've needed to have been formed near the vertical asymptote distance from the Earth, and would need to be thrust outward in a logarithmic fashion.

Actually all that it really means is that the moon's orbit was never really stable to begin with,

Before the first moon landing, scientists estimated there to be over 10+ feet of dust on the moon, and calculated the dust to be 1 inch every 10,000 years, making it about extremely deep (based on the evolution time scale). They gave it large landing pads and added features to help when the ship sank into the dust. When the ship finally landed on the moon, the amount of dust found was a little over half an inch, proving an age of about 6,

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by jorleif · 2004-11-01 10:21 · Score: 1

I guess I would approve any of those. Which can be shown to have occured?

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by nine-times · 2004-11-01 10:22 · Score: 1

I haven't bothered to respond to the other responses to my comment, frankly, because I didn't think they were worth a response. "You smoke CRACK!" uuhhhh... yeah, that's clever.

I agree with you, though: The scientists were not looking for proof that creationists were wrong, per se. They probably didn't care about creationists directly. They probably cared more for explaining how the eye evolved....the guy who posted the article here on /. put it in.

You're right that the particular scientists working on how the eye evolved may well have not even been considering the refutation of creationism or intelligent design. Possible, but it's worth noting that (at least the article makes it sound like) they were trying specifically to describe the evolution of the eye because it's one of the organs that are most difficult to imagine their evolutionary start. I doubt the scientists involved were simply oblivious to the fact that the eye is often cited as a "problem with the theory of evolution".

However, when I said "the scientists", I didn't intend to necessarily limit my scope to the particular people working on this research. Let's include whoever wrote the press release, and they guy who posted the article on /. If you want to claim that they were the ones who raised the issue of creationism, so be it, the question still remains, why bring it up? The answer is (most probably), because they believe life as it is now came about through evolution, and they are annoyed at people who don't think so. They wish, once and for all, to say, "See, I'm right. Those who disagree (creationists) are wrong." They'll likely latch on to any evidence that supports their viewpoint, and look for ways to dismiss objections to the idea of evolution. That so many people got angry with me for suggesting that the interpretation of scientific phenomena specifically to "prove" evolution might be motivated by a desire to shut creationists up-- well, I believe that only proves my point more strongly. Scientific interpretation is still interpretion, complete with point-of-view and motivation.

FYI: From my standpoint, I'm not trying to make a point about who's right and who's wrong. The cognition involved is what I'm commenting on. I'm in no way a creationist. In my mind, it's one of those things where I think the people who disagree with me are often doing so for silly reasons, and the people who agree with me are often doing so for silly reasons. I'm willing to point out the silliness of someone agreeing with me, even if it means they'll end up disagreeing, if it means they'll disagree for good reason.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by pizzaman100 · 2004-11-01 10:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

You are describing natural selection, not evolution. Humanity has understood natural selection for long before the current use of scientific method. That's what gives us specifically breeded creatures like English Pointers and Scottish Terriors. The environment can also demonstrate natural selection - Texas longhorn cattle are a good example.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.

So, natural selection can be proven. Evolution can not. We can prove that genetic mutations occur, but we cant prove that those mutations result in the combination of increased order and complexity over time.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by timjdot · 2004-11-01 10:23 · Score: 1

Your new history,

Is it a butterfly wings reaction?

Or an Orwellian description?

--
Expect Freedom.

Creationists performing a service for evo theory? by Colonel+Panic · 2004-11-01 10:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's a lot of Creationist bashing going on here. But maybe we can view the two sides in a different light. Perhaps we can view the two sides as being locked in a co-evolutionary system.

Darwin posited his theory which was generally rejected by the religious. Later Creationists 'evolved' their ideas in a more 'scientific' direction by raising problems with the theory. They sometimes raise legitimate questions which deserve an answer.

Evolutionists then had to work harder to 'evolve' their theory to answer the Creationist's critique.

Now we have the ID (Intelligent Design) school raising objections to the theory. The evolution of the eye has been a longstanding question (as in "how could natural selection account for the development of the eye"). And now the evolution side has come up with perhaps a more complete answer.

Really, I'm not sure why there is so much antagonism toward Creationists (at least the ones that try to posit well-reasoned, thought out questions - yes, they may be in the minority). In some sense aren't the Creationists helping the Evolutionists to hone their theory? If everyone agreed with the theory, and nobody questioned it, how would the theory develop and improve?

Maybe instead of a "how dare you question evolution!" sort of an attitude, the evolutionists should thank thoughtful Creationists (or even just doubters of evolution who are not Creationists) for playing some part in the development of the theory.

Same proof? by jgoemat · 2004-11-01 10:26 · Score: 1

There is no scientific proof for the theistic or the atheistic view on the origin of life. Why the atheistic gets the favored son status in schools is beyond me, when both viewpoints have the same credentials scientifically.

Let's look at the definition of theory:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution is a theory, not a law, because it cannot so far be tested in a laboratory and no one has a time machine to go back and see it in action in the past. This is something that operates over long time periods. Natural selection can be seen in some instances, like when dark gypsy moths won out in England in the early 19th century because of all the industrial pollution.

Another thing supporting Evolution is the analysis of DNA.

The speciation that is predicted by the theory of evolution has been observed. We explore natural selection and evolution in animal breeding all over the world and have for centuries.

Creationists (who prefer to take God out of their own theories to try and insinutate them into schools) basically say that life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it. They offer no theory as to how this occurred, just that it was "designed". A proper theory would have to explain the supernatural powers of god and how they are at work in the universe now, as well as make predictions about the future, which they cannot.

The typical Intelligent Design argument is that if you come across a watch laying on the ground, do you think it "evolved" or was created? With a watch, we could see the manufacturer, tavel to their plant, and actually see one being assembled. We could then find their parts and go to the plants they were made at and see them being made. There are physical processes for the making of the watch and we could examine them all. If you come across a watch laying on the ground, you don't just assume that God created it out of thin air and placed it on the ground.

What are the physical processes that the "Intelligent Designer" used to create life? What force caused the atoms to form in the correct way to make the first living cell? Where did that power come from? Did the "Designer" use a machine he build or did he use some kind of supernatural powers that we have no description of? The reason "Intelligent Design" should not be on the same ground as evolution is that it is not a well formed theory. It doesn't explain how life came to be, it just says that it "must" have been designed by someone because it is so complex. To find out how it came to be you must look to Genesis, which just says God created the earth and life in 6 days. No thoeries on how that feat was accomplished.

Intelligent Design is a joke. It belongs right up there with meteorologists predicting the weather based on how angry they think Thor is.

Re:Same proof? by tommyServ0 · 2004-11-01 10:51 · Score: 1

Evolution is a theory, not a law, because it cannot so far be tested in a laboratory and no one has a time machine to go back and see it in action in the past.

I'm talking about the origin of life, not evolution. Save that for another debate.

There is still no scientific proof for the atheistic view of life's origin.

Creationists (who prefer to take God out of their own theories to try and insinutate them into schools) basically say that life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it.

Could you name a respected creationist that makes the argument that "life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it." I've never seen that argument from a respected creationist.

--

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Re:Same proof? by BillyBlaze · 2004-11-01 11:36 · Score: 1

Scientific theories about the origin of life (for example, "Autocatalytic proteins got stuck in bubbles, then evolved RNA and DNA") can be disproven with more data. The creationist view (for the sake of argument, "An omnipotent being created primitive life, which then evolved, possibly with more divine intervention") is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproven. An omnipotent being would be able to disguise his actions. For any scientific theory, you can say "There's not enough evidence for me, I prefer to believe X," but that doesn't imply X is a theory.
Re:Same proof? by jgoemat · 2004-11-02 10:08 · Score: 1

Could you name a respected creationist that makes the argument that "life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it." I've never seen that argument from a respected creationist.
That's the whole idea behind "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design teaches that life is so complex that someone or something must have created it, it could not have formed from natural processes. Bible-thumping creationists cannot get their ideas into schools because they include God so they came up with ID which only hints at God.
As for the creation of the Sun and the Earth, Astronomers have observed such things happening in other parts of our galaxy. Discs of gas and dust spin and they have modeled it forming clumps for planets and the center collapsing and heating to form a star.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by chris+mazuc · 2004-11-01 10:26 · Score: 1

According to the Hindus, Brahma's day is 4.32 billion years.

--
E pluribus unum

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Cpt_Kirks · 2004-11-01 10:35 · Score: 1

Shit, I hope it's not a Monday!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by j.blechert · 2004-11-01 10:38 · Score: 1

I consider myself to be someone with a -very- weird believe (that has not much common with christianity, but IIRC jesus didn't force anybody to believe him, neither did the other messengers of god, it was just men trying to gain personal advantage who forced people to believe in 'god'. I personally think that the spark of god is in all of us and that we - as a collective of minds - form this god (or will someday form it). The text doesn't say what I want to say but it's a good thought nonetheless so I'll leave it.

Only three colors is an advantage! by spitzak · 2004-11-01 10:39 · Score: 1

Obviously our limit to 3 colors is an evolutionary advantage: if we needed more than three colors, a tv or computer monitor would be much more expensive!

Re: Richard Dawkins by issachar · 2004-11-01 10:40 · Score: 1

This entire thread is a troll, (do you see any reference to creationism or Intelligent Design in the article?) but here goes...

You make an interesting point about the lack of a clear dividing line between Micro & Macro evolution. The main premise of Intelligent Design of course is that each of the progressive steps are themselves examples of macro-evolution.

Michael Behe wrote a rather compelling book on the subject in which he argued that while the steps appear to be micro steps when looked at from Darwin's perspective, when we look at the biomechanical nature of cells (something that Darwin couldn't do due to lack of sufficient technology) those steps are in fact large macro steps.

Basically Behe states that any mutation that is not beneficial will be lost over time as the animal with the mutation will be less likely to survive to pass on its genes. Behe argues that the biochemical structure of cells consists of many independent parts none of which are beneficial by themselves. And since they're not beneficial, they are harmful since the cell must expend energy supporting those structures. Only in combination do they confer any benefit, but the simultaneous mutation of all of those independent parts is not possible. (In the same sense that Darwinists would recognize that a dog mutating into an intelligent biped in a single generation is impossible). Behe's argument is that what we thought were small intermediate steps are not in fact anything of the sort. Behe goes a step farther and states that cell structures are not reducible into small steps. (The phrase irreducably complex is the term I believe).

Someone earlier suggested that Intelligent Design did not qualify as science because Intelligent Design does not present a falsifiable hypothesis. It seems to me that the main thrust of Intelligent design is the counterpoint to a hypothesis. They are making a claim to have falsified the hypothesis of Evolution. (Large scale change over time type evolution). Behe makes the claim that biological cells are irreducably complex and cannot be arrived at by random mutation. That seems falsifiable to me.

What are your thoughts?

--
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by OzRoy · 2004-11-01 10:40 · Score: 1

"it is naive of us to believe that anything so transcribed, translated, and retranslated by fallible men is the infallible word of God."

One of my favorite mistranslations has to be
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

I always hated that quote. Who the hell tries to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. It sounds like the kind of thing a stoned man would say. Was Jesus high at the time?

Well it turns out that it may of been a mistranslation from the greek version of the bible. The word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning 'cable, rope'. Now rope makes much more sense. If we can't even get simple things like that correct, how much of the bible is correctly translated, and how can people take it literally?

As one who believes in evolution... by FanaticalDesperado · 2004-11-01 10:42 · Score: 1

As one who believes in evolution, I have no idea where all of the "stuff" came from originally. I don't try to answer that question because I think it is ultimately unanswerable. But, I won't attribute all of the stuff to a higher being simply because I can't answer the question of where it came from. In other words, "my inability to prove you wrong is not proof that you are right." - I'm too lazy to look up the person who said it

I have a burning question for you, actually more like a series of questions. Where did the Supreme Being come from? Was he there before the stuff? If there was no stuff originally, why was there a god? Why would a god create all of this stuff?

It seems clear to me that the "stuff" got here one of two ways:
1. It was always here.
2. A god was always here. This god created the stuff.

Either way you look at it, something was always here. Adding a god into the equation just seems unnecessary to me.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by WhyCause · 2004-11-01 10:42 · Score: 1

The Church is still taking the line that birth control, specifically condoms, is useless for preventing the spread of STDs, which is demonstrably not true.

One of the problems I have with some Church teachings is that they tend to be very ideallistic. Ideally, abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of STDs. Practically, it doesn't work quite so well.

I highly doubt that African missionaries feed the locals lies about the efficacy of condoms, especially Vatican-sanctioned lies. I do expect that some of the missionaries skip the condom discussion, and when they do (combined with local customs and culture), it can do a grave disservice to the local population. Especially when there is such a large local problem with AIDS.

I'm a devout Roman Catholic (could you tell from my previous post?), but sometimes the ideallism gets to me. Fortunately, priests at the local level are often more of a practical bent (specifically the Jesuits).

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Tyreth · 2004-11-01 10:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

But for goodness' sake, at least please take the time to understand the terms about which you're debating.

This is unfair, since the blurring of terms is as much the fault of evolutionists as it is creationists. Creationists have in the past used the terms micro and macro evolution to distinguish, which are now avoided because they imply that they are the same thing with longer time. Another way to distinguish is to use the title "Darwinist".

You are right that natural selection plays on us all the time, performing selection of beneficial traits and creating new species. The great issue is the question of common ancestry - whether all living things share a common ancestor or not. That is what creationists dispute, and that is what is commonly called "the theory of evolution" - shortened to evolution. Creationists do not deny natural selection, they just observe it from a different angle. So what do you think the theory of evolution that includes common ancestry should be called?

To use terminology that distinguishes between elements of this debate more accurate would help the creationists, because proof for each step would need to be provided by Darwinists - rather than just demonstrating proof for one definition of 'evolution' and then claiming that all aspects are thus justified.

hahah by bmajik · 2004-11-01 10:46 · Score: 1

its a good thing i said "very few" instead of "none" :)

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by merdark · 2004-11-01 10:48 · Score: 1

Except that creationism is not usefull in predicting new discoveries, unlike evolution. We can use the principles of evolution to do usefull things. For instance, we can predict taht 'missing link' type species exist.

Of course, that may not be usefull in a practical sense. So how about genetics? We can use the ideas behind evoltuion to discover genes in our DNA. These genes can be related to diseases, and finding them is important to understanding the disease, and even curing it!

Creationism? That doesn't seem to have any utility. Why are you suprised that scientists don't care about it? It's a theory that doesn't have any predictive power! Absolutely useless.

And you are completely wrong about scientists not caring about cases where things differ from what we expect. Those cases are in fact the most interesting, because it highlights something we got wrong. In the case of evolution, refining the theory to make it more detailed is all that has been needed to account for ambiguities.

So therefore: by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-11-01 10:53 · Score: 1

If God has a hand in evolution, what is doing, deciding who gets to mate? Because that's what we do.

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by issachar · 2004-11-01 10:57 · Score: 1

To believe that God used evolution to create the world, you have to call God a liar.

No you don't, but forget all those "a day is like 1000 years" arguments. Those tend to be based on people doing textual analysis on a translation. Not a good idea. You want deep analysis? Go as close to the source as possible. Now I don't have Dr. Watt's full text on the subject, (I think this book goes into detail, but I'm not sure.). I've been looking for a brief version of his argument, but I can't find it. The website where I orginally got it is not responding. Sorry. The lectures was called "On the Edge of the Millenium: Making sense of Genesis 1". I saw him lecture at TWU a few years back. If you can find the material, it's very intresting.

--
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com

Regarding Galileo... by GreenPenInc · 2004-11-01 10:58 · Score: 1

Actually, he did attack the church. Instead of keeping his theory within the realm of the scientific, he insisted on telling the church leaders how the relevant passages of Scripture were to be interpreted. The religious do not like being told by the scientific how to read religious texts, just as the scientific detest when the religious tell them how to interpret data. And there is nothing wrong with this.

Things were looking up for Galileo when Pope Urban, a friend of his, ascended to the pontificate. Urban did not subscribe to the new theory, but he was open to considering it, and had dialogue with Galileo concerning the arguments for and against. Inexplicably, Galileo inserted Urban's arguments into the mouth of his character "Simplicio", thereby mocking a friend and potential powerful ally. Needless to say, this did little to help his case.

And his case needed helping indeed. For Galileo was unable to counter the strongest of Aristotle's geocentric arguments: if the earth were in motion, we should observe parallax shifts of the seemingly fixed stars. Either the earth must be stationary, or the stars themselves must be fantastically distant from us, beyond imagination. The equipment necessary to detect these shifts (which we now know to be valid) required a resolution far beyond the means of that day.

Our modern image of the Galileo trial has a beleagured scientist presenting incontrovertible proof to a blinded, tradition-bound institution which will have none of it. In actuality, a brilliant but headstrong man asserted as fact a theory which ran directly counter to the prevailing belief of the day, which he could not prove, and the church did not rush to embrace this new paradigm.

Now, the benefit of retrospect shows us that, although he could not prove his theory, Galileo was indeed mostly right about it. However, the church has also benefited much from hindsight, and has openly acknowledged that it acted wrongly in Galileo's case. They have even issued two stamps in his honour!

None of this is to say or show that the Church was right to condemn Galileo. I merely mean to point out that this famous story is not nearly so one-sided as present historical thought supposes.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by bbc · 2004-11-01 11:01 · Score: 1

"Fundamentalists believe in a literal heaven where you go to live after you die. That's not metaphorical. They also believe that non-believers literally go to a hell after they die, which is also not metaphorical. In fundamentalist Protestantism, the only thing that will get you into heaven is belief in Christ. That's it. End of story. But the fundamentalists have to explain WHY this is (in other words, if I live my life in a good way, why do I still go to hell if I'm not christian?)."

Explanation is interpretation. Interpretation is abandonment of belief. All fundamentalist Christians will go to hell.

I've wondered about this: by RandyOo · 2004-11-01 11:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

You said...
"That is why we still have vestigal organs like the appendix and tonsils. There are other mammals that still use those organs, but humans don't."

I'm just wondering: what are these other animals using them for? And how can you be so sure that we humans don't use them? My understanding was that the tonsils function as a part of the immune system, constantly sampling new pathogens in order to generate an immune response.

"Yes, we can still smell the pherimone, but that smell doesn't trigger that part of the brain anymore."

How can you be so sure about this? Did you know that women that live together in close quarters for long periods of time eventually share the same menstrual cycle? How do you explain that?

Re:I've wondered about this: by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-02 00:23 · Score: 1

Your recall of facts in no way affects my forgone conclusions!
(Joking.)

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 11:07 · Score: 1

it seems to do quite a bit of cherry picking

Certainly no more than the average Christian does.

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by at_slashdot · 2004-11-01 11:09 · Score: 1

"if you find a watch on a beach, you assume someone made it"

Will you assume a GOD made it?

--
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by handslikesnakes · 2004-11-01 11:09 · Score: 1

I believe in gravity. I tested it time and again as a child. ... In the same way I believe in the Bible.

I agree with you about gravity, but may I ask how you have tested the Bible?

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Elkboy · 2004-11-01 11:10 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, there are several examples of evolution arriving at the same or similar solution from different paths. The eye could be such an example.

In fact, I read about how some species have evolved and devolved the same organs several times.

Human Intelligent Design by TrnsltLife · 2004-11-01 11:10 · Score: 1

There is some genetic change, in any worldview, that is not ascribable to evolutionary processes. For example, breeders influence the traits of their livestock or crops by selective breeding. And Monsanto and other groups genetically engineer crops. Whatever DNA gengineers splice in there did not get there by evolutionary processes.

If scientists 1000 years from now try to figure out why certain varieties of canola plants are immune to certain pesticides, if they don't have the records, they might assume it was because of beneficial evolutionary adaptations. But they would be wrong; it would be because of Intelligent Design by Monsanto geneticists.

Re:Human Intelligent Design by Derek+Pomery · 2004-11-01 14:19 · Score: 1

I don't see what this has to do with the main point, but I'll play along.
The IDs claim certain processes *require* design.
Scientists point out they are explained quite well by natural processes. Occam's Razor wins.
Yes, you could claim that at every step in the evolutionary process there are invisible fairy Monsanto geneticists, but that's a little stupid, neh?

In the case of selective breeding, that's equally amusing. Selective breeding is an evolutionary process! Humans are the environmental pressure, but the variations are being produced by nature.
It is simply as if sheep were suddenly in an environment that strongly selected for docility and woolly coats.

Just because we are suddenly capable of building things that have had to, up until now, according to all evidence, been produced naturally does not suddenly invalidate the existing processes.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

Re:Face It by DrXym · 2004-11-01 11:15 · Score: 1

Yes it is a fact. Someone has already provided a link to talkorigins.org where you will see ample evidence that it is and plenty of refutations for all the other nonsense that passes for creation 'science'. As for ignoring them, that's fine by me as long as they keep their nose out of the school science curriculum where it doesn't belong.

Speak Clearly, and Invoke an Appropriate Metaphor by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-11-01 11:17 · Score: 1

Unlike spelling Nazis (who really just waste our time,) those who, like yourself, draw a distinction in the subtle use of language are doing our group a service.

I would go farther than you, and suggest that if it is "effectively" trying to achieve a goal, it is "as though" it were *trying* to achieve a goal. My understanding is that would be like saying the gas molecule was "trying" to hit the wall in order to maintain konstant pressure. The molecule isn't "trying" to do any damn thing, and neither is evolution.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Solilok · 2004-11-01 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does this all mean that before jesus came, everybody went straight to hell after death?
Just curious

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by le+blackbeard · 2004-11-01 11:26 · Score: 1

Well, as a devouted Christian myself, I believe in the Bible (all of it), and that it's never ambiguous, though man's interpretation of it may be.
The way I see (interpret) it, Gn. 21-25 clearly states that animais were created "according to/after their kind" (KJB) -- not from other forms of life.
Again, it's just MHO. :)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-11-01 11:27 · Score: 1

specifically condoms, is useless for preventing the spread of STDs, which is demonstrably not true.

Care to demonstrate how a birth control method which is only 98% effective at preventing PREGNANCY when used correctly (and 60% effective when you consider how often it's used incorrectly) is able to prevent transmission of a viurs many times smaller than a human sperm? 60% effective, possibly, but that's pretty useless for preventing the spread of STDs- at least compared to celebacy, which is much more goof proof when used correctly- don't have sex you won't get STDs.

Or at least, that's the REAL argument.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

I'll just start with number 1 and 2. by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-11-01 11:28 · Score: 1

Theoretical physicists don't try to treat time specially. It just so happens that many "processes" that we're aware of have large components in the increasing/decreasing t direction in a 4-dimensional space-time manifold.

And they all agree before the big bang, time didn't exist either. None of the dimensions existed. They exist in our universe in as much as they describe relative potential energies between particles and their interactions.

Also, it is speculated that the occurence of the big bang didn't need a reason. Quantum fluctations bring into existance all matter of particles all the time, which is usually balanced out by their destruction. These events are like miniature big-bangs. The creation of a particle energetic enough to become the universe is inevitable if time is meaningless.
Ashes could become paper.

More likely, the ashes will break down into more volatile constituents by the introduction of a catalyst or energtic photon, and be integrated into other compounds that temporarily might offer a lower energy state.
There's enough energy in the universe and places for stuff to cool down to make a whole wealth of things possible that seem to be the reverse of entropy. Really what's happening is unorganized waste heat is ultimately expunged into the ever-expanding reaches of space, which gives us more chances to harness processes that require a temperature gradiant.

And so on.

Remember, there is no such thing as purpose unless you ALREADY believe that someone has a reason. Your questions are mostly irrelevant unless you already believe a higher sentinent power is involved.
But if there was no someone then there is no purpose.

Just because something is random doesn't mean it isn't important. A whole bunch of "coincidences" can happen in a day. That's just a bunch of essentially random things that TO YOU were important. Unless you can prove someone is sending you a message, you may just be "lucky" as it were.

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Stephen+H-B · 2004-11-01 11:29 · Score: 1

First things first. I am a Christian and a six day creationist. I am also a biochemistry student who has made Dean's List every year of my degree, so don't start with the "All intelligent people believe in evolution, thus all creationists are ignorant/stupid. QED." line.

Too answer your point - don't confuse didn't with couldn't. An omipotent God by definition is capable of anything, including guiding a billions of years process, or even setting some sort of automatic subroutine to do it so He doesn't have to bother. Now ask yourself what's harder: setting off a huge bang and letting it go from there, or creating a whole universe from nothing in a week? I'll thank you not to imply that I insult the object of my religion on a daily basis and I'll give you the same courtesy.

--
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 11:31 · Score: 1

Nice. I think you just proved the parent's point. You really are totally ignorant in every topic you're trying to refute.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of dimensions

What does evolution have to do with the topography of the universe? That's like saying that general relativity is no good because it doesn't explain why penicillin works. They have nothing to do with each other!

The Big Bang theory (and other origination theories) doesnt explain the origination of the origination

Oh, but postulating the existence of an all-powerful deity somehow gets around that? What created the creator? Cue generic creationist response: "The creator is eternal", which is a copout and no answer at all. Why is a deity with nonexistent origins somehow more rational than a universe with natural but as-yet-undetermined ones?

Certain measurements, such as carbon dating

It's not accurate under the conditions creationists always put it to, no. But then a hammer doesn't work too good for silicon lithography of microprocessors either. If you can't be troubled to learn how to use a tool correctly, then you don't get to complain that it doesn't work. Doing carbon dating on anything less than 1000 years or more than 50,000 old is going to give meaningless and useless results. So of course these are the very conditions that creationists use.

The speed of light, which is widely used as a standard constant measurement, is not constant. data used for this was collected from the past 200+ years

Bullshit. Measurements for c weren't even up to 99% accuracy until 150 years ago. And nowadays they are so accurate that they'd detect any deviations.

What would the purpose of complex sexual reproduction be, if creatures could just copy themselves or all reproduce asexually?

This has been answered so many times, conceptually, in the lab, and in the Real World, that for you to ask such a thing establishes once and for all you've not the foggiest idea what you talk about. Sexual reproduction allows for a species to achieve a much higher level of genetic diversity (and so faster adaptation) without the more chancy process of mutation. Populations of asexual creatures are genetically uniform to a high degree, making them much more vulnerable, as a species, to parasites and predators.

How did the sun start a massive fusion reaction all by itself, and why didn't the other planets start their own also?

Go read a middle school physics book. Christ, the astronomy book mom got me when I was in 1st grade answered that.

I'm done. The rest of your questions are meaningless philisophical dribble, questions easily answered with 20 seconds thought, questions already answered with exceptional certainty, or questions equating cultural effects to fundamental laws of nature.

--
Dyolf Knip

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Abies+Bracteata · 2004-11-01 11:32 · Score: 1

(Just who in the hell thought that pizzaman's inane drivel was "insightful"? ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!)

So pizzaman, can you provide specific mathematical definitions for "information", "order", and "complexity"? What is the relationship between "order" and "complexity"? Can you tell us how one might go about measuring/computing the "complexity" of an organism's genome? Can you demonstrate that mutations will only reduce an organism's "complexity"?

I thought not -- you are just another ignorant religious fundamendalist who likes to spout the latest buzzwords he picked up in Sunday School.

And what's with the obsession about Hillary Clinton? (I can't help but notice how pre-enlightment types are afflicted with bizarre Clinton obsessions).

Once again... by theendlessnow · 2004-11-01 11:34 · Score: 1

Once again, evolutionists have proven evolution to be true!! Who would have ever thought it was possible to do this again.

Can't we get an objective party.. let's say God, to perform these kinds of experiments?

I wonder what would happen if God did an experiment that "proved" He didn't exist?

okay, fine. And then do what? by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-11-01 11:38 · Score: 1

I mean really? What do you all suppose God would want us to have relationships with him for anyway? To entertain him?

What possible choices could we make after we're dead that could have any bearing on anything, and why would God care? So why would you need free will at that point?

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Well, then here's my moral compass. by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-11-01 11:41 · Score: 1

Don't fuck up the gift of the earth and sol. There ain't any others nearby. So let's take care of it or start splicing genomes so we can vacation on Venus.

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

tetrachromatism - colorblindness by dbug78 · 2004-11-01 11:41 · Score: 1

I remember reading an article about this as well and they mentioned that these women have a very high chance of having colorblind sons. I pointed it out to a friend whom is 1 of 5 brothers, 4 of which are colorblind. I don't know if he ever looked into it.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by lewildbeast · 2004-11-01 11:42 · Score: 1

Well, octopus eyes are interesting because the rods and cones actually point in the 'right' direction. human eyes have rods and cones that point 'backward' as in away from the light source, which seems counter intuitive - but then again, since i can see what is on the screen, it is evolutionarily functional. Who is to know if an octopus sees better because the rods and cones point toward the lightsource? Then again, that is using the assumption that organisms with rods and cones pointing in the direction of the light source see better...

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-11-01 11:44 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The "mammalian" eye trumps "cephalopod" eye. by Smegoid · 2004-11-01 11:45 · Score: 2, Informative

From an engineering point of view, it's totally retarted. But evolved organisms have this kind of kludge all the time, because once you have a structure locked in, it's really hard to get away from it by mutation.

This has been a favorite example of imperfect evolution over intelligent design for ages. Dawkins made a big to do about it in 1986 and everyone pretty much took him to his word. The fact is that it's false. The cephalopod retina doesn't have the same cellular constraints on it as ours do. It is true that the vertebrate retina, unlike that of cephalopods, places the photoreceptors at the back of the retina underneath nerve fibers and blood vessels which can cast shadows on the photoreceptors below. Furthermore the photoreceptors themselves are inverted, such that the photosensitive end is pointed away from incoming light.

An intelligent retina design, it is said, would place the photoreceptors at the very top of the retina with blood vessels and nerves below. With limited facts such an arrangement makes intuitive sense, after al the eye's prime function is the capture and transduction of light. However this argument ignores the basic cellular biology of vertebrate photoreceptors.

Transduction of light into a neural signal depends upon disc shaped structures in the outer end of the photoreceptor cell. These discs contain the photopigment whose breakdown by incoming light is at the very root of the transduction process (ie: light to nerve impulse). As the photopigment in these discs is broken down by incoming light to generate the neural signal, the discs themselves must be quickly shed and renewed. This function is accomplished by the retinal pigment epithelium which holds the photoreceptors in place and recycles their shed discs while supplying them with the necessary nutrients to regenerate more discs.

A cephalopod retina organization would restrict photoreceptor's ability to quickly regenerate discs of photopigment, causing frequent photoreceptor bleaching and ultimately reducing visual acuity under strong light (ie: daylight). Furthermore shed opaque photopigment discs would float above photoreceptors and impede light much more than the mostly transparent nerve fibers and occasional blood vessel that currently sit above the photoreceptors.

Such an organization does leave vertebrate with a blind spot were the optic nerve is collected and projected back into the CNS. This spot lies away from the fovea and as such it's effect on vision is negligible. Particularly in vertebrates whose visual fields overlap (ie: eyes at the front, not sides of our heads).

So our retinal design is in fact the best design given that our photoreceptors have to remain embedded in the retinal epithelium.

Re:The "mammalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye. by lewildbeast · 2004-11-01 11:45 · Score: 1

WRT the nose/stomach problem, the reason why they are in such close association is that they are derived embryologically from the same structure! that's why birth defects where they are joined (tracheo-esophageal fistulas) are common.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Yunzil · 2004-11-01 11:45 · Score: 1

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.

No, it isn't. Evolution (the fact) is the observation that species change over time. Evolution (the theory) attempts to explain how it happens. "Complexity" and "order" don't come into it.

Re: inside-out vs outside-in-Faith-based seeing. by Yebyen · 2004-11-01 11:45 · Score: 1

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?

Your argument depends on an assumption that there is some fundamental difference between belief and observation. Observation depends on the belief that your senses are reliable.

To the contrary, I can believe in God without knowing that the bible exists (based on observation.) In fact, Occam's Razor indicates that beliefs based on Observation are no more or less likely than beliefs based on God.

--
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 11:48 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet you got the 60% figure from the "George W Bush Abstinence Only Foundation" or some such, right? I have yet to see one that puts it at less than 85%, usually higher than that. is able to prevent transmission of a viurs many times smaller than a human sperm Gee, that makes sense. Latex stops sperm and viruses are smaller than sperm, therefore latex is permiable to viruses? I suppose the thought that the pores in latex are smaller than viruses never crossed your mind? at least compared to celebacy, which is much more goof proof when used correctly Oh this gets better and better. You compare the theoretical success rate of abstinence to the effective rate of condoms and call it a day? Why not compare the effective rate of both? Oh, that's right. Because among teens who say they'll refrain from sexual relationships, most of them ended up getting it on anyway. Abstinence is only a success if you make a point of ignoring the failures.

--
Dyolf Knip

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by gewalker · 2004-11-01 11:48 · Score: 1

The Hebrew text in Genesis does not allow 1 day = 1 billion years. Evening ignoring the meaning in Hebrew, the English translation is clear enough to leave no doubt -- and the evening and the morning were the nth day. I period and dark and one period of light per day.

Later the Sabbath (7th day of the week) is explained that God rested on the 7th day (so basically you should too). Nor does the Bible really permit the creation account to be an allegory, the Bible is littered with references to Adam, Eve, etc. as literal history.

Believe the Bible or believe in evolution. Asserting Generis teach 1 day = 1 billion year is ill-founded Biblically (though a popular attempt to reconcile Bible and evolution).

The Bible claims to be the inerrent word of God, given to men via word by word (verbal) inspiration -- literally God-breathed.

If the Bible is not scientifically accurate, chuck it, its not worth the paper it is written on. The Bible could be right, Darwin could be right, they can both be wrong, but they can not both be right.

Alternatives to the Bible exist, such as the Koran, etc. They each have the same problem in terms of scientific accuracy -- if incompatible with science, you have to disregard them or disregard science (at least the part that disagrees). In the case of Bible, etc., since they claim divine authorship they are either truth (divine) or error (manmade and non-authoritarian).
Divine authorship is a heady claim, and I reject any such text maiking this claim that can be proven false.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by |/|/||| · 2004-11-01 11:49 · Score: 1

I'm glad that you're willing to accept criticism of your ideas. A lot of people have a fear of having to reevaluate their beliefs.

From reading your paper, I would have to say that I have a very different perspective from yours. Maybe you will find some of my observations useful.

#1 - OK, to start off with you're wandering way outside the bounds of evolution as it applies to living organisms. If we truly had an all encompassing "theory of everything" then we might be able to describe the development of the universe in terms of evolutionary processes, but right now all we can do is speculate.

#2 - Regarding your observation that we don't have an explanation for the "origination of the origination", I think that there are two ways of looking at it. First off, just because science does not yet have an explanation of what caused the big bang does not mean that it cannot be explained. The goal of science is not to provide absolute truth, but to provide the *best* explanation that we can come up with. Secondly, even if you explained what was "beyond" the big bang, you would have to explain what's beyond that, right? And then what's beyond that? In other words, no matter how good your description of the universe is, someone can always ask, "well what's beyond the boundary?" The answer is that whatever is beyond the boundary has no scientific explanation. If something is so intangible that we can't describe it in any way, then it's not something that we can think about in a logical way.

#3 - Yes. I'm not sure why you bring this up. Not only are our measuring devices not perfectly accurate, but our best theories (relativity and quantum mechanics) are not complete. Nobody claims that we have a perfect description of the universe.

#5 - Sexual reproduction is actually very useful. By combining the genes of two fit individuals, you are more likely to get an even fitter offspring that if you simply mutated the genes of the two parents independently. This is a technique that has proved useful when using evolutionary processes to solve problems. this was a really interesting article about using evolution to "invent" new hardware circuits. Unfortunately you have to have a subscription to read it, but I read the print version when it came out. Combining "genes" from fit "genomes" was one of the techniques that they used. Very interesting article. As far as the usefulness of the "pleasure" aspect, this is a pretty good way to encourage individuals to produce offspring. It works differently with different species, as different species have evolved different strategies for promoting their genes and thereby continuing to exist.

#6 I'm afraid you don't understand the big bang. Matter didn't "explode" outward from a central point. Space *itself* expanded out from a central point. The common analogy is to take a balloon and draw a bunch of dots on it. The balloon is spacetime and the dots are matter. Now blow up the balloon. The dots get farther apart not because they're moving through spacetime, but because spacetime itself is expanding. I can't give a thorough explanation here, but you might want to read up on it.

#8 - The fact that we were wrong about the amount of dust on the moon does not "prove" anything except the fact that one or more of our assumptions were wrong. Imagine an analagous scenario. I have an equation that predicts your age based on your height. I know your height, and so I use it to predict your age. Turns out, you're actually older than what I predicted. Does this mean that I was wrong about your height? Possibly, but it's just as likely that my equation was wrong. Science is wrong about things all the time. Constantly. In fact, science is a way of studying the universe tha

--
[javac] 100 errors

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by gewalker · 2004-11-01 11:53 · Score: 1

Actually if you read the context Paul was talking about the Old Testament writings. He was referring to the texts that Timothy grew up with being taught to him by his mother and grandmother. As these were Jews, this would be the texts they were using.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 11:57 · Score: 1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,105906 8,00.html

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Apparently some missionaries also add that condoms come preinfected with the HIV virus.

I'm sure that you enjoy your faith, and more power to you. But ask yourself if you really want to have anything to do with an organization that, at it's highest levels, prefers to lie rather than admit their religious idealism is helping to subject millions to misery and death.

--
Dyolf Knip

This classic has darwin purists easier by Qbertino · 2004-11-01 11:58 · Score: 1

To get things straight: I'm not a creationist and I'm certainly not a creationist as normaly the word is understood in the US. I personally think it's an extreme act of heresy and blasphemy to presume that, so to speak, a day in god's time is just as long as a day in human time. Dispelling the "10 000 years" bullshit creationists like to spread. I think your standard US bible-belt creationists are crazy nutheads that ought to be excommunicated from ever which religious organization they belong to ASAP. And that they ought to be prohibited from calling themselves 'christians'.
That being said:
The Bombardier Bug has an extremly effective defense tactic agains Frogs an the likes. He shoots two liquid components of a two-component explosive that hit each other at a distance and explode, causing an explosion simular to that of a small gunshot. He does so by timing and aiming the squirt of each component liquid in such a way that he isn't hurt himself. Timing takes place in a frame of Milliseconds. The explosion this bug causes is more than enough to instantly kill it if it happens to close or inside it. Where the two components are safely kept seperately until used.
There is no way what-so-ever that a something like this could evolve using 100% pure so-called darwinisim. (Sidenote: The most important darwinist actually says that darwinisim alone doesn't explain everything. That one being Darwin himself.)
Bottom Line:
To me it is an evident fact that - how shall we put it without sounding stupid - 'hyper sentinence' was involved in the evolution of the physical universe. That not necessarly be a god as he is usually described, and absolutely not as creationists usually describe. Maybe one could think of a kind of "hive intelligence" by all living things. But nevertheless and anyway: To me - and a lot of scientists - it is evident that the physical universe didn't come to be as it is by pure accident alone.
The Bombardier Bug being a nice little indicating evidence in case.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:This classic has darwin purists easier by cranos · 2004-11-01 14:26 · Score: 1

There is no way what-so-ever that a something like this could evolve using 100% pure so-called darwinisim.

Heres an important question? Why not? Why couldn't have evolution led to the development of these traits? What objective evidence do you have that supports your hypothesis. and no just because something is truly bizarre doesn't make it evidence of a higher intelligence.

I'm not trying to be an arsehole I am just asking the question that any good philosophy/biology/physics lecturer would.
Re:This classic has darwin purists easier by /dev/trash · 2004-11-01 16:34 · Score: 1

First we must assume two things.

1. The defense was developed over a number of years and was so weak that it didn't hurt the bug nor strong frogs. As each generation perfected their aim and such, the defense became stronger, and only the strongest and nimblest of the bugs survived, passing those genes on.

2. The defense was so strong it wiped out all early attempters.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by gewalker · 2004-11-01 12:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, in the Greek language, oinos (wine) was the word used to describe both alchoholic and non-alchoholic version. There is no separate word in Koine (common) Greek of the time. Same think in Hebrew too.

Often, you can tell from context which was referred too, sometimes you can't

The effects of drinking wine to drunkeness are described in several places in the Bible. There are also other references to wine that are obviously non-alchoholic.

To be more precise, the Bible does not ever condemn the drinking of wine (oinos), but it does condemn drunkeness in most situations as well as strong drink. Dunkeness in the form of anethesia is specifically recommended in at least one passage.

It is amazing how many people that claim to be Christians (not to impune their motives) are in fact quite ignorant of what the book says. One would expect non-Christians to be generally ignorant of the Bible, but if you claim to base your life on it, you ought to at least know something about it.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-11-01 12:08 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet you got the 60% figure from the "George W Bush Abstinence Only Foundation" or some such, right?

Nope- got it from my 9th grade sex ed book. I've never seen anything to doubt it- it was used to remind us that *any* method missused is likely to result in pregnancy- and that was before AIDS really was well known.

I have yet to see one that puts it at less than 85%, usually higher than that.

With or without adequate usage?

Gee, that makes sense. Latex stops sperm and viruses are smaller than sperm, therefore latex is permiable to viruses?

No- you missed the point. Latex does NOT stop sperm in many cases- even your own figures suggest 15%. In those 15% of cases, why should the virus be stopped when the sperm isn't?

I suppose the thought that the pores in latex are smaller than viruses never crossed your mind?

Has nothing to do with the size of the pores- and everything to do with the 2% failure rate even when correctly used.

Oh this gets better and better. You compare the theoretical success rate of abstinence to the effective rate of condoms and call it a day?

No- one actually has to TEACH abstinence for abstinence to be effective- but then again, one actually has to teach condom use for condoms to be effective, correct?

Why not compare the effective rate of both?

Sure- when used correctly- but we'd better pick an abstinence education first. Since you brought up the Catholic Church, I'll pick RELIGOUS BRAINWASHING. When done correctly, complete with the sleep depravation- I'm sure it's quite effective...

Oh, that's right. Because among teens who say they'll refrain from sexual relationships, most of them ended up getting it on anyway.

Depends on how effective the family is, actually. But I'll bet your kids do- and they'll probably use that condom ineffectively too, since you'll just hand them the condom and hope they know what to do with it right?

Abstinence is only a success if you make a point of ignoring the failures.

Or if you make a point of correctly discouraging the failures. Say, by segregating the children by sex between the ages of 9 and 26...or there's always Islam's method of enforcing abstinence, no Islamic women or men are going to die of STDs, because they'll be executed for adultery first.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mattyrobinson69 · 2004-11-01 12:08 · Score: 1

then thou shalt count to three. no more. no less.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by cheekyboy · 2004-11-01 12:17 · Score: 1

Your a nut arent you...

back to the point;

proove genetic evolution

how many generations are required? 1000? 500000? well we can measure that through fossils, if it took 200M years for X to appear then its the last known old version to when the new version appear divide by lifecycle.

So lets copy that? get some worms or ants and add some gamma rays or something, see if after 10 years or 50000 generations we can get someone NEW genetically, not just a new version based on what genetics were there any way.

When the amount of chromosones actually change from say 54 to 52 and it starts a new species, show me that. Or find a loophole/backdoor to trigger a successfull MUTATION/EVOLUTION.

Judging fossils shows you most new species virtually appeared instantly, there was no general progression, its like BOOM magic over 10-50M years there are 10000s of new animals.

Does an animals environment during its young years determin how it changes? or during gestation?

Was it really only the earths magnetic field changing and causing 10x more cosmic rays to hit earth that really spawned bizare creatures, ie u nlocked new 'options' that already existed in the DNA? or did it actually MAKE new DNA? or is it the RNA which really decides which parts of the DNA to change or use?

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Dimensio · 2004-11-01 12:18 · Score: 1

Hmm, if you're the creator of all things and you're perfect how can you create something that in not perfect?

Well, perhaps part of the definition of a perfect being is the ability to create imperfect things if that is what is desired.

Thus, our imperfection is purely the will of God.

Then again, "perfect" is a hard thing to nail down, becuase it's purely subjective in many ways. What is the "perfect" eye or hair colour? What is the "perfect" height?

--
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by ChuckleBug · 2004-11-01 12:20 · Score: 1

... I think that all the arguments that Creationists have are bunk. But that's just me.

No, it's not just you. They ARE bunk.

You don't get it! (-: by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 12:23 · Score: 1

The argument is that since real structure cannot sensibly arise from randomness (e.g. beaches aren't turned into computers by the action of wind, waves, rain or lightning) and we think rationally (or at least we think we do... but down that recursive path lies madness) our presence here cannot be accidental.

He's not questioning the scientific method, he's questioning our ability to apply it, firstly at all in a random universe and secondly with overriding philosophical constraints. Creationists use the scientific method just like anyone else, the only difference being that they don't make an a priori assumption of materialism (the doctrine that there can be no supernatural effects). Some of them make an assumption of little-d deism but that's not actually necessary to avoid materialistic pitfalls.

Supernatural effects can be measured and and studied scientifically just like anything else. You can only assert otherwise based on just such an a priori assumption.

Materialistic assumptions have been shown to be capable of leading mainstream science badly astray. Note in particular the Baker quote from Ref 11.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:You don't get it! (-: by raodin · 2004-11-01 13:19 · Score: 1

So you replace one assumption with another assumption.

Ahh, progress.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by habadu99 · 2004-11-01 13:46 · Score: 1

It all comes down to 000001 thing. Do you or Don't you believe in God. I do as do many Creationalist. Our world, infact, our Universe was Created by God through Jesus Christ His Son. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase. Our universe is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. That said, How is it that evolution could even remotely be possible?
Re:You don't get it! (-: by Airline_Sickness_Bag · 2004-11-01 14:58 · Score: 2, Funny

The earth is not an isolated system. Just like a refrigerator is not an isolated system - both have an outside source of energy - in the earths case, the sun.
Or don't you believe in refrigerators?
Re:You don't get it! (-: by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 15:27 · Score: 1

Our universe is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. That said, How is it that evolution could even remotely be possible?

Gah, why does this always come up?

Did you notice that you can stack firewood without God's help? But stacked firewood has more order than firewood lying around where it was cut. How is this possible?! It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

What makes you think that the degree of disorder means that evolution is impossible? Evolution is a decrease in disorder, therefore for evolution to have happened on earth there must have been energy input from somewhere else... Somewhere where the entropy has increased to make up for the decrease in entropy from evolving life. Now where might our poor planet have received this energy from?

There are a few possibilities: God, the Sun, extra terrestrials, Xenu, the Tooth Fairy, or who knows what else.

Our world, infact, our Universe was Created by God through Jesus Christ His Son.

I bet more people on this planet disagree with that statement than agree. Like me. I don't remember Jesus being mentioned in the book of Genesis. Particularly Genesis 1:1.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Re:You don't get it! (-: by hunterx11 · 2004-11-01 16:37 · Score: 1

The argument is that since real structure cannot sensibly arise from randomness...
Structure arises from randomness every day, look at a snowflake. The idea that something incredibly complex could arise at once is indeed ludicrous, but this is a straw-man argument. Scientists argue that something incredibly simple arose and that it became more complex exponentially over time.
What are the odds that the forces of nature will shape sand into something looking like a computer? Almost none. What are the odds that it will shape the sand into something that resembles a single logic gate? Pretty low. One in a trillion? One in a quadrillion? One in a quintillion?
But if you have billions of grains of sand and raindrops and millions of waves and lighting bolts and billions of years, the odds of something extremely simple happening once are not that low.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by emijayne · 2004-11-01 16:48 · Score: 1

I don't remember Jesus being mentioned in the book of Genesis. Particularly Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ~ Genesis 1:1
If you look at the original text, the word used for "God" is Elohim. This is the plural for El (God), meaning "more than two". Realize that throughout the Bible, God is described as being three beings in one: God the father, God the Son (JC), and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, his statement would have been correct - as part of the whole.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by boots@work · 2004-11-01 17:32 · Score: 1

Gods [plural] created the heaven and earth?

How do you know it wasn't Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha and Bob?
Re:You don't get it! (-: by boots@work · 2004-11-01 17:58 · Score: 1

Creationists claim to use the scientific method, and try to assume the decorations of science, but they are not at all scientific. It is hard to draw an absolutely clear line around "science", but there are several guidelines that they regularly breach.

Merely making one prediction which happens to turn out true does not make you a scientist, or make your theories accurate. The person you link to is pulling a particularly long bow: that the world was created from water 6000 years ago, which is on the face of it a ridiculous assertion, given that there are continuous human civilizations older than that. He'd better substantiate that assumption before any calculations based on it can be taken seriously.

As just one example, the scientitic method requires that we (try to) judge on the evidence not on our feelings about the evidence, but you will regularly hear creationists complain that evolutionism causes e.g. teenage pregnancy and moral decline. That may or may not be true, but it is has nothing to do with whether evolution is factually correct. The basic flaw here is that they pick a theory based on whether they like the consequences rather than the evidence.

(It's OK to start with a theory you happen to like, but when the enormous preponderence of evidence is against it maybe you should think twice.)

It's certainly possible to measure supernatural effects scientifically. Scientifically, they've never been proven to exist; Occam's razor suggests that we assume there are no invisible pink unicorns until further evidence is provided.

There's really plenty of documentation of this already.

(I guess it's not logically impossible that there is a scientific creationist: they'd keep trying out theories, then discarding them as impossible. This would be strictly scientific, though also pretty dumb.)
Re:You don't get it! (-: by bint · 2004-11-01 20:00 · Score: 1

"Supernatural effects can be measured and and studied scientifically just like anything else."
Any examples? What is a supernatural effect by the way? If you can measure it, isn't it quite natural? Or is it non-repeatable measurements which are supernatural?
Re:You don't get it! (-: by karolo · 2004-11-01 21:39 · Score: 1

Well, is the whole of the universe getting more ordered? Evolution generates a little bit of order here at the expense of a lot of entropy being generated in the Sun, so, overall, there is more disorder in the universe. I believe, Sir, that it is you that don't get it.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by WgT2 · 2004-11-01 23:56 · Score: 1

No.
Demonstrable power is where assumptions disappear: thus miracles and prophesy. This is what separates reality from assumptions.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by flumps · 2004-11-02 09:13 · Score: 1

I hate to be a party pooper:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word [Jesus] was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God. He [Jesus] was with God in the beginning." John 1:1-2

But apart from that, I tend to agree with what you are saying. I've always wondered why my teeth were so good.

However, one thing strikes me. How does this wood stacking theory work for the universe? Surely, if theres a universe (and therefore, by definition, one of them without outside influence) who so to speak stacked its firewood?

Hmm. Believe in God.. Not believe in God. Hmm. Don't really suppose it matters I'm here anyway might as well enjoy it. I'm off to spend time with the family.

M

--
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
Re:You don't get it! (-: by Ohreally_factor · 2004-11-03 05:34 · Score: 1

I don't know about the first three, but "Bob" was out of the office that week.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by hesiod · 2004-11-03 08:44 · Score: 1

> Supernatural effects can be measured and and studied scientifically just like anything else.

That is completely asinine. Supernatural means "not of the natural world." If something is able to be measured or even observed, IT IS FRIGGING NATURAL. If it's supernatural, you cannot explain it. Successfully measuring something is to explain something's natural behavior/properties. If it is supernatural, it has no such properties.

I hope you don't have any kids that you have passed your ignorance to. Or at least not this bit of idiocy.
Re:You don't get it! (-: by DerWulf · 2004-11-05 05:47 · Score: 1

the *overall* order decreases. This does not exclude a local increase at the expense of a decrease somewhere else.

--

___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Re:You don't get it! (-: by UnknownSoldier · 2004-11-08 12:36 · Score: 1

> If you look at the original text, the word used for "God" is Elohim.

1) There is NO _original_ text, but I know you meant the Hebrew, and Paleo-Hebrew sources.

2) There are _72_ names used for God throughout the OT/OC.

Here is a list of the 72 Names of the Myriad Expression of the Living God.
Adonai Yahweh (Ah-doe-noi-yah-vay) Lord Yahweh
Aleph-Etz-Adonai (ah-lef Etz Ah-doe-noi) The tree of Aleph (the beginning) of Lordship.
Ammi Shaddai (Ah-me Sha-Digh) The people (or family) of Shaddai (Almighty God)
Ari Shemoth (Ah-ree She-mote) The Lion (Ari) who leads the Exodus (Shemoth) by means of the Sacred Language.
Abba Nartoomid (Ah-bah-Nahr-too-meed) Father of the Eternal Light
Adonai (Ah-doe-noi) Lord
Adonai Elohenu Adonai (Ah-doe-noi El-low-heh-new Ah-doe-noi) Lord, Our (Creative) God, Lord
Adonai Tsebayoth (Ah-doe-noi Sah-bigh-yoth) The (Sovereign) Lord of Armies (or the Hosts of the Heavens)
Bath Kol (Bah-th Koal) The Voice of the Dove, the power activating the feminine side of creation.
Be-mid-bar (Be-mid-bar) In the Wilderness symbolic for the ingathering and reprogramming using the code of Divine Numbers (Hebrew name for the Fourth Book of the Bible.
Bereshith Bara (Beara-sheeth Beara) The beginning (Word) of Life (Genesis)
Binah Ruach Devekut (Been-ah Roo-ahk Day-vah-koot) Clinging to God through the Spirit of Understanding.
Chesed Tushiyyah Shiloh (Chess-ed Too-she-yah-Shy-low) The place where the Loving-kindness of God will be in support of the Messianic Forces (the One who is or who will be manifest)
Chokmah Michaelilu (Hook-mah Mee-ka-Aye-loo) The Wisdom of Michael (and the order of Michael) shared with the saints.
Dabar Nartoomid Yesod Yeshuaiahu (Dah-bar Nah-too-meed Yes-ohd Ysh-ah Yh-who) The Word of Eternal Light (Dabar Nartoomid) which is the Foundation (Yesod) for Salvation. The code of the voice of Yeshuaiahu singing: Comfort Ye. Comfort Ye, my people.
Daniel Ehohai Ariel (Dah-nee-el El-lo-high Ah-ree-el) The Glorious Lion of God (Ariel) opening the (Seven Seals of) My God's (Elohai) Divine Judgment (Daniel).
Derek Kedoshah Yirmeahu (Dare-ik Key-doe-sha Yer-me ee-ah-who) The Holy Way of Yah who loosens the Womb.
Div-ray Haay-ya-min Hay Yom (Div-ray Hay-ya-meem Hay-yohm) The Chronicles of the Day of Days (in Service to the Most High).
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (Eh-ya Ah-sher Eh-ya) I AM THAT I AM (or I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE).
El El (L L) A call to the Living God
El El Elyon (L L L-ee-yon) The most High God (be with us)
El Shaddai (L Sha-digh) The Lord God Almighty (Metatron)
Eli, Eli (A-lee, A-lee) My God, My God
Eloha Elohim (El-low-ha El-low-heem) The Living God of the Living Godhead.
Eloha Umma (El-low-ha Ooo-ma) God of the Universal Soul.
Esah Meshiah (Ace-sah Mah-she-ah) Counsel (or advice) of the Messiah
Ha Shem (Hah Shem) The name (of Names).
Hakdamoth Hekaloth (Hahk-dah-moh-th Hek-ah-low-th) Entrance of the House of Many Mansions (Many Heavens).
Hod Ha-Melek Zedek, Melchizedek Meshiah (Hohd Hah-Mell-ek Zah-dek, Mel-key-zah-dek Mah-she-ah) The Splendor of the Righteous King and messiahship of Melchizedek.
Jehezekel-Malkuth (Jeh-hez-zee-kel Mal-koot) God Strengthens (Ezekiel) His Kingdom.
Jehova-Yahweh Melchizedek (Ji-hoe-vah Yah-vay Mel-key-za-dek) The Revealed name of Our Father operating with Lord Melchizedek.
Jeshurun (Yeh-sha-rune) Righteous or code name for the Program/people of Israel.
Joiel Qohel'eth Tiphereth (Joe-ee-el Quo-hel-eth Tee-pa-reth) The beauty (Tiphereth) in the Teacher who knows that the Lord is El.
Kadumah Elohim (Kah-doo-ma El-low-heem) The Revealed Divine Image of the Godhead.
Kadumah Kadmon (Kah-doo-ma Kahd-mon) The Embodiment of the Divine Issuance.
Kether Etz Chaim Jehu (Ke-ther Eh-tz Kah-eem Jay-who) The Tree of Life that touches upon the Crown of Life in the Affirmation of the Nameâ or Crown (Kether) of the Tree of Life (Etz Chaim) affirmed by the name (Jehu).
Kodoish Kodoish Kodoish Adonai 'Tsebayoth (Kah-doy-sh, Kah-doy-sh, Kah-doy-
Re:You don't get it! (-: by geminidomino · 2004-11-09 17:13 · Score: 1

Crack any newspaper. Humanity is raw disorder given form.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by cheekyboy · 2004-11-01 12:24 · Score: 1

if everything evolutionized from the ONE thing or common parent, then it should all be traceable, sure its a massive amount of data, but its not random or hard to record like a super nova and tracing each atoms movement.

Hypothetically, you could 'track' down every single organisms history/growth over 1M years. Its just data, animals only multiply at max/min speeds, so its like simulating a trillion balls bouncing, its possible.

So without a time machine, can it be done via DNA analysis? If not all genes are used and a lot are infact idle, then why do some organisms need more genes? when they could use the spares? or is it just pot luck?

Does in fact /dev/rand really play a part and the only part? Is it all really just based on qantum stuff?

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Start with the title by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 12:32 · Score: 1

do you see any reference to creationism or Intelligent Design in the article?

If by that you mean the SlashDot article, well... the title's a bit of a giveaway and it goes downhill from there.

Compare the post tallies for this article and others near it, and spot the not-so-hidden agenda. (-:

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Clod9 · 2004-11-01 12:34 · Score: 1

> The problem with this view (Omphalism) is that it's unfalsifiable.

Much the same can be said of evolution. The only thing that could possibly falsify evolution is God himself, appearing and saying "look, it was me all along."

Evolution is, by definition, whatever it was that happened as long as it doesn't include God. As we learn more about the evolutionary process, we modify our notion of what "evolution" is. Much of this work is scientific, but unfortunately much is not.

Science cannot rationally accept the view that God created life, the universe, and everything, since there is no apparent observable proof of His existence and operation. So a mechanism, "evolution", is postulated to explain it.

Some rabid evolutionists will immediately say "but it is observable! It is happening right now!" (Rabid Christians say the same thing about God's working.) The big question revolves around speciation. Not micro vs. macro, terms which have no agreed definition. It's clear that local adaptation occurs, and we have lots of data on those processes, but it's not at all clear HOW SPECIATION WORKS. It has never been observed.

The debate will be over when someone can describe a new species, past or present. We'll need to know its name AND THAT OF ITS PREDECESSOR, with a reasonable explanation of what's different in their DNA and externally observable characteristics, and why those differences make the descendant a new species. A new color of tomato won't cut it. I'm really hoping to see this in my lifetime. If evolution occurs at all, I think there's a good chance someone will observe it in the next few decades.

I've been reading for years, waiting for someone to record a past or current speciation event, but what I have found is that neither side needs any evidence; they both take their position by faith. Evolutionists don't need proof because the only alternative is creationism; Creationists deny evolution, despite whatever circumstantial evidence we find in isolated fossils, clinging to the need for a God.

p.s. I didn't much like the article. It said: (a) worms have light-sensitive cells in their brains, and so do vertebrates. (b) vertebrates have eyes that have something in common with the light-sensitive cells -- not clear what. (c) we therefore can put to rest any controversy about how human eyes arrived with their breathtaking complexity. (You lost me there -- seems I missed several steps on the way to this conclusion.)

I'm amazed we're still debating superstition by khelms · 2004-11-01 13:09 · Score: 1

It amazes me that in this age of science, we're still debating ancient religious nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that life started as single-celled organisms 3.5 billion years ago and has been evolving into more complex forms in order to adapt to environmental conditions and competitive pressures ever since. You could claim that a god triggered the big bang, but it looks like the universe has been running on the autopilot of physical laws ever since and not any intelligent design.
If there is a god and the bible is true, then god is a pretty sadistic being. The only qualifier for going to heaven vs. hell is belief in this being. But god makes no appearances and instead has left us with a universe that appears to run purely on laws of nature and where, as best we can tell, life appears to have evolved unassisted for billions of years. I guess fossils are god's little practical jokes. If god would show up in Oral Roberts' thousand foot form and smite some heathens on national TV, then we'd all line up at the church doors.
And what's with this Jesus story? A married woman was supposedly still a virgin and her son was actually god's kid instead? Yeah, right. Too bad there was no DNA testing back in those days. So god knocked up this married virgin in order to create a son, so that the nice people of earth could kill him and let him serve as a scapegoat for their sins so god wouldn't have to send all of them to hell. What kind of bizarre accounting is that? Then after he was killed, this Jesus came back from the dead. How do we know? Because his followers said so. He would have made a lot more converts if he'd walked back into the Roman barracks after arising.
Maybe the human race really does have some gene that predisposes them to belief in the supernatural. I see how hoaxes and urban legends spread like wildfire even today, when we're supposedly better educated in logical thought and we have cameras and camcorders all over the place to capture everything that happens. Two thousand years ago, before the scientific method and logical reasoning were even a twinkle in anyone's eye (well, maybe Aristotle's), superstition reigned. Some may see the Bible as the word of god (How do we know? because god said so. How do we know he said so? Because it's in the Bible). I see it as a collection of some history, some exaggerations, some folklore, some legends, and some out and out lies by people promoting a cause. Tales of a local flood passed down a few generations becomes a great flood that covered the entire earth and wiped out all the unworthy. Have you ever played the game where you line several people up, whisper something to the first person, and have each person repeat it to the next person in a whisper? What come out the far end often bears no resemblence to what was originally said. While some of the tales in the Bible may have a nugget of truth in them, they have likely been distorted almost out of recognition and a supernatural element tacked on.
Anyway, to quote from D&D, I disbelieve!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 13:10 · Score: 1

Doesn't that mean that our collective perception of what is right is relative to the times?

Well, that certainly seems as great a convenience as my confidence in my views, sir.
I'm sure that a lot of Ba'athists in Iraq felt themselves dealing firmly with thieves, to paraphrase Saddam.
It's like determining the temperature outside. You can argue that you're really only talking about the kinetic energy of air molecules at a given measurement spot. You can talk about it all being heat, Fahrenheit or Celsius. But if you refuse to admit to an absoulute zero, I fall short of seeing how you derive any useful scale.
Best,
Chris

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

i'd say it's about even by jdkane · 2004-11-01 13:18 · Score: 1

Because a common "genetic fingerprint" was found between two species does not necessarily mean they have a common ancestor -- that statement is supported only if you are already assuming the theory of evolution is true.

Why can intelligent design not have used similar mechanisms amongst different species? That would be intelligent choice -- to re-use i.e. a special cell works well here, and also over there. The two species don't have to be related by a common ancestor if you are assuming the theory of creationism is true.

I can see how the link is made for the theory of evolution. However I can also a link for creationism. In my opinion it's a tie -- both sides can share it. The discovery can be used to support or refute either side.

Re:i'd say it's about even by Bush+Pig · 2004-11-04 17:59 · Score: 1

I have two words to say to you: Occam's Razor.

Because otherwise, it's turtles all the way down.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Re:i'd say it's about even by jdkane · 2004-11-05 14:15 · Score: 1

Out of pure curiosity, from the logical principle of Occam's razor, how might you choose to apply it to this "discovery"? (Everybody who is reading this thread, feel free.) Thanks.
Re:i'd say it's about even by Bush+Pig · 2004-11-06 11:55 · Score: 1

How would I apply it to this discovery? The same way I always do, by going for the simplest explanation. I find that notions of intelligent design multiply assumptions, especially when compared to explanations which involve evolution and natural selection.

I have no trouble at all in positing light-sensitive cells (a mutation) which evolve over aeons into eyes through natural selection. On the other hand, I have enormous difficulty with the notion of a creator. Despite listening carefully to theologians and fundamentalist crackpots for the last 40 years, I have heard no arguments for a supreme being that can't be shot down in flames in seconds. If you doubt this, you should read David Hume's "Twelve Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." It's an oldy but a goody, and I like to re-read it every five years or so.

As I alluded to earlier, once you start believing that the world rests on the backs of 4 elephants, which stand on the back of a turtle (or in a supreme being which exists outside time and space for that matter), it's turtles, all the way down.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 13:23 · Score: 1

Genesis seems reasonable to me, for all I know, which is nothing. Why wouldn't the holy spirit manifest itself and spontaneously create man, woman, and all the beasties? Who am I to say it didn't happen that way? It is, in my opinion, an amazing act of arrogance to say in any certain terms how the world started when all of my arguments are based on such a limited stream of information in such a constricted context.

My response is that the Bible and reality are harmonious and of a common author. Scientists and Theologians share a common inquisitiveness. We don't all have to be driven to explore the Almighty in various ways. It is cool to be compassionate on those with smaller propellers on their headgear.
OTOH, my experience has been that ignorance, while blissful, isn't cheap. I respect the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." crowd, except that belief should never be used as an excuse to shirk critical thinking. Far from it. The Gospel is all about taking a continuous, critical look within _and_ without.
Best, Chris

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 13:29 · Score: 1

Well thanks for tottering my humble observation on the edge of a slippery slope. Of course humans make mistakes. In this case the mistake is failing to include the "thieves" in your notion of the collective worldview.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

No. Read it again. by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 13:56 · Score: 1

I replace one assumption with zero assumptions (at least on the spectrum under discussion). Read what I actually wrote, not what you thought it meant, then yes, we might have some progress.

Many people replace that one assumption with another but practically all of those are obviously aware of it, whereas few materialists are.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:No. Read it again. by raodin · 2004-11-01 14:45 · Score: 1

Both in your original post as well as this one, you admit another assumption is made, in some or most cases:

Many people replace that one assumption with another

Some of them make an assumption of little-d deism

Your only defense is that somehow a creationist's assumption of a creator is validated because they are concious of said assumption. This is flawed in two ways - you have not proven that non-creationist scientists are unaware of the assumptions they make, and even if they were NOT aware of that assumption, it does not prove a creationist's assumption is in any way more valid.

If making an assumption is valid because you acknowledge that you are making it, anyone can make any absurd claim and "prove" it. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to come up with such a situation.

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 14:02 · Score: 1

> LIFE! Life itself. That's how life *works*. You just can't have life and reproduction without evolution, is like evolution without metabolism; it just does not happen. Nothing else is needed that what makes life life and reproduction (you *can* have life without reproduction; not for long, but that's besides the point).

I'm sorry I've gone over this many times and your writing is very unclear. Life evolves because of life? That doesn't appear to explain anything, and is very much akin to "I think because I think."

From what I can make of your statement, I don't think it explains any underlying mechanism for how things evolve, only that organisms *must* evolve for life to exist. I am looking for a *how* things evolve. Why do things evolve the way they do? Why are some changes made versus others? Natural selection happens to answer these questions very nicely, if you're going to offer an alternative theory, then you must also answer these very same questions.

>NS a *non-parsimonious* mechanism

Why is it non-parsimonious? Those who are more fit are more likely to survive. How can it get any simpler? For example, sparrows that are faster are less likely to be hunted down successfully by hawks. Is that statement wrong?

>contradicts the body of science (biology, cybernetics, thermodynamics)

How does it contradict these fields? Please cite examples rather than make broad, overgeneralized statements.

>Now, I'm not arguing that simpler explanations *must* be right, but that's how science works, and as SOP it's not half bad.

However, this is where your logic fails. You have *not* proven natural selection wrong. All you have stated is that you do not consider it to be "parsimonious," but as you state that does not immediately prove it invalid. As you have not offered any concrete proof for its invalidity, we cannot presume it to be so.

>And if it can't be disproven it's not a scientific theory, it's a myth, i.e. an untestable explanation for something.

Wrong. If it cannot be disproven, then you simply can't tell whether or not its right, it does not immediately mean that the theory is wrong.

String theory, for example, was long thought to be untestable. This does not immediately rule out its validity however. The reason it is largely untestable is because it works on a scale of the universe that we can never ever probe with scientific instruments. So the reason it is untestable is simply because we do not have the technological capacity to do so, and according to the laws of physics, we never will.

I make the claim that natural selection is largely untestable because it is nearly impossible and impractical to attempt. That does not immediately rule out its validty.

I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?

>After a theory accumulates enought evidence, it's considered fact.

Natural selection has actually accumulated a great deal of evidence in its support. Examples follow, please disprove them if you can:

http://www.fhcrc.org/pubs/center_news/2004/oct7/ sa rt3.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query .fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12403174&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.hhmi.org/news/kruglyak3.html
http:/ /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10948001&dopt=Abstrac t
http://scied.fullerton.edu/biol409/images/Modul e5S ampleTemplat.dot

There are many more if you want. However, I do believe that these recent publications go against your claim that natural selection was disproved in the mid-20th century. If that is so, why is research still actively conducted?

>It's just a *myth*, i.e. it does not explain nor predict nor can be tested.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-11-01 14:05 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by emijayne · 2004-11-01 14:05 · Score: 1

I agree - I'd love for anyone who has actually studied the Bible (original texts preferably) to try and prove evolution...

Gay Christian - Religion Questions in Job Intervie by BigBlockMopar · 2004-11-01 14:09 · Score: 1

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.

So, I have an issue. I know an aerospace engineer - qualified to design turbine blades for jet engines, boys and girls. This aerospace engineer was born in a *highly* religious evangelical family, grew up knowing he was gay, and finally came out... for about a week before his pastor convinced him he was going to go to hell.

Now, he's still gay - I've asked him if he finds women physically attractive. Not at all. But he's getting married in a rush wedding arranged to get him away from his homosexuality.

Now, he's going to hurt her and his future kids. He's gonna be the 40-year-old guy who gets arrested for getting his rocks off with a stranger in a public restroom while his wife is lonely and miserable. He's gonna live a lie (God doesn't know you're gay?) and in quiet resentment of his family. But some guy who is arrogant and self-satisfied enough to call himself a "pastor" (look up the meaning of the word) has assured him that he is being a good person for living this lie.

A Muslim fundamentalist whacko who flies an airplane into a building or blows himself up on a subway is hurting others in the (selfish) name of his religious convictions. The only difference with this gay "Christian" is the magnitude of the injuries.

Is that "do unto others"?

Furthermore, as an engineer, he is an applied scientist. He has university training in the scientific method. Which is the more plausible answer - the Bible or the fossil record? You're gonna ignore the story God himself carved in stone, and trust an oft-translated 2,000 year old science fiction novel? Am I gonna trust someone who, especially in the face of scientific training, can ignore such fundamental precepts as evolution?

Is he gonna apply the scientific method, or will he use faith and prayer to ensure the turbine blade won't come apart?

For *any* scientific job, I should very well be allowed to ask an applicant at the very least if they're a creationist, since it speaks so deeply to their qualifications for the position.

Don't get me wrong. I don't knock faith. Myself, I'm pretty sure there's something out there - mathematical probability does not favor the way many things in my life have turned out. I give thanks for it, and I try to make the world a better place; I hope the Big Guy (or whatever) will be okay with that. What I knock is people who are backwards enough to believe in a literal interpretation of a *document*, written by human beings, translated by human beings, and full of human contractictions.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by hobbesmaster · 2004-11-01 14:15 · Score: 1

"So, natural selection can be proven. Evolution can not. "

Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false. A hypothesis is stated and then evidence that contradicts that hypothesis is sought. If no contradictions can be found, then the hypothesis can be assumed to be true.

An example:
Hypothesis: if x is a real number, then the square root of x is a real number.
This hypothesis can be proven false by showing that the square root of -1 falls out of the domain of real numbers and thus the hypothesis is false.

Now you can refine the hypothesis:
Hypothesis: if x is a real number in the domain [0,inf), then the square root of x is a real number.
A single counter example could prove this hypothesis false, however to prove it true, you would have to test every value of x between 0 and positive infinity to see if the hypothesis fails.

Now since we were talking about science, lets use an example using Newton's law of universal gravitation:
Hypothesis: Fg = -GMm/(r^2)
For every observation that was made in Newton's time and for centuries afterwards, no counter example could be found.
Now, enter the early 20th century. Astronomers observing the orbit of Mercury noticed that its orbit was not consistant for the system containing only it, the sun and the other known planets in the solar system. In order to fulfill Newton's and Kepler's laws of planetary motion and gravity, it was postulated that an as of yet undiscovered planet existed between mercury and the sun (it was named Vulcan). No planet could be found. This was strong evidence that Newton's law of gravitation was wrong (and indeed it is). Einstein, using this information and quite a bit from other parts of physics hypothesized relativity which explains Mercury's behavior (amungst other things).

This is a good example of how science works, its merely an evolution of our current sum of knowledge and it is continually refined as we collect more data about our universe. Thus, science attempts to explain how our universe behaves, not why. The question of why is beyond the realm of science because no testable hypothesis can be made.

Only where light cells might arise from by AnEmbodiedMind · 2004-11-01 14:15 · Score: 1

This research only looks at how light sensitive cells might have found use in an eye like structure.

I always thought the creationist challenge was how did the focus and lens system + nerve system evolve.

There is a quite cool video here that shows how the lens could have evolved...

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by BigBlockMopar · 2004-11-01 14:18 · Score: 1

Prior to the early 1900s many conservative theologians (most notably, B.B. Warfield) had no problem with evolution.

Sure... they've been *real* advocates of science. If it were up to organized Christianity, the Earth would still be a flat disk, riding on the backs of giant tortoises, in the center of the solar system.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.

Asking about Religion in Job Interviews by BigBlockMopar · 2004-11-01 14:28 · Score: 1

In fundamentalist Protestantism, the only thing that will get you into heaven is belief in Christ. That's it. End of story.

I believe. I believe there had to be some really cool dude who lived about 2,000 years ago and we're still talking about him and trying to be as good as he was. That should be a good thing - "Lord, save me from your followers."

Usually this combined with the first argument about biblical literalism ensures that it will indeed be a cold day in Hell before protestants can reconcile their beliefs with mainstream science.

Then, as one who is in a position to hire people in scientific fields, I should be able to ask applicants if they're Protestants so that I may be able to weed them out as unsuitable for positions. After all, if you can't accept the fossil record over the Bible, your judgement as a scientist must be seriously called into question.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.

Re:The "mammalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye. by BigBlockMopar · 2004-11-01 14:34 · Score: 1

But the number and combination of mutations required to restructure the entire neck and jaw so that your trachea could be behind your throat ... just too unlikely.

How about radical plastic surgery to fix the problem? Nah... would probably made Saturday nights pretty lonely.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 14:43 · Score: 1

BTW, I went back into your previous comments on evolution, and they show that you *do* believe natural selection to be a mystical force that does wonderful things.

>So, where does the criteria for sorting comes from? God? The aliens?

These criteria simply arise from circumstance, they are not criteria hard-coded into nature. These criteria depend entirely on what is needed to survive. For example, if an animal needs to be strong in order to compete with animals of the same species, then stronger animals will have more of a chance succeeding in life and reproducing.

You are assigning a form of intentionality to Darwin's theory of natural selection. This is a very common mistake, often made by creationists. I never expected to see it in an evolutionist. In natural selection, everything is unintentional, it simply arises from natural circumstance.

BTW, this came from the same post:

>Do try to program it! Again, don't cheat. Don't come to me with tautological "higher fitness". Where does this fitness come from? Program this. No fixed values out of the blue, no omniscient agent that could not exist in nature (God, aliens, kernel, whatever). Then try to simulate NS. Won't work. Please let me know if you were to accomplish this!

http://www.evolutionz.ca/frame.htm

There you go. In that program, organisms simply compete for food. There are no fixed values of fitness, it is simply whether or not the organisms are able to get to the food and get enough of it. If they do, they survive. If not, they die. Simple, isn't it?

Sould are immortal by michaelmalak · 2004-11-01 14:43 · Score: 1

According to Catholic theology, human souls are immortal -- that is something that can never be proved or disproved through physics. It's metaphysical.

Re:Sould are immortal by drinkypoo · 2004-11-01 14:49 · Score: 1

You are making the assumption that because we have not yet detected a soul that we will never detect a soul. If we can detect it we can probably see what happens to it after you die ("die"?) If we never see a soul die then it will probably mean they are immortal since if they are not immortal they'd be dying all the time. Of course, you can't really prove it, except by actually being immortal and continuing your study of the human soul indefinitely :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by RebelWithoutAClue · 2004-11-01 14:49 · Score: 1

Has it occurred to you that the reason cephalopods have no porn is that cephalopod females put out more ?

--
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 14:49 · Score: 1

Another program that is one of my favorites is Primordial Life:
http://www.io.com/~spofford/

In this program you set physical constraints for organisms to operate in, but these don't directly correlate to fitness values. Its essentially the same as setting physical constants in the universe, such as the gravitation constant on Earth. Because there is no function evaluating fitness, this program meets your requirement of demonstrating natural selection.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Delucia · 2004-11-01 14:49 · Score: 1

i don't remember anything being said about a vision and an old man.
anyways, it always has been Genesis vs. Evolution if you really want to get to the bottom of it.

Doctrine? by anomaly · 2004-11-01 14:51 · Score: 1

"Christianity does not rest on the Bible"
Then, please help me understand, on what does it rest? How can you know what Christ taught, other than looking to the scriptures to tell you? What has authority about Christianity more than the Bible?

"Impossible to merit infinite punishment for finite sin"
Does this not depend on the nature of the sin? For example, if I shoot and kill someone, I might feel that 'all I did was move my finger a little bit' (on the trigger) Would it be just punishment to put me in jail for a long time merely for wiggling my finger?

You see, we cannot understand from God's perspective the totality of the impact of our actions.

If I incurred a $5 Billion dollar debt, wouldn't it be just to assign me to pay for it until it was repaid (with interest?) Even if it took me an extremely long time to do that?

God's justice demands that sin be punished. God's mercy provides a sacrifice for our sin - Jesus Christ.

God can determine the just punishment for sins - perhaps a light burden for eternity or a heavy one, based on the number and nature of sins in a person's lifetime.

My understanding of Hell is a place where God is not. Not at all. Nothing good is there - no joy, pleasure, nothing of ease - merely an existence of struggle without satisfaction. Those who go there spent their earthly existence desiring to be apart from God, and he grants them exactly what they want - and in fact what, because of their sin, they deserve because of His holiness, purity and righteousness.

With respect to your description of a Christian, I think that you perhaps misunderstand what the Bible teaches. The Bible says "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder" Merely believing that Christ is the son of God is insufficient.

The Bible goes on to say:
"if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.""

God's standard (according to the Bible) for defining a Christian is a bit more restrictive than what you describe. This is not surprising.

Jesus himself said ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "

Based on this warning, there are quite a few people going to churches all over the world, claiming to be Christians who are in for a horrible shock when they face God's judgment.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

--
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?

horribly OT, but didn't see you in politics by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-11-01 14:53 · Score: 1

Will you please put the H.W. in your sig. I believe that is the source of the quote, correct? We cannot allow the level of political discourse to continue to slip. By propogating the disingenious sound bite over the coherent argument you are every bit as evil as GW!

