The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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

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!

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

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 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.

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.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-11-01 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Mirror here by alienfluid · 2004-11-01 04:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's the mirror

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

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 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 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

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.

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.'"

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

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 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: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: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'.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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...

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!

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:"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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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: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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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: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.

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.

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

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: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: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.

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: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.

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: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."

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 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: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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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: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

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"

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?

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: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: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: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: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: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

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: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.

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 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.

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

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: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: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.

"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: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

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: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: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: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?

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!!

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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism

140 of 1,983 comments (clear)