Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

kthejoker writes "Today is the 197th anniversary of the great biologist Charles Darwin's birth. In response, some 450 Christian churches are celebrating Darwin's birth, saying, 'Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science.' There's also an interesting perspective on Darwinism and Christianity in the San Jose Mercury News."

Comments

Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that if you are against Darwin you are against science?

Darwinism, an interesting and plausible hypothesis, does not constitute all of science.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[hunterx11]

Because in order to discredit evolutionary theory, those who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief. The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[MillionthMonkey]

Why is it that if you are against Darwin you are against science?

Well, of course in principle it doesn't automatically mean that.

However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day. And if you publicly come out against it and in favor of some alternative theory for which the only evidence is a religious text, chances are pretty damn good that you are incapable of holding a logical thought in your head to begin with.

Now maybe that's an unfair assessment to make about you, but to make a more accurate one requires too much time and energy to expend on every evolution-basher out there. Life is too short, and there are too many of them (especially in the United States of America) to interview every single one as to his feelings about science in general. And it's a simple fact that people who publicly oppose evolution tend to be quite vocal in not only bashing scientists as a group, but bashing science in general as an inferior source of knowledge as compared to religion- an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one.

If I were some omniscient being with all the time and resources in the world to examine the innermost thoughts of every creationist and intelligent designer, perhaps I'd be able to develop a more accurate opinion. As a human being with limited years on this earth, please forgive me if I take a short cut and make what is a pretty accurate generalization to save time. If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science. You may think you're pro-science, but usually what that means is that you're pro-technology and view your toys as validation of the superiority of your culture and by extension the correctness of its religious views. Individuals opposed to Darwinism on the merits of the theory itself (and who may offer alternative theories equally unpalatable from religious viewpoints) are actually quite rare.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[10101001 10101001]

What is science? Fundamental it's the body of knowledge that comes about by using the scientific method. Neo-Darwinism (which is what most people mean when they talk about Darwinism) is a result of this process. So, if one is to reject Neo-Darwinism, one fundamentally denies that the process itself used to validation Neo-Darwinism is flawed in some way--actual new discoveries that fall within the bounds of the scientific method that contradict Neo-Drawinism excepted. In other words, one denies the validity of science and hence science in general. It's really that simply.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were some omniscient being with all the time and resources in the world to examine the innermost thoughts of every creationist and intelligent designer, perhaps I'd be able to develop a more accurate opinion. As a human being with limited years on this earth, please forgive me if I take a short cut and make what is a pretty accurate generalization to save time. If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science. You may think you're pro-science, but usually what that means is that you're pro-technology and view your toys as validation of the superiority of your culture and by extension the correctness of its religious views.

Would it not be better to judge someone based on what they say and their deeds rather than some predetermined cubby hole we create for people? Why do we have to create this little world for people to live in rather than only judging them based on what they say and do? Generalizations about people, in general, are dangerous things and certainly aren't fair. ;)

I've always seen such generalizations as the seeds of prejudice, no matter how eloquently spoken.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Elad Alon]

Rejecting Darwinism/Evolution/Whatever,youknowwhatImean is the hallmark of requiring findings to conform to certain preconceived notions you have on the subject. With those, error is often a matter of time, and correction is practically impossible.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Repton]

Why is it that if you are against Darwin you are against science?

The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method. That is --- the validity of science implies the validity of evolution.

If you deny the validity of evolution, then, by modus tollens, you are denying the validity of science. It's logic :-)

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always seen such generalizations as the seeds of prejudice, no matter how eloquently spoken.

That's because it is. Everyone has a problem when they have to smell someone else's shit, but everyone can stand the smell of their own. Remember that, it's profane, but true.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There are plenty observations made "each day" that contradict evolutionary theories.

Name some. Before you post, please check talk.origins and the NCSE website to see debunkings of your claims; I can almost guarantee that any of the observations you're thinking of do not contradict evolution in the slightest, and have already been explained in short, simple sentences and words of few syllables so that even creationists can understand them.

There are also many established scientists who don't support it too.

No, there aren't. There are very, very few, and almost none of them are biologists. And their arguments are the same easily debunked nonsense, repeated over and over in increasingly obfuscatory language; they haven't brought anything new to the table in decades.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to find an absolute in a relativistic universe, it doesn't exist. It is based off age-old beliefs in simple cause and effect, and projecting those flawed beliefs over the span of millions of years. The universe does not operate this way. With our modern knowledge of relativism and quantum mechanics, evolution should be debunked.

Congratulations, you've managed to combine two of the most common types pseudo-scientific quackery (creationism and profound misinterpretation of quantum physics) into a single post! I suggest you stick to fare like "What the Bleep Do We Know?" -- it should be more at your level.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[freddie]

However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day. And if you publicly come out against it and in favor of some alternative theory for which the only evidence is a religious text, chances are pretty damn good that you are incapable of holding a logical thought in your head to begin with.


FYI science is made on testable hypothesis. One of the reasons that evolution does not make good science is that it is not testable. It is not testable is that it is based on many one-time events, for starters:

1. The creation of life
2. The absorption of mitochondria into eukaryotes
3. The absorption of chloroplasts into plant cells

Experiments have shown that after a few decades of natural selection some species can adapt by changing color, for example. This does nothing to elucidate how, after any number of generations, a salamander could become a rhinocerus.

Furthermore, many characteristics of living organisms, such as the shape of protein and enzymes, are not the type of problem that are suitable for solving with so-called genetic algorithms, which would be required by the evolution theory. For an problem to be solvable by a genetic algorithm, it needs to for a smooth curve, that allows approximation to occur. Many structures present within plants and animals are either completly wrong or completly right; there is no approximating.

In short, evolution is a flawed, untestable theory. Why do peole back it? Fear of religion? Fear of the unknown? Feel free to confess.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day.

Let me remind you that as widely-known and understood as evolution is, even Darwin himself admitted that the theory could be debunked if it could be proven that a system could not exist in an "intermediate" state such as that which evolution requires:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

As a proponent of evolution, I'm sure you've heard arguments such as irreducible/specified complexity and life's beginnings hundreds of times. Allow me to ask you, merely out of curiosity rather than criticism - How do you defend your position against those arguments?

Putting on my flame suit: Though I am a Christian, I personally believe that evolution is compatible with scripture. However, I also know better than to put my entire faith in a theory which has such holes (just like I question my religious beliefs on a regular basis). I am clearly not a fundamentalist, so not all Christians are "incapable of holding a logical thought" in their heads.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Derosian]

What most people fail to realize is that Darwin supported the idea of Microevolution, not Macroevolution. The idea that creatures could just suddenly change from one specia to the next is laughable. Christianity, in general, supports the idea of microevolution. On top of this, I would like to ask that people start clarifying what they mean when they say Evolution, becuase it is becoming rather bothersome, seeing all this talk of how evolution can be proven and is a fact, and not clarifying of which you are speaking. In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Gene Palmiter]

Science is a processs through which we as physical beings can more completely understand the rules of the physical universe. To our neolithic ancesters the supernatatural powers brought food on the hoof and on the vine. They brought the weather and the seasons, the earthquakes and the babies...and death. Science has taken up the task of understanding these and have done well. There are areas, though where science does not do well. To my mind comes a book called Autobiography of a Yogi. Either the writer was a fraud or a fool, or we take him at his word. He describes events that science cannot explain...yet. As for Creationism...as I am from Pennsylvania I have a Judges ruling that its the same as Intelligent Design...it just isn't science. Science has a culture with rules of behavior, it has a language and the words have specific meanings. ID seeks to borrow this culture and language for it's own purpose, the general acceptance of Christianity in a sceptical Western world. Science students in the US and in India will get the same results if they use the same input. But with creationism they start from different sources...the Bible or perhaps the Bagavad Gita so they get different results. Neither source is provably right or wrong so both are unscientific. Science gives us a common starting point. It may be wrong, but it is scientific. I happen to belive that the Universe was created at about 6 o'clock this morning coincident with my initial perception that I was awakening. Spread before me was a complete world that scietificaly was billions of years old. It wasn't of course...it just looked that way. How is this any different from a world started an any other specific date? Is it any more unreasonable to belive that my newspaper was created on my doorstep at the same time as the steps, than it is to belive dinosaur bones were created with the creation of a 6000 year old universe? So, leave it be. Use science to explain the physical universe and leave the supernatural to explain the rest. But, don't teach the supernatural in the science classroom

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[NeoOokami]

The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is so cute. I mean after all, after several thousand mutations of course a species isn't going to change... The distinction doesn't even really make sense. "We believe that little changes happen, but that big changes don't." Of course big changes not being anything quantified, merely an abstact concept that they feel contradicts their little world. Again though, if you allow for little changes, then it seems crazy to then decide that no matter how many little changes occur, there sitll won't be any "big" change.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[superflyguy]

The best arguments for against darwin don't primarily argue against science, but against scientists. While upholding scientific principals, they basically say that somewhere along the line scientists started testing whether their results were valid based on darwinism instead of considering whether darwinism was valid in light of those experiments. They basically pick out every counter-example to everything scientists use to support Darwin, look at how the counter-examples were explained away, and explain them away in the opposite direction. And when you look at those arguments in their entirety, their alternate is prety feasable, decently supported (especially relative to the small number of people who came up with it), and compatible with itself.

That said, I personally think most of it is junk. We're never going to have empirical proof, and the only way this could ever be resolved would be to find a way to get a bunch of unbiased observers and start the process over putting both explainations up for debate at the same time, which isn't going to happen. Otherwise, nobody's going to be able to reconstruct what was based on what, and it'll probably be a bunch of bickering until the world ends. And I don't see what the point of that is either when there are explanations that reconcile religion and science. If scientists didn't go out of their way to exclude creationists and acknowledged that everyone has some ammount of bias, analyzing things experiment by experiment, they could both wax and wane as evidence was discovered, not as courts were involved. Religion and science would both survive either way.

And now students who take the innitiative to learn about science, religion, or current events are much more likely to learn about it than if there were three sentences in a textbook that everybody ignored.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Personally, I'm still worried about abiogenesis myself. I don't think god waved a magic wand though.

And while I have no trouble with evolution per se, I don't think that when we finally answer the questions on how it works, that it will even be close to any theories yet proposed. Something funky is going on.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

How about an alternate question. Can I propose that natural selection (as a subset of evolutionary theory) has some pretty monstrous holes in it, without being labelled an anti-intellectual zealot?

I'm serious. I challenge someone to give a succinct definition of natural selection that can stand up to intellectually honest scrutiny. I think I can prove you wrong, and I won't once mention God.

Evolution certainly occurs. The evidence is irrefutable. It is my position that natural selection is not up to the task of explaining how it occurs.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html

Perhaps you can confess that your irrational belief is in fact wrong, and that you are in fact against science.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

The creation of life

The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever as to how the first life forms came into existence. If you do not know this much, then you do not have a sufficient understanding of the theory of evolution to criticize it.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[DigitlDud]

Just for the record, I can't be called a creationist. I seek a scientific explanation for the origins of life but I am not satisified by current theories.

I don't have a strong interest in biology so I'll just take your word for it that evolution sufficently explains the creation of a species in a specific timeframe on earth. I'm sure it works quite well with such constraints placed upon it.

I'd like an answer to such things as to how inorganic matter became living or even how matter came to exist in the first place. I'm pretty sure evolution can't answer these questions. And if it can't, it really is not a general theory of the origins of life but just a way to explain specific biological processes.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[ClamIAm]

I think Darwin was chosen because it's the one thing so many "Christian" groups rail against (I don't consider them to be "truly" Christian, because they're usually pretty fucked up about more than just Darwin). I realize that there are only a very small number of people who are actually against science itself, but there seems to be a pretty popular perception that Christians hate advances in science because it "threatens" them. So these churches decided that a good way to say "hey, we're not all book-burning idiots" was to celebrate Darwin.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

Let me remind you that as widely-known and understood as evolution is, even Darwin himself admitted that the theory could be debunked if it could be proven that a system could not exist in an "intermediate" state such as that which evolution requires:

And thus far no such system has been observed. All theories are potentially falsifiable -- an explanation that has no falsification criteria is not scientific. Evolution stands strong for many reasons, including the total failure of any potential falsifying observations to come about despite ample opportunity.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Wavicle]

First, enzymes are proteins. Second, the only "algorithm" that needs to be followed for evolution to occur is an occasional copying error. Your application of a computer science term to biochemistry is quite inapplicable. A genetic algorithm is a mathematical model inspired by observing nature, nature really couldn't give a crap what inspiration or models are created.

Many structures present within plants and animals are either completly wrong or completly right; there is no approximating.

While I disagree that there is a completely right structure within any plant or animal, I think it's more important to point out what you didn't say: "some structures within plants and animals are only approximately correct." Exactly what evolution would predict.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Achromus]

Go ahead and diss the grandparent poster. He said people against evolution are "probably" and "usually" against science. He didn't say people who are against evolution are always against science, which would actually be an inaccurate overgeneralization. He recognizes that this likelyhood isn't always the case, rather than putting everyone in a cubbyhole as you so said when making a strawman argument.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

Can I propose that natural selection (as a subset of evolutionary theory) has some pretty monstrous holes in it, without being labelled an anti-intellectual zealot?