I'd like to see some of your working out. by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 15:06 · Score: 1

The floor is yours, feel free to impress us all with your rolling oratory. (-:

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Face It by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-01 15:13 · Score: 1

Is it recorded history or the word of God? Can't you people make up your minds?

Nobody denies the large amount of historical material in the Bible, however much of the Old Testament was written and rewritten generations, even hundreds of years after the events described therein occurred, and there is clear textual evidence for the hands of numerous authors involved. However, we don't know any of these people, and there is no independent corroboration of the things they say. Herodotus also wrote of monsters, beasts, and Gods, but I don't take his work literally either. What about Homer's Iliad? Well, clearly the Trojan War happened, I don't doubt that, but that doesn't mean I take his account of it as literal truth.

Plenty of other tales are passed down over far fewer generations, in written and oral form, and they undergo drastic amounts of change and addition of many fantastical elements as well.

By virtue of their lack of understanding of science and nature, the writers of antiquity were very prone to assign deistic features to natural and human events. And storytelling and embellishment were a basic part of pre-modern life, and one of the few forms of entertainment, the lore, wisdom, knowledge and entertainment media of a land. And storytelling and embellishment seem to be a basic part of human psychology, universal to all cultures.

As for the New Testament - the events therein were described far closer to their occurrence - however what ended up as New Testament canon was scrubbed of the apostolic writings that didn't agree with basic church philosophy, or that seemed to contradict Paul's teachings. In any case, the writings of the early Christians were more religious recruitment effort than natural results of generational storytelling.

In any case, I don't know why I'm bothering to have this discussion with somebody that judges the quality of an idea primarily by how long ago it was first held by some people. And there is no such thing as an "Evolutionist", evolution isn't a belief system, it's just one scientific theory among many that attempts to model reality in a reasonable way. I believe many scientific theories, but I don't have to believe _in_ any of them. A Creationist is labeled as such because they deny a fairly significant scientific theory based on faith alone. Which is fine, I have no problem if you choose to do that, but I must insist that you acknowledge that none of it is based on any falsifiable set of scientific propositions, and that it is your faith in God and the literal truth of the Bible that leads you to uphold this position.

Military use by Gorimek · 2004-11-01 15:16 · Score: 1

I've heard that they're highly sought after as snipers by the military, since they can often spot camouflages that look perfect to the normal human eye.

Almost there by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 15:18 · Score: 1

You made a bunch of assumptions (along the lines of "science == materialism") at the start and did not acknowledge any of them.

Acknowledgement does not equal validation, but if you're not aware of your assumptions you're building logical castles in the clouds.

In order for the billions-of-years cluster of processes to work, you must assume (without proof) materialism or something so close to it that the differences are, pardon the word choice but it seems so appropriate, immaterial. Likewise someone postulating Creationism needs to postulate a (by definition) supernatural creator.

What I'm postulating is assuming neither, and seeing where the evidence takes us. You do without a guarantee of materialism and I'll do without a Bible.

What the evidence says in geology is that an awful lot of rock was emplaced and removed very rapidly, essentially in a single operation in most cases.

What the evidence says in paleontology is that the nice fossil sequences don't always occur, sometimes the'yre reversed without evidence of intrusion, reworking or en-bloc inversion. Sometimes they're essentially random. Outside materialist assumptions, there is no evidence that paraconformities exist. There are also alternative explanations for fossil ordering which make much more empirical sense than gradual deposition, but which are canonically discarded out of respect for the same materialist assumptions.

And so on.

Yet until you stop majoring on the minors and temporarily renounce your materialism, you won't even consider actual observations like those.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Almost there by shlashdot · 2004-11-01 15:42 · Score: 1

"There are also alternative explanations for fossil ordering which make much more empirical sense than gradual deposition" Name one.

--
Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
Re:Almost there by raodin · 2004-11-01 16:13 · Score: 1

Again, I propose that you have not sufficiently proven that non-creationist scientists are unaware of the assumptions they make. I think most scientists are well aware that they dismiss supernatural phenomenon as explanations for natural phenomenon, and they believe that is a valid assumption. Indeed, they often cite this assumption in the form of Occam's razor. Your entire argument rests on this point - so you will have to excuse me if I need a little more than just your word that it is as you say.

You seem to be proposing that scientists simply do what they themselves say they should do - come up with explanations based on what evidence we have - and that I have no problem with. Certainly scientists are not perfect, and any improvement is welcome.

However, I certainly can't see that Creationism (or anything with ties to religion) can do that, for a fairly simple reason. If a theory or belief requires faith it by definition cannot be proven in a manner that can satisfy scientists. Furthermore, I've seen little evidence that creationists, as a whole, are actually interested in what you are proposing.
Re:Almost there by boots@work · 2004-11-01 18:07 · Score: 1

It depends what you mean by "materialism".

If you assume that supernatural beings can make arbitrary changes to the world through mysterious mechanisms, then anything is possible. Maybe God made the world this morning, and made me think it's always been around. It's possible. It can't be scientifically disproved.

However, if you assume God can arbitrarily fiddle with anything at point, there is no room left for science at all. You can't make useful predictions or theories if everything depends on the will of an omniscient, unpredictable supernatural being. You're left living in a hut, praying for rain.
Re:Almost there by Airline_Sickness_Bag · 2004-11-02 00:58 · Score: 1

What the evidence says in geology is that an awful lot of rock was emplaced and removed very rapidly, essentially in a single operation in most cases.

What the evidence says in paleontology is that the nice fossil sequences don't always occur, sometimes the'yre reversed without evidence of intrusion, reworking or en-bloc inversion. Sometimes they're essentially random. Outside materialist assumptions, there is no evidence that paraconformities exist. There are also alternative explanations for fossil ordering which make much more empirical sense than gradual deposition, but which are canonically discarded out of respect for the same materialist assumptions.

Sounds like you are claiming "the great flood".

-asb

atheism by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-11-01 15:19 · Score: 1

I kind of think of myself as an atheist because it is really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY*, unlikely. I guess, technically, I am an agnostic, but I am pretty sure there is no "creator".

*hehe, you like that? I prove points with excessive formatting! but now I can't even tell if I spelled really right because I wrote it too many times.

Wrong! Re:Doesn't Scale Well by Louis+A.+J. · 2004-11-01 15:23 · Score: 1

"In the land of the cross-eyed, the man who can see staight is king!"

The definitition of a human souls is immortal by michaelmalak · 2004-11-01 15:24 · Score: 1

By Catholic definition, the human soul is that which is immortal. Anything else found that is mortal is not the soul. The best example of "something else" is genetics itself. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Catholic philosopher, suggested that perhaps God did not infuse the soul until the "quickening" (when the mother feels movement). But now we know two things: that the fetus looks like a human much sooner, and that even the single-celled zygote has all the genetic information of a complete human.

The metaphysical philosophy of an immortal soul stems from two points. First, that everything has a soul. Generally, there are four levels. A rock has the soul of existence. A plant has a vegetative soul. A horse has an animal soul. And a human has a rational soul. Second, it is the intelligence that makes the human soul immortal rather than mortal, because knowledge is immortal, because humans have the ability to abstract ideas, and because humans can contemplate the infinite and God. Wherever there is the essence of human, there is an immortal soul.

The presence of complete DNA in the zygote says that a zygote has the essence of human, and from that we know the immortal soul must accompany it. That the DNA is made up of matter that will decay upon death does not disprove the immortality of the soul. In this particular case, it enhanced the theory of soul immortality.

Similarly, any new physical discovery of an aspect about humans where that aspect decays cannot be tied identically to the immortal soul. Any such new discovery may or may not enhance the evidence of an immortal soul the way DNA did.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by mdielmann · 2004-11-01 15:29 · Score: 1

Yes, but have you seen cephalopod males? I doubt the females are putting out more, unless they have bad eyesight, and we've already determined that's not the case.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by vax · 2004-11-01 15:31 · Score: 1

thats hardly as weird as you make it out to be. The collective conciousness theory has quite a few supporters. Anyone who doesnt believe that the church has reason to suppress the real word of christ needs to look no further than the gospel of thomas, gee wonder why it wasnt adopted, maybe because it out rock the faulty foundations the church has built itself on. Its no better off than the jewish temple that jesus realized the trivial nature of. god is on no throne, god is no one, christians and other religions personify god because they cant fathom the living light inside us all. Read up on buddhism and the Qabalah for starters. In essence all the messiahs were getting at the same thing, but the followers played the telephone game for so long that the focus on important aspects was lost and people got obbsessive about minor details. The ignorance amoung man "civilized" as we claim to be, is the greatest barrier to human progress and peace.

Ignore Creationism? Maybe, but....... by j_f_chamblee · 2004-11-01 15:35 · Score: 1

"There is no place for dogma in science."

"God does not play dice with the universe." -- Albert Einstein

Whereas, religion (and creationism as a sub-part of religion) is rife with dogma and the need to suppress intellectual curiousity.

"I desire mercy and not sacrifice."

-Jesus of Nazereth (Matthew 9:13 and 12:7)

In the former statement, Albert Einstein rather dogmatically refutes the implications of his own theories on relativity. In the latter, Jesus rails against the dogmatic observances of ritual sacrifice observed by the Pharisees.

As a person of faith who also has more than my share of training in scientific methods and evolutionary theory, I would advise folks who automatically associate science with free thinking and religion with thought supression to take a slightly less, *ahem* dogmatic, view.

Just my two cents here, but folks who equate intelligent design or creationism with scientific approaches and those who simply view creationism as a "sub-part of religion" are equally mistaken in that both parties oversimplify and the traditions they seek to criticize, treating them as monolithic stereotypes, rather than the complex institutions and intellectual edifices they actually are.

--
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by vax · 2004-11-01 15:36 · Score: 1

everyone glorifies the human eye, but what about say a hawk? our eyes suck in comparision. as do our noses to say a dog, the dog has us beat on hearing range as well. Perfection is like "normal" once you seek to define it, you realize how hard it is to put your finger on it. Perfection is subjective, there will always be something better if you look long enough. I wonder if darwin was refering to the third eye that he couldnt explain by evolution, surely the eyes we have in socket are not the best thing since sliced bread, nor are they the most perfect.

Blew the punchline by IBitOBear · 2004-11-01 15:41 · Score: 1

"Man: Lord, can I have a penny?"
"God: In a minute."

Explanation: If you don't have "penny" in the last part, the whole middle part isn't part of the joke.

[Sorry to be a drag, but I hate bad syllogisim in a mis-told joke... 8-)]

Science is a method, Faith is a position. You can apply a method to a position, you can hold a position on a method, but you cannot disprove one with the other.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi: (thus passes the glory of the world.)

Cogito Ergo Spud: (I think, therefor I Yam. 8-)

All else is sound and furry, signifying nothing. [yes, it's a mis-quote... lighten up... 8-)]

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

If it's important, it has effects by Gorimek · 2004-11-01 15:43 · Score: 1

This assumes that everything that's important is observable.

But how can something that has no observable consequences be thought of as "important"?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 15:46 · Score: 1

You are describing natural selection, not evolution.

No.

That's what gives us specifically breeded creatures like English Pointers and Scottish Terriors.

No. Human intervention is decidedly not natural selection.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.

No. That is not the scientifically accepted definition, nor the one those defending evolution subscribe.

So, natural selection can be proven. Evolution can not.

No again. But only because you're attempting to re-define evolution.

When Charles Darwin originally described evolution he mentioned things like flightless birds. Sounds to me like that's less complicated than the flighted birds which they are believed to have descended from.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by vax · 2004-11-01 15:46 · Score: 1

they may not have porn but they have plenty of other distracting illusions Iam sure.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 16:20 · Score: 1

Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false.

Is mathematics not a system of logic? Most things in mathematics require a proof that they are true. Wiles isn't famous because he exhaustively searched the entire set of real numbers to see if a^n + b^n = c^n had any integer valued solutions for a,b,c and n. He's famous because he proved that it is true that no such integers exists (well, he proved with the help of many before him who proved intermediate steps).

Hypothesis: if x is a real number in the domain [0,inf), then the square root of x is a real number.
A single counter example could prove this hypothesis false, however to prove it true, you would have to test every value of x between 0 and positive infinity to see if the hypothesis fails.

Hmmm, I dunno about that. It is trivial to show that the square root of 0 is real. Thus for non-zero: Assume X is a non-negative real number and sqrt(X) is a non real number. Then sqrt(X) is of the form a + bi where a and b are real numbers, not both zero, and X = (a+bi)(a+bi) = sqrt(X)^2 = a^2 + 2abi + (bi)^2 = a^2-b^2 + 2abi. But since X is a real number then 2abi = 0, if 2abi = 0 then a = 0 or b=0.

case 1: b = 0

if b = 0, X = a^2. But a is real, a contradiction.

case 2: a = 0

if a = 0, X = -(b^2). But -(b^2) is negative, a contradiction.

Thus by contradiction, if X is a real non-negative number, sqrt(X) is real.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dont_think_twice · 2004-11-01 16:21 · Score: 1

You're noticing a contradiction in Christianity. The story given by the grandparent is one taught by the church. The church also teaches a different story, in which man became wicked over time, and Christ was sent to show them the way. In this story, there were plenty of people that went to heaven in the begenning, but as time went on, less and less people were gettting in. Eventually, nobody was getting into heaven, and hell was starting to fill up, so god sent us Christ. In this story, Adam and Eve is like a metaphorical supplement.

In fact, God had to fix the problem of wicked humans twice - the first time, he made the flood, and just saved Noah, killing all the other sinners, and the second time, he must have been feeling some white liberal guilt, because he sent Christ instead of just killing everyone.

I think that different demoninations stress the two stories differently. I am guessing that the Baptists like the first story. My presbeterian church (plenty of nice people and friendly sermons) stressed the second story.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-01 16:24 · Score: 1

Thank you for the excellent post!

If only more people who call themselves scientists as well as people who view science as absolute truth would learn this simple utterly basic foundamental tenent of what science is and can do we would all escape a lot of stupidity.

What you said is taught in every higher level institution in the world but it seems only a few actually understand it and take it to heart. This is so sad that each time I meet upon someone who shows they've realized it I'm overjoyed - thank you for making my day "D

Moderators: please for the love of science moderate the parent up - let's raise the education of the average slashdotter!

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by wynterx · 2004-11-01 16:31 · Score: 1

Yes it is.

OK, your definitions may vary (there seems to be very little common terminology, with common meaning, in this debate) but doesn't evolutionary biology seem to imply that we started with a simple (probably singled-celled) organism that was improved upon (complexity) to the vast array of life that we now have?

Evolution is not the observation that species change over time. Evolution is the belief that new species are originated (was going to write "created" but perhaps a bad choice) over time. Check out the whole title of Darwin's famous book sometime.

Explaining how it happens it an integral part of the science of evolution. The hypothesis is made and then mechanisms are proposed. Creationist science attempts to falsify these mechanism as it cannot (by definition) falsify the whole of evolution (happened in the past, can't observe).

Opinion.. by 56ksucks · 2004-11-01 16:32 · Score: 1

I don't think this kind of article belongs on Slashdot. If someone were to submit an article with the exact opposing view it would be riticuled, assuming it were even posted. This is not the place for religous discussion, and evolution/atheism, whether you think so or not, is a religion.

--

---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

Nicely done! by LaughingElk · 2004-11-01 16:34 · Score: 1

For an avowed athiest, you've done a remarkable job of summarizing the fundamentalist Protestant view (also the Catholic view) of the fall and the redemption, and how it requires a belief in a literal creation.

In fact, you've done a better job than most of us Christians were doing in this thread.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by zephc · 2004-11-01 16:36 · Score: 1

So I'm probably feeding a troll...

You automatically lose when you invoke into a talk about the Scientific Process, God or the supernatural or anything else outside the scope of science. Why not claim that Odin created the universe? I think he's cooler anyway, all that Norse stuff.

"Now ask yourself what's harder: setting off a huge bang and letting it go from there, or creating a whole universe from nothing in a week?"

Never having done either, I wouldn't know. Are you implying that it's easier stretched out over a longer period of time? It's not writing a term paper, it's forming Everything.

"I'll thank you not to imply that I insult the object of my religion on a daily basis and I'll give you the same courtesy."

The universe is not obliged to concord with the arbitrary beliefs of desert folk who lived millenia ago, or with any beliefs at all, just so you can feel better about things.

--
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.

What proof? by JamesGecko · 2004-11-01 16:40 · Score: 1

I read the article. This is not 'proof' that the eye evolved. This is something that looks like the eye.

Dig up your basic logic and bio textbooks. This is not 'proof' of the evolution of the eye. This does not 'prove' that anything evolved.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mr_snarf · 2004-11-01 16:42 · Score: 1

Well, personally I tested gravity and the bible at the same time. I dropped the bible, it fell so gravity won.

--
printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");

Re:Why Talk Creationism? by CaptainAvatar · 2004-11-01 16:56 · Score: 1

I've said before, creationists come in all flavors. Some are real loons, sure, but so is Stephen Jay Gould. Here's a guy who wants us to accept his interpretation of dirt and rocks and fossils from millions of years ago; but when he's presented with current economic evidence, he's a goddamn Marxist. That screams "bad judgement" to me, and predisposes me to assume his science is equally flawed.

Um. Why? He was not trained in economics, so who cares what his economic opinions were? He's just as uninformed and biased as the rest of us non-economists on the subject. Would you care if an economist believed in evolution or creationism? To me, your scepticism of evolution borders on the loony too, but I don't automatically assume that means you are incompetent at whatever job you are actually doing. Gould was trained in paleontology and biology, therefore his opinions in that area deserve some respect - judge them on their own merits.

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-01 16:59 · Score: 1

Notice: the parent I was referring to was the one by hobbesmaster :
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127914 &cid=10695669

I see some posters arguing his points by using mathematical proofs, these people are confusing themselves and probably others as well as the question is far from that simple: mathematical proof and the inherent characteristics of scientific results or science itself are not the same issue.

Read and understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Goals_of_scie nce

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by otopico · 2004-11-01 17:05 · Score: 1

of all the people of faith i have encountered, you summed up beautifully the idea that just because a book says one thing, it doesn't mean that those words are absolute.

we might not agree on the existence of a god, but at least you can express you point without sounding like some bible thumping fanatic.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by emijayne · 2004-11-01 17:06 · Score: 1

Or maybe God uses metaphors so you can understand him better. Truly - what would be the point? If there is a God, and He created everything and everyone (obviously He created us with some intelligence or everyone here wouldn't be having this conversation) there had to be some reason. He had to know that we'd be wondering what that reason is eventually. The written word seems to be the most logical thing that could be passed down the generations. So, why would He choose to give that explanation by speaking in riddles so as to create confusion for those intelligent inquirers?

"While intelligent people can often simplify the complex, a fool is more likely to complicate the simple." ~ Anon.

Re:Here is the fuss by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-11-01 17:06 · Score: 1

About 200 BC. Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer, discovered a way to measure the circumference of the Earth. He had heard reports from the city of Syene Egypt, which was on the equator, that the Sun shown directly down vertical wells on the first day of summer. Eratoshtenes did not observe such phenonmenon at his home, thus he concluded that the Sun never reaches Zenith at his home in Alexandria, north of Syene.

Eratosthenes measured the Sun to be about 7 south of his local zenith on the first day of summer (the summer solstice). Based upon this observation is concluded that distance from Alexandria and Syene must be 7/360 or 1/50 that of Earth's circumference since 360 make up a complete circle.

At the time the standard unit of measurement was called a stade and is thought to be about 1 1/6 of a kilometer. The distance from Syene to Alexandria was about 5000 stades. Thus, Eratosthenes estimated the Earth's circumference to be about

50 x 5000 = 25,000 stades = 42,000 km.

The modern value for the circumference of the Earth is 40,000 km. So Eratosthenes was correct to within 5% of the actual value.

(Shamelessy copied from http://inkido.indiana.edu/a100/earthmoon7.html)

--
Dyolf Knip

mitochondria were living organisms by wotevah · 2004-11-01 17:07 · Score: 1

There are others, such as mitochondria, which are basically a challenge to evolutionary theory that says, "Show me how that could have evolved".

While I don't know the answer to that, it reminded me of an interesting tidbit I read in this big book called "The Cell". Basically it says mitochondria were at some point standalone organisms that got assimilated in a symbiotic relationship by the more advanced primitive (sic!) cells, because they were a better battery. They do have their own mitochondrial DNA, so it kind of makes sense.

Re:mitochondria were living organisms by jfengel · 2004-11-01 18:12 · Score: 1

It seems to me very likely that the cell has a symbosis with with a once-independent mitochondrion. To be honest I don't really know why the intelligent-design folks hold mitochondira up as an example, since it seems that an explanation is very possible even if not entirely understood yet.

Then again, it always seemed pretty obvious to me that eyes evolved out of less-complicated light-sensing structures, too, but that was held up as the highlight of intelligent design theory. In my post I tried to give the theory as much benefit of the doubt as I could, but personally I find that it wilfully ignores the obvious in pursuit of a religiously-minded goal.

Re:Here is the fuss by Rirath.com · 2004-11-01 17:10 · Score: 1

Such people have probably never done much mountain climbing. ;-) One of the problems with this whole idea is that people throughout history have figured out the shape (and sometimes even the approximate size) of the earth without any high-tech equipment.

Indeed, but that's just the extent of some of their 'belief based fact'. See here for more information, and that mountain I was talking about: http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscre ationistshate.htm#flat

"Oh, yes, there are still some around, and they make young-Earth creationists uncomfortable, because their risible, crackpot notions are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, they take the Bible even more literally than most creationists, assuming it means what it says about corners, foundations, and pillars of the Earth, and that mountain from which one could see the whole Earth"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by arminw · 2004-11-01 17:15 · Score: 1

Random evolution has some fundamental problems. Here is one:

I have disk drive which contains all the information on how to build a disk drive, but how did the first disk drive get made if the information how to make one must be recorded on a disk drive first? The first disk drive must be fully functional at the outset in order to hold the instructions needed to build disk drives.

The life equivalent of a disk drive is DNA which carries the information for a given living organism. Just taking matter plus energy does not make life. It takes another ingredient: information. Information can only arise from another source of higher information. The DNA carries the instructions how to make proteins among other things, but DNA itself is made from proteins. So what came first, the DNA or the proteins which make up the DNA which carries the information of how to make proteins, including the many very complex proteins that make up the rods and cones of our eyes.

It is the microbiology equivalent of the chicken and egg problem. Somehow, somewwhere an intelligence must provide the information, then make DNA and then record the information on it so it can then make other proteins, including other DNA.

In my disk drive analogy, someone with enough skill to do so who also has the information on how to build a disk drive, must first make one and store the information how to make it thereon. After that the information is available to make more disk drives as well as other information can be stored to build a whole computer or an automobile. The information storage device must be built first and then all kinds of information can be put thereon for building other things.

--
All theory is gray

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by eugene+ts+wong · 2004-11-01 17:18 · Score: 1

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.

And there are those who believe that the earth was created 6K - 10K years ago, and the fossils are there due to normal events, and that people misinterpret the events and fossils; faith or no faith.

People have difficultly describing the situation even when they do understand it. If God created man out of dust in 1 minute, that was as physically mature as me, then how old is that man? Less than a year old, or 31 years old?

--
testing out my trending skills

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Revek · 2004-11-01 17:21 · Score: 1

Yes I am also an atheist living in the bible belt. People around here belive in the king james version of the bible. They will tell you it is the origanal bible. When asked why its called a version they have a slew of answers. When asked why they condone rape,murder,incest etc etc they will tell you "oh thats the old testement its just a guide" when you bring up scriptures from the new testement that tell you that you HAVE to belive in all the old testement they usually get mad at you and toss the old the devil may quote thing at which time I inform them that in order to belive in the devil you have to belive in god first. Most people avoid such conversations with me now not liking their simple faith called fairy tales. I agree with you completely as long as young children are told that science doesn't have all the answers (which is true)but the bible does we will always have to put up with their attempts to destroy and discredit science.
Good source http://www.evilbible.com/ not .org its been hijacked by you know who :P

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 17:30 · Score: 1

Did Christ point to the crowds or the Scribes in his famous "you brood of vipers" line?

He pointed to the crowds of Scribes.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X

Re:Here is the fuss by jc42 · 2004-11-01 17:31 · Score: 1

Yeah; that's the textbook example of an early measurement of the Earth. The point of the puzzle I mentioned was that it can be done without any travelling, using technology that was available about then. As I recall (vaguely), it was one of a list of interesting ways of determining the Earth's size using fairly simple measuring tools. Not that this lessens Eratosthenes' approach.

The transit scheme does have one potential error: If there are waves at the horizon, you'll get an overestimage of the Earth's radius that's proportional to the wave height. So you want a really calm day, and even then, there may be waves out at the horizon. So you might want to repeat the measurement a few times and take the minimum.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by arminw · 2004-11-01 17:35 · Score: 1

...evolution is a process,...

Even if that were true, any process, chemical, physical or biological requires the input of information which guides the process. Information cannot arise spontaneously and randomly, but requires a higher source of information. Matter + energy + INFORMATION = life. If the information is left out, there can be no life.
Computers cannot program themselves, but need a programmer and the programs arise in the programmers MIND.

Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible. If there is evolution, it is certainly guided by an incredible mind. Many attach the label GOD to this mind.

--
All theory is gray

Wonderful summary by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 17:37 · Score: 1

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.

Does that mean it isn't the greatest topic to be discussing with fervent ardor in junior science classes?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by luxaeterna7 · 2004-11-01 17:37 · Score: 1

Proof is for mathematics.

No offense, but your questions represent a misunderstanding in how evolution is understood to work.

Let me address a few of your questions/points.

[i]1. how many generations are required? 1000? 500000? well we can measure that through fossils, if it took 200M years for X to appear then its the last known old version to when the new version appear divide by lifecycle.[/i]

There is no "old" or "new" version. Species is simply a snapshot of the current state of biology, in a few years there will be varying differences in genetics. What happens is that every little change in allele adds up, over time, to new attributes and differing genetic makeup. When those differences are enough to name a new species, then we say speciation has occured.

[i]2. So lets copy that? get some worms or ants and add some gamma rays or something, see if after 10 years or 50000 generations we can get someone NEW genetically, not just a new version based on what genetics were there any way.[/i]

You wouldn't need to add gamma rays or any radiation. When DNA is copied many times information gets misplaced. What happens is that in DNA thare are start and stop markers that segment different traits, during copying those start and stop makers can get distorted and mutations can occur because start and stop markers will get inserted to make new traits. This is the very basis of genetic evolution. Those mutuations that provide for the survival and succesful reproduction of a species get passed on the next generation and so on and so forth. That's why speciation can take so long to occur.

[i]3. When the amount of chromosones actually change from say 54 to 52 and it starts a new species, show me that.[/i]

Chromosomes don't determine a species or evolution. Evolution is the change in frequency of allele. Chromosomes merely carry DNA, what mattes in speciation and evolution is the actual information in DNA, not the chromosomes that carry the information.

[i]3. Or find a loophole/backdoor to trigger a successfull MUTATION/EVOLUTION.[/i]

Selective breeding.

[i]4. Judging fossils shows you most new species virtually appeared instantly, there was no general progression, its like BOOM magic over 10-50M years there are 10000s of new animals.[/i]

Yes, there are periods in the fossil record where it seems speciation occured rapidly, but there is also plenty of fossils that follow a slow progression to the current species that is alive. The hominid fossils are a good example of this. The hominids have arisen after the last known instance of Punctuated Equalibria and we can clearly see a progression and branching of different hominids along the course of thousands of years.

[i]5. Does an animals environment during its young years determin how it changes? or during gestation?[/i]

You mean how it changes genetically in a way that could lead to mutation?? I don't think your question is coherent.

[i]6. Was it really only the earths magnetic field changing and causing 10x more cosmic rays to hit earth that really spawned bizare creatures, ie u nlocked new 'options' that already existed in the DNA? or did it actually MAKE new DNA? or is it the RNA which really decides which parts of the DNA to change or use?[/i]

I have no idea what you are referring too. Radiation can cause mutation in cell reproduction and can cause mutation, but that's not necessarily how genetic mutations that lead to emergent traits come about. But I can't say for sure. I've never heard read or heardd anything about this in any of my science education.

--
"the devil finds work for idle circuits"

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by jamesmrankinjr · 2004-11-01 17:38 · Score: 1

God may think you're the bees knees, but he gave the good eyes to the celaphopods...

He also made the cheetah faster, the elephant stronger, the beagle with a better sense of smell, the dolphin a better swimmer, the sparrow a better flier, the lily of the field better dressed...

Your point is?

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-01 17:40 · Score: 1

>I'm sorry I've gone over this many times and your writing is very unclear.

But of course it is! What else can I do? You, like most people, just lack the background. How do you see yourself explaining the Linux kernel internals to a Mac Luser?

Read modern biology, then you'll see that my comments, albeit terse and hurried, make perfect sense.

> only that organisms *must* evolve for life to exist.

Utterly WRONG. I never claimed or wrote such a thing. What I wrote is that organism, if they reproduce, *will* evolve, and that this evolution is neither caused nor explained nor need to be explained by NS.

> I am looking for a *how* things evolve. Why do things evolve the way they do?

Oh my!!! Do you think I, or anyone, can answer that question??? First, the answer mus be MU. The question, as stated, is based on wrong premises, that is that all evolution can be described together. Only at a *very* general level is this true. That's the whole point, since evolution is part of life, differents kind of organisms will evoluve each in different ways! After some 3,600,000,000,000 years, the lineages have divergeg so much that the detail of how eacha evolve are really different. Bacteria evolve in a very different fashion than acacias, and either from humans.

> Why are some changes made versus others?

Oh my...

> Natural selection happens to answer these questions very nicely, if you're going to offer an alternative theory, then you must also answer these very same questions.

NS answers *nothing*, it just declares ignorance an answer.

> Why is it non-parsimonious?

Because evolution can be explained *whithout* it.

> Those who are more fit are more likely to survive. How can it get any simpler? For example, sparrows that are faster are less likely to be hunted down successfully by hawks. Is that statement wrong?

It's not even wrong, it's not a statement. It's a petition of princible, a non-formal fallacy. If I were to write done the hidden assumptions that it's based on, it would be a very long book.

Why is Darwinian 'research' still conducted? Why is people still using Micro$oft? Same question, same answer. Novel ideas in science are suppressed for a rough avge. of 30 years. Don't trust me, go check. Theories are kept decades after they should have been discarded.

> Many fields use natural selection as the backbone of their research.

Fallacy ad populum. Many shops use M$. Try harder :)

> Can you also substantiate the claim that it cannot be tested?

Yes, of course. But have no time, and it's long and to understand you'd need a lot more background in modern biology. You can easily do it yourself: try and design an experiment that *unambiguously* test for it. Not evolution, but NS. Not corroboration, falsation. Prediction: you'll fail. Why? Because a falsation test needs a falsifiable prediction, and NS, being a myth, predicts nothing. Oh, you can corroborate, but never falsify the 'predictions' of NS. There is no possible experiment, even a thought exp, that can lead to the falsation of NS if the prediction of the theory turns false.

Another reason why Darwinian 'research' is still going on. You can always ask for more money even when you get results opposite to NS predictions, since those results NEVER FALSIFY. If you do corroborate NS, success! if you fail, you ask more money to waste and try again--and you'll likely get it. There is no possible accounting.

>I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?

No. But you can disprove it. It's called a test. BTW: I was put to the test tens and hundreds of times by Darwinians, many of them my profs in courses I was taken, in 3 colleges and later. I disagreed with them openly, but I was never failed. Of the few tim

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by luxaeterna7 · 2004-11-01 17:42 · Score: 1

>>When Charles Darwin originally described evolution he mentioned things like flightless birds. Sounds to me like that's less complicated than the flighted birds which they are believed to have descended from.

Actually, I believe that flightless birds are caught in that stage between not having wings and having wings for flight that every bird original came from.

--
"the devil finds work for idle circuits"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 17:42 · Score: 1

I used mathematical proof because that is what he used to argue his point.

It's still erroneous. If I say "There is a nude picture of Britney Spears at the center of the sun" it will not be accepted as fact until a counter-example is found. As the late Carl Sagan quipped "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-01 17:52 · Score: 1

That may be. What I've heard, read and seen is that "the eye of the needle" is an actual architectual structure (a kind of very narrow and low passageway/door) which has (obviously) a high defensive quality (for use at night etc. when main gates are closed). For a camel to get through this kind of doorway is pretty hard... (but not necessarily impossible if it gets on its knees, good luck trying though "D ).

Not taking things literary opens up a lot of options, some might be right, some might be wrong, but the more people who realize there are all these various options the more likely they are to understand that the major themes in almost all religions are the important ones, and most people (except the immature ones who have a need to prove they are absolutely right no matter what, fundamentalists no matter if the call themselves atheist or religious) have no quarrel with those.

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by arminw · 2004-11-01 17:54 · Score: 1

...that's what DNA is - information...

You are not quite correct there. DNA is the CARRIER of information in the same sense that a floppy disk is the carrier of digital information. The disk is a carrier of binary information and the DNA carries a four level code. The information itself is distinct from the carrier and as such is not subject to some of the laws of physics. Information can be transmitted by a truck or a radio wave. If you accurately weigh a floppy, it will weigh exactly the same, whether it is erased or loaded with information, because information has no mass. Information itself cannot be corrupted or lost, only the carrier thereof can lose or garble it.

The question for evolutionists: Where did the incredible amounts of information come from that is stored in code on the DNA of humans and other living creatures.

Creationists belive this information came from a MIND commonly called GOD.

--
All theory is gray

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 17:56 · Score: 1

Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false.

I think you're confusing a small bit of Karl Popper's work with all of reality in this statement. First off, falsification/falsifiability only applies to inductive reasoning and scientific experimentation not to things like logic and deductive reasoning. Secondly, since Popper's time it has become obvious that given an infinite set of possible theories it is generally possible to coerce or "loop-hole" a theory into matching the facts without actually throwing out the theory. So, ultimately, falsificationism appears destined to lie on the floor next to verificationism as an objective/absolute criteria for judging scientific theories. (Though the jury may be somewhat out yet)

Guess we're still stuck with all those good old fashioned subjective elements like historical buy-in, complexity, consistency with other theories and lest we all forget: naturalism.

The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-01 17:56 · Score: 1

To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...

The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.

Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:

Cosmic- Big Bang
Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He
Stellar- stars form
Organic- primordial soup
Macro- ape changes to man
Micro- slight variations within a kind

Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.

Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.

What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.

As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - Check out their Technical Journal (TJ)

Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JohnFluxx · 2004-11-03 10:51 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexit y
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-04 14:57 · Score: 1

Since when did evolution get in the business of simplifying (irreducible complexity's opposing argument). Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident. (Take splatter paintings vs the Mona Lisa for example.)

Einstein himself said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

So, even irreducible complexity's opposing argument still implies design.

BTW: if evolution is true, that means your thoughts are just the consummation of a chain of interconnected random events, resulting in the chance collision of chemicals in your brain forming what you now call a "logical thought process." If that is true, how do you define logic? Do your thoughts really matter?
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by DerWulf · 2004-11-05 06:00 · Score: 1

So, you would say that dogs are the same species as wolves?

--

___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JohnFluxx · 2004-11-06 04:40 · Score: 1

"Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident."

Of course simplifying doesn't take intelligence. For one, the simplified version could require less energy, or take less space, or any thing else that gives an advantage.
And simplifying can happen by some complex bit simply being dropped. Simplifying isn't debated even by evolutionists as it has been seen to happen.
Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex.
I would guess that simplifying is much easier. :)

Just because my thoughts arrive from randomness, doesn't mean that my thoughts are random. This is clearly false. Snowflakes have clear structure but arrive from randomness. Hurricans have structure and arrive from randomness.

Logic is formally defined. I doubt there is anyone that is even half respected that argues against logic.

As for whether my thoughts matter.. is that relevant?
It's seems that almost all religious debates come down to one thing. Religious people doing proof-by-wishing. It's always "My life would be pointless without X, therefore X is true".
That's why religion and science will never be compatible.
Imagine scientists complaining that relativity and quantum theory are too hard, so we are going to stick to newtonian physics 'because it's easier'.
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-06 15:25 · Score: 1

No, I don't believe that I would use the word 'species' - that term has too vague a meaning, even among scientists. I do believe dogs are of the same 'kind' as wolves, however: meaning that they shared a common ancestor - probably something like a wolf.

The above is simply an example of microevolution, variation within a kind - a far cry from the ape-to-man theory that is being promulgated out there. Microevolution is scientific. Macroevolution has not been observed, tested, or proven to be true (nor can it be: as Sir Arthur Keith said in the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.")(See previous post for micro/macro defs). The change from an ape into a human being would require an increase in genetic information, whereas the change from a wolf into a dog, would only require a decrease in information: a Mendellian distribution of already existing attributes resulting in a species (or kind) with less DNA for the parents to distribute to their children, and therefore rendering this example useless as a "proof" for ape-to-man evolution.
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-06 17:47 · Score: 1

"Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident."

Of course simplifying doesn't take intelligence. For one, the simplified version could require less energy, or take less space, or any thing else that gives an advantage.
My fault - let me append my statement. Simplifying while retaining the original function takes intelligence. Merely simplifying takes no intelligence at all. I could take a hatchet right now and "simplify" my monitor: however, the end result would be neither beneficial nor functional. I could, however, through much forethought and planning, given enough time, convert my CRT monitor to an LCD display. This unfortunately requires intelligence that I don't have (but intelligence nonetheless). Function-retentive simplification just doesn't happen without intelligence - and I would contest to see an example to the contrary.

Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the entire underpinnings of evolution relied heavily upon the very notion of randomly-achieved complexity. The Big Bang constitutes the theory of everything (complex) out of nothing (simple). Chemical evolution then has all chemicals (complex) forming from Helium and Hydrogen (simple, comparatively). Stellar evolution forms stars (c) from the basic elements (s). Current theory presents the planets (c) forming from dust (s). Next ensues primordial soup (s) turning into "simple" cells (c). Then amoeba (s) to ape (c), and from ape (s) to man (c). Catch my drift?

Just because my thoughts arrive from randomness, doesn't mean that my thoughts are random. This is clearly false. Snowflakes have clear structure but arrive from randomness. Hurricans have structure and arrive from randomness.

Logic is formally defined. I doubt there is anyone that is even half respected that argues against logic.
This is more of a philosophical question. Here is what I'm getting at: what is logic? How do you define truth, personally? If you define truth as what lines up with reality, or what is "real," then how do you define that: what is real? This is where most Creationists and Evolutionists differ. Evolutionists will reply that what is real is all that can be experienced materially, whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense).

Here is my point: when seeking the answer to the origin of man, if one rules out a possible solution (the supernatural), even before the initial hypothesis is made, a truly scientific investigation cannot ensue. Only when all possibilities are considered and all evidence is brought to the table can one say that they truly sought out the answer without bias, wherever the facts may lead. And I believe when a full analysis is undertaken, creation as outlined in the Bible comes out the winner without contest (and I believe there is a lot more science in the Bible than most people give it credit for, anyway).

It's seems that almost all religious debates come down to one thing. Religious people doing proof-by-wishing. It's always "My life would be pointless without X, therefore X is true". That's why religion and science will never be compatible.
Well, my life would be pointless without Jesus, but my point here is not to escape the imposing philosophical specter of nihilism - it's to seek the truth, wherever it may lead. And I agree, the above logic you presented does not follow suit. However, the facts come down to this: I believe that religion and science are more than compatible - they're inseparable!

As far as religion goes, why should I believe in something if it can't be proven true? And as far as science goes... well... science wouldn't be here if it weren't for religion! Pagan pop-culture of the Middle Ages said that time went in
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by DerWulf · 2004-11-07 00:17 · Score: 1

how can you make that difference? I mean, I am all for viewing humans as the pinnacle of life, but your view is extremly human centric. Why is it that the development from beastly, bloodthirsty wolve to a cute, little, naket chiwauwa is 'microevolution' while loosing hair and getting a bigger brain (ape -> man) is macroevolution. I am no genetics expert but I do strongly suspect that we have more in common with chimps, anatomicly and socially, than little 'rat'-dogs with wolves.

--

___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JohnFluxx · 2004-11-07 04:42 · Score: 1

"Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex."

Yeah I meant creationists. :)

"whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense)."
So, what is supernatural then? Can you give an example of something supernatural that you think might one day be proven by science?

"if one rules out a possible solution (the supernatural), even before the initial hypothesis is made, a truly scientific investigation cannot ensue."
Ruling out the the supernatural has been the way mankind has gone forward in the last thousand years. "Why is there lightning? Oh it's supernatural - God is angry." Imagine leaving it there.

I see evolutionists coming up with a better understand on humans and animals, leading to medicines and so on. What advancements have the supernaturalists made? It's not useful to consider the supernatural side - nothing has come of it for the last several thousand years.

Books like the bible can be shown to show and predict anything - after the fact. But are useless are saying anything in advance.
Look at Nostradamus's work.

For example:
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,".
That could just as easily mean the earth is flat, but round.

Also, belief in God. Fair enough - world around us, humans, stuff like that. You can make a reasonable case.

But belief in Christ? Where does that come from? Because one book said so? There's tons of other holy books with different holy people in. Why is the bible right and the others wrong?
The only answer is "because I feel it's right", but other people feel _their_ religion is right, so you have to rely on something else.
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-07 12:08 · Score: 1

how can you make that difference?
The reason I make that difference is because it is pivotal. We have always seen microevolution (variation within a kind), but we have never, ever witnessed macroevolution. Dogs have always produced dogs, cats have always produced cats, fish have always produced fish, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Regarding your cute little naket Chihuahua, to the best of my knowledge, no scientist even disputes the fact that dogs came from wolves. ;) http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/ 01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html

As the above site states, "At the molecular level not much changed at all: The DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical." However, the case with humans and apes is very different. The human genome contains 3 billion DNA base pairs, while the genome of monkeys is shorter. Even if it were the same length, though, the oft-cited 1% difference between human and ape DNA would translate out to 30 million base pair differences, or the equivalent to ten 500 page books worth of coded DNA information's difference! Hardly something to sneeze at - yet all of this was supposed to evolve randomly? Just look at the devastating effects of sickle-cell anemia if you wish to contemplate the consequences of randomly changing DNA base pairs: instead of glutamate, one amino acid has been changed to valine, resulting in malformed red blood cells that cause improper clotting and other disruptions to the healthy operation of the human body.
...I do strongly suspect that we have more in common with chimps, anatomicly and socially, than little 'rat'-dogs with wolves.
Actually, a couple different interesting things you may not know. Neglecting size for each category, dogs and wolves have more in common with each other than do apes and humans on both counts you mentioned.

Anatomically, dogs and wolves are exactly alike, except for a few aesthetic details (ie snout length, hair length and color, leg length, etc), whereas between humans and apes: for one thing we can touch our thumb to the rest of our fingers... apes cannot. Apes have a tail; we do not (it's only called a tailbone because that's what the scientists decided to call it). Ground-borne apes are knuckle-walkers while we walk with our toes outright (not a learned trait). (Among other things that aren't merely aesthetic in nature.)

Socially, dogs and wolves communicate basically the same way. Howling, barking, sniffing, yowling, yelping, and any other dog verb we want to mention. In the human and ape case, while we can teach apes to communicate through sign language, we cannot have true mental communion with them, in that it has been documented that apes never ask questions. They simply don't seem to be able to understand the concept. Because of this lack, ape communication will never be able to reach the level which we as human beings posses. Think about it: just by creating differently shaped lines, or by creating a series of complex gutteral noises I can causing complex precise new ideas to form in your head - an ability no other animal on this planet has yet shown an aptitude for. It is because of this and many other such differences (and the embarrassing lack of proof for evolution) that I believe, yes, we were created.
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-07 15:56 · Score: 1

"whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense)."

So, what is supernatural then? Can you give an example of something supernatural that you think might one day be proven by science?
Was hoping you'd ask. :) Actually, what I was referring to here was the First Law of Thermodynamics. It says that no matter (or energy) can be created or destroyed in any natural process, but can only be converted into another form. How do we apply this to origins? The way I see it, according to this law, everything can't be created from nothing naturally, therefore I conclude that it was something unnatural, or supernatural, if you will, which created everything. Nothing else seems to line up with this law.

As for something supernatural that can be proven by science, it is actually recorded in history that a 12th century Hebrew sage by the name of Nachmonides, after an intense study of Genesis chapter 1, concluded that we all live in ten dimensions - the same conclusion our particle physicists are making today.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19980701- 62.html
Nachmonides categorized the first four dimensions as "knowable," meaning that we could experience/detect them, and he listed the last six as "not knowable" - meaning they were beyond the realm of our experience. Some have suggested that these six other dimensions are what we commonly refer to as the 'supernatural.' Now, whether or not that is true cannot be conclusively said, but I do believe that it is an interesting proposition.

Ruling out the the supernatural has been the way mankind has gone forward in the last thousand years. "Why is there lightning? Oh it's supernatural - God is angry." Imagine leaving it there.

I see evolutionists coming up with a better understand on humans and animals, leading to medicines and so on. What advancements have the supernaturalists made? It's not useful to consider the supernatural side - nothing has come of it for the last several thousand years.
Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder? Was it evolution that led to the invention of the watch? Did evolution contribute to the design and operation of the steam engine? Howabout the first airplane? The transistor? The microchip? The computer? The spaceship? The satelite? Evolutionary understanding has undergirded none of these inventions. Just because a collection of the people who made same of these items believed in evolution does not therefore mean that the same discovery could not have been made by a Christian. Ingenuity does not limit itself to philosophical understanding. This is a cause and effect fallacy. It would be like saying because the sun happens to rise while the rooster crows, that the rooster causes the sun to rise. This is simply not the case.

Books like the bible can be shown to show and predict anything - after the fact. But are useless are saying anything in advance. Look at Nostradamus's work.
The Bible is different from Nostradamus and any other prophet in that the prophecies in the Bible are not vague digressive monstrosities laden with loopholes galore - they are specific, and every one has been fulfilled to the T. For example, Ezekiel predicted that many nations would come up against Tyre (Eze. 26:3), that Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar would be the first to attack it (Eze. 26:7), the walls and towers of Tyre would be broken down (Eze. 26:4,9), that the stones, timbers, and debris of that great city would be thrown into the sea (Eze. 26:12), that its location would become a bare rock and a place for the drying of fishermens' nets (Eze. 26:4-5, 14), and finally, that the city of Tyre would never be rebuilt (Eze. 26:14). Doesn't soun
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JohnFluxx · 2004-11-07 23:59 · Score: 1

This is certainly an interesting conversation :)

"Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder?"

I meant more to generalise to science vs supernatural, than evolution vs. genesis specifically.

Looking at the website you linked to:
"The problem, according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The instantaneous communication implied by the view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier"

I realise this is talking about the past, but the problem isn't with special relativity - it's with general relativity, which is with acceleration, not speed. I hate to be pedantic, but I'm somewhat QM physicist. QM doesn't transmit any information _that we can classically retrieve faster than the speed of light_.

"The broader philosophical implications were, ironically, ignored and swept under the carpet."
Also this is so very very wrong. Bohr and Einstein debated this for 20 years. The philosophical side of QM has been beaten out time and time again. Einstein threw many thought experiments at Bohr - from what if the observer is in a QM state, and what if the universe is in a QM state, and so on.

Then again, my idea of what is philosophical may differ from a religious view (no offence meant).

"Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions."
I do not know that this has been concluded. String theory allows for several different number of dimensions - I don't think 10 has been concluded above any others. That's one problem with sites like this one - you can't trust the information :( I realise, however, that things have to be simplified for the non-scientific.

Also this whole "the other 6 are spiritual"? Come on. The other dimensions are rolled up very tightly, and are used to explain electric fields and so on. It's not some dimension that carries ghosts or something like out of x-files. And what does if mean to be supernatural anyway? It just doesn't make sense.

"Contradiction proponents usually just cherrypick passages and yell bloody murder, for the most part."
Well there's not much to 'pick' on. If it turns out that there are 11 dimensions, would you denounce the bible, or say that the 10-dimension-dude read Genesis wrong?

And what about the whole young earth thing? If you add up the ages of people, it just doesn't add up right. It makes the earth very young. Very very young. According to the bible, the earth wasn't even around when we think there were dinosaurs.
That seems like a pretty huge contradiction.
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-09 18:32 · Score: 1

This is certainly an interesting conversation :)
Quite enjoying it myself. :p

I meant more to generalise to science vs supernatural, than evolution vs. genesis specifically.
So what has the supernatural done to help in the advancement of natural science? Not much in the realm of broader scientific communal acceptance (that's for sure) - but it has helped shape the Intelligent Design worldview, and aided in providing solutions for evolutionary arguments contrary to it. It may be of interest, I'm currently subscribed to a magazine entitled "TJ" - formerly "Technical Journal" - from Answers in Genesis. It's basically one of the few places in the world that creation scientists can have their articles submitted and published without ridicule. A lot of interesting research being done out there - just need to know where to look!

"The broader philosophical implications were, ironically, ignored and swept under the carpet."
Perhaps Chuck was referring to the initial proposal? Or the general public? IDK - I haven't really read a whole lot on Quantum Physics, so you've got the edge on me in that respect. ;) From what I've read, though, it really is intriguing...

"Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions."

I do not know that this has been concluded.
I seem to remember (more vividly) a Popular Science article to that effect, among other publications. (A "10 Dimensions" search in Google seems to bring up quite a few results...) Although I suppose there is quite a bridge between proposed and concluded...

Also this whole "the other 6 are spiritual"? Come on... what does if mean to be supernatural anyway?
Well, just what does it mean to be supernatural? That is the question, now isn't it? From my understanding of the Bible, there are three 'heavens.' The first is from the earth to the atmosphere, the second is from the atmosphere to the ends of the universe, and the third is all around us - commonly referred to as the supernatural realm. The third sounds closer to another dimension that anything else. Who's to say the other dimensions don't contain angels and demons (though now I may sound crazy)?

Proposal: if we were only two dimensional, what would we make of a three-dimensional being? For example, would a third dimension be referred to as "curled?" As to that three-dimensional being, we could only see him/her one two-dimensional slice at a time - or several - or none at all (think geometrically)! Quite mind-boggling for a flat-ling, IMO. The parallels seem numerous. More dimensions might solve some physical problems like electric fields, but might they also explain the metaphysical? And, of course, this is all just speculation - it's certainly not proven, but as I said, I at least find it an interesting proposition.

If it turns out that there are 11 dimensions, would you denounce the bible, or say that the 10-dimension-dude read Genesis wrong?
Well, you see, I never did like those "if" questions about faith. Not all "if" questions, mind you: just those like "what would you do if the Bible turned out to be false?" You see, the way I view religious faith, is it shouldn't just be some sort of wishy-washy made up beliefs or wishful thinking (just as you called it). It should be more concrete than that: I believe there is an absolute truth we should always be lining up our faith to, just as there is an absolute truth we are continually lining up our science to. Sure, my faith journey started out on faith, but after a while I started testing out principals, assertations, and ideas in the Bible by observing the world, asking questions, and seeing whether or not the Bible was true. Like, among other things, part of Proverbs 30:33 - "the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood:" -
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JohnFluxx · 2004-11-10 07:46 · Score: 1

>Proposal: if we were only two dimensional, what would we make of a three-dimensional being? For example, would a third dimension be referred to as "curled?"

Not really, because the third dimension isn't curled :) In the same way the fourth dimension isn't curled just because we can't move both ways through time, or even traverse time in any other way but forward.

I want to wait for your reply to the dinosaurs question :0

Btw, I think we won't be able to post for much longer.

i'm johnflux AT gmail d com
Re:The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-13 17:18 · Score: 1

Have you received my email? Just haven't heard from you, and wondered if it got through... :) Your email is johnflux with just one x - unlike your handle with two???

My email is my handle (no caps) @wi.rr.com.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 18:03 · Score: 1

Well thanks for tottering my humble observation on the edge of a slippery slope. Of course humans make mistakes.

Yeah, this is somewhere close to where I break down with a lot of secular philosophies, for example, Ayn Rand.
Accepting the null hypothesis that God exists blows up at the intellectual level, kinda like accepting any other null hypothesis.
Even buying off at some spiritual level, call it 'faith', ends up being a slippery, fanatical slope all too often.
My recommendation is, read Eccelsiastes, then John, and pray deeply.
Best,
Chris

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 18:05 · Score: 1

The problem is actually much MUCH harder than you make it out.

Hypothetically, you could 'track' down every single organisms history/growth over 1M years.

How would you do this? Can you get DNA for every distinct species that has existed over the last 1M years? Even if we could find fossils of each of them (which is statistically laughable), how likely is it to get gap-free DNA sequences from them?

Its just data, animals only multiply at max/min speeds, so its like simulating a trillion balls bouncing, its possible.

It is very hard to obtain data. And we don't understand much of what we do see. These problems are very complex and finding ways to deal with them using computers is what the (probably poor named) field of bioinformatics is all about. I attended the IEEE Computational Systems - Bioinformatics conference this year and it seems like every other or every third presentation was a new way to find gapped alignments in DNA and protein in a more efficient way than the next guy.

But it is more like simulating far more than 1 trillion balls FOR EACH SPECIES. One 1 year = 1 micron of movement for each ball and at each step the ball could break off into 1 trillion more pieces. It is theoretically doable, but practically impossible. The sun would burn out before all the computers in the world would have finished the first hours worth of computation. Leaving us 999,999.99999 years short of the solution.

If not all genes are used and a lot are infact idle, then why do some organisms need more genes? when they could use the spares?

That's a VERY good question, there are many theories, but we are still searching for answers. Some suppose that the "extra" stuff are mutations the came and went and are no longer needed. Some believe that the extra stuff is a mutation that gives us resistance to some viruses. Nobody knows for sure.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 18:11 · Score: 1

Actually, I believe that flightless birds are caught in that stage between not having wings and having wings for flight that every bird original came from.

It is also possible that the flightless birds on the Galapagos islands were fully winged flighted birds some time ago, but their wings provided no survivability benefit in this unusual isolated eco system, and so the birds spent most of their time walking around on the ground. In this case maintaining wings becomes a liability and those in the next generation with smaller wings would give up less energy maintaining those wings and therefore have an increased probability of increased numbers of offspring.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 18:18 · Score: 1

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.
No. That is not the scientifically accepted definition, nor the one those defending evolution subscribe.

Come on. You do at least know you're dismissing the information theory/thermodynamics arguments out of hand don't you? Usually this is explained away by saying we have the sun as a giant energy source, but it *is* at least explained in some way. (Well, at least when talking about the "whole enchilada" of origins)

I certainly hope you don't think Darwin had it all figured out when he wrote his famous book. Saying that book describes origins is like saying "shit happened" describes my day. (I mean "slow change" doesn't come close to matching the fossil record, and we're just barely beginning to learn what goes on in the cells to make it all happen.)

The Grass is Greener: The Other Side by JesusTrance · 2004-11-01 18:25 · Score: 2, Informative

To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...

The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.

Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:

Cosmic- Big Bang
Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He
Stellar- stars form
Organic- primordial soup
Macro- ape changes to man
Micro- slight variations within a kind

Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.

Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.

What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.

As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - Check out their Technical Journal (TJ)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 18:30 · Score: 1

Random mutation, natural selection. And what's the a major source of randomness in this universe we call home? Quantum interaction that cannot be predicted accurately only statistically modelled.

How many Q-bits does God have to flip to be doing something?

Sure, that's a "God of the gaps" mentality, but if you think (or assume/believe/whatever) the gaps are going to entirely disappear someday, then that generally winds up becoming "Scientism of the gaps" which is no better.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by pizzaman100 · 2004-11-01 18:38 · Score: 1

The word "the" is orderly. The word "the" is not complex.

In relation to the word "the", a page of randomly generated characters is complex. A page of randomly generated characters is not orderly.

The complete works of Shakespeare are both orderly and complex.

All three of the above are information.

A monkey on a typewriter could type a page of random characters. It is impossible for a monkey to type a page from Shakespeare.

"To be or not to be, that is the question."

"To be or jot to ba, thet is the qestio-n."

A line of Shakespeare with "mutations". Both lines contain equal amount of information. Both are readable. The first line is more orderly than the second.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 18:43 · Score: 1

Come on. You do at least know you're dismissing the information theory/thermodynamics arguments out of hand don't you?

No, I am dismissing an attempt to redefine evolution into something clearly distinct from what it really is out of hand. This is a fairly common strategy on both sides: Attempt to get the other side to agree to some skewed definitions in order to guide the argument to something easier to attack. But in either case, it's a logical fallacy.

I certainly hope you don't think Darwin had it all figured out when he wrote his famous book.

I think Darwin had some inspirational insight as to why animals were slightly different in isolated ecosystems. I don't think the insight was especially profound. I think any researcher with a similar background visiting the same places would come to the same theory. The only thing that makes Darwin special is he wrote about it first. He certainly didn't have it all figured because we still don't have it all figured out (something the pro-creation argument is fond pointing out).

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:Gay Christian - Religion Questions in Job Inter by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 18:48 · Score: 1

For *any* scientific job, I should very well be allowed to ask an applicant at the very least if they're a creationist, since it speaks so deeply to their qualifications for the position.

Wait. So in your ideal world, this gay Christian bloke is going to be living a painful lie *and* out of work for his beliefs. Nice.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by pizzaman100 · 2004-11-01 18:49 · Score: 1

good distinction.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Bush+Pig · 2004-11-01 18:49 · Score: 1

The main reason that condoms are only 98% (or whatever) effective is because sometimes they're faulty, or they fall off or tear (I speak from experience ... ), even when correctly used. It's quite likely they're equally effective at preventing transmission of STDs, and fail for the same reasons.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Hooded+One · 2004-11-01 18:56 · Score: 1

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.

Dead wrong. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. (That definition comes almost verbatim from my anthropology textbook. Dictionary.com has a similar definition.) It can also be described as natural selection acting on mutation. Nothing requires that changes be in the direction of complexity or order.

At any rate, we are only beginning to map the genetic aspect of evolution. In time, theories that describe evolution on a genetic level will be more refined.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by pizzaman100 · 2004-11-01 18:58 · Score: 1

No, it isn't. Evolution (the fact) is the observation that species change over time. Evolution (the theory) attempts to explain how it happens. "Complexity" and "order" don't come into it.

A human being is much more complex than a single celled organism. Both are orderly. Evolution (the theory), attempts to explain how the simple (relatively) single celled organism evolved into the complex human organism.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by SerpentMage · 2004-11-01 19:05 · Score: 1

I read some of the other posts and your posts...

So here I will introduce some of my points.

*) As my wife says, "Ok so who created God?" Please answer with a answer other than, "He was there".

*) Why do we have sex? Why did the Big Bang happen? For the same exact reason you break bones, drop a glass, or accidentally run over something with the lawnmower. In simple English terms "Shit happens!" Evolution is an interesting beast in that there "evolution" and "shit happens". Combine the two and we get life, and why we have sex the way we do.

*) Why do we have math? Gee, why do we have anything? There is a theory on why humans are the way they are. Humans unlike other mammals evolved the ability to communicate and ask questions. Think hard of the difference between your dog and you. Mammals can communicate, but not to the degree we can. That is an evolution over apes, whales, etc. But this this communication thing is also our downfall. You see apes will be content to just climb a tree and start munching. Humans are "dumb" in that they ask, "So why is there a sun, why is there earth, why are we here", yada, yada, yada! As we cannot answer these questions we have to somehow answer them. Result? We cope out and say, "There was this thing!..."

Don't believe me that we cope out? Ask yourself this. Ever had your kid do twenty questions? Did you answer all of them with thinking? Or did you like everybody else just cope out with answers like "Because it is!"

Oh yeah, why do we wear clothes? Well last I look in the rainforest most indigneous people still don't. Remember many moons ago kids used to get the National Geographic BECAUSE it had nude indigneous people in it. We in colder climates wear clothes because otherwise it gets damm uncomfortable.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-01 19:08 · Score: 1

You are totally misunderstanding both his and my post, please read the wikipedia link.

And btw it's not really his point, it is the foundation of science. There is nothing extraordinary in his claim.

I think the honourable Carl Sagan would agree fully with this choice quote from the link:
"Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth."
By definition one can't call oneself a scientist if one doesn't realize this and the reasons why.

As for your Britney example is it testable? Testing is a major criteria for being able to call something scientific. If we accept that the temperature of the sun is pretty high and that a sufficient test would be to see if a picture (basically paper) can withstand such a temperature (or lower) then testing is pretty easy - the photo would burn and the postulated hypothesis is falsified = science. However it does not absolutely prove the opposite postulated hypothesis that a photo in the center of the sun would always burn! It only gives evidence that it would be extremeley likely to burn unless we discover otherwise for some reason. Do you see the difference? If not read the link again recursively or seek help from any neighbouring professor of philosophy of science or epistemology.

Another quote from another link:
"Note that if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

An example (probably a very common one) from an introductionary university course in philosphy of science is the one about the sun rising every morning. Can we from past observations (the sun has risen each morning in our lives) scientifically prove that the sun will always rise every morning? The answer is NO. We can only scientifically state that the likelihood of the sun rising every morning is extremely high.

Sure, it is so extremely likely that we treat it as a fact with good reason, but please realize that this small last step from treating it as extremely likely to treating it as a fact is not science. In fact the current scientific theories are pretty adamant that the sun will not rise every morning (because the sun will die at some point in time). You might call this splitting hairs, but such splitting of hairs is exactly why science is successful, and understanding the rules of science itself is critical.

The simplest (and least giving) way of saying all this is that science does not absolutely prove positives, it only absolutely proves falsification.

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 19:09 · Score: 1

Catholics and some Protestants believe in free choice of the will, but reformed protestants don't.

What's a "reformed Protestant" exactly? I mean, in a sense Protestants are reformed Catholics, was there another major reformation I don't know about? (I don't recall predestination being a key player in Martin Luther's writings)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by ebyrob · 2004-11-01 19:14 · Score: 1

Am I missing something?

Ya, the part where God said, "Do anything else you want, but don't eat that fruit."

It's a good thing the apples weren't laden with strictnine or we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Joke!)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by mefus · 2004-11-01 19:21 · Score: 1

I'm trying to get some meaning out of this relevant to what I said or what the conversation is about. I'm trying hard not to think they are nothing more than vague, flippant sound-bytes designed to fit well in the ear.

Maybe you can help me.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by smittyoneeach · 2004-11-01 19:52 · Score: 1

I dunno. Maybe if I got some more sleep I could be coherent. Regret inconvenience.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Density by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 19:59 · Score: 1

Sea creatures at the bottom (bottom-dwellers like the trilobite and horseshoe crab at the bottom-bottom subsumed only by worms and the like), lightest (mammals etc) at the top. Po: reptiles came before mammals because they're denser not older.

Size also works, to some degree. Certainly within individual "boneyards" where the deposition wasn't sufficiently violent to totally scramble everything.

Boneyards don't form today, because there are no catastrophes big enough to round up, kill, inter and cover so many animals at once. That makes observation hard.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-01 20:04 · Score: 1

You really haven't convinced me at any point, and its not because I lack the background knowledge as you so choose to presume (you seriously don't know anything about me BTW). I do believe that there is a major language barrier here to surmount, but at the same time you haven't really answered many of my questions, at least not to any reasonable satisfaction. After this, I will most likely stop replying because its not worth the effort.

> You, like most people, just lack the background.
Presumption

> Read modern biology, then you'll see that my comments, albeit terse and hurried, make perfect sense.
Presumption

> What I wrote is that organism, if they reproduce, *will* evolve
Why, how?

>>Why do things evolve the way they do?
>Oh my!!!...The question, as stated, is based on wrong premises, that is that all evolution can be described together
So you are saying that there is absolutely no underlying principle for how things evolve? In natural selection, survival is the underlying theme that links all organisms together. Are you saying that there isn't such an underlying theme in all organisms on this planet?

Are you then saying that there is no real order to evolution?

>NS answers *nothing*, it just declares ignorance an answer.
It gives reasonable explanations to what I have pointed out. Alternative theories must do so as well.

>> Why is it non-parsimonious?
>Because evolution can be explained *whithout* it.
Then please do so! Explain how evolution operates without natural selection, which is what I've been asking for this whole time.

>Fallacy ad populum. Many shops use M$. Try harder :)
If an idea is in use by many fields, generally its accepted as valid. I don't think you can reasonably compare science to Microsoft. And you haven't proven my point wrong, you've only thrown in a Latin phrase and jumped directly to the conclusion that I must therefore be wrong.

>Because a falsation test needs a falsifiable prediction, and NS, being a myth, predicts nothing.
You completely ignored my point that something untestible does not immediately make it false.

>>I'm going to make the hypothesis that you are an intelligent person capable of forming your own opinions. But I can't disprove this, does that immediately make it false?
>No.
You have thereby admitted that even if something cannot be disproved, that something isn't immediately false.

>Another reason why Darwinian 'research' is still going on. You can always ask for more money even when you get results opposite to NS predictions, since those results NEVER FALSIFY.
I thought you said natural selection was disproved in the mid-20th century?

>Gustavian Conceptual Chainsaw
Uh-huh, ok, further demonstrating that language is inadequate for the world of ideas. Doesn't prove the ideas wrong.

>without being able to give a definition of life
Hm, I'm interested to know what yours is then. You criticize institutions for not being able to give a good definition, but can anyone? Can you?

>evolution (biological) is a property of life, just as metabolism
I think this is the first substantial thing you've said! You still need to explain why it is a property of life though, and how it operates. Saying "it operates because its a property of life" leaves out a lot of information.

>forget advantages (a p.o.p.), focus on evolution; biological evolution is not about advantages, evolution is about LIFE.
My goodness, do you seriously hope to explain evolution with a four letter word? I've been asking you to elucidate this entire time and you've simply been repeating the same thing over and over.

Its like asking how a car works and telling a person that it uses miniature explosions, and then refusing to say more. Talk about lack of explanation.

What do you mean by "LIFE"? Define, how does it cause evolution?

Why do you hew to a "belief"? by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 20:07 · Score: 1

It doesn't require faith to posit that God or $DEITY exists for the purposes of scientific modelling.

The only fly in the ointment is that if $DEITY is to be of much use as a source of authority, $DEITY is not going to perform on demand. Countering this in some degree, unless $DEITY is as random and capricious as, say, Jupiter, Vesta or Mithra, then $DIETY ain't gunner feel offended if we do experiments on the nature of $DIETY's reality.

If you scientifically model a $DEITY-containing world carelessly, your results will be as useless as any other carelessly assembled scientific model. I suspect that this may have killed a good-many half-hearted experiments on supernature.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Why do you hew to a "belief"? by boots@work · 2004-11-02 00:28 · Score: 1

Posit an interventionist, omnipotent god. Any scientific law needs to be qualified with "insh' allah" -- we can say E=mc^2 now, but maybe it'll change tomorrow. Maybe the reason for the apparent wave/particle duality is that God changed the rules in different labs. Maybe cold fusion ought to work, but God was mad with the experimenters, so he fiddled it.

It's certainly not impossible to do science under those conditions, though it would be pretty damn frustrating. You could never really conclude anything with any certainty. It also encourages a certain laziness, seen in creationist writing, of relying on scripture when you don't have evidence.

But as raodin asked: why not just neatly slice off the god with Occam's Razor? Everything else works just fine: we can explain just as much as with him, probably more, and it's certainly easier to do work.

And let's remember that mainstream science really has discovered an enormous amount about the universe, whereas creationism has basically produced nothing useful either intellectually or materially. Show me a single pharmaceutical produced by creationist biochemistry.

Re:Creationists performing a service for evo theor by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 20:11 · Score: 1

This may very well be the only truly Insightful comment in this discussion. I applaud you for your Insight!

Well spoken.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

A snowflake is not structure from randomness by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 20:13 · Score: 1

A snowflake is an expression of quite intricate pre-existent structure.

if you have billions of grains of sand and raindrops and millions of waves and lighting bolts and billions of years, the odds of something extremely simple happening once are not that low

There's considerable difference in complexity between an accidental 2-input NAND gate and an accidental computer, even a seriously dumb one like ENIAC or a transistor-era semi-programmable calculator.

So also in the real universe. We fall a very, very long way short of having enough time, atoms and interaction in the entire universe to accidentally produce even something as "simple" as a virus, fairy tales from Dawkins notwithstanding.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:A snowflake is not structure from randomness by hunterx11 · 2004-11-02 08:24 · Score: 1

I don't think Miller-Urey was a fairy tale, and they made amino acids in a week. This is very far short of something as complex as a virus, but it's not nearly as far of a stretch from amino acids to a prion.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:A snowflake is not structure from randomness by JohnFluxx · 2004-11-03 10:42 · Score: 1

I don't think "Dawkins" ever said something as complicated as a virus sprung out of nowhere.

WP puts viruses as appearing in the first _2 billion_ years of evolution.

Wikipedia further has this to say: "Life appears, probably first as self-reproducing RNA molecules."
And goes on to give the current thoughts on how life started:

"1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

2. Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane.

3. Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce "ribozymes", which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions."

This is a long way from your strawman argument of a complex virus being spontanously created.

Re:Not a big deal? WTF? by foniksonik · 2004-11-01 20:20 · Score: 1

Just a quick aside... "our entire theory of knowledge" was created by people who believed in a God.

That said I agree that ID is not science, it is philosophy.

That said I think that philosophy should be taught beginning in 5th grade... but not just ID... also include aethesim, nihilsm, communism, freudian thought, plato and other philosophies... maybe even religion as philosophy? Really in the modern world religion is more of a philosophy than anything else right?

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

We're not looking for invisible pink unicorns here by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 20:24 · Score: 1

the world was created from water 6000 years ago, which is on the face of it a ridiculous assertion, given that there are continuous human civilizations older than that

No, there aren't.

Even going back to Egypt, circa 3000 years ago give or take some, the commonly used dating system is based on something called "the Sothic cycle". Nobody is absolutely sure what that means, but lining up common events between Egypt and the nations around it against verifiable astronomic events show that the dating system currently in use based on it is long by a goodly chunk of a thousand years before it even gets as far back as 4000 years ago. Yet the Sothic cycle is still widely used because of adamant support by gradualist researchers.

If you're talking about direct radiometric dating, run the samples through an AMS and try again. Even if you think you can guarantee a lack of inclusions etc.

Merely making one prediction which happens to turn out true does not make you a scientist

Correct. Mr Baumgardner has indeed made many predictions, as have several of his compatriots. He wrote TERRA as part of his day job, apon which much earth science has been based. This is not a dumb bunny we're dealing with here. He lacks a Paul Allen paying to produce animated movies about his work, and neither do said compatriots.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

So study the arbitrary fiddling by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 20:29 · Score: 1

if you assume God can arbitrarily fiddle with anything at point, there is no room left for science at all. You can't make useful predictions or theories if everything depends on the will of an omniscient, unpredictable supernatural being.

Yeah? How many scientists burn incense at the altar of Murphy?

If all else fails, study when and where $DIETY intervenes.

If you're talking about the scriptural God, He laid out rules and generally works to them. In fact, it's astonishing that this universe should have any serious rules at all. Why doesn't the speed of light vary with location? Why do van der Waals forces exist? That kind of scructure by itself is evidence for supernature.

Many scientific studies have been done of God working to rule. Note that I didn't say "of God performing like a trained parrot" since that would not be working to rule. Such a God would be useless.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:So study the arbitrary fiddling by boots@work · 2004-11-01 23:58 · Score: 1

If all else fails, study when and where $DIETY intervenes.

That is superstition, not science. Better cross your fingers when starting an experiment.
Re:So study the arbitrary fiddling by Squiffy · 2004-11-02 06:10 · Score: 1

Yeah? How many scientists burn incense at the altar of Murphy?

You can't be serious.

Murphy's Law is a joke. You know, the kind of thing that people say to make other people laugh? Scientists invoke Murphy when they consciously want to be silly.

It's easy enough to measure... by leonbrooks · 2004-11-01 20:38 · Score: 1

...what happened and compare it to what should have happened.

Paleontology and Geology are, after all, whole branches of science based on non-repeatable events.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:It's easy enough to measure... by bint · 2004-11-01 22:02 · Score: 1

No, not full scale, of course. But my question was, what kind of supernatural events are measurable?
...unless you mean that paleontology and geology are.
Re:It's easy enough to measure... by Ralph+Yarro · 2004-11-02 01:50 · Score: 1

...what happened and compare it to what should have happened.

So how do you decide what should have happened? On the face of it, if what happened isn't what you think should have happened then it looks like your theory was wrong.

Suppose my experiment doesn't work the way I planned. Maybe my theory was wrong or maybe someone tampered with it. Can I just announce that it was an elf that interfered or do I have to actually discover evidence of the elf? If the elf can be shown to exist then what does it mean for it to be "supernatural"?

--

The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-01 20:40 · Score: 1

You are totally misunderstanding both his and my post

I understand his post just fine, he just used a flawed argument. His statement that any system of logic cannot prove something true is wrong. And I showed it was wrong by proving true what he said could not be proven true.

As for your Britney example is it testable?

Yes. Go to the center of the sun and you will be able to determine whether or not it is true.

If we accept that the temperature of the sun is pretty high and that a sufficient test would be to see if a picture (basically paper) can withstand such a temperature (or lower) then testing is pretty easy - the photo would burn and the postulated hypothesis is falsified = science.

I don't accept that the temperature is high in the center of the sun. Physics is different there under those high pressure conditions. They push the heat out so that it is quite comfortable. Honest! Go to the center of the sun and find out. Besides, I never said the picture was on ordinary paper.

It only gives evidence that it would be extremeley likely to burn unless we discover otherwise for some reason.

How do you know it would burn in the center of the sun? I say the center is quite comfortable, you've provided no counter-example of a similar star whose center you've visited.

But more to the point. Science requires some evidence before something is accepted. My Britney Spears picture example is far fetched, but not impossible, right? So why will science texts the world over not include my theory in them? Nude pictures of people at the center of the sun is a pretty extraordinary claim, unless I back it with some extraordinary evidence it isn't worth very much. Evidence doesn't prove something true, but it helps us separate the possible from the absurd.

You must have supporting evidence to be taken seriously, not just a theory for which no counter-examples exist.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by IdahoEv · 2004-11-01 21:05 · Score: 1

I'm sorry if I used sloppy terminology. I was using the term evolution to mean ...

I know, and I'm sorry if it seemed I jumped on you. It's just a pet peeve of mine. People get touchy about correct use of the words in their own fields of study.

I thought that microevolution refered to variation within a group of similar species (dog, wolf), and macroevolution to a fish evolving into a frog. Why is the distinction nonexistant? I'm sincerely curious.

Two quick answers: one, variation does not imply evolution ... to evolve, one needs variation plus selection. A measurable change must occur. Once a measurable change has occurred ... how sure are you that the new, changed organisms actually are the same species?

Second, to delineate the difference between evolution within a species and evolution from one species to another, you have to clearly define species, and draw a solid line between what is a species and what isn't. Such a line doesn't exist: biology is a continuum. The words we use to discuss it are largely for our own convenience, and we need to remember that when we get hung up on differences between "macro" and "micro" or "species" and "subspecies".

Anyway, try any definition you like of "species" or "macro" vs. "micro" and I can come up with half a dozen border cases in just a few seconds. We feel, emotionally, like we know what the difference is. But when you get into it scientifically, you discover that you just can't draw lines the way you thought you could:There's always an in-between.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

Re:Face It by DrXym · 2004-11-01 21:10 · Score: 1

As if evolutionary dogma masquerading as good science should go unchallenged.

Which dogma would that be?

Ever ponder the question why is it so important to some people that God not exist and be removed from the schools?

Evolution has no opinion on the existence of god or not. Nor does it have an opinion on magical fairies, unicorns or dancing hippos. Why does it have no opinion? Because magical, unprovable or unobservable notions such as god are not required at any stage to make it work. That's why it's called a theory (as in the stronger scientific sense) and is also a fact (also in the strong scientific sense).

Getting kids to think outside themselves... nah - horrible idea. "You are the product of the survival of the fittest: go forth and beat the weak - for you have no soul, and therefore your actions matter not - as long as you don't get caught."

Excuse me. Are you saying that if you don't believe in a god that you are incapable of moral actions and thought? That if you don't have the threat of hell constantly hanging over you'll go out and beat up a bunch of cripples? I get it now, you're fucking lunatic.

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Decaff · 2004-11-01 21:11 · Score: 1

You don't know what binocular vision means, do you, idiot?

It means using both eyes to judge distance. You see, squid have overlap of the visual fields of their eyes, so can estimate depth.

What do you think it means?

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by IdahoEv · 2004-11-01 21:18 · Score: 1

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.

Complete and utter hogwash. I work in a laboratory whose whole raison d'etre is the study of evolution from a perspective of mathematics, computer science, and information theory. I have never, not even once, heard a definition of evolution that mentioned complexity or "orderliness". Not even a suggestion of such.

The theory of evolution makes no statements about the change in complexity of a genome over time. Given an environment in which complexity was adaptive, a genome may evolve to be more complex. Given an environment in which complexity was maladaptive, a genome may evolve to be less complex. The process of evolution doesn't give a rat's ass about complexity.

It's a common creationist argument that increase in complexity is not possible by stepwise evolution, and therefore complex organisms like humans could not evolve. I've never seen a single sound logical step in support of that statement, however. And since I see increasing complexity in evolving genomes on a daily basis (given conditions which reward complexity), I'm inclined to simply blow off that argument.

You are describing natural selection, not evolution.

Um, no, I'm not.

That's what gives us specifically breeded creatures like English Pointers and Scottish Terriors.

Um, that would in fact be artificial selection, directed by humans, i.e. not "natural". However, it is still evolution - which requires variation and selection, but doesn't require that the selection be "natural".

You can have evolution in nature, absent humans, via natural selection, or you can have directed evolution, i.e. breeding, via artificial selection. Both are forms of "change over time" i.e. evolution.

By the way, evolution was known and characterized for quite a while before Darwin. What wasn't known was the mechanism ... how does the change occur over time. Natural selection was Darwin's great insight: it explained evolution, which was already known. (Wallace independently came to the same conclusion, and called it "survival of the fittest", which is why we have the two more-or-less equivalent terms.) So again, you've got it backwards.

I appreciate the effort, but you really have no clue what you're talking about.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by IdahoEv · 2004-11-01 21:25 · Score: 1

Information cannot arise spontaneously and randomly, but requires a higher source of information. ... Computers cannot program themselves, but need a programmer and the programs arise in the programmers MIND.

A fascinating thesis, given that much of my research involves observations of computers that program themselves. Through evolution. Ultra-simple programs with only 15 lines of code evolve without external intervention to solve numerous mathematical tasks requiring hundreds or thousands of lines of code.

I see it happen every day.

Do you know, by the way, any information theory? Can you define the word "information" in a rigorously scientific way? If so, can you actually support the statement that all information requires a "higher source" of information? Or are you just blowing supposition?

Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible.

And who knows, they may even be right. Where they go whacko is in invoking this MIND to explain phenomena that are easily explainable in its absence. i.e. Physical processes, like evolution, for which simple and understood mechanisms are fully sufficient for a complete explanation.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

MOD PARENT UP by Shinglor · 2004-11-01 21:26 · Score: 1

You said it better than I could have. Anyone who's interested in this sort of thing (and it seems are a lot of them) search for books and DVDs by Ken Ham.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-01 21:52 · Score: 1

You say you understand but your reply doesn't give that impression. The whole point is that science do not require supporting evidence in the way it seems you think it does (absolutely proving a positive), it requires that a hypothesis is testable and falsible.

You're embellishing your hypothesis in a way to make it non-testable and thereby non-falsible and this is the reason it is not scientific (it also makes it a good example of an ad hoc hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Ad_hoc_hypothe sis).

You say science "... must have supporting evidence ..." but the point is that in science the only scientific supporting evidence there can be is that a proposed hypothesis isn't falsified during iterations of testing.

Although the distinction probably seems moot to you it is an important one. If you still disagree then don't bother " )

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

no, you're not quite understanding this by cascadingstylesheet · 2004-11-01 22:48 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Yes, that is true of *science*. Historical "science", however, doesn't satisfy those characteristics. Measure the percentage of a radioactive decay child in a sample, sure, that's science. Imagine what the original percentage of the parent radioisotope was, to "prove" how old the sample is, that isn't the same process.

Both evolutionists and (technically inclined) creationists use theories to fit data (the *same* data) to a worldview. For evolutionists, that worldview is the absence of a Creator. This means that extremely improbable events need to have happened (and the very first self-reproducing cell must have been an *event*, not a "process"), so the only way to even make that remotely plausible is very, very long periods of time. But the long periods are required by the worldview, not the data.

The use of science to explain a worldview *is*, to use your terminology in this context, a belief.

And now, a parody of your words:

Except evolutionists are not true scientists, because they come to the table with a hypothesis, the truth of which they are highly invested in proving(1). 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.

(1) That there is no Creator, and only currently observed natural processes operating over immense ages can be allowed to explain the complexity of life and the universe.

shiboleth! by cascadingstylesheet · 2004-11-01 23:15 · Score: 1

Creationists are rubes! You all suck! You say things like "intarweb" ... oops, no, we're the only ones who *really* ever say that. But you're still rubes! Ha ha!

There, can I have my karma now?

You are looking for invisible pink unicorns by boots@work · 2004-11-01 23:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

There is evidence of (forerunners of) Chinese civilisation leading back to about 5,000BC. There are paintings from Aboriginal Australians from between before 5000BC. Of course there is a degree of uncertainty in working at such a distance.

But let's remember, the 6000-year number was originally calculated by making correlations and educated guesses between events in the bible. The "facts" on which the calculations were based include figures living for hundreds of years, etc, etc, which no serious non-Creationist historian could suggest with a straight face. Even before modern scientific discoveries about the age of the earth the 6000-year figure was considered by theologians to be very suspect.

Creationism is very much comparable to looking for invisible pink unicorns. (Intelligent design is to pretend that we're looking for invisible equines of unspecified color, nudge nudge wink wink.) The method:

1. Assume unicorns exist. (cf, assume the world was created in 7 days from water 6000 years ago.)

2. Develop a theory, however contrived, convoluted and implausible, to reconcile existence of IPUs with one scientific fact. You can safely ignore any other facts people might raise, including volcanos, glaciers, prehistoric human remains, etc etc.

3. Profit?!?!?

Given the possibilities of either the universe being billions of years old, or some special magic time-accelerating force-field, Occam's razor slashes away the second.

If you're talking about direct radiometric dating, run the samples through an AMS and try again.

I must have left my AMS at the office, so tell me: what is that supposed to prove? Radiometric dating is a well-established technique, has a good theoretical basis, and produces results consistent with other measures.

not a dumb bunny

Not dumb, exactly; more like deluded.

There is no shortage of intelligent and well-educated cranks. I used to find this sad and confusing, but now I realize that when you consider the many thousands of PhDs in the world there are bound to be some kooks.

Newton and Tesla, amongst others, were pretty much crackpots, but they produced a few gems. Fortunately science has in the long term good mechanisms to filter the wheat from the chaff. Religion, generally relying on arguments from authority, doesn't have this mechanism.

Show me ten genuinely results developed from creationism and then I'll believe it's science. By "genuinely useful", I mean giving a credible explanation of something that could not be explained before, and that has been independently verified and accepted by mainstream science. Hey, show me one creationist paper in Nature and I'll be impressed.

If you want to go back to believing in late mediaeval superstitions, why rest at 6000 years? Why not believe that heaven is a few miles about the earth and the sun orbits suspended in a crystal sphere. At the time, some people thought these facts were clearly proved by the bible. I suppose you could make an equally contrived case that the moon landings were a materialist hoax.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by bmj · 2004-11-01 23:58 · Score: 1

What's a "reformed Protestant" exactly? I mean, in a sense Protestants are reformed Catholics, was there another major reformation I don't know about? (I don't recall predestination being a key player in Martin Luther's writings)

Reformed Protestants (Presbyterians, really) cling more to the theology of John Calvin than Martin Luther. Calvin went even further than Luther, and suggested that every part of a Christian's faith must be defined (or at least guided by) what was in the Bible. Calvin weighed the Scriptural passage for and against predestination, and predestination "won" (that is, it is far easier and more coherent to outline a theology of predestination from the Bible than free will).

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by EvilTwinSkippy · 2004-11-02 00:17 · Score: 1

Actually no. Greek and Hebrew have several words between them to describe wine.

Yayin in Hebrew means wine, alcoholic wine clearly from the contexts in which it is used. (Samuel 25:36, Isaiah 28:1, Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 7:2-3).

Shekar in Hebrew means "immebriating drink". Today we translate it as "strong drink". It's a form of mead.

The Greeks were famous for their wine. In the absence of refridgeration, just about any grape juice that was stored or shipped would be fermented in some form, so trying to say that Onios could refer to Grape Juice flies in the face of the facts. About the only place you find references to non-alcoholic forms of Onios, are Christians. Modern Greek still uses many of the adjectives the ancients would have used to describe wine.

I definitely hear you though. About the worst scholars of the Bible are the ones who profess to follow it the most. (Clergy and true believers are generally not going around and proving it all the time.)

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by TheLogster · 2004-11-02 00:33 · Score: 1

Exactly - everybody misses the point entirely.

The point is that sometimes you have to put the bible in context of when it was written and what time it was written.

Using the language and average knowledge of the time of 2000 years ago - explain the development of the modern computer and how it works... you just can't do it..

I have had to deal with the question of creationsim and evoultionism on an almost daily basis with my peers. As a "young" christian just starting out on his journey with God through life, I have had to place things into perspective. I have had to read what the bible says on certain subjects, examine the physical evidence and form conclusions that add up (in a common sense way) to statisfy my intellecualy curosity.

I don't know if God created a "living software program" in the form of DNA, which when placed on the earth when it was created, was the basis of all life on earth. Or, if God created all of the "ancestor" organisms, from which all the diversity of life evolved from. However, I do know that the process of evoluion exists and that in fact there is _no_ difference between macro and micro evolution. If you are willing to belive one form then you have to belive the other because the process are the same.

Everybody's relationship with God is different. Everybody has there own little things they need to work out, but the one belive reamins the same... God created the universive and put into process all of the things that we scientifcally see today. We just don't know the details of how God did it.. but then if we did know - if wouldn't be called Faith.

My $0.02

However - if you are interested in discussing any of the areas that I have talked about - or in fact about any part of the Christian Faith. I will certainly do my best to answer your questions; but I won't be able to explain everything; and in fact I still have areas which I struggle with, but hey I am not perfect after al :)

Answering the believer's question by Vexar · 2004-11-02 01:03 · Score: 1

A fundamentalist Christian cannot accept the teaching of macroevolution because of two main issues:
The implication is that the Creation history did not occur over six days.
Without the Creation history, the untold billions of years requires death prior to the commiting of the original sin.
Believer, we are required to understand the Bible as it is written, not assume that clever interpretations and stretching the truth of God's word to satisfy a contemporary world's view somehow placates the dischord between the world and God. To strike some measure of medium, a balance, is to subject God's soverignty to a global test. Who has power in this world, God or Satan? Do not mistake the pricking of reason for the gift of discernment. Romans used the worldly tool of reason to deny themselves the message of the Apostle Paul.
The writer of this article has merely demonstrated the flexibility of design for human cells. It takes faith greater than I have to then believe that all sight in all that is living proceeded through a series of imperfect designs, atypically productive mutations, and in the wee narrow time secular humanists give for the age of this earth.
Answer why you think God is incapable of producing a man more perfect than men of this day, on the sixth day of creation. The value of understanding similarities between human eye and brain cells is in medicine. Just as we now can use our own bone marrow stem cells, painfully inserted in the human heart, to heal in minutes the damage of heart disease, we may some day find good purpose for this new knowledge of similarities. Perhaps a procedure can be designed to restore the sight to the blind? Life is by design, not a series of bumbling accidents that turned out for the best.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by blahplusplus · 2004-11-02 02:47 · Score: 1

Problem is Jesus and the apostles believed moses was a real person, then Jesus and adam get mentioned in the same sentence as real and historical persons, then you see the sham for what "non literalists" really are, non christians. Christianity died when we discovered the age of the earth and the fact that man was not speciall created. The problem is, without disobedience by literal people in the garden story there is no such a thing as sin and you negate the reason the character christ said he came.

Believes moses wrote the old testament bible:

Mark 10:5
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
(Whole Chapter: Mark 10 In context: Mark 10:4-6)

Mark 12:19
"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.

Luke 20:28
"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Jesus speaking now:

John 5:46
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

And the pen-ultimate killer of compromised versions of christianity that accept evolution and adam and the old testament stories as not historical in fact or character.

Romans 5:14- Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Note he includes MOSES and ADAM and said death reigned over them both, death can't reign over mythological characters who jesus thought to be real (i.e. especially moses as I have shown). And if you're a trinitarian, if you dont believe what God (jesus) believes then there are some major issues, since jesus is a higher authority then subjective personal interpretations. It's this inconsistent use of authority and drawing teachings that annoys any clear thinking person.

Compromise christians (non-literalists) accept that god is real, the promise of life is real, and other doctrines as real and historical. But not when god is making plain statements about his belief in moses or the apostles (who had equivalent authority with jesus) said they believed in a literal adam and eve and the snake and all that.

That's color-blind people by SeanDuggan · 2004-11-02 02:54 · Score: 1

In World War II, they recruited color-blind people to spot tanks because they're used to picking out patterns rather than colors. Although, as you'll notice, camoflauge works on a bit of both, both trying to somewhat match the background, and also existing in those weird blotches and swirls so as to break up the outline.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Blessing or Curse? by SeanDuggan · 2004-11-02 02:58 · Score: 1

*shrug* I also remember reading some articles saying that these ladies are also plagued by a world which involves color clashes and such that are not even noticeable by the rest of the population. I would say that unless there's a specific advantage in seeing this 4th color, they're probably, if anything, slightly handicapped in that they'll always be a little out of tune with the people only seeing three colors. And could you imagine being a child trying to explain to your teacher that there really is another color on the wall? Can you imagine the counseling visits? Of course, then again, many color blind children get by for years by convincing themselves that there actually is a difference in the single color they see. Humans are amazing adaptable creatures, particularly mentally.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Cretinism? by Kirth · 2004-11-02 03:01 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I don't get it. What has the evolution of the eye to do with some religious wacko-theory?

Is this a discussion among biologists trying to explain the development of the eye, as opposed to a discussion among historians or sociologists concerning myths of primitive cultures?

Sheesh. We really can talk about the latter, being a sociologist myself, but I don't see any point of bringing this into a biological discussion. It's not even worth mentioning in this context.

In fact, this raises of course another nice sociological question: why would anyone mention primitive myths and their supporters in a scientific debate not pertaining to said myths? What is the background of people doing this, and what does this say about the social context and the society at large in which this individuum exists? Interesting indeed..
--

--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse

Re:Cretinism? by KD5YPT · 2004-11-05 08:30 · Score: 1

The reason behind this is that creationists uses the mammalian eyes as example on how evolution couldn't possibly create something with the complexity of an eye.

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.

Placebo/side effects by SeanDuggan · 2004-11-02 03:08 · Score: 1

Much of the vision restoration literature has been lacking in definitive proof of vision restoration. It turns out that the problem of evaluation of vision is harder than it seems. That said, I believe there are some good potential biological approaches to rescuing vision, possibly involving stem cells, but I have my own ideas about that and am not talking just yet..... :-)

I would assume that they also account for the possibility that people believe the therapy will work and therefore convince themselves they're seeing better. (Perhaps they're working harder at it, making it more tiring but apparently better) And, for that matter, on all these stem cell therapies, I would be curious as to a comparison between implanting the stem cells and simply doing the surgery up to that point and inserting something else. I remember a Discover magazine article involving a study like that, treating Parkinson's with stem cells and with simply doing the implant process. They had very similar results, which is to say, some people improved greatly and others had no effect, but in the same proportions with and without the cells.

That said, I have my doubts about studies ever being done like this. For one, as with any placebo setup, you basically have to deceive some patients into thinking they're getting therapy when they're not (made worse here because surgery is inherently dangerous compared to the "sugar pill" approach to placebos). Secondly, most medical research is being sponsered by companies and interest groups. Which study is more likely to be published, the one showing amazing results from application of stem cells, or the one showing that it doesn't matter what's injected?

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Pineal gland by SeanDuggan · 2004-11-02 03:22 · Score: 1

Not really directly answering your question, I know, but the pineal gland is often considered to be the "third eye" due to its resemblance to retinal material and that it appears to be light-sensitive in producing melanin. A google search will provide some informative resources and not a few crackpot pages "proving" the power of the pineal gland.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Common misconception... by gillbates · 2004-11-02 03:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:

Every major culture has had a concept of God, even those far isolated from each other.
The oldest manuscripts mankind possess are of a religious nature. If God does not exist, why do 40 centuries of human thought (and history) insist otherwise? What was their fatal error in reasoning that prevented them from seeing the (supposed) truth?
Many of us have personally experienced small miracles - things that science simply could not explain. When one experiences a small miracle, the Gospel account of healing blind men presents no logical problem; it is simply God doing in a bigger way what he has already done in our own lives.

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.

melanin - melatonin by SeanDuggan · 2004-11-02 03:29 · Score: 1

Brain fart with the spelling. The pineal gland produces melatonin, not melanin.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-02 06:37 · Score: 1

Half of the original post used the argument "Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false." Which is wrong, and I showed it to be wrong. Regardless of what you think is germaine to the argument, using an analogy that is wrong does NOT support your argument.

Pick up a journal in your university and read some of the new theories presented in it. Not a single one will say "gee, we just didn't find any counter-examples, so this must be true." In every case the author will provide reasoning behind his theory, and produce evidence that supports his theory.

I work in science, I've seen the crackpot theories go by. The problem is, it is not generally feasible to disprove the crackpot theories. In fact, with many new theories of physics even the reasonable ones are not feasibly testable. If we accept whatever theory comes along until a contradiction can be found, then we would have to accept that nude pictures of Britney Spears exist at the center of the sun until someone can prove otherwise. This is not practical, so we have to filter based on those that have sound reasoning BEHIND them.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by meiocyte · 2004-11-02 07:04 · Score: 1

"The Church (now a days) leaves the science to the scientists, and only holds court on that which is moral and spiritual. How things happen is science. That they happened at all is a matter of faith."

This is patently untrue, as Dawkins has pointed out (in an essay, "Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact.") And factual claims fall under the domain of science.

The Catholic church's history with science is rocky, as you point out: it reluctantly rewords its positions one by one as they are proven wrong, usually after great struggle, but it never says, "Well, we got it wrong." The resurrection, the assumption, the virgin birth - these are all scientific claims that ought to be rejected. The church's official position is that these things actually happened, when in fact they could not have (without upturning everything science tells us about the world). So you are wrong when you claim that they leave science to the scientists. Catholicism does weigh in on scientific matters but then claims not to. It's not as blatantly incomprehensible as the 7-day young-earth position, of course, but I fail to see how, as you put it, a god 'willing the universe into being' is distinct from creationism; so I will continue to lump them together.

Anyway, the eye story is very interesting and shouldn't even have precipitated this tangent. I'm not trying to get into a long debate here, but read the (short) Dawkins essay and see what you think.

--
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.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by flumps · 2004-11-02 09:29 · Score: 1

You have to watch translations in these things... sometimes "bring forth" can mean different things.

Anyway, good point well made - quite frankly though we're here and thats good enough for me.

--
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by flumps · 2004-11-02 09:43 · Score: 1

Does an Amoeba understand you? Not really. Do you understand an Amoeba? Yes, its a single celled organism. Not saying you're an amoeba or anything ;) but the analogy stands. As for your sig, a fool often forgets the complex that makes up the simple things. Take the proton or neutron; we can observe its behaviour, and that gives us a limited understanding of it but that is like saying you understand how a car works because you saw a tyre track in the road.

--
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly

Wrong by yet+another+coward · 2004-11-02 11:30 · Score: 1

The light sensing cells are not under blood vessels. They are under several cell layers, including the cells that send the signals from the eye to the brain. Please check it out.

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-02 12:48 · Score: 1

>There are several criteria required for evolution. Reproduction itself is not sufficient. You also need heritability and mutation. If mutations didnt happen, clearly life would not evolve. If these mutations couldnt be inherited, they would be one off. Sorry if I sounded arrogant. But this, truly, tells me you truly lack the background; you do not write about evolution but about Darwinism. The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. There is no point explaining until you have the basis. As I wrote, most of the pseudo-biology taught in schools and you find in books is useless crap. The very *words* you use let me know that you lack the background. If you do read what I suggested you to read, you'll see it is so, unfortunately so, and you'll understand that I am not being pedantic, but that really there is no way I can tell you. Ask me again in 6 months. > Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool. Utter nonsense. Again, define "gene". > Oh come on - you cant give us a hint? Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches. > "most so-called "biologists" cannot even define life!" Completely irrelevant. Its a pretty hard thing to define. This is a consequence of definitions rather than any lack of skill or knowledge. Of course, if you can do better, by all means go ahead. WHAT???? Irrelevant? What drug are you on? Life: molecular autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1972). And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background. Sorry. I can only point you to biology, I am not your teacher, no time. > Explain this - I cant see any sense in it. But of course you can't! For the Nth time, YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND. Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough. I have no time to be your teacher, and your chances of understanding anything of what I am myself struggling to understand, my own contribuiton, are nil until you bring yourself up to level. I you ever start learning REAL biology, you'll understand how much this is so. I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't. If you do, though, better put yourself in Neo's frame of mind, because Kansas really will go bye-bye. Prediction: you'll take the blue pill :-/ > Otherwise, stop talking crap. As I wrote at the begining, mandatory token comment. I gave up hope long ago. I just follow that wise principle: when someone does or say something that is wrong, you should tell him; he'll almost certainly not fix it, but at least truth is where it is to be. If you ever take the red pill and bring yourself up to level, I'd love to discuss Quasi-Autopoietical Phylo-Eco-Attractors, the Origin of reproduction from faulty isostasis, the Origin of species by compartimentalization and typification of lineages, and some really advanced ideas I am only now exploring, which I gave the working name of "biodesics". Your move now. Take the blue pill, you go back to Darwinian fairyland and everything stays just fine. Take the red pill, and you see how deep evolution goes...

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-02 13:00 · Score: 1

> The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification. There is no point explaining until you have the basis. As I wrote, most of the pseudo-biology taught in schools and you find in books is useless crap. The very *words* you use let me know that you lack the background. If you do read what I suggested you to read, you'll see it is so, unfortunately so, and you'll understand that I am not being pedantic, but that really there is no way I can tell you. Ask me again in 6 months.

> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool.

Utter nonsense. Again, define "gene".

> Oh come on - you cant give us a hint?

Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches.

> "most so-called "biologists" cannot even define life!" Completely irrelevant. Its a pretty hard thing to define. This is a consequence of definitions rather than any lack of skill or knowledge. Of course, if you can do better, by all means go ahead.

WHAT???? Irrelevant? What drug are you on?

Life: molecular autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1972).

And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background. Sorry.
I can only point you to biology, I am not your teacher, no time.

> Explain this - I cant see any sense in it.

But of course you can't! For the Nth time, YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND. Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level. Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough. I have no time to be your teacher, and your chances of understanding anything of what I am myself struggling to understand, my own contribuiton, are nil until you bring yourself up to level. I you ever start learning REAL biology, you'll understand how much this is so. I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't.

If you do, though, better put yourself in Neo's frame of mind, because Kansas really will go bye-bye.

Prediction: you'll take the blue pill :-/
You could easily try to falsify what I am telling you by reading the refs I gave you. But I'm almost certain you won't. Almost no one does. Almost no one wants evidence, faith is good enough. Reminds me of the saying: 2 kinds of people, those who hate Linux, and those who actually used it. Most will not ever try to expose themselves to evidence that would force them to change their views on evolution, or on anything in fact. Most Darwinians are cultists, no better that the staunchiest Creationists, if you rub the 'scientific' patina. Both have their answers, reality be damned.

> Otherwise, stop talking crap.

As I wrote at the begining, mandatory token comment. I gave up hope long ago. I just follow that wise principle: when someone does or say something that is wrong, you should tell him; he'll almost certainly not fix it, but at least truth is where it is to be. And keep working.

If you ever take the red pill and bring yourself up to level, I'd love to discuss Quasi-Autopoietical Phylo-Eco-Attractors, the Origin of reproduction from faulty cellular homeostasis, the Origin of species by compartimentalization and typification of lineages, and some really advanced ideas I am only now exploring, which I gave the working name of "biodesics".

Your move now. Take the blue pill, you go back to Darwinian fairyland and everything stays just fine. Take the red pill, and you see how deep evolution goes...

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-02 15:57 · Score: 1

>Up to this point, it was not your fault, but from now on, it becomes your fault if you are really interested and you fail to get yourself up to level.
Um, that anonymous commentor wasn't me. No wonder I didn't get an e-mail saying that you replied to my last comment. Because you didn't. Please do because otherwise you have completely ignored my questions, implying an inability to answer them. It can be found here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127914& cid=106 97878

>The only requirements for evolution is descent with modification.
Ok, how are these modifications made? That's what I've been asking, you have *not* answered despite my many inquiries. You have rejected genetics, so then how are these modifications not only made, but transmitted to future generations?

>> Evolution, as Ive said, is the change in frequency of genes in a gene pool.
>Utter nonsense.
I was about to argue with this, but I actually agree. Evolution would require the introduction of new genes, not the shifting in frequencies of existing ones.

>Again, define "gene".
Again, that anonymous poster was not me. And why don't you define "gene"? Are you attacking genetics now? My my, that's quite a bold move.

>Sure. I'm writing, but it's in Castilian. Yet, very early drafts, more like sketches.
Have you written anything that I can read over? You apparently want to establish yourself as an authoritative source, surely this can be proven by linking to a published paper.

>I hope you try; I expect you, just like most, won't.
So you now resort to insults? What professionalism.

>And if you do not understand that statement, the you lack even the most basic background
Oh sure, I know what it means, but since you want me to define everything, why don't you do too? See how well you play at your own game.

>Life: molecular autopoiesis
Define. I am well aware of what autopoiesis is, but let's play your game.

>YOU SIMPLY LACK THE MINIMUM BACKGROUND
As I said in my previous comment, presumption. You don't know anything about me.

>Again, I am just building on top of that background, following on the work of geniuses, and that's hard enough
The following concerns the researchers you have suggested me to look into:
Bateson - Attempted to prevent science from reducing everything down to matter. Wanted to reintroduce the concept of mind back into science. Stated that mind is basic part of material reality. How is that any better than religion and philosophy? I challenge you in saying that these ideas cannot be proven false, and under your logic are thus myths.
Maturana/Varela - Formulated autopoiesis theory. Answered the question of the basic characteristic organization in living systems. Stated they are essentially autonomous systems. Does *NOT* disprove natural selection (where did you get that idea?). Actually this theory compliments natural selection. "Maturana-the-biologist was unhappy with enumerating features of living systems to define 'life', and wanted to capture the invariant feature of living systems around which natural selection operates."

>You could easily try to falsify what I am telling you by reading the refs I gave you. But I'm almost certain you won't.
Since you would like to insult me, I will take that challenge. Would you like to parlay? Name some specific works for me to read and give me some reading time. You have given some researchers, but I will require the titles of some published work. I *will* be back.

>Most will not ever try to expose themselves to evidence that would force them to change their views on evolution, or on anything in fact
The fact that you have not really addressed many of my questions means that you are certainly not open to any other views than your own. At least I have attempted to find out more about your beliefs and make judgements, you haven't done anything but call me wrong.

>I'd lov

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-02 16:11 · Score: 1

I have also made another comment that you have not responded to here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127914&cid=1 06 95913

Note that all spaces must be removed in order for the link to work right. The same applies to the link in my other comment.

This debate would be much easier to conduct over e-mail. May I have your e-mail address?

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-02 18:52 · Score: 1

Gods, I simply have not the time :( > Ok, how are these modifications made? First, reproduction. There can be no other way. Reproduction, not copying, not replication. Living systeam are structure-determined systems, and this dynamics is what allows them to change as well as restricting what changes are possible. What is called selection, when found by Darwinians, is just the result of this. But ONE result of this. The rest is ignored, as Darwinians only look for what looks like a selection, and they have all the money. > Evolution would require the introduction of new genes, not the shifting in frequencies of existing ones. In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right. Biologically, both are wrong, as evolution has nothing to do with this, not directly. > And why don't you define "gene"? You can't. I remember, a whole room of truly brilliant biologists, we tried for a whole evening. Gene is not a concept, it's a anti-concept; what it truly says is "DON'T ASK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS!!!". Same goes for "fitness", "species", "genetics", and most of traditional (pseudo)biology. Bold? Maybe, we need some boldness! Still, I must confess I'm shamefully conservative. I must apologize, you do have some background, perhaps enough. YIIIIPES!!! :) Maturana states himself that there is NS. Paper in 2001, I forget the title (it's quite an involved one and makes a paraphrase with Darwin's "Origin of Species", if you come accross it you'll recognize) and it's in Castilian and I know of no English translation. Batheson religion? Then this computer is a miracle! No, he just, among many things, made painfully clear that the pieces of a clock do not tell the time; that there is a *critical difference* between a whole and its parts, and that science was ignoring that at our own peril. Ironically, to think that the *pieces* of a clock are enough to tell the time, is magic thinking. In biology, the ONLY things that remain is that difference, as the parts change all the time! So biology is not being studied AT ALL by reductionistic science; traditional (pseudo) biology is simply eluding the questions. Neodarwinism is but one way to avoid these questions, some of the hardest of them all. The key issues here (some, rather): NS requires self-replication. Living systems do not replicate, they *reproduce*. NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists! NS says that evolution, as the result of random mutation and selection of 'adaptive' changes, is a blind process. Why is this so? Why MUST this be so? If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent? If evolution is intelligent (I'm not saying it is, although I think it might be at least sometimes) then this open the gates yet again for antievolutionists. In any case, it's a bogus claim by Neodarwinians, the more they make it, the stronger the anti-evolution argument seems. In any case, the changes might not be the design of intelligence, but they are certainly NOT RANDOM! This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS. Even mutations (not all evolutionary changes are mutations) are never random, becase life is not a random process. Random is just DarwinianSpeak for "I do not understand". Well, let's say so! This one I find funny: check all models of 'biological' evolution. You will find that most if not all models (Gould water on sand, Kimura diffusion of liquids, &c. &c. &c.) DO NOT REQUIRE LIFE. Great! So what we have is e

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re: Richard Dawkins by boots@work · 2004-11-02 19:03 · Score: 1

Behe's book is in fact quite silly and widely recognized as such. (It may well be both compelling and silly, which makes it all the more pernicious.) See, for example, this review.

What I find particularly poignant is that one need not know anything about biology to spot the glaring holes in Behe's logic. I visited a rather beautiful natural rock arch a while ago. If any of the rocks making it up were removed, the arch would collapse. (Assembling such a delicately-balanced multi-ton construction over a void even with modern civil engineering would be difficult.) It is both aesthetic and function, and not merely random. It has irreducible specified complexity by Behe's definition. Therefore, Behe would have us conclude that the arch was assembled by gods or fairies rather than by natural processes.

(Indeed, the young-earth creationists are compelled to believe this, as it would probably be impossible to erode so many meters of granite in only a few thousand years.)

Pointing out that there are some phenomena which biology cannot explain in complete detail isn't unscientific, though it's perhaps not very helpful. Most of the things Behe questions have apparently now been handled to some extent. But of course there are things we don't completely understand yet; that doesn't mean we understand nothing or that we have to assume "goddidit".

Basically Behe states that any mutation that is not beneficial will be lost over time as the animal with the mutation will be less likely to survive to pass on its genes.

I am not a geneticist, but I don't think that statement is true. You can only say that any mutation which is *harmful* will tend to die out, but there are many possible mutations which are neither beneficial nor harmful. It is possible the mutation is in "junk" (currently unused) DNA; it may have no effect on survival (eye color); it may be a duplicate; it may not be expressed; it may have no relevance to the environment; it may be cancelled by another effect.

If Behe did say that it shows he is enormously out of touch.

When somebody using Behe's techniques designs, for example, a new antiviral drug, then I'll believe he's onto something.

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-02 21:14 · Score: 1

Hm at the moment I don't have much time to answer this (it's 3 am) so I'll just submit my initial thoughts. Unfortunately I think there is a language barrier >_In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right.

I am simply arguing from my particular point of view. I am not going to necessarily conform to all of the generally accepted viewpoints. I do not entirely know what Neodarwinism entails, but thats ok because I was never necessarily arguing for it anyway.

>NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!

I think I can answer this question though. When an organism is placed into a specific situation, it may be beneficial to have a specific traits. There is no real rules for deciding what is beneficial and what isn't, what is good and what is bad, these criterions simply arise from circumstancial factors. For example, in a petri dish flooded with antibiotics, it is beneficial to a bacterium to have antibiotic tolerance. This criterium is not something that is set into stone, it simply arises from circumstance. Namely, those bacterium that do not have antibiotic tolerance suffer from it and will most likely die out, and so the selection for antibiotic tolerance that takes place arises naturally from situational forces.

Thus, there is nothing that directly sets what is good and bad. Good traits are simply those that happen to be beneficial to an organism in a specific situation. So in other words, there is no choice being made, it is more of a response by the organic system to varying conditions of the environment.

Note that this does mean that bad traits are capable of surviving. This means that criterions are "fuzzy" rules, further suggesting that they arise from circumstancial factors than from any set rules.

So using this logic, mice are small because the evolutionary predecessors of mice found themselves in a situation where being smaller is better. For example, if they were being hunted down by birds, then being smaller may help them avoid predation. The larger ones would have had a greater probability of being killed off, and so with time the population would shift towards smaller mice as the genetic material coding for larger mice is lost due to death (I think you will object to this by arguing that genetic material does not encode for organism structure. More on this in a second.) Genetic variation may then create even smaller mice, and this selection towards smallness may continue if the pressure applied is continued.

I am simply attempting to answer the question, I was wondering what your opinion on this was. Is this suitable as an answer, why/why not?

>If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent?

Why must it be intelligent though? If you view evolution as organic systems being selected by environmental and situational factors, then there is no need for choice and intelligence.

>This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS.

But the thing is, we're not computers. Yes, randomness will kill. But not *all* randomness will. The idea is that on a very, very rare basis, there may be a random mutation in the genetic code that turns out to be beneficial. Yes, there will be an enormous amount of death involved, and if you look to the human population you will see it. Why else are there so many genetic disorders?

So the idea is that there will be a large number of random mutations. Many of them will be harmful, many of th

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by IdntUnknwn · 2004-11-02 21:17 · Score: 1

Damn, Slashdot formatting ruined my comment. Ignore the duplicate to this one.

Hm at the moment I don't have much time to answer this (it's 3 am) so I'll just submit my initial thoughts. Unfortunately I think there is a language barrier, but I'll try my best to understand what you are saying.

>In Neodarwinian terms, change in frequencies *is* enough, so you are wrong and the other poster was right.

I am simply arguing from my particular point of view. I am not going to necessarily conform to all of the generally accepted viewpoints. I do not entirely know what Neodarwinism entails, but thats ok because I was never necessarily arguing for it anyway.

>NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from? Why is being small good for a mice and bad for an elephant? What makes those choices? If do not answer this, if you elude the question like Darwinians do, you let the gates wide open for ID and Creationists!

I think I can answer this question though. When an organism is placed into a specific situation, it may be beneficial to have a specific traits. There is no real rules for deciding what is beneficial and what isn't, what is good and what is bad, these criterions simply arise from circumstancial factors. For example, in a petri dish flooded with antibiotics, it is beneficial to a bacterium to have antibiotic tolerance. This criterium is not something that is set into stone, it simply arises from circumstance. Namely, those bacterium that do not have antibiotic tolerance suffer from it and will most likely die out, and so the selection for antibiotic tolerance that takes place arises naturally from situational forces.

Thus, there is nothing that directly sets what is good and bad. Good traits are simply those that happen to be beneficial to an organism in a specific situation. So in other words, there is no choice being made, it is more of a response by the organic system to varying conditions of the environment.

Note that this does mean that bad traits are capable of surviving. This means that criterions are "fuzzy" rules, further suggesting that they arise from circumstancial factors than from any set rules.

So using this logic, mice are small because the evolutionary predecessors of mice found themselves in a situation where being smaller is better. For example, if they were being hunted down by birds, then being smaller may help them avoid predation. The larger ones would have had a greater probability of being killed off, and so with time the population would shift towards smaller mice as the genetic material coding for larger mice is lost due to death (I think you will object to this by arguing that genetic material does not encode for organism structure. More on this in a second.) Genetic variation may then create even smaller mice, and this selection towards smallness may continue if the pressure applied is continued.

I am simply attempting to answer the question, I was wondering what your opinion on this was. Is this suitable as an answer, why/why not?

>If a bunch of organisms (cells, bags of water contaminated with organics!) interacting with each other can write "Don Quijote", then why must evolution be unintelligent?

Why must it be intelligent though? If you view evolution as organic systems being selected by environmental and situational factors, then there is no need for choice and intelligence.

>This must be obvious to anyone who knows anything about digital computers: if there is something that you cannot do with a computer is randomness; randomness *crashes* a computer. Randomness in life KILLS.

But the thing is, we're not computers. Yes, randomness will kill. But not *all* randomness will. The idea is that on a very, very rare basis, there may be a random mutation in the genetic code that turns out to be beneficial. Yes, there will be an enormous amount of death involved, and if you look to the human population you will see it. Why else are

A better testimony of Christianity / the fall by MickLinux · 2004-11-02 22:36 · Score: 1

It's not quite that way. God is perfect, yes. However, God is always in the presence of His creation -- indeed, He holds it in existance. So you can't say that he can't allow imperfection or sin into His presence.

But *we* can't look at him, lest we burn up (essentially, with shame). Our sin creates a blockage there.

Now, why did God create / allow sin? Well, God is Love, and He wanted to create a creature that could love. But love requires free will, and a limited creature with free will is going to offend. Offense will break love, and one of the effects of broken love is that you then can't look at other people.

Suppose you live forever in such a state. Over millenia, you'll therefore find that every relationship you have is going to break in an unfixable way. That's going to cause people (who by nature were designed to love) a huge case of depression. That huge case of depression is called the "second death", or a living death.

The moment Adam disobeyed, he opened himself up to a living death -- and the first one he couldn't look at, was God. Notice that he hid himself. The second one he couldn't look at, was his own wife. Notice that he started blaming God and Eve for his own sin. Reconciliation ("re- back, again; con- together; cilia- eyelash; meaning able to look eye to eye, again) becomes impossible.

To prevent the second death, God introduced the First Death. That is, Adam dies, and doesn't suffer eternal torment. But God loves his creation, and even God can't love what doesn't exist.

So God's plan is to introduce God the Son into the world, so as to show both the path to redemption, and a means to redemption. The path to redemption, therefore, is a combination of justice and forgiveness. How complete is the forgiveness? "This is my commandment: love one another as I have loved you. No man has greater love than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." The means to redemption is Jesus, the Christ (annointed). The Christ shows that he can forgive, and still love even to the point of His own death. In that way, He shows the path to reconciliation with God, and in the process shows the path to forgiveness. Thus, for those who will follow Him, He heals the Second Death.

Healing the first death, then, is easy for God who created all in the first place.

How you get from that to creationism, though, I'm not completely sure. I think it comes out of simply having a more literal interpretation of one or another part of the Bible. Those same people will look surprised if you point out that Christ's statement "unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood, you have no life within you" was literal. But then they'll accept it as literal. So they're not being hypocrites, but it just never occurred to them that part of the Bible they were taking figuratively.

However, if they believe in creationism, I don't find that terribly important. So I don't criticize people in their theories, any more than I expect my physicist father to criticize me (an engineer by training, concrete worker by trade) on my ideas about time and space. If I needed to know more, I'd get more right. To my way of thinking, more considered theories is better, and if you criticize people when they offer them, you're going to stifle the theories.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-02 22:42 · Score: 1

re: NS requires criterion of what is good and what is bad. Where does it come from?

The problem with selection experiments is that there do not even remotely represent the typical environment of typical organism of those kinds. To start with, they are aberrantly oversimpified. Have you noticed, how the typical conditions for those experiments (eg. antibiotics) are aberrant, extreme conditions organism almost never face during their evolutionary history? Great! So Darwinians, at best, try to explain how evolution seldom if ever happened. Analogy: if I throw a fish out of a high-rise window, will I not be able to describe its movements with the same model I can use for a rock? And does that mean that fishes swim like rocks? Under brutal stress, complex sytems are deprived of most of their freedom and tend to behave like simpler systems. So, is it surprising that under brutally stressful conditions bacteria's behaviour (I mean responses) approaches that of the simpler allopoietical self-replicating systems? Great. Why not, say, burn them, and then say that bacteria are just like any other watery organic matter? Does all this tell us anything about the typical behaviour (evolution) of bacteria? Is this a realistic, or even useful, study?

So, we must accept that living systems live by their own rules, that they are *alive*. That they do a lot of things the like of which reductionists do not like :) Under *those* conditions, *natural* conditions, *evolutionary* conditions, the question of criterion for what is advantageous becomes quite a different story. Darwinian 'adaptations' are just post-hoc coverups of their total ignorance. An ignorance not much greater than mine, I just am HONEST about it: life absolutely baffles me. And why shouldn't it? Who said biology was easy?

> Mutations are completely unpredicted

Utter crap, sorry. I confidently predict a base will turn into either adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, or nothing. No, I'm not metting sophystry. Just inelegantly making a point: DNA structuree is not random, DNA duplication is not random. Life is about nanotechnological MACHINES. Even at the lowliest level, whatever the change in a DNA base pair, it will be read as A,T,C,G or nothing. Besides, we KNOW that the probabilities of, say, A->G is diff from say, A->T. Phylogeneticists use this evolutionary models all the time in a set of methods known as Maximum Likelihood. And that's only what we know. So you can see it's not random at all.

Crossingover random??? Oh golly, brace yourself! No, there is probably no cellular mechanism LESS random that crossing over. It *homogenizes* genomes quite beautifully in an exceedingly precise pairing of DNA strands.

It's late, and I feel grumpy, so let's be nasty :)

Gedankenexperiment: mutant allele in species A
allows it to counter the poison in plant P, which is very abundant yet extrememly toxic. So, ND predicts that the mutation will increase in freq an even allow the species A to thrive and even to radiate into AA, AB, &c.

You like the scenario? If yes, shame on you, individual of specis A never eats plants!

Now for a wicked twist. Assume some individuals of A occasionally eat plants and some P, which is not lethal in those quantities. So, the more vegetarian in behaviour, the more advantage the mutants will have from an antitoxin allele, even if not perfectly protects them. The more they eat P successfully, the more likely they *individuals* will eat more and more of it. The more they include P in their diet, the more relevant the allele will be for fitness, and the stronger the selective pressure on its pressence, expression, and new subsequent mutations that code for a more effective antitoxin.

So, where are we? The individuals of A that try to eat P tend to have descendants that can eat P more and more successfully... Yes, we got to Lamarckism by way of Darwinism. Which should not surprise anyone, as Lamark

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-02 23:39 · Score: 1

Noone has said "gee, we just didn't find any counter-examples, so this must be true." on the contrary we're saying that science cannot say that something is absolutely true no matter what. You state that we say both things yourself in your own post, so maybe you should realize the inherent contradiction in that. Or more likely you completely fail to grasp the huge difference between those two statements. This is exactly why I'm saying you do not understand what the original poster and I point to. I'm sorry but I've tried my best to show you the scientific reasons as they are accepted, the links to the wikipedia are good stuff (if you don't trust wikipedia you can pick up any introductionary book on the subject of philosophy of science, it will say the same) and I obviously fail to make you grasp a fundamental point which is one of many forming the basis of all valid science. I see no point repeating standard theory of science to you again and again. I have backed up my claims independently and you have not.

An additional source is "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Fourth Edition" by Karel Lambert (University of California, Irvine) and Gordon G. Brittan Jr. (Montana State University), Ridgeview Publishing Company, Box 686, Atascadero, California 93423, ISBN 0-924922-10-9 and ISBN 0-924922-60-5, Chapter Three, Subchapter 2. Confirmation versus Corroboration page 53 and onwards (I'm sure there are newer editions of this book but you should still easily find the subject of Confirmation versus Corroboration in any newer editions or other similar books). As with all of science this is also under constant reevaluation, especially some of the additional details (another poster have commented on such an issue), but the main basis is solidly accepted and is the same as the point by the original poster and me.

In some of the rest of your statements you are saying things that are correct as a result but base it upon a faulty impression of the logic and methology that makes it (science) valid, maybe you should show this discussion (as it is, not as portrayed by you in a sentence or two) to a professor of philosophy of science geographically close to you (philosophy of science is a field of science on its own in case you don't know it). He or she might have a better chance of making you understand.

You probably don't realize it but this problem of comprehension that you examplify is one of the major problems (in addition to, and as a part of, deliberately overlooking errors) within scientific endavours today, resulting in a lot of shabby science and diminishing the overall quality of science. This is why I encourage you to contact such a person, you and your work will benefit greatly from it.

As for this conversation I see no point in responding further to any future misinterpretations, misunderstandings, or faulty accusations by you.

Have a nice day.

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-02 23:45 · Score: 1

Can only reply to a few things. Sorry.

For a metacellular, evolution can be defined as "the change in embryology along generations". You obviously do not understand this. For metacellular, embryology IS evolution. For cellulars not, of course, and that's why I stated that this 2 kinds of evol are qualitatively diff.

Structure-determined: autopoietical systems are structure-determined, but you seem not to understand that they are autopoietical. They change themselves, in fact that ALL they do, that's whay they ARE. Are you sure you understand autopoiesis?

Genes: at some point, the idea of genes (from genos, origin, meant to be the unit of inheritance) was debased to DNA. After a while, it was again debased to DNA-mediated protein synthesis. But the original implications were kept! (cf. Wilsonian genes). Therefore, gene, as used by Neodarwinians, is a non-concept, it means nothing. Somehow this led to the idea that understanding protein synthesis equalled understanding 'genetics' (i.e. inheritance). This is utter rubish. And you fall for this con.

Zigote choices: of course it decides how to develop; as an autopoietical system, what ELSE could it do but recompute itself???

You seem to fail to grasp the chasm between metacellulars and cellulars. A common mistake, as can easily be seen when most so-called evolutionary biologists use experiments done on bacteria (and even viruses, which are not even alive!) to explain the evolution of things like vertebrates; this is beyond stupid.

>So we KNOW that traits are inherited from parents to offspring via DNA.

No, we know that *some* traits at the molecular level are inherited as encoded in DNA. We know that there are others that are inherited but not that way. About most traits, no one ever bothered to look, especially so for metacellulars--no one looks for things that cannot be explained by Neodarwinism, and even if you try, no funding! Again, the debasing of genetics.

> DNA builds proteins that build cells that are somehow able to organise themselves. Nobody knows how this works in its entirity, but the fact that we dont know this yet doesnt alter the natural selection argument one bit!

Somehow. Not understood. No implication for evolution.

ROFL

Peer-review? I'm all for peer-review, the *real* kind. That's why I bailed out of academia. So called scientific "peer-review" is neither, it's editorial censorship. And this is why real scientific progress only happens at the borders of science and seldom at the Big Science, (even when they have almost all the resources!), as you can easily verify. And why science is both cracking open and dying at the same time; something new is replacing science as free inquiry.

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Re:Mandatory comment: Evolution != (neo)Darwinism by gacp · 2004-11-03 00:35 · Score: 1

> It prevents people from publishing stuff that is plain wrong.

Says *who*? Cost of publication is nil (/. perfect example). Publish and be grilled!

But no. No no no no. Why?

So-called "peer-review" is the mechanism big professors (Ivory-tower witch-doctors, as Gibson put it) protect their careers and their undeserverd positions from scientific progress. As many (most?) of them have no other merit than repeating what the great minds of the past said, being the High Priests of the Late Genius (who was usually brutally harassed in his own time by the same kind of big professors!) the mere chance of new evidence that could put those old views to the test must not tolerated. Hence, PeerReview(TM).

"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." Paul C. Lauterbur, Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine (his paper was rejected).

ROTFL

> If you really have good evidence, good arguments and a well written paper and you are still getting rejections from achnowledged experts, then you have my sympathy.

I have good ideas, good arguments, and am building a solid case and writing it. As they mature, you are welcome to provide feedback, contribute, or perform any other kind of peer review.

But to to real science, I bailed out of Science, Inc. I couldn't care less for 'experts'. If you do, sorry, I have no use for you. Science is not about Authoritas, it is about *evidence*. But science has been perverted. Science is DEAD.

The flame of intellectual freedom has been passed to a something new. In Chrichton's words in the mouth of Iam Malcom (Jurassik Park): "See you on the other side."

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

stories by Doc+Ruby · 2004-11-03 04:12 · Score: 1

No, that research depends on people living today (or recently) having joined separated lines of descent in a single family. As they mention, today's Tasmanian islanders, separated from the rest of our species for at least 12,000 years prior to 1803, are now related to this theoretical ancient Asian only because someone from Europe mated with someone from Tasmania in the last 200 years. Well after the bible was written.

You believe the bible's nonscientific story of human descent. So you misread even scientific stories about the complex history of our species to suit your simplified presupposition. The facts are everywhere, you are just selective about which ones you believe, and how you can fit them to your foregone conclusions.

--

--
make install -not war

MRCA by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-03 05:18 · Score: 1

> What is an MCRA?

Me answering myself...
It's "MRCA" - most recent common ancestor.

Here's the website of the original research: link

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Ohreally_factor · 2004-11-03 05:55 · Score: 1

Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible. If there is evolution, it is certainly guided by an incredible mind. Many attach the label GOD to this mind.

This is a fine philosophy, but it has nothing to do with the practice of science. Thus, it should be taught, if at all, in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. Teaching a particular philosophy as if it science is wrong.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Ohreally_factor · 2004-11-03 06:38 · Score: 1

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.

No, I think you pretty much got it, except that in practice, when neocon theory fails it is usually due to the meddling of liberals.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

not atheism by notcreative · 2004-11-03 06:46 · Score: 1

There are many "kinds" of atheism. Some atheists say that they know God doesn't exist. Personally I just don't care. I'm an atheist because I'm "not a theist," which is what atheism literally means. A god that operates within the constraints modern christians have given him (can't do anything, can't know anything, no observable evidence of any kind) is uninteresting to me. At least the Greek gods had sex.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by Wavicle · 2004-11-03 10:07 · Score: 1

You are trying to straw-man the argument, but the fact is you cannot find a journal article which has survived peer review based solely on lack of contradictory evidence.

The original post attempted to build a foundation using a mathematical construct that was wrong. Most notably he said "Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false." It is true that science should never claim anything to be the absolute truth, but that statement was much more broad and more importantly was wrong. You CAN use logic to prove something true. Science is not the only application of logic. It doesn't make his conclusion wrong, but his argument would be rejected until an appropriate basis were found.

And you keep attempting to say my argument is that science requires absolute truth, which is not true. What I am saying is that nobody takes you seriously unless you provide supporting evidence. Which is why Carl Sagan made the comment he did. You keep clinging to my use of the word "proof" which simply shows that you are not actually a scientist because we use "proof" and "evidence" essentially interchangably even though it is not rigorously correct to do so.

I work with scientists. My field of study is statistics. My training is mining data to find evidence that supports their theory so they can get published.

Nobody in science will take a theory seriously unless it has supporting evidence. Maybe it is better that you stop replying because it is clear you do not work in research and have never had an article of yours rejected because its support was insufficiently strong (not that a counter-example was known, only that sufficient convincing evidence was not presented), and more importantly you don't actually know what you're talking about.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by dpilot · 2004-11-03 13:39 · Score: 1

It's not just a planet, it's a whole Universe. As said in Contact, if there's nobody out there, it's a terrible waste of real estate.

Actually, the concept of God isn't difficult. What's difficult is connecting a "realistic" God to man's religions.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by n54 · 2004-11-03 19:36 · Score: 1

Against my better judgement I'm going to give a small reply " )

You say:
"You CAN use logic to prove something true"
But I'm guessing what you are really intending to say by that is that one can use logic to prove something to be logically valid (there's that small but oh so important difference again). You are a mathematician so I can easily understand how, for you, those two things seem to be absolutely equal as they would be so within the particular logic of mathematics. However, when that difference is put into practice (outside pure mathematics) the resulting differences become huge (not least of all in the resulting beliefs about what the results actually say), that's why it is important. If you see that need for precision we are in agreement (and yes this is actually more than just semantics as all the sources I've provided will show you).

Interestingly enough we have now also glanced against the topic of why some philosophers of science (and other scientists) do not wish to recognize mathematics as a science in itself but rather as a form of logical structure. That debate is when you get philosophical flamewars hehe.

Otherwise I'm tempted to charge you for this conversation hehe "D (not too much, only $20 hourly) j/k

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. by Hognoxious · 2004-11-04 01:36 · Score: 1

it was a good thing that primates evolved intelligence and not cephalopods

Quite. Imagine a stupid chimpanzee walking round with a cuttlefish on his head, or a retarded human with a squid instead of a left arm. It's just plain silly.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim by whereiswaldo · 2004-11-05 18:39 · Score: 1

Another way to think about things - which I haven't heard from anyone else yet - is that God gave living beings all we need to adapt to the changing world around us. Note how when creatures do adapt, it's not some crazy ass scheme which will be honed over millions of years. You don't see animals dying left and right because they had some nasty experiment performed on them by nature (birth defects don't count IMO). As far as I've seen, it's pretty sane stuff using existing "tools" available to the creature. We have tons of switches that can be turned on or off. I wouldn't be surprised if humans could grow a tail because in a million years it might help them... but we could grow a tail today if we threw the right switches. Could we start growing wood off our bodies to help make shelters for ourself? I highly doubt it. If evolution really was real, I don't see why that wouldn't have happened in any corner cases by now.

By the way, I'm impressed the parent was able to post something religion related and not have it marked -1 flamebait immediately. Slashdot has not been the greatest place to discuss anything that might make the rabidly anti-religious think that other possibilities just might exist.

You may be wrong, also.... by maysonl · 2004-11-09 06:28 · Score: 1

The way to prove God's existence is experientially...

And to achieve an experience of God requires work...

(not to mention Grace)

More proof by sonamchauhan · 2004-11-12 15:25 · Score: 1

Adding to my earlier reply... this new article should kill the remainder of your arrogance. It has photos of the race of pgymy people on those islands, and shows the Flores skeleton was a member of that race who was born with a small brain.

[Link]

The article reports Dr. Teuku Jacob, a paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, as saying:

"The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300 to 1,800 years ago."

While acknowledging the small brain size (380 cc, less than that of a chimp) and obvious differences with typical modern humans, he apparently stated that the remains were those of a member of the "Australomelanesid race, which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands." ...
An article in Britain's Observer quotes Dr. Jacob as suggesting the abnormality known as microcephaly (in which a human is born with a lower brain size) was responsible for Flores man's small brain/skull size. ...
Interestingly, the JP news report also highlighted the same fact we did, namely that the specimen was not really fossilized (mineralized). This of course is more consistent with a much younger age for the skeleton than in the Nature announcement. Dr. Soejono was quoted as saying, "...we were able to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't do that if it was already a fossil." Interestingly, a media release posted by Australia's Southern Cross University, on 8 November 2004, suggests that the Flores (or Liang Bua, as the site is also known) people may have inhabited the island up to about "500 years ago."

Slashdot Mirror

The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism

1,502 of 1,983 comments (clear)