That depends. What are the holes?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[hunterx11]

Scientists don't support Darwin; they support evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin's idea that evolution is gradual has been largely replaced by punctuated equilibria based on evidence. Scientists don't simply look for things to reinforce existing theory, but instead they seek to expand and revise it constantly. This is the sort of thing creationists don't want; they start from a given premise and discard all evidence that doesn't agree with it. You basically took an argument against creationism, replaced the word "creationist" with "scientist", and expect people to lend credence to your nonsense because you admit to uncertainty.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Decaff]

Can I propose that natural selection (as a subset of evolutionary theory) has some pretty monstrous holes in it, without being labelled an anti-intellectual zealot?

I am not sure how.

I'm serious. I challenge someone to give a succinct definition of natural selection that can stand up to intellectually honest scrutiny. I think I can prove you wrong, and I won't once mention God.

OK, here goes. DNA does not replicate with complete fidelity. Also, sexual reproduction shuffles the DNA to produce different combinations of genes. This means that the offspring of an organism can show considerable random variation. It is rare that an organism is perfectly tuned to it's environment (this including the presence of other organisms, including members of it's own species). Therefore, some random changes will be in the direction of optimising the organism, allowing it to reproduce more successfully. Because this organism has more offspring, the changes in its DNA will tend to spread, and become a dominant characteristic. Eventually, in a group of isolated organisms, the se small changes may accumulate until the organisms are no longer able to breed with others. This is now a new species is formed.

Evolution certainly occurs. The evidence is irrefutable. It is my position that natural selection is not up to the task of explaining how it occurs.

What do you suggest as an alternative then? Natural selection is a trivially simple mechanism.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Darwinism, an interesting and plausible hypothesis, does not constitute all of science"

It WAS a hypothesis. Now it's a theory. There's a difference.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

Okay, now you need to argue your point.

Examples:
-The bacterial flagellum
-DNA replication mechanisms
-Cell division
-Cilium
-Blood clotting

I'm going to claim that these systems and others are irreducibly complex. I don't think it's impossible that I'm wrong, but saying "thus far no such system has been observed" is a bit of a blanket statement that seems to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[professionalfurryele]

The whole point here is that everyone doesn't have the 'same amount of bias'. You cant fake a line on a chart, you cant fake a regression, and you cant fake fossil records (at least not without getting caught eventually).
Scientists go out of thier way to ensure that Creationists are not considered scientists because they are not scientists. You say most of what creationists say is junk, I would go a step further, I would say almost all of it is junk. You claim creationists explanation is feasible, and self-consistent. Of course it is, it is untestable. You say it is supported by evidence. There is no such evidence. At least no evidence that could distinguish creationism from a real scientific theory.
You mention it is decently supported. I'm afraid that is simply a work of fiction. Almost every trained biologist supports the theory of evolution. For the most part it is engineers, computer scientists, and the like (people who make little contact the emperical biological science at a research level) who are creationists. These people are not qualified on the subject, and even if they were, an overwhelming majority still support evolution as the best theory we have to explain the origin of the species.
I'm afraid your position, though moderate, is still wrong. The overwhelming evidence is that evolution is the correct theory to explain the origin of life back to the first replicator. It is incomplete, but any explanation which replaces it will contain most of the current theory of evolution as a subset of itself. In fact it will probably contain so much of the current theory it will be called evolution on account of it being based on identicle or near identicle premises.
I appreciate that you are trying hard to be a moderator, a go between between scientists and the antiscientists, but the bottom line is that science cannot negotiate, because it is a method not a people. And the cold hard facts are that the method supports evolution, not creationism, and unless creationists come up with some real evidence supporting creationism, instead of simply pointing out the gaps that are not yet filled in in evolution, evolution will remain one of the key theories underpinning the biological sciences. It is not a choice to be more diplomatic, there is nothing to be more diplomatic about.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[corngrower]

The evidence is irrefutable. It is my position that natural selection is not up to the task of explaining how it occurs.

Natural selection may not completely explain evolution, but it certainly is a basis for evolutionary theory. It explains the part of the process that guides the direction of the evolutionary process. To explain where the variation in a population comes from requires knowing genetics and statistics as well.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[professionalfurryele]

In order to be genuinely "irriducibly complex" in a testable way, I would argue you need to be thermodynamically impossible, since no way to calculate the probability of a given configuration exists (we can really only at this stage observe favourable or disfavourable changes in a species and compute the obvious). No violation of the laws of thermodynamics are observed in the above systems, so I'd say you need to go back to the drawing board.
Perhaps you would like to in some way quantify irriducibly complex for us so we can see irriducible complexity at work? Otherwise you are simply stating that a system could not have come into being without external asistance simply because you cant think of a good explanation.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[As_I_Please]

I'd like an answer to such things as to how inorganic matter became living or even how matter came to exist in the first place. I'm pretty sure evolution can't answer these questions. And if it can't, it really is not a general theory of the origins of life but just a way to explain specific biological processes.

This is absolutely correct. Evolution is a theory of speciation (the emergence of species from other species), not of origins.

Theories of Abiogenesis (life emerging from non-life) I've heard are within a decade or two of being experimentally tested. I'm a physicist by training and don't know the details, but from what I've read in popular science magazines, biologists are optimistic.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[name*censored*]

Has anyone else apart from me noticed that, although OP was about how religion and science don't have to be at each other's throats, this has degenerated into a religion/science flamewar in about 3 posts?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may think you're pro-science, but usually what that means is that you're pro-technology and view your toys as validation of the superiority of your culture and by extension the correctness of its religious views.

You're an idiot.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[funpet]

On the contrary, the very basis of science is disbelief. One who believes something without question is "undermining science", be it creationism, evolution, or anything else.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

1) Please, for everyone's sake, learn to spell.
2) If there was a way to quantify irreducible complexity, I'd do it. If there was a way to quantify evolution, or intelligent design, or Charles Darwin, I'd do that too. What does quantification have to do with your point?
3) Otherwise you are simply stating that a system could not have come into being without external asistance simply because you cant think of a good explanation.
Good point, but that's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that the most common explanations for evolution (and ID also) tend to ignore presented evidence if they don't agree with it, and if you want to be truly scientific, you just can't do that. Fundamentalists aren't scientific, but they aren't claiming to be. However, I just can't see any way that a good scientist could debunk ID without considering the holes that our current theories have. Look at the recent /. article about politicians for a comparison (I'm too lazy to find the link).

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[bunratty]

FYI science is made on testable hypothesis. One of the reasons that evolution does not make good science is that it is not testable. It is not testable is that it is based on many one-time events

So the big bang theory is not good science, either? It seems like there are lots of predictions made by that theory that have been tested thoroughly, even though it was clearly a one-time event. Just because we can't actually see the Earth's tectonic plates moving continents thousands of miles, or the solar system form, or life evolve, that doesn't mean that we can't form hypotheses about these events and test them.

In short, evolution is a scientific, testable theory. Why do people refute it? Fear of reality? Fear of the unknown? Feel free to confess.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[nwbvt]

It is certainly logically possible to develop a valid scientific theory of the origin of the species that goes against evolution.

Just most who advocate such positions do not develop valid scientific theories. And the fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" suggests you are among the majority in that group.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[bunratty]

Debunk intelligent design? Excuse me? All intelligent design is, as far as I can tell, is a hypothsesis that some intelligent being designed life, rather than life evolving from natural processes. We have evidence that genetic mutations occur in nature and know that they can lead to life forms that are better adapted to their environment. We can measure the rate at which these mutations take place, measure the genetic "distance" between species, and determine when their common ancestor lived. The geologic and fossil evidence matches quite closely with the results we get from assuming that life evolved due to random mutations over long periods of time.

Now, where's the evidence for this "intelligent being"? What is there to debunk? It's just an idea, and there's no evidence to argue against. There is no scientific debate of evolution vs. intelligent design, because intelligent design isn't based on science. Science requires evidence.

If you're really seriously talking about comparing the two ideas, and want to bring up the holes in evolution, how about the one huge gaping hole in intelligent design? Namely, what is the intelligence?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[TemporalBeing]

Scientists don't simply look for things to reinforce existing theory, but instead they seek to expand and revise it constantly.

Ideally this would be true; however, scientists as of late have become so tied to evolution in any form that they simply are not abiding by this any longer.

they start from a given premise and discard all evidence that doesn't agree with it.

While this is thrown at creationists all the time, the same is equally true for evolutionists, especially as so many have hinged their careers on an assumption that may be proven wrong, so they instead throw out anything that might prove that assumption wrong to save their careers.

This is the sort of thing creationists don't want;

Actually that is exactly what creationists do want because they believe that if scientists held to the ideology behind science instead of trying to find how a solution would be solved in accordance with and only with evolution that creationism would be supported.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists don't support Darwin; they support evolutionary theory.

This is true.

In fact, Darwin's idea that evolution is gradual has been largely replaced by punctuated equilibria based on evidence.

Punctuated equilibrium was put forth because of a lack of evidence of gradual evolution. Secondly, though the mechanism is supposedly rapid simultaneous genetic mutation, empirical proof of that has yet to be observed.

Scientists don't simply look for things to reinforce existing theory, but instead they seek to expand and revise it constantly.

In this case the "existing" gradual theory is really a subtheory of the overall theory of evolution. And yes, with puncuated equilibrium, the gradual theory is not being reinforced. However, "expanding and revising" the overall theory of evolution is an attempt to reinforce that overall theory that evolution happened.

I.e., though puncuated equilibrium may overthrow the gradual subtheory, it was introduced as an attempt to rejuvenate the overall theory of evolution itself. The gradual model wasn't working against the evidence being observed, so, instead of wondering if evolution was wrong, the theory was put forth that, maybe it happened so fast at times that the fossil record would have statistically few or no intermediate life forms. And this was put forth without evidence other than that there was a lack of evidence for the gradual theory.

This is the sort of thing creationists don't want; they start from a given premise and discard all evidence that doesn't agree with it.

Alot of creationists are unscientific and inconsistent in their use of logic or argumentation and deserve this charge. But the scientific community is not devoid of this flaw. (This does not justify discriminatory evidence selection in either case, however.)

However, there are creationists (and scientists) who are validly pointing out the nonlinear nature of scientifically described systems that make the linear (in regards to time) theory of evolution problematic as a viable explanation. I.e., the knowledge of chicken and egg problems is growing with the increase of scientific knowledge, not decreasing, and it is looking more like science is genuflecting to evolution just saying that it evolved to be this way, without subjecting evolution to scientific testing. I.e., it looks like evolutionary theory is piggybacking on valid scientific knowledge rather than supporting it.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

I've already admitted that ID has holes of its own. What I'm really looking for is someone to answer my questions about evolution. You can't seriously discuss ID or religion on these forums, because nobody will even consider it. I'm not arguing for ID at all, so it's pointless to continue bashing it. I'm bringing the debate to your home turf, and I'm giving you every opportunity in the world to answer my questions. Why can't you do so?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[hunterx11]

Ideally this would be true; however, scientists as of late have become so tied to evolution in any form that they simply are not abiding by this any longer.

I hear that these days, engineers assume that gravity exists when they design bridges without even testing it for themselves. It's shocking, especially when you consider that lives are at stake, yet they still allow their biases to color their work.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no "neo-Darwinism", this is a word made up by religious people to make evolution sound like a "scary new idea" as opposed to "an old, successful idea" or "a traditional Christian value".

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[As_I_Please]

Two rebuttals:

bacterial flagellum

blood clotting

However, rebutting each claim of irreducible complexity is rather pointless since irreducible complexity can arise from evolution!

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[professionalfurryele]

1) Please, for everyone's sake, learn to spell. No, I'm a physicist, I don't need to, I don't care to, and you would do well to avoid the common creationist mistake of Ad Hominem attacks. 2) If there was a way to quantify irreducible complexity, I'd do it. If there was a way to quantify evolution, or intelligent design, or Charles Darwin, I'd do that too. What does quantification have to do with your point? Some hypotheses are inherently quantative, or require quantative predictions to test. In so far as intelligent design is really just the experiment that Charles Darwin came up with to falsify his hypothesis repackaged as an antiscientific God of the Gaps theory, if we are to, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, find evidence against it, that evidence had better be pretty darn good. So good I would argue it would need to be quantifiable at about the 95% confidence interval. You admit yourself you have no way to quantify irriducibly complexity, ergo you have no theory. Debunking ID is very very easy. It is not a scientific theory. As I said above, all it is is an experiment that could disprove evolution, which has never been realised. I gave one quantifiable definition of Irriducible Complex, and then out of fairness asked you for your own (after all, my definition comes from my experience as a physicist, and perhaps you could have found one that had some means of being tested based on methods more grounded in biology). Holes in existing theories do not constitute reasons to doubt them. They are reasons to expect that there might be more to a theory, or that they might be approximations to another more general theory. Heck we have already had one revolution that fundamentally redefined evolution in the form of genetics. There might well be more revolutions to be had. But what ever revolutions we might have, evolution will always be a good approximation to what is going on in nature.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[jcr]

The idea that creatures could just suddenly change from one specia to the next is laughable.

Who said it happens suddenly?

-jcr

Re: Darwinsim = Science?

[kornichon]

However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day.

Don't you think that this is a bit of an overstatement?

The creationist view that species have been steadily losing genetic information through the ages is just as plausible as the evolutionary view that they have been gaining it. The reason the two groups can't see eye to eye is that the creationists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that God does not exist, while the evolutionists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that the God of the Bible does exist... and by "God of the Bible" I mean a God that:

1. Created man in His image.
2. Gave man reason and free will... allowing man to exercise that free will to his detriment and that of the planet that was entrusted to him.
3. Sacrificed His only Son so that man would not necessarily have to pay the consequences of his rebellion.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[fermion]

That one is against the theory of natural selection is not the issue. Rather it is the reason for the rejection of this well established set of principles. If one had evidence of a systematic flaw or a prediction that was verifiable inaccurate, then one could say that this theory was unsound. However, as it has served us well for so long, it is unlikely that we would throw it out. Rather, like classical mechanics, we would merely limit the domain.

However, these people have not really shown the theory to be unsound. Rather, they have merely stated that the theory in theistically undesirable, and therefore must be untrue. What most people miss, and BTW what makes schooling based on religious fanaticism scary, is that science is not a set of disparate facts, but a set of guiding processes and principles, and, given that Evolution is such a successful theory, when one disrespects evolution based solely on personal belief, one also disrespects the of scientific process and puts all scientific finding into questions. (Let me clarify here that I am not claiming the scientific process is perfect or even acceptable, merely useful, and if one rejects it, one must reject all the useful things that has resulted form it.)

What we must remember is that science is a house of cards. If one chooses to believe that one part of science is wrong, say evolution, then one must question all science, because all science is based on the assumption that with careful observation and modeling one can discern the workings of nature. If we believe that evolution must be wrong for theistic reasons, then we have no basis to believe that any other science is correct. It is like believing that a particular person is a crook, and then leaving all your money in this persons care. If your money gets stolen then you are an idiot, and it not then you are likely a hypocrite.

And as christians what we must remember is that the one thing our lord cannot stand is a hypocrite. Recall, we shall not like the hypocrite go pray in public. We shall not like the hypocrite advertise our good deeds. A hypocrite is on who may be likely to go to hell, and a hypocrite is one who rejects evolution based on faith, but still has faith that science is accurate enough to build a car that won't blow up. Clearly we would not drive a car unless we thought it was safe, and clearly a car is safe because of the science based research that went into it. Clearly GM does not list prayer meetings as a basis for their safety program.

By all means question any theory. By all means ask why this must be true, and why that must not be true. But remember why the likes of Newton started the systematic observation of the world. They were not satisfied with the pompous people who thought they already knew the nature and intentions of Gods. These natural philosophers were not so arrogant as to think they were equal to god, to think that they could tell others exactly what god was thinking, exactly who would go to hell, and impose human rules on the all powerful. Rather, these natural philosophers took their rightful place beneath the almighty and tried to understand the rules by observing the only manifestation we have, that of the creation. And by these observations we can come to understand the nature of the world, and that nature is necessarily the same no matter how many gods you believe in, even if that number is zero. And what these natural philosophers discovered was so dangerous to the megalomaniacs, so risky to cushy like that the religous hypocrites build on the back of the ignorant masses, that these so-called men of god tortured and killed these philosophers, even though we know that the taking of a human life is the sole perogative of the almighty.

So in the end I pity the hypocrites that deny evolution solely based on faith, for they lack not only the intelligence to understand the unity of the world and the moral fortitude to truly live their beliefs, but also suffer from the greatest illness known to humanity: the delusion that one is equal to the creator.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

Thanks! Now we're getting somewhere. Would you mind providing a link to a website which tells me how the first life began out of proteins?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Foofoobar]

Technically, everything is a theory. Newtonian Physics, which cannot be denied to work, is denied by quantum physics. At a certain point, all truths are subjective and taken out of context, can be shown to be blatantly false.

However, practical application proves its usefulness even without observable evidence (which oddly enough, their is still plenty of in the case of evolution).

However, to try and pawn a theory which has no observable nor practical application is without merit and deservedly ridiculed. Which would be one reason why creationism and 'intelligent design' (oxymoron of the year) were not satisfactory to anyone short of those who would toss a virgin into the volcano to appease their angry god.

I say to those who would reject science, that they should not benefit directly from it. Let them live in a tree and picks fleas off themselves as long as they and their children like as long as I don't have to have them denying evolution merely because their straight line of a family tree has not benefitted directly from it.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK ALL YOU FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTANS.. GO READ SOME PHILOSOPHY AND THINK BEFORE YOU BLINDLY ACCEPT THINGS

ou are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[As_I_Please]

This I cannot do as there are no theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) at the moment. The origin of life is a very open question, with lots of hypotheses being thrown around. From what I read in popular science magazines, experiments to test various ideas are only a decade or two away and biologists seem optimistic, though I can't be sure as I am a physicist.

This is as good a source as I can come up with at the moment.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[governorx]

Cause and effect doesn't work?? WTF.

Cause: I want/need money.
Effect: Create huge scam. Call it religion.

Elaboration: Exchange promise of afterlife for collection basket donations. Who's gonna come back from the dead and sue? No one. DEATH = END; no accountability = perfect legal scam. Call the people sheep - insult them but let them love you for insulting them. Oh yeah, tell them they are sinners once they are born. Being slaves to their own bodies isn't enough. They will have to make their children join too.

For you code monkeys, here is the linear model code form of religion:
Notice how its recursive.

bool DoReligion()
{
  while(death == end)
  {
    CreateSoulMisconception(); //step 1
    PromiseAfterlifeForSoul(); //step 2
    PassCollectionBasket(); //step 3 - PROFIT!!! ! ! ! !! ! THE GNOMES WERE RIGHT
  }
  if( ModifyBeliefs() ) return DoReligion();
  else return AbortAndRun();
}

Im not a sheep. I can accept that death is the end of life. That my personailty is a product of being human and the numerable (but not yet measurable) chemical reactions throughout my body. That, by being human, I am manipulated by my own body to ensure survival and procreation. I can even understand why closed-minded people are intrigued by religion - because its designed to manipulate the weak-minded.

Religions will always change their beliefs to match scientific progress - they need followers(sheep) for money. Thats why evangelists dont want science and evolutionary theory taught in school. Humans(general case iq >= 100) have a nack for accepting teachings that are likely to be true and are less likely to join a religion that believes in genesis if a better theory exists. Religion requires sheep for the flock - sheep only bah and follow, they dont speak. Good sheep - let me lead you to the afterlife its just over this cliff...

I could go on.. but this topic upsets me too much.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[TemporalBeing]

The whole point here is that everyone doesn't have the 'same amount of bias'. You cant fake a line on a chart, you cant fake a regression, and you cant fake fossil records (at least not without getting caught eventually).

It's true that not everyone has the "same amount of bias", but people can at least admit their biasness. Scientists as of late have purportedly not done so and intentionally keep from it because it would hurt the "science" they are doing.

As per "fake fossile records" - true, you can't fake them. But you can fake the science that interprets them - and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists. The truth (be it allowed) will come out.

Scientists go out of thier way to ensure that Creationists are not considered scientists because they are not scientists.

But this is not the place of scientists. It is the place of scienctists to state what is known, not to purposely disprove a group of people, and disavow (sp?) anything that comes from that group. THAT is not science; that is religion.

You say most of what creationists say is junk, I would go a step further, I would say almost all of it is junk. You claim creationists explanation is feasible, and self-consistent. Of course it is, it is untestable. You say it is supported by evidence. There is no such evidence. At least no evidence that could distinguish creationism from a real scientific theory.

That's not what the GP said. The GP said that creationists are simply taking the same data and showing how it could be interpretted differently using the same science to get a different outcome that supports creationism over evolution. The very fact that it is merely a different interpretation of the same data shows a lack of doing real science by the evolutionary scientists. If they did their job right, then science would acknowledge different possibilities and allow science to search for the truth, not restrict it to what the evolutionary religion of science says it must be.

You mention it is decently supported. I'm afraid that is simply a work of fiction. Almost every trained biologist supports the theory of evolution. For the most part it is engineers, computer scientists, and the like (people who make little contact the emperical biological science at a research level) who are creationists.

Then please explain to me how micro-biology is turning more scientists into creationists than evolutionists? Please explain to me how if you start looking at the picture of science as a whole, and start putting together the pieces of science generated by the specialty fields, how the fields start contradicting each other, and the overall outcome does not support evolution?

The overwhelming evidence is that evolution is the correct theory to explain the origin of life back to the first replicator. It is incomplete, but any explanation which replaces it will contain most of the current theory of evolution as a subset of itself. In fact it will probably contain so much of the current theory it will be called evolution on account of it being based on identicle or near identicle premises.

So how about this "theory": God created out of nothing. He created light, and split it into day (light) and night (darkness). He allowed some time to go by. He then created water, and separated it with water above and water below and a "void" in the middle. The "void" he called sky. He let some more time go by. He separated the waters below and created dry spots. The dry spots he called "dry land" and the waters he called "sea". He then created vegetation on the "dry land" and let some more time go by. He then separated lights in the sky and called them each stars, and formed one close by and called it the "sun" and let it govern the "day", and a lesser one even closer called the "moon" and l

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[mdmiller9]

Not enough time or room here to post the every day events that contradict macroevolution. (You won't find those for microevolution... because microevolution is quite true.) Fortunate for anyone seriously seeking these answers, there is an extensive, well written, scientific website with great content for the casual observer... and detailed content for the most scientifically technical person.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If the site name alone keeps you from checking it out... then one might want to ask themself... "Am I afraid that I might find the truth to be quite different from what I currently believe?" While I'm at it... an aside on belief/science... anyone asserting the truth about the origin of the universe is exercising a belief. We weren't there. Hypothesis can only be tested in our current environment. Theories without confirmed, recreatable processes to support it... by our own definitions of science... are still theories.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise your usage of the word theory just shows or at the least implies you don't understand the subject matter, not?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[coopex]

Apparently since Trolling Tuesday (TM) falls on Valentine's Day (TM), the trolls had reschedule to today, and with the perfect article.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[joss]

Depends what you mean by evolutionary theory. Creatures evolve, sure, you won't find many science "believers" disagreeing with you there. What's a lot less obvious is that evolution occurs solely due to natural selection/sexual selection, crossover and mutation or any other explanation that "evolutionary theory" has so far come up with.

I used to think natural selection was a sufficient explanation for life. What cured me was I worked fulltime for two years using genetic algorithms to solve a hard problem [it was about efficiently scheduling orders through a large metal rolling factory to optimize throughput]. I had several previous years experience in all kinds of optimization problems - [I had used GA's before in toy situations, but also had extensive experience with simulated annealing and numerous types of numerical optimization problems].

I was successful in this project, ie I eventually produced a program that produced better schedules than the (intelligent) fulltime, experienced humans who used to produce the weeks schedule using their own knowledge and experience along with various supporting computer tools. The heart of the solution was a GA coupled with various tricks used whereever beneficial. It helped that I had an Origin 2000 at my disposal. GAs really do work, and not wishing to sound arrogant, I understand that process and what they're capable of (from a computational potential perspective) better than all but a handful of people on this planet.

But... as a result of all this, I don't understand evolution anymore. It doesn't add up. From an optimization perspective, the problems I was solving where something like 10^100 times less difficult than the problems solved by evolution. Genetic algorithms run into a bit of a wall beyond a certain point.

Now, I'll grant you that I didnt have several hundred million years to work on the problem. However, I did experiment with population sizes in the 100'000s and I did evolve them for 10,000s of generations. Those are small numbers when considering evolution of bacteria, but they're pretty realistic numbers when considering evolution from an Ape to a human (or some equally fit alternative). Remember, according to evolutionary theory, the life events of an individual are irrelevent.All that matters is whether it produces offspring (also some evolutionary advantage to protecting close relatives, but even that can be simulated quite easily), and supposedly the mechanism is crossover and mutation, ie in a GA, life experience is equivalent to the evaluation function.

Based on my experience, I dont believe you could solve a problem such as the development of an equivalent to an F16 starting with a sopwith camel using GAs unless you used [at least] tens of millions of individuals over millions of generations. It seems to me that evolutionary problems are solved *much* faster than one has any right to expect. Apes evolved into modern humans with populations in the hundred thousands over tens of thousands of generations. I know that humans were just the design we ended up with, not the goal,
but.. think in terms of the creation of a creature as much more "fit" [from evolutionary perspsective] as a human to an ape.

So, anyway.. I dont believe in "evolutionary theory" as a sufficent explanation anymore. I don't believe in intelligent design either, but I dont blame people who do

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Xeriar]

1. The creation of life

Is not a part of evolution, try again.

2. The absorption of mitochondria into eukaryotes
      3. The absorption of chloroplasts into plant cells

They both were obviously absorbed, since chloroplast == cyanobacteria. Lyses do not also succeed. Since both these facts are known, it probably just hasn't been tested yet (we would need to locate or breed a suitable species, however.)

This aside, evolution does make a number of testable predictions, that have been born out in the breeding of insects, plants, bacteria, and, well, dogs, horses, etc. Just because every last detail of evolution has yet to be tested does not make it 'bad'. We still have no experimental evidence for gravity waves, yet we do not throw out relativity. Relativity is actually the weaker theory.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[rossifer]

It is not testable is that it is based on many one-time events, for starters:

1. The creation of life

First, this group of theories are in an area of science called "biogenesis", and are not related to the theory of natural selection. Second, the scientists working on these questions are not even slightly upset that their field isn't as widely supported as evolutionary scientists. They're having far too much fun finding evidence for the various possibilities.

2. The absorption of mitochondria into eukaryotes
3. The absorption of chloroplasts into plant cells

These events are also not a part of the theory of natural selection, though the line is getting a little blurry.

Also, you seem to have talked yourself into an interesting hypothesis: if something only happened once, then there's no testable evidence that it ever happened. I can think of many things that have happened only once that leave plenty of evidence behind.

Can you?

Finally, it's not so important that a theory be repeatably testable, so much as falsifiable. Currently, there are almost no evolutionary observations that the theory of natural selection does not explain (including the nature of DNA, cross-species genetic comparisons, the extensive fossil record, etc.). The few that remain unexplained only serve to refine the theory and do not "disprove" anything. Wishful thinking of anti-science advocates nonwithstanding.

The rest of your post (and "Darwin's Black Box") falls on the same point.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more to science than evolution, but religion and science are fundamentally opposed. The foundation of science (all science, not just evolution,) is skepticism: in order for an idea to be accepted, it must be proven. The foundation of religion (all religions, not just Christianity,) is unquestioning belief. You cannot have science without skepticism; you cannot have religion without unquestioning belief.

In Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, he makes an interesting analogy, the invisible dragon. The short version: If I claim to have a dragon in my garage, but there is no way to prove that it exists (it's invisible, doesn't give off heat, you can't touch it, etc.,) you wouldn't believe my claim. Science is not only the rejection of the invisible dragon, it specifically teaches you to think in ways that lead you to reject the invisible dragon. All religions suffer from the problem of having their own 'invisible dragon' (figuratively, not literally.) Therefore, science must reject religion.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because unfortunately most scientist's religion of choice is Darwinism! Haven't you heard of the Church of Darwin? These poor souls usually join this church mostly out of peer pressure. It takes an enormous amount of religious faith to believe in macro-evolution:

(apes + time + billions of scientifically inexplicable miracles) = human

You see, one of the most painful things an evolutionist can hear this day and age is that they are the newest incarnation of the old holy roman catholic church, (and they would subconsciously like to burn all naysayers at the stake if it wasn't so illegal...) I feel sorry for these poor sheep who willfully follow each other off the cliffs of logic (KQ6 baby!) and reason...

But seriously, I think the saddest and most ironic part of all is the fact that *most* scientists adhere to these inane religious beliefs and call it science- these the very folk who the rest of us are *relying* on to have discriminating and skeptical thought processes.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[jban4US]

hey, we are on slashdot. here, darwinism == science.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer."

That's because the only alternative no one wants to take seriously simply because historically agency has been tied to superstition, seperate agency from superstition and you can have equally viable theory. You only have two options: Prior Agency or "law" (i.e. evolution). I really dont think "cause and effect" and 'evolution' as it is understood today qualifies as an origins theory, it qualifies as a development theory and even in development no human being currently understands it accept at a very basic and general level with philosophical underpinning that the hitsory of life on earth did not have any historical events besides 'natural' (i.e. environmental) laws operating.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

Would you mind providing a link to a website which tells me how the first life began out of proteins?

You're talking about events not discussed by the theory of evolution now.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Bender0x7D1]

Something to keep in mind is that each "generation" can be as short as the single division of a cell. In addition, don't underestimate the power of individual cells/organisms/creatures/animals to act in a parallel manner. There are insects (termites) that lay 7000 eggs a day, providing 7000 opportunities for some sort of evolutionary event. Looking at the aphid, in a single season, if all offspring lived to reproduce, there would be 1,560,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.56x10^24) offspring. Reference here.

Multiply that by the total number of insects (including different species) and this is a lot of opportunities for mutations and evolutionary activity. Also, keep in mind things like viruses and bacteria that reproduce in even greater numbers.

I don't claim that this makes evolution any less amazing, but a billion+ years and all the parallelization possible from all types of life makes for an incredible amount of computation. Enough, perhaps to even determine the question to life, the universe and everything.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I afraid that I might find the truth to be quite different from what I currently believe?

What keeps most people from following that link is the abundance of pseudo-science that will spew forth onto the page. Even your short post reeks of the type of - clever, but dishonest - "feel good," but fallacious - half-baked arguments that I have found in every pro-creationist website that I have visited, including the aforementioned.

anyone asserting the truth about the origin of the universe is exercising a belief

Not all beliefs are equal. The belief that the flying spaghetti monster created all species is different than the belief that evolution is responsible for speciation. The second is the result of the theory of evolution, a model which has time and time again provided excellent predictions and is supported by decades of very strong evidence (see Talk Origins). The same cannot be said for the first, which is supported by just as much as creationism is, minus an old book with no scientific authority. So you have your link, I have my link. That makes them equally authoriative, right? The crucial different is that my link documents scientific facts that have undergone peer review and have been accepted by the scientific community. The information on your link serves to justify religious beleifs, and in doing so, dishonestly distorts (or ignores) the body of knowledge accepted by the scientific community. And as tempting as it may be, don't begin with the "evolution is just as much a religion", "scientists fear punishment if they promote creation", or "scientists are just out to prove Darwin right, regardless of the truth" fallacious detours that always getted tossed up in desperation. Those same myths get stomped in every slashdot thread that mentions the word evolution, please don't waste our time by going through the same empty motions.

Toe to toe, fact to fact, the persuasive yet unsupported arguments of creationists crumbles under the weight of objective, verifiable facts in support of evolution. Your efforts to manufacture a "controversy" on the subject is understandable, as it is the best way for creationism to gain legitimacy for the scientifically-ignorant masses. Nonetheless, you don't do yourself any favors by buying into your own hype: it only makes you appear ignorant of science (see your abuse of the word "theory"). You really, really want to beleive that creationism is true despite the fact that it has no scientific basis. That's fine. Just please don't project the inadequacies of your beliefs onto others, who put the rational advancement of knowledge over the irrational justification of personal beliefs.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[m.lp.ql.m]

That "theory" is consistent with the Creationism of Christians (according to Genesis 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9) as well as with some of the existing "theories" of "evolution" in that it allows creatures to change over time, but it does not link all creatures together into one genetic pool (as evolutionists want). It is consistent with the evidence that we have, but relegated off the table as scientists (as the GP says) don't want it because they have an agenda towards evolutionism (as you say) in order to disprove Creationists. Now while you may claim that the "theory" I put there is "unprovable" - it is no less provable than Evolution is. It contains and allows for the very observations that "scientists" claim only support evolution, and gives an alternate interpretation. However, for it to be "provable" as you would like, far more detail is needed - but this is not the place for it.

Your "theory" however, conflicts with my religion, which is no less provable than your religion.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[savorymedia]

As a human being with limited years on this earth, please forgive me if I take a short cut and make what is a pretty accurate generalization to save time. If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science.

I think you're just making bigoted generalizations. I'm pretty hazy on macroevolution, but I still believe in...ZOMG! What is this MAGIC BOX that I'm typing on?!? I press these things and things just magically appear in the GLOW attatched to the box! It makes light and has no heat!

THIS MUST BE OF THE DEVIL! BURN IT! BURN IT!

*rolls eyes*

If you honestly think we believe that technology can exist without science, you're more deluded than the creationists you disparage.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

My point exactly.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

My point exactly.

So what about it? What do you intend to demonstrate via your point?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Draek]

just askin', but... could you explain the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution"? dunno, but the way "creationists" (meaning, those that think that God created the world as it is) throw the terms around, it'd seem that they think that pro-Evolution-theory people really believe that life beings "evolution" just like pokemons, and a horse will breed/become a bear in a cold enviroment/while being attacked by a giant lizard/something... which would be, like, the biggest straw-man argument ever, or something :D

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Chemicalscum]

As a proponent of evolution, I'm sure you've heard arguments such as irreducible/specified complexity and life's beginnings hundreds of times. Allow me to ask you, merely out of curiosity rather than criticism - How do you defend your position against those arguments?

It is just one aspect of the fact that evolution is a falsifiable theory as all real scientific theories should be. It is a very good theory that as the great evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky put it: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Dobzhansky was BTW a deeply commited Christian.

Modern evolutionary theory makes a great number of predictions in what we expect to find in our future observations, not merely retrodictions (which of themselves are not necessarily bad things), if any of these predictions were falsisfied (e.g. discovery of a Cambrian era mammal) the whole of evolutionary theory could potentially fail. However as evolution has proved to be a very robust theory, as new evidence continually reinforces the theory, it has become one of the best theories in modern science.

The arguement of "irreducible/specified complexity" is specious in the form it is usually presented. Basically what its proponents say is look how conmplicated a living organism is, how improbable it is that it could be created by chance. Evolution does not propose organisms are created by chance, it proposes that the random variation which evolutionary selection operates on are "created by chance". Darwin's statement: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." requires his opponents to demonstrate how a particular complex organ "could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications". The the opponents of theory of evolution have demonstrably failed to do so.

Re: Darwinsim = Science?

[ClickOnThis]

The creationist view that species have been steadily losing genetic information through the ages is just as plausible as the evolutionary view that they have been gaining it.

Huh??? Steadily losing genetic information? Since when did creationists invoke anything about genetic information (gaining or losing) to explain the development of humanity?

The reason the two groups can't see eye to eye is that the creationists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that God does not exist, while the evolutionists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that the God of the Bible does exist.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

You may be right that creationists (evolutionists) discard any theory that presupposes God doesn't (does) exist. However, whereas creationists take their position out of bias, evolutionists take theirs out of necessity. Science cannot prove or disprove that God had His hand in any observable phenomenon. Consequently, any attempt to include God in a theory makes it impossible to do science with it. You might say that science, in order to be science, must stick to what can be explained without invoking the hand of God. And evolution is one of the major successes of science as such.

...and by "God of the Bible" I mean a God that:

      1. Created man in His image.
      2. Gave man reason and free will... allowing man to exercise that free will to his detriment and that of the planet that was entrusted to him.
      3. Sacrificed His only Son so that man would not necessarily have to pay the consequences of his rebellion.

Whether we're talking about God as an omnipotent being, or in the narrower "God of the Bible" context that you defined with these three points, the issue is still the same: science does not address whether or not God exists; rather, it seeks to explain the patterns observed in natural phenomena without invoking God in the explanations, for the reasons I gave above.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Coryoth]

I know that humans were just the design we ended up with, not the goal,
but.. think in terms of the creation of a creature as much more "fit" [from evolutionary perspsective] as a human to an ape.

I think the real question is "more 'fit' for what?", and until we have some semblance of an answer to that I think your concerns are awfully speculative. We really have no idea of what pressures or constraints led to humans developing. In contrast your example of and F16 from a Sopwith Camel there are some very well defined implicit constraints and specifications as to purpose and what constitutes "fitness" in this case. What led to humans may have been some fairly loose and easily satsified constraints with some of the particulars that we take for "fitness" simply being aberrations where the process spun on in an unconstrained direction.

Could evolutionary algorithms solve the Sopwith Camel to F16 problem in the required time? Maybe not. Evolution/Life doesn't always manage to solve the problems with which it is presented, particularly when the constraints are excessive. History is littered with examples of evolution failing to develop a satisfactory solution in time: it's called extinction. So even if humans are a remarkable solution to an incredibly difficult problem it may well be that we are just one of those few cases where an answer did turn up in the requisite time out of millions more cases where it didn't.

Jedidiah.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cobras2]

>Because in order to discredit evolutionary theory, those who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief. The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.

I oppose the evolutionary theory. I am also in my third year of study for a Bachelor of Science degree (Computing & Info Systems) which I hope should tell you that I am *not* opposed to science.

Therefore the statement "those who oppose it [evolution] attempt to undermine science" is incorrect - I oppose evolution, and I do not seek to undermine science. I just don't think evolution is the correct interpretation of the observations.

>The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.

But if someone did oppose the theory of gravity (or heliocentricity, or whatever other currently held theories) *and* provided an alternate theory, you would *at least* consider both theories unless or until you could prove one was more likely than the other, right? And you wouldn't consider someone who claimed his own theory instead of the currently held theory of gravity to be speaking against all of science. You might consider him to be a fruitcake, but you wouldn't consider him to be anti-science just for saying the theory of gravity is the wrong way to interpet the effects we have observed.

Well, I (and a lot of other people, *most* of whom are not against the scientific method) say that evolution is the wrong interpretation for the effects we have observed.

I will grant that some people who disagree with evolution also disagree with the scientific method. I'm just trying to point out that they're not the majority; and, like, wake up, there are a *lot* of people who don't believe evolution is correct.. and not all of them are "the ignorant masses" - some of them are geeks (you know, "the smart masses") too :)

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most interesting comment I ever heard against evolution. However, I think you forget a few things. The speed and efficiency of evolution (be it real life evolution or optimizing algorithms) depends a whole lot on how you code down your individuals into a genome, and how mutation and crossing operates. It may be that the DNA based mechanisms as found in ordinary life forms is significantly better at this than the schemes you used during your computer simulations.

After all, as far as I know, while the current evolution theory accounts for the origin of species, it does not deal with the origin of this DNA system itself. If we suppose that the current DNA mechanism itself is a result of improvement by evolution of more primitive life-form encoding mechanisms, it gives it a very hard advantage over what you used. You, mere mortal with finite wisdom and available time, have probably designed a sub-optimal genome-representing solution.
You said that you your GA-produced-solution outperformed human designed solution. Why not imagine that evolution-optimized evolution mechanisms may be significanlty more performant that yours?
You say that human may have evolved form apes in a relatively short time, but forget to take into account that apes are already the results of billions of years of evolution, having EXTREMELY sofisticated genetic mechanisms.
  Think about it from another angle. Instead of considering if changing apes into humans with 100,000 individuals with 10,000 generation is a bit hard, ask yourself: how long would an evolutionary process have to be to create a [ape that can evolve into a human in 10,000 generations of populations of 100,000 individuals]. Given that from the origin of evolution-capable specices to apes, there are bilions of years, representing huge populations over vast numbers of generations, it gives a bit more room to find this solution.

Of course, this still lacks an explanation of the boot-strap stage: how did we get to the first evolution-capable life form. But if we accept that the evolution mechanism itself can be improved by evolution, given that life has been around for quite a while, it is not that surprising that evolution mechanics can be so darn efficient.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[maxume]

There are a couple of things that you are either skipping for brevity or ignoring. In case you are ignoring them:

  There are what, ~25,000 genes in the Human genome, made up of about 3 billion base pairs(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome).

I'm no expert on genetic algorithms, but I am willing to guess that you weren't working with anywhere near 25,000 variables per individual or that you did silly things like generate non working solutions(radical mutations) and the like. Did your system include a mechanism that coding for an individuals dna to control how genes were combined with each other, some of which might be intermixed with genes? How sophisticated was your recombination?

The evaluation for fitness in nature(natural selection) is an incredible process. It basically awards efficiency in energy gathering and conversion(survival and propogation depend directly on this). The interesting part is that bad genes can survive for much longer than would seem reasonable. See sickle-cell anemia. It's caused by a bad gene, but the mutation makes recessive carrier more resistant to malaria. How is a G-A method going to account for a situation like that?

Much of the cellular machinery in higher order mammals is also present in bacteria. The mammals get all the evolution that the bacteria did for free. Evolution is a continual struggle for resources. Multicellular organisms evolved because they are able to take advantage of certain resources more efficiently than a single cell, things like eating single cells and whatnot.

This leads to the sopwith camel->F16, how many parameters are you going to use and what mechanism is going to evaluate fitness? Those factors are going to be at least as important as the number of individuals and generations. If your fitness algorith doesn't say 'I want an F16', it isn't going to get one.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cobras2]

>punctuated equilibria based on evidence.

"Starship Troopers" the movie was "based on the book", too. (Don't get my point? Read the book and then watch the movie.. they're two entirely different stories which happen to have a few people in them with the same names. Umm.. but different genders ;) )

  Evidence - there are fossils - can be viewed a lot of different ways; you're saying that I am interpreting this evidence based on my own views ("there was a creator") and I'm saying you're interpreting it based on yours ("it happened that way by chance") - we're both right, because both of us are *interpreting* that evidence, because the evidence is not conclusive enough on its own.

That's the problem with a lot of the 'evidence for evolution' - it's evident that evolution hppened if you start with that assumption, but it's also evident that evolution is not what was going on if you don't start with that assumption. So me, I'm going to go with creation until you actually have proof - not evidence. Because proof and evidence don't mean the same thing.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Crazyscottie]

My point is simply that evolution does not cover all of the bases, and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps. As I said before, I do not disagree with evolution, and in fact, I think it goes hand-in-hand with scripture. One of the problems with many (not all, but many) scientists' thinking is that they believe everything will eventually be understood by science and science alone. Can I say that it won't? No! But can you say that it will?

Sometimes you just need to take a few steps out of faith and see where they lead. You might just learn a lot more than you were expecting.

With that, I've made my point. Flame all you want, but from this point on I won't respond unless it's particularly thought-provoking.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is in this knee jerk reaction against religion people latch onto evolution as the only way. They miss an important possibility. It's not creation, evolution, or creative design that started it all. What started it all is the simple fact that no other universe of possibility was stable (we may not even be the most stable). All the intelligent design, evolution, etc may have started with something much simpler. Any other reality would have simply collapsed unto itself. It's not evolution, it's not creationism, it's just nothing else would have been stable.

Unfortunately, those who follow science are so busy opposing religion they are blind to other scientific theories. Once it started, evolution took over. But evolution didn't start it. Neither did creative design. What started it was the reality/universe that supports what we are.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that if you are against Darwin you are against science?

Oh hey just hold a sec and think in the real meaning of the "evolutionary theory", Its drive you to the meaning of "Natural Random". Here we see another question. Dose science belive in the random things. I read once Einstein discribe the random word with "The something that you can't expect", You can't expect doesn't even mean its random.

So, anyway.. I dont believe in "evolutionary theory" as a sufficient explanation and I dont blame people who do

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[DreadHarn]

"And if you publicly come out against it and in favor of some alternative theory for which the only evidence is a religious text, chances are pretty damn good that you are incapable of holding a logical thought in your head to begin with." Is that right? I guess I am carrying a 4.0 GPA in computer engineering grad school cause I am not capable of holding a logical thought in my head. Sounds like you are lacking the brain.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of the lab, evolution is affected by many more environmental factors over longer lifespans, so increasing the rate of evolution. Radiation and viruses are commonly encountered things; so I doubt that evolution takes place solely through generations, but also through each individual's life time. Rather than a slow, careful one-mutation-at-a-time/which-mutation-is-better algorithm, I would say a more reckless model would more properly emulate natural evolution.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[AngryElmo]

Evolution as a "fact" refers to the set of observations that scientists (and others) have made over the past 200 or more years. That is that many living and dead creatures appear to be related and to fall into an historical "tree". Fossils have also presented more evidence for this. As have DNA and a number of other observations (ring species etc).

Evolution as a "theory" is an attempt to bring all of those observations into a coherent model. The model basically states that populations will change over time via genetic drift (mutation) and that natural selection will be the filter that allows those populations that are best adapted to an environment to procreate at a higher rate than those who are in some way deficient (for that environment).

Which do you dispute?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cobras2]

>However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer.

Just because it's talked about the most doesn't make it the most well established. It's pretty darn new to be "one of the most well established"... and it hasn't been "proven" yet (I know you didn't say that, but I'd just like to point it out) or it wouldn't still be called the "theory of evolution", you know.

>It is supported by evidence extremely well

But remember, evidence != proof, they're two different things. Evidence only means you've convinced the judge (or jury).. not that the accused actually did it. The two *usually* correlate, but not always.

>And if you publicly come out against it and in favor of some alternative theory for which the only evidence is a religious text, chances are pretty damn good that you are incapable of holding a logical thought in your head to begin with.

There is as much *evidence* for creationism as for evolution; we are here, we have not always been here, therefore it is evident that we got here somehow. If you meant *proof* please say proof :)

Funny, too, Darwin was studying to be a priest in the episcopal church if I remember correctly.. but I suppose that just because he 'reformed his ways' he's okay?

>And it's a simple fact that people who publicly oppose evolution tend to be quite vocal in not only bashing scientists as a group, but bashing science in general as an inferior source of knowledge as compared to religion- an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one.

I would greatly like to have a real study done on that, instead of just your opinion, because I hadn't noticed that.
I have no problem with scientists - but scientists can be just as wrong as anybody else can.

>If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science.

Don't be ridiculous. Believing in something I can't see doesn't make me not believe in the things I can see. I'm just not wearing the same colour of rosy glasses as you are when I look at fossil records. Yours are rose, mine are green, or something.. and we see two different things. Neither has been proved or it *wouldn't be called the theory of evolution*. It hasn't been proved. So stop saying that disagreeing with it is disagereeing with science.

Come on, people.. slashdot is supposed to be all these highly educated geeks.. and yet you're so silly as to think that anyone who disagrees with the popular view (or maybe it would be better to say 'the cool view' since, admit it, we all like scientists, which is why we're geeks in the first place) is bashing all of science? I mean, think abotut that for a minute: you think just because I believe in something that I can't prove (God)(and that's considering you don't think I can prove there is a god), I therefore don't believe in the concept of proving things?

I also believe that the square of the length of the hypotenuse of any right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, but I can't prove that either. Am I anti-science because of that too?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

My point is simply that evolution does not cover all of the bases

What bases? Evolution covers a specific phenomenon in biology. Scientific theories are like that -- they keep their scope limited to a set of events. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution because how the first life came to exist has no bearing on the evolution of that life after it exists.

and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps.

The lack of explanation for life origins is not a "gap" in evolution, it's simply a matter outside of the scope of the theory. Evolution also does not address the ultimate origin of matter, the formation of planets or stars or how a manual transmission operates. Those aren't "gaps" in the theory, those are issues that the theory does not try to address.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[turkeyfish]

"So me, I'm going to go with creation until you actually have proof - not evidence. "

Spoken like one who does not do science. Only mathematicians are in a position to prove things. Scientists are forced to settle for
falsification, as strictly speaking there is no "proof" in science. There is always the logical possibility of a small probability of an unexpected outcome regardless of the hypothesis in question. If there is a hypothesis, such as Darwin's, namely that species evolve by means of natural selection, that has been repeatedly tested and retested in an effort to find "evidence" that might contradict the theory (ie an observation that could not be explained by the theory"), we say that the hypothesis is robust and the hypothesis is referred to as a theory. This is not the same as a layman's use of the notion "theory". It is more than a mere hypothesis, since it has been repeatedly tested, and no contradictory evidence has ever been found. Evolutionary theory has now reached the point that most scientists don't focus on attempting to "disprove" the central tenants of Darwin's theory, but only focus on aspects that are still open to debate (ie at what rate does it occur in particular taxa). It would be similar to a modern physist declaring that the earth does not rotate about the sun, simply because there is an infinistismally small probablity that it might not being doing so this instant, even though it has been repeatedly checked and rechecked until most modern physicists have little new understanding to gain by thinking otherwise.

Yes, there are observations that could disprove (falsify) Darwin's theory. Darwin noted that it would only take a single observation of a true genetic altruist (an organism that forgoes its genetic future to benefit that of another) to destroy his theory. Such organisms do not occur in nature, although there are many examples of kin selection (ie placing ones own genetic future in jeopardy to genetically benefit a relative that is genetically like, although not identical to it or its sibling). True altruists die out because they have no mechanism to pass on their genetic complement. There are a great many more, such as if natural selection were not true then closely related organims would not need be similar genetically.

You might not want to admit that you are far more like a chimp genetically than say a mouse, but this fact is consistent with Darwin's central thesis. To make the point clearer not only can certain genes be shown to be more alike, the theory predicts that the vast majority perhaps nearly all are because we and consequently all our genes) evolved from a common ancestor. Indeed it is hard to imagine that the machinations of some random God could have produced an alternative outcome. Of course, even if there were such a random God, it wouldn't provide any useful explanation beyond what Darwin has provided us, as any random God would do equally well. Because one can always use a random God to explain anything, the notion explains nothing from a scientific perspective.

Anyway, those who choose to believe in the 10 commandments have a more fundamental theological problem posed by the evident truth of Darwin's theory (consistent body of observations). Namely that to dismiss it is literally to "bear false witness" of the creation of man. Ironically, such people damn themselves, assuming that they actually believe in the 10 commandments being given to man by God.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Sean Hederman]

Oh dear, people don't agree with you, so therefore religion is banned from discussion. Can you please tell me when you posted these banned missives so we can contact the Slashdot editors and tell them to stop censoring your views?

You quite clearly have a very limited grasp of evolution and science which makes me wonder why you claim to support it so. If you don't understand at least the fundamentals, I'd think it'd be intellectually dishonest to boost the theory.

Your conflation of abiogenesis and evolution is a case in point. Evolution says nothing about how life began, merely how it proceeded once it began. To turn around and point to something explicitly left out of the theory as a weakness in the theory is a bit silly wouldn't you say? Evolution comes into play the moment you have life, not before.

As for your comments about science explaining everything I happen to agree with you. I don't think science will ever be able to explain everything. I doubt that many scientists believe it will either. Science itself claims that there are certain fundamental limits on what we can know. We cannot even in principle view the internals of a black hole, we cannot directly observe the past. Since FTL travel is denied us by Relativity we could not visit and observer every planet in the Universe. The list goes on.

I personally doubt that we will ever have a really clear picture of how life originated on Earth. We may have some plausible hypotheses, but since they would rely on processes that no longer exist, and that we have no evidence for, they would likely remain in that state indefinately.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cobras2]

>Evolution stands strong for many reasons, including the total failure of any potential falsifying observations to come about despite ample opportunity.

But mostly just because it continues to be taught to everybody who goes through public school, who then go out into the field and use their dogmaticly taught principles of evolution to further prove evolution..
say, does that sound a little familiar to some kind of teaching that is supposedly anathema to science?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[gavri]

Is there really a well-defined line between living and non-living things? Evolution also explains the creation of "life" from "non-life". It's just that we don't really talk about this because if we do the basis of the idea of morality gets shaky. Which is why even evolutionists kind of hold back when they argue with creationists because they know that getting the general public to go with the idea of there being no "soul" is impossible. It's never going to happen. And talking about it might lead to popular rejection of the theory of evolution itself. Might as well gain half-a-victroy than none at all.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

But mostly just because it continues to be taught to everybody who goes through public school, who then go out into the field and use their dogmaticly taught principles of evolution to further prove evolution..

Perhaps you could justify this assertion rather than just making it. Also, explain how this is different from other sciences that are taught in public schools, such as physics and chemistry?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[PitaBred]

"This does nothing to elucidate how, after any number of generations, a salamander could become a rhinocerus."

Ok, now, this is gonna sound silly, but the changing color thing is only something that we have been able to observe in ONE HUMAN LIFETIME. Just one. Now, let's do some math. The Devonian period, when amphibians first appeared, was about 417 to 354 million years ago. Now, let's assume a typical lifespan of a single organism is, oh, 10 years. That means that there have been 35.4 million generations, minimum, between a current rhinoceros and the earliest amphibians. We've seen major physical changes in just hundreds of generations, not to mention mating separations between populations. But I suppose looking at evidence and extrapolating things is invalid. Who knows... the sun isn't gonna come up tomorrow because it just doesn't feel like it, and God wants to test our faith. Or something.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[As_I_Please]

Is there really a well-defined line between living and non-living things?

Not really. Viruses are borderline, but to those who study them, that distinction is rather academic. Anyway, I guess it depends on whether you consider a molecule that catalyzes the formation of other molecules like it to be alive.

Evolution also explains the creation of "life" from "non-life".

No, it doesn't. Abiogenesis seeks to explain the emergence of life from non-life and is still largely hypothetical in its details, though experiments are forthcoming to test these hypotheses.

even evolutionists kind of hold back when they argue with creationists because they know that getting the general public to go with the idea of there being no "soul" is impossible.

Only an ignorant asshole would say that science "proves" that there is no such thing as a soul. The concept of a soul is as much outside the purview of science as economics is outside the scope of evolution. In fact, creationists try to make this same link in order to scare Christians into believing that evolution contradicts God. I think the people who wrote this letter and the 10,000 undersigned clergy would agree with me.

Nothing but FUD and I'm getting sick of it.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Conanymous Award]

Creationists, pay heed. That post is a valid critique of the current evolutionary theory. And yes, the fact that it can (and is probably bound to) change makes evolution science. We have a observation-based theory that gives the best possible answer to our question "how does evolution happen", but we also know it isn't sufficient in all parts, as joss's post demonstrates. Even though he might have missed something in his algorithms (as someone suggested in a reply), he demonstrates how the theory can be criticized and tested.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Walker Orr]

Comments that simply belittle people:

explained in short, simple sentences and words of few syllables so that even creationists can understand them.

I suggest you stick to fare like "What the Bleep Do We Know?" -- it should be more at your level.

don't benefit anyone. There is a lot about the universe that needs to be explained and neither you nore I have all the answers. In light of this, simply insulting and rejecting those who hold beliefs different than your own is without merit, even if they are misinformed or offbase. Until we have full understanding who we are and how we came to be, it is necessary to show tolerance and respect to others, no matter how wrong they seem to be. Plus you'll feel like an idiot if they turn out to be right. :)

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[gavri]

Abiogenesis is nothing but chemical evolution. Which is the same as biological evolution as far as Survival Of The Fittest and Natural Selection are concerned. The difference is a matter of at which scale these two activities are occurring. The divide between these two has been made in academic circles. But at the level at which we are discussing these ideas, they are the same. Any distinction between chemical and biological evolution you try to make here is artifical.

Only an ignorant asshole would say that science "proves" that there is no such thing as a soul.

Which is why I didn't say that science "proves" that there is no soul. I meant that there wouldn't be any reason to think a soul exists. A soul would be superfluous.

In fact, creationists try to make this same link in order to scare Christians into believing that evolution contradicts God.

That doesn't mean that they are wrong.

I think the people who wrote this letter and the 10,000 undersigned clergy would agree with me.

Why do you think that is going to impress me?

Nothing but FUD and I'm getting sick of it.

Remember what I said about the general public going nuts?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[PenguiN42]

The major problem here is that you seem to overestimate how much "improved' humans are over apes. Our genomes are incredibly similar. When you look at the biological structures involved, humans are really just slight adjustments to what an ape already has DNA to encode -- Larger brains, less hair, different bone alignment.

Your analogy of sopwith camel to F16 is more like the evolution of an anphibian to a human -- many structures are completely revised and the overall complexity is much larger, though some fundamental principles remain the same.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cobras2]

>Spoken like one who does not do science.

Sigh. My *point* is, I have not yet seen anything that convinces me that evolution is any more likely (or even as likely) to explain things properly than creationism is. If or when I ever do, I will re-evaluate my position. Until then I will stick with my current hypothesis, theory, or whatever in the world you wish to call it. I really don't care what it's *called*, I care what it *is* - and what it is is something that explains to me how I got here, and what my purpose here is. Whilst fulfilling that purpose I intend to keep on learning, and I have no objections to the scientific method in general.

>This is not the same as a layman's use of the notion "theory".

I know that. I'm not a layman. I read slashdot, therefore I am smart ;) ;)

No, actually, I'm studying for my Bachelor of Science (in Comp & Info Sys) so I don't think it would be unfair to claim to be a computer scientist, at least 'in training'...

But then again, 'layman' means "not a member of the clergy, or not a member of a given profession" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1995) - so actually I guess I have to admit that I am a layman after all, drat it, since I'm not *currently* a member of *any* profession :)

>Evolutionary theory has now reached the point that most scientists don't focus on attempting to "disprove" the central tenants of Darwin's theory.

That's not my point; my point is you all seem to act as if it's already been proven(or at least brought to the point where nobody has any real arguments against it, like with the theory of gravity or the pythagorean theorem), and therefore arguing against it is futile (resistance is futile...)

>You might not want to admit that you are far more like a chimp genetically than say a mouse

I didn't say I didn't want to admit I'm genetically similar to a chimp, but so what if I am? I'm also more genetically similar to a mouse than to a rock. Still, so what? I'm also genetically similar to anything that *HAS* genes. That doesn't even come close to convincing me that we are all descended from a rock, let alone a chimp.
Also, I don't know what your thing about a random God means here.. according to the generally accepted creationist view, the reason that the genes in a chimp and a man are very similar is because the same God created us. That, to me, taken by itself and without any other considerations, makes just as much sense as the evolutionist view taken the same way. In other words, we're using the same evidence to come to different conclusions..

>the evident truth of Darwin's theory (consistent body of observations) ... Namely that to dismiss it is literally to "bear false witness" of the creation of man.

You're still confusing the meaning of evident. Evident means *YOU* think there's enough there to call it likely. Or maybe you and all the highly trained scientists. But you know what? I have seen highly trained programmers create computer bugs. I have heard stories of highly trained doctors who killed their patients because they bled them to death, because it was the theory held to be the most correct at their time (supposedly bleeding out the bad blood left only the good blood). Highly trained does not mean correct.

So what, you say, that means I am throwing training and thought out the window? No, I am not. I am throwing the evolution theory out the window, because *I* have not seen any argument that makes it evident to *me* that it is more correct than the creationist viewpoint.
In other words, I am sticking with my theory - creation - until I find one that's better. Which is the same thing evolutionists are doing, except they have a different starting point - so how can you say they're scientists and then turn around and say I'm not?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[volfro]

How the hell did this get modded insightful?

He just flamed the parent, accusing him of not backing up his statements, while none of his statemens themselves were proven. Seems he's railing against creationists as zealously and blindly as they rail against the 'heresy' of evolutionary theory.

...in short, simple sentences and words of few syllables so that even creationists can understand them.

It's nice to see that educated, scientific people have evolved beyond discrimination based on religious or social beliefs.

Jerk.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it's difficult to understand that putting balls and dice on a table and inclining the table will throw away the balls...
So I would said, you don't need to be a scientist to understand darwinian things, but if you are that's a kind of basis for all sciences, describing why things are like they are (including non-biological thins such as rocks, molecules, ...).

--
Neil Dökkalfar

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[As_I_Please]

It is illogical to conclude anything about religion or spirituality from evolution. You say the soul is superfluous. As far as evolution and the rest of science is concerned, so is art, literature, philosophy, politics, friendship, and all the other illogical things we do that have no survival value, but which lend value to survival.

As for chemical evolution, this makes no sense as most chemicals do not reproduce, do not have heritable traits, and do not mutate. Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe (leaving dark matter and energy aside for a moment). So, it should be the most "fit" according to chemical evolution, but this is nonsense. Those atoms form spontaneously from the union of protons and electrons and are not subject to population dynamics of living organisms. Biology is not merely complicated chemistry. Abiogenetic researchers seek those chemicals which could have been the first to act like life and the processes that gave rise to those chemicals. In effect, these researchers are examining the border between chemistry and biology.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[MattyCobb]

The big bang theory has a lot of nothing to do with evoloution as it has to do with the beginning of our solar system and, to a degree, life. Evoloution has to do with species and the way they changed into what they are now. This is EXACTLY how someone (in the case of the article christians) can be pro-creationism and pro-evoloution at the SAME TIME.

Why do people seem to think that because they read about Darwin in high school they are some kind of scholar ? Why do they feel the need to pretend to be better than people who have faith in a God? Stupidity? A big ego?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[mahmud]

I wonder what would the IQ tests, or any other comprehensive tests of mental abilities of creatonists and evolutionists yield...

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cobras2]

I don't see how that would really explain much one way or the other.. you have of course the fact that most universities promote evolution, and people with higher IQs often gravitate towards a University education of some sort.
But then you have to ask, do Universities promote evolution because it's the smart thing to promote, or do smart people tend to believe evolution is correct because a bunch of other smart people do?

In the end, like Is aid, it doesn't really promote anything one way or the other, because whether or not the people who believe it is correct are highly intelligent isn't the question - the question is whether the theory is correct or not.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[someone1234]

Not too valid. As others mentioned, pure genetics don't make a man from ape. If you take a human baby and raise it among apes, it will be an ape. I don't know the exact numbers, but a chimpanzee and a human got 99% the same DNA. And they evolved parallel from a common ancestor, so they might differ from the common ancestor much less.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[professionalfurryele]

Scientists may have bias, science does not, science has over the past 200 year judged creationism and found it wanting. The science that interprets fossil records? You mean like physics? Oh yeah lets open a real can of worms there. Physics is the single most reliable, accurate science we have. You want to pick a fight there you are welcome to. It is the place of scientists as responsible citizens to ensure that science is apropriately labelled. Perhaps if people of religious background took the same attitude there would be a few less crusades and a few less suicide bombers. You only have to look at the scientific communities reaction to the fakery of Dr Haung to realise that the scientific community is much more serious about obtaining the facts. "Then please explain to me how micro-biology is turning more scientists into creationists than evolutionists?". It is not, and whoever told you it was, was flat out lieing. As for specialist fields being contradictory, care to give an example? As for your "theory", it is supernaturalist in nature. Using God to explain nature is no explanation at all. While it may or may not be true, it is unscientific. If you want to believe that, by all means go ahead it is a perfectly valid philosophical position. But science is not as you seem to hint open to interpretation. I'm afraid you have been sucked in by the propaganda. Creationism is not going to replace evolution, not because some group of people don't like it, but because that is the way science works. Supernatural explanations get replaced by naturalistic ones. I'm afraid that you cannot reinterpret the multitude of Dinosaur fossils in favour of your proposed theory. Now I'm not going to write you off just because you are creationist. I will however write you off because none of what you have said is actually true. You have basically repeatedly used the age old creationist trick of throwing lots of mud and crossing your fingers that it sticks. Well I have a challenge for you. Show me a paper, in a respectable peer reviewed journal that demonstrates some of your claims. I mean if so many scientists are coming around to your way of thinking, that shouldn't be so hard?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[gavri]

The question of whether or not we have a soul is a real one. With a yes/no answer. Whether we will ever know for sure is irrelevant. You can't ask people to not argue about it just because believing in a soul lends value to your life. (It's that whole "This is religion. Science does not apply" approach. Which is the same as saying: "I am delusional. Science does not apply.")

Most of the popular theories about the origin of life are about simple chemicals being responsosible for creating copies, some of which may be slightly different from other copies of which some would be more likely to survive and create more copies. These simple chemicals I'm talking about are not hydrogen or plain elements (I have no idea what you mean by "Hydrogen" being the most "fit". Being "fit" in the context of Evolution means being "able to reproduce") but "non-living" organic compounds.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

Scroll back up and read some of the arguments about intermediacy and population sets, and you'll see the holes in your statements.

We agree that DNA does not reproduce with complete fidelity. Mutations, genarations, successful traits get passed, I agree with it all. The problem rises when we agree that any physical trait that helps an organism reproduce (or survive, or attract a mate, or whatever) must be the result of a significant genetic transformation that cannot occur within just a few generations. Or even a few hundred generations.

The likelihood of successfully completeing a desired DNA sequence disappears exponentially. Each incremental step has no bearing on reproduction or survivability, and thus has (at the very, very best) a 50/50 chance of being passed on. This chance gets cut in half on the next generation. And so on. And we haven't even taken into account competing traits, or traits that must be selected for as a group, or the fact the vast majority of mutations have no evolutionary impact, or a dozen other complications.

I submit (and others have argued better than I ) that the population set for any species and genetic trait you care to mention is both too small in size and too short in duration. For your statement to be true, a species would have to recognize the intermediate steps toward a favorable trait, and pass that along as if it were the trait itself. That's a risky proposition.

And those are just the traits that improve survivability. Natural selection must also account for the traits that are purely social. Google the Frigate Bird. Look at that crazy thing (It's called the gular sac, apparently). It has nothing to do with the physical survival of the species. It's just used to attract mates.

We can assume that the sac evolved, that it wasn't there to begin with. So how did the incremental steps, the steps that don't result in the beginnings of a red sac, get reinforced. And most importantly, how did the genetic trait in the female, the trait that causes the female to find red sacs attractive, get reinforced before the red sacs were even there?

Did the red sac come first? If so, why were all those intermediate steps reinforced without the female's participation? Your random natural selection cannot result in this.

You misidentified the trivially simple in your last line. DNA mutation is a simple mechanism. Natural selection is an extremely complicated process.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[mrpeebles]

I think you missed the results of the last national science survey (or whatever its called) where 1/2 of those polled did not believe that the earth revolves around the sun, and does so in one year :-(

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Colm Buckley]

It seems to me that evolutionary problems are solved *much* faster than one has any right to expect.

Actually, the reverse is true. Given the scope for diversity within a given phenome, and the plausible rate of mutation in most genomes, evolution seems to proceed more slowly than the maximum possible - by two orders of magnitude or so. Given strong enough selection pressures, evolution can take place extraordinarily rapidly (for example, the Bull Island Mouse, although not a speciation, arose within less than ten generations) and most evolutionary "advances" take place over and over again before the "final" version appears. [Yes, I know I'm using loose language here.]

The best books on this subject, in my opinion, are Richard Dawkins'. I particularly recommend "The Ancestor's Tale".

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[KDR_11k]

Creationism is a vastly more complicated theory than Evolution and has no evidence that this additional complexity is necessary. While Heisenberg could have claimed that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is creating those quantum effects he didn't have a reason to so he chose the simplest yet adequate theory he could muster. Same with creationism, there is no reason to assume the existence of a creator of which we can neither say how it works nor where it came from.

When you can show us a working model for describing the functioning and origin of the designer AND evidence that cannot be explained by any simpler means then come back. Before that, it's nothing but a pointless mental exercise.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Thomas Miconi]

Apes evolved into modern humans with populations in the hundred thousands over tens of thousands of generations

And the total difference in genetic material is under .1 %. Out of about 30K genes.

Doesn't that tell you something ?

What you don't seem to realise is that there is a fundamental difference between evolution in nature and evolution in computers. In computers, most often, you'll find that each gene directly influences one particular aspect of the solution. One gene = one trait. Evolution is seen as a "one-way" optimisation problem : you have a well-defined function which tells you whether a given set of parameters is better or worse than others. The mapping is unambiguous and often fragile. You need complex genomes to create complex designs.

In nature, genes are just a general recipe for a complex self-regulating chemical reaction. It is incredibly easy to create very complex designs with minimal information, because the complexity is not provided by the genes themselves: it is provided by the chemical reactions, for which the genes provide only high-level control. Essentially a genome is like a program in a very high-level programming language. There are languages that can let you create complex applications with a few lines of code. This is because much of the complexity is located in the underlying libraries: your program just specifies how and when these complex components should interact.

So in nature, where does this complexity come from ? At the most basic level, the answer is simply: "proteins". Long molecules which spontaneously bend in complex 3D shapes. These complex shapes allow them to catalyse just about any reaction you might think of, with arbitrary specificity - including reactions between other proteins ! It also gives then structural properties: they can use each other to build stuff. The problem of knowing how brute matter can, under certain conditions, spontaneously self-organise into complex patterns is the core of complexity science.

Natural selection does not create complexity: natural selection creates *adaptation*. Because of the peculiar properties of proteins, and because the genome itself is also able to self-regulate (genes can switch each other on and off), there are plenty of possible complex designs to choose from. A small genetic difference in genetic information can have a wide range of consequences, from the trivial to the dramatic; but those differences will often follow complex patterns of their own, simply because they are differences in how an already existing complex pattern should be organised. Natural selection guides evolution towards those which are (increasingly) better adapted to their particular environment. Furthermore (and that is another difference with artificial evolution), the environment is so rich and complex that biological creatures constantly find new ways to exploit it. The fitness function is "open". That's without even mentioning coevolution (when you evolve a new feature, other lineages may evolve other features in response, to which you have to adapt again, etc.)

Of course there is a feedback loop in the system, in that selection may favour those lineages which develop the most "clever" developmental system, thus facilitating the further creation of efficient complexity. People call that "evolution of evolvability".

You want to read two (short, layman-oriented) books: "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod and "At home in the Universe" by Stuart Kauffman.

I dont believe you could solve a problem such as the development of an equivalent to an F16 starting with a sopwith camel using GAs unless you used [at least] tens of millions of individuals over millions of generations.

This would be true if you had one gene for every joint and every bolt. This wouldn't be true if the planes were self-constructing machines (as living systems are) such that the genome would be the overall organiser of a complex developmental system. Those big wings are a bit awk

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[mdmiller9]

Sorry for the undefined terms... I was kind of fishing to see if anyone really cared ;) I apologise also for the links in the response; however, the linked pages have multiple definitions describing the same meaning with different wording which might help more readers understand the meaning: Macroevolution: http://www.answers.com/topic/macroevolution Microevolution: http://www.answers.com/topic/microevolution In short, microevolution covers things like natural selection, genetic drift, and other small progressive changes while macroevolution involves large scale genetic changes. This is a pretty lame summary... I'd encourage you to check out the links!

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

You've got a false assumption here. While genetic mutation does take place when even a single cell divides, that code (and the beginnings of the trait that it might lead to) won't pass the 'fitness test' until the organism itself reporduces. If the organism is itself the single cell, then fine. But just because a single bone cell in my body is suddenly 0.00001% less succeptible to cancer at some time in my life is not enough to pass the trait on to all the bone cells of my children. It's the organism's reproduction that matters. Your numbers are more demonstratably false than the GA model.

As to the aphids, it seems to me that those species that use such spamming methods to reproduce do it as a species defense mechanism. A species that lays a million eggs at a time will assume that 990,000 will die prior to reproduction. So the evolutionarily-effective numbers are probably, again, much smaller than you assert. Also, assuming that the aphids do reproduce as you say, wouldn't they display a proportionally large variation from their genetic code of just a few decades ago? And don't tell me they've reach evolutionary Nirvana. No honest theory of natural selection talks about it stopping. It is more reasonable to assume that their slower evolutionary pace is evidence of a lower effective reproduction rate.

Which leads us back to the original post, that the population set just isn't big enough.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I see no distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. the macro- is just accumulation of the micro- over eons.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

I'm not asking it to explain evolution. I've already granted that evolution occurs. We're talking about the mechanism by which evolution takes place. And it doesn't have to explain where the variation takes place, or where it originates. And it's not the basis for evolution, it's a step within it.

The origin of evolution seems to be genetic mutation, or more simply an alteration of the genetic code that makes an organism what it is. The mutation can be the result of the environment (radiation, organic chlorine, certain viruses, whatever) or the process (errors in the DNA duplication process).

These mutations occur, and the vast majority are either corrected back to the original code, or remain but have no impact. It's the small remainder that we're concerned with. What I'm saying is that natural selection, the reinforcement of random, advantageous genetic traits through reproduction, is not a theory that actually leads us from whatever-was-here-before to whatever-is-here-now.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Mostly a lurker]

I agree natural selection is complex. Nevertheless, we can observe it in action. For example, ring species demonstrate clearly how a series of small adaptations can lead to a new species.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Knuckles]

Christianity, in general, supports the idea of microevolution

Christianity, in general, does not oppose the theory of evolution. (Note: 2nd link does not point to a text on evolution by the German Lutheran Church specifically, but states, "The problems of genetic engineering in the non-human sphere arise first of all from the speed of the developments which are taking place; as distinct from the slowly progressing evolution of life the changes brought about by genetic engineering and its world-wide application are taking place relatively quickly". I couldn't find a more on-topic link in English, but the German Lutheran Church has repeatedly stated that they don't see a problem with evolution)

On a global scale, only fringe parts of Christianity deny evolution, it's just that they seem to have overtaken the US.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Illserve]

Mod parent up!

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[mwclark4453]

While punctuated equilibria is the latest explaination of the Cambrian Explosion which started approximately 530 million years ago, it doesn't account for either the rapid introduction of complete body types (phyla) that appeared during this event (by rapid i'm referring to the current estimate as small as 5 million years), nor does it account for the lack of any transitional fossil forms in the Pre-Cambrian sedimentation layers.

Also, punctuated equilibria doesn't account for the introduction of fully formed body types during the Cambrian Explosion, which is then followed by fossils showing incremental changes within the phyla (sometimes referred to as microevolution) but not across the phyla (also sometimes referred to as macroevolution -- which was the form Darwin was proposing as the "Origin of Life").

It's entirely possible that there is a fossil find out there that will begin to explain this for macroevolutionist, but they've been digging for almost 200 years and so far, every find has only served to support Creationist. Darwin had hoped the fossil record would support his theory but it's still waiting. {BTW, don't bring up Pitdown or Java Man as examples, those have been rebuked by anyone that's done a decent study (as has the Hyracotherium fossil for a different reason)}

For a much deeper presentation of this argument (and several more based on Cosmology and Biology) read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel (http://www.caseforacreator.com/home.php) . While he only gives a synopsis of several books and presentation of interviews he's conducted, he does give an extensive list of material in each chapter to read concerning the various topics. While I don't believe a dyed in the wool neo-Darwinist will read this book and go "Oh my God, how could I have been so wrong." Anyone with an open mind will read it and go "Hmm, hadn't thought of it that way before."

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[TemporalBeing]

When you can show us a working model for describing the functioning and origin of the designer AND evidence that cannot be explained by any simpler means then come back. Before that, it's nothing but a pointless mental exercise.

When you can. Please do as well. Evolution has the same exact problem when it comes to the "origin of the designer" as it only gives an "effect" that had to have some "cause". Evolutionists still cannot give the "cause". So thereby Evolution fails your question too.

That's not to say that Evolutionists have not tried to go to great length to define that cause, but each work gives it less and less plausibility.

Creationism is a vastly more complicated theory than Evolution and has no evidence that this additional complexity is necessary.

Uhh...how is it more complex to say that a Being created everything, and that the evidence will speak for it? Versus, a theory that goes to great lengths to say that a Being did not create anything nor does that Being exist, and always looking at the data and taking the choice against something even when that choice is the least likely of any of the other choices? Evolution is vastly complex and is required to be so in order to maintain its atheistic POV.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

Cool article, but we're talking about slightly different aspects of the same thing. I'm asking how the flashlight works, and you're telling me 'You push the button and light comes out.' My question concerns the batteries.

Once again, I agree that evolution occurs. Genetic information mutates. Natural selection, however, does not explain how we proceed from genetic variation in one generation to a new genetically based trait in some future generation.

Take the salamanders. You're using it to support your argument by saying that the new sub-species is (in effect) the genetic trait, while we can trace the divergent species back to the original and see all the intermediate steps that led up to it. I would argue that the intermediate steps themselves are too complex to be explained through natural selection.

The article talks about how one group of salamanders developed 'cryptic coloration' while the other developed bright colors. Fine. How complex was the change in the genetic code necessary to develop either of those characteristics? Over how many generations did these changes occur? And by extrapolation, what was the total population (over time) necessary to achieve that change?

This is the crux of my argument. The entire problem of the salamanders, and every other species or trait we could discuss, is based on information theory. All we're ever talking about is randomly and incrementally changing one string of data (ACTGTGACCAGACTCA) to another (ACTGTGCAACGACTCA) within a defined set. We know (or can find out) how long the genetic code for a salamander is, what sequence needs to be changed (Where the color information lies), and what it needs to be changed into (to get a trait such as bright yellow). We know that a portion of the evolutionary process is random (since you can't select for genetic code that doesn't do anything, and changing colors doesn't happen all at once), so we can sit in the lab and simulate the population needed to arrive at the sort of things we see in nature, like bright yellow salamanders.

We can then go out and count salamanders. We can date the original salamander fossils. We can study their territorial and migratory habits. We can then make a guess (but honestly, a pretty good one) about how many generations of salamanders, and how many total salamanders, there have been.

I bet the first number, the one that tests natural selection, is frikkin' huge. I bet it's amazingly, startlingly smaller than the second number, the one that examines the actual process without describing it.

This sort of experiment has been done before, as you've read above. Natural selection theory is based on steps that do not result in the observable world.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Penguinoflight]

The example that comes to my mind is that of the discovery of "Lucy".

I joined the International Afar Research Expedition in 1972, and it was two years later that I discovered Lucy. I was 31 years old then, had just finished my Ph.D., and was absolutely bullheaded about finding something.

Link

Johanson discovered an Australopithecus afarensis from the bones that he found, because he was trying to build one. From the article linked, you can read further down that some of the bones were found "up a slope" from where he found the original hominid bone. It's quite likely that instead of discovering a complete (complete enough for forensic study) transitional hominid skeleton, Johanson instead found a skeleton of an ape, and a few human bones. This simply because he was itching to find something he learned had to be there from his 15-20 years of evolutionary thought brainwashing.

This doesn't prove that Lucy isn't real, but I think the discovery fits well with the assertion you are questioning.

explain how this is different from other sciences that are taught in public schools, such as physics and chemistry?

Physics and Chemistry are both much much more easily tested (at least for the core ideas that highschoolers and undergraduates are taught). Mainstream Physics certainly has its problems, most of which involve limiting reality to less than it really is, which is disappointing, but generally not as problematic as assuming more than there is. The real difference is that with Physics and Chemistry there is an easy way of performing experiments. Evolutionary theory lies outside of empirical science, simply because experimentation is not possible; At the rate that Evolution is thought to progress, proving a macro-evolution species to species change would take at least several hundred thousand years, more likely a few million.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Decaff]

The problem rises when we agree that any physical trait that helps an organism reproduce (or survive, or attract a mate, or whatever) must be the result of a significant genetic transformation that cannot occur within just a few generations. Or even a few hundred generations.

Significant traits that effect survival and reproduction can result from point mutations - single changes in the DNA sequence. They do not have to take hundreds of generations, or even a few. Very simple DNA mutations can have significant effects on thinks like colour, size, immunology etc. You also, don't even need mutations - simple gene shuffling as a result of sexual reproduction can mean that children have major differences from their parents.

Each incremental step has no bearing on reproduction or survivability, and thus has (at the very, very best) a 50/50 chance of being passed on.

No. Incremental steps do have a bearing on reproduction and survivability.

For your statement to be true, a species would have to recognize the intermediate steps toward a favorable trait, and pass that along as if it were the trait itself. That's a risky proposition.

It would be if anyone was making such a proposition. No-one who understands evolution is. Let me repeat again: each intermediate step is subject to selection. There is no 'forward planning'. Single changes in DNA can result in major changes in traits, but even minor changes in traits can affect reproduction.

Natural selection must also account for the traits that are purely social.

The 'natural' that 'selects' includes other members of the same species - there is no difficulty accounding for this.

It has nothing to do with the physical survival of the species.

Actually, it has! Producing that sac takes energy - and is actually a disadvantage to survival, which has to be outweighed by the advantage of female preference.

So how did the incremental steps, the steps that don't result in the beginnings of a red sac, get reinforced. And most importantly, how did the genetic trait in the female, the trait that causes the female to find red sacs attractive, get reinforced before the red sacs were even there?

Why are you assuming that there were incremental steps that didn't result in the beginnings of a red sac? The trait that causes the attraction simply wasn't there before the sac was. These things can be caused by the same mutation, due to 'linkage'. This happens a lot - the genes for longer tail in the peacock male also influence selection of the longer tail by the peacock female. This sounds weird, but it is a natural consequence of the way chromosomes and genes are shuffled by sexual reproduction. (There are, of course, millions of mutations that don't work like this, but they aren't selected for and fade away).

You misidentified the trivially simple in your last line. DNA mutation is a simple mechanism. Natural selection is an extremely complicated process.

Not really - it is just your false idea of how you assume it must work that is complex.

Once you understand that selection simply doesn't look ahead, and changes in DNA are selected at every generation, so must confer some advantage at every stage (or at the very least, be neutral), things become pretty clear.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Decaff]

I would argue that the intermediate steps themselves are too complex to be explained through natural selection.

And you are wrong.

We know that a portion of the evolutionary process is random (since you can't select for genetic code that doesn't do anything, and changing colors doesn't happen all at once),

Woah! Hold on there. This is your big mistake. Changing colours can happen all at once. There are plenty of examples in nature where even single point mutations can have dramatic effects - think of albinos. Simple mutations can do things like change the colours of spots or stripes, or increase their pattern or frequency.

This sort of experiment has been done before, as you've read above. Natural selection theory is based on steps that do not result in the observable world.

Yes it is. We see these results (mutations in the wild) all the time.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Illserve]

I worked fulltime for two years using genetic algorithms to solve a hard problem

I understand that process and what they're capable of (from a computational potential perspective) better than all but a handful of people on this planet

In academia, we call two years of experience a "Master's degree". It's the one that comes before PhD.

There are a great deal of PhD's in the world, and, at a guess, thousands of them are based on GA research. We have several in our department.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Decaff]

In fact, Darwin's idea that evolution is gradual has been largely replaced by punctuated equilibria based on evidence.

No, this is a very outdated view, and was held by few reputable scientists. Darwin's idea of gradual evolution is now almost universally accepted, and what seemed like 'punctuated equilibria' is nothing more that somewhat faster gradual evolution over shorter (geologically speaking) timescales.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[KDR_11k]

What "origin of the designer"? Evolution is a theory on what happens once you got life in its simplest form. Where life comes from is the biogenesis, not evolution.

how is it more complex to say that a Being created everything

A whole lot. Because you introduce a new form of existence you complicate matters (unless the designer functions like we do we'd have to outline a new theory for how the designer works and if he works like us then you'd have a recursive problem). Adding a distinction between micro and macro evolution is complicating things (because such a distinction has not been found yet).

Versus, a theory that goes to great lengths to say that a Being did not create anything nor does that Being exist

You're confusing the initial state and a theory you added. The initial state includes only what the eye can see, after that you add layers of theories. The being is a theory formed to explain how the things the eye sees work. So a priori it's assumed that the being does not exist (indeed not even the idea of such a being exists).

Evolution is vastly complex and is required to be so in order to maintain its atheistic POV.

Doesn't look all that complex to me, a simple ruleset that can be applied to a wide variety of datasets and produce good results. How many assumptions does it make? Very few (organisms change over generations and inadequate mutations die off while beneficial ones reproduce).

My take: God is a wildcard, an admission that "we don't know how that works". Everything can be attributed to God without saying anything about the how or why of the phenomenon. Believing that lightning is what happens when God is angry is not what netted us electricity, it's the research that went into the how and why of lightnings and the insight gained into the process that creates lightning that gave us elecricity to work with. Demanding that anything remains explained with "God's work" means wanting to remain ignorant of the mechanisms behind that phenomenon. Evolution can be used for our gains (e.g. predicting mutations in harmful microorganisms), saying "God created all life" can not.

When you formulate a theory it's important to have three things: Testability, the least additional rules (reducing rules is even better) and predictive value. You can say Thor throws the lightning bolts but that's complicated, hardly testable and has absolutely no value for predicting things.

Re: Darwinsim = Science?

[ultranova]

Huh??? Steadily losing genetic information? Since when did creationists invoke anything about genetic information (gaining or losing) to explain the development of humanity?

"Losing genetic information" is a misleading way of putting this creationist point. "Accumulating genetic errors" would be a better way of putting it. The logic goes as follows:

1. Species X was created and was perfect (no genetic defects) just after creation.
2. Species X is not perfect now (has genetic defects).
3. Therefore, species X must have acquired imperfections (genetic defects) during the time between creation and current time.

The biblical references to the first few human generations having lifespans hundreds of years long further backs this logic. At least some creationists also argue that, since those lifespans only shortened after Noah's Flood, and since said Flood was caused by a sheet of water that had been suspended in atmosphere before that coming down, it must obviously be a result of genetic defects, since such a water sheet would have filtered out a lot more radiation than current-day atmosphere can.

I don't know information theory well enough to be able to say if acquiring defects really counts as information loss, since for each defect a healthy version of that gene would likely continue circulating too. Nor do I know if this reflects the current thinking in Creationism, since it has been some time since the arguments I learned this from, and I'm not really interested in further reading works that simultaneously maintain both that God caused the Flood and that the Flood was a result of purely natural processes, as that strikes me as a prime example of trying to serve two masters simultaneously...

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[shorgs]

I really am not an expert but I thought that the evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the ape to man idea. I thought it dealt with common ancestry.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[ultranova]

I also believe that the square of the length of the hypotenuse of any right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, but I can't prove that either.

Bad example ;).

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[hunterx11]

But if someone did oppose the theory of gravity (or heliocentricity, or whatever other currently held theories) *and* provided an alternate theory, you would *at least* consider both theories unless or until you could prove one was more likely than the other, right?

Except that Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It isn't even a model, just a set of unfalsifiable claims. Plenty of people who don't believe in evolution aren't the "ignorant masses," but they're ignorant of as much biology as you would get in an introductory college class.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[scheming daemons]

I really am not an expert but I thought that the evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the ape to man idea. I thought it dealt with common ancestry.

Exactly. The creationists continually (and intentionally, I would argue) distort this because then they can say "Show me the macroevolution from ape to man!".

Nevermind that the term "macroevolution" doesn't even exist in scientific circles and is a term invented by the creationists once the evidence for evolution became so overwhelming that they couldn't ignore it. They simply said... "well, that evolution you have shown us empirically we'll just label as 'microevolution' and say that we agree on that. But you haven't shown us the BIG changes, so we'll give a label to that part and it will allow the cognitive dissonance in our minds to subside."

Let's be perfectly clear on this: Evolution theory does not say that man descended from ape. It says that man AND ape descended from a common ancestor. Humans and apes are two separate branches from the same tree. Humans didn't evolve from apes any more than apes evolved from humans. They both have a common, ancient ancestor.

There is no "microevolution" or "macroevolution"... there is only "evolution". It is all "micro". But several million branches of "micro" changes over time results in a pretty big "macro" thousands of generations later.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

Albinos do not prove your contention. Albinism a recessive, inherited genetic defect, not a randomly generated mutation that will get selected for. Albinism does not occur spontaneously, and when it does it is not selected as a trait to pass to future generations.

Genetic change in fact happens very, very minutely. In humans (I don't have the numbers for slalmanders) the rate of mutation in the human genome is 4.2 per generation. And remember that the vast majority of genetic mutations have no physical effect at all, regardless of the species. So while genetic mutations do occur, those that manifest themselves as evolutionarily significant are (in proportion to the population) quite rare.

But let's return to the salamanders, and grant your posit. You say that the color change happens all at once, as a genetic accident. Fine. A salamander, as a result of a random genetic mutation, turns (slightly) yellow. He's the only one, though, because the one to his immediate left has a random genetic mutation that has turned him (slightly) red. The genetic mutations that you say happen 'all the time' are present in our population. Since they're accidental, they all have an equal chance of occurring. Our yellow salamander might mate, might not. If he does, he passes the trait. Now we have two yellow ones at the next generation, along with two red ones. Or maybe a two yelows, a red, and one with bigger eyes. In your world of genetic mutation happening all the time, how do any traits get selected for at all?

At the root, though, we still have an information theory problem, a numbers problem. Let's assume a salamander has 10,000 genes (humans have beteen 20k-40k, depending on who's answering), and only one needs the tiniest change to turn color, as you say. There's a 5% chance for any genetic change at all to occur in a given salamander in a given generation, and 95% of the changes, when they occur, are meaningless. Let's say 90% of all the salamanders of a given generation live to reproduce. This is all speculation, but you begin to see the problem. Given this scenario, how many salamanders must we have, for how many generations, to arrive at a bright yellow subspecies? And we haven't even thrown in alternate mutations that are competing for the same genetic real estate.

And yet, after all this, we still find yellow salamanders, and in a relatively small population. I say, again, that the populations are too small, and the generations are too infrequent, to support natural selection as described.

Genetic variation does occur. Not all zebra stripes or leopard spots are the same. These are not the 'mutations' that you speak of. There still just aren't enough iterations for natural selection, as described, to account for what actually takes place.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[barawn]

I think the real question is "more 'fit' for what?"

A similar question is "are we really more fit?"

I don't think there's a proper answer to that. From a standpoint of society, we certainly are - we're easily able to adapt to situations that other animals can't as a society. But individually? If you dropped 1000 random humans into the African jungle one at a time, how many would survive? Repeat the experiment with 1000 African apes, and how many would survive? Does anyone really think the percentage for humans would be higher?

This raises an interesting question - is it possible for evolution to produce an "average" solution in one environment that's ridiculously good in other ones? Well, yes - it happens all the time. Kudzu. C. taxifolia. Rabbits (in Australia).

So, as you insinuated, the answer might be that we aren't more fit. It's quite possible (and has been suggested) that humanity was very near to extinction several times in Africa. It's only chance that humans left Africa, and found an environment that they could rapidly take over. Once in that easy-to-survive-in environment, we then developed the capability to deal with any environment as a society.

In addition, it's also difficult to say what would happen if humans weren't already here. Certainly we now prevent species from uncontrolled migration into non-native areas. See the above examples, where very, very aggressive stances are being taken to control those populations. It's tough to claim that we're "more fit" when we don't really know how fit other species are, given that we may be actively curtailing them doing the same actions that led to our own society.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Decaff]

Albinism a recessive, inherited genetic defect, not a randomly generated mutation that will get selected for.

Of course it is randomly generated.

Albinism does not occur spontaneously,

Yes it does.

and when it does it is not selected as a trait to pass to future generations.

No, because it is usually disadvantageous. But that is not the point. The point is that large changes can happen spontaneously.

Genetic change in fact happens very, very minutely.

yes, but those minute changes can have dramatic effects. Consider that a significant (and selected-for!) change like sickle-cell anaemia (which confers and advantage in terms of malaria survival) can occur just from one point mutation.

In humans (I don't have the numbers for slalmanders) the rate of mutation in the human genome is 4.2 per generation. And remember that the vast majority of genetic mutations have no physical effect at all, regardless of the species. So while genetic mutations do occur, those that manifest themselves as evolutionarily significant are (in proportion to the population) quite rare.

Yes they are, but there are millions of years and billions of individuals.

You say that the color change happens all at once, as a genetic accident. Fine.

No, I didn't. I said that some colour change can happen all at once. This does not mean that the dramatic sets of colour we know see happened all at once. They happened in a series of individually selected stages.

He's the only one, though, because the one to his immediate left has a random genetic mutation that has turned him (slightly) red. The genetic mutations that you say happen 'all the time' are present in our population. Since they're accidental, they all have an equal chance of occurring. Our yellow salamander might mate, might not. If he does, he passes the trait. Now we have two yellow ones at the next generation, along with two red ones. Or maybe a two yelows, a red, and one with bigger eyes. In your world of genetic mutation happening all the time, how do any traits get selected for at all?

Because some traits confer a better chance of survival than others! There only needs to be a little bit of advantage for a trait to take over in a population. If a yellow salamander has only a few percent chance of having more offspring than a red one, the population will soon be dominated with yellows.

Let's say 90% of all the salamanders of a given generation live to reproduce. This is all speculation, but you begin to see the problem.

Sorry, no, I don't.

Given this scenario, how many salamanders must we have, for how many generations, to arrive at a bright yellow subspecies? And we haven't even thrown in alternate mutations that are competing for the same genetic real estate.

You don't need that many. As I stated, even a slight advantage will lead to a trait becoming dominant. The properties of a species are being constantly refined by selection. You don't in practice get large changes occurring at high frequency, and almost all large changes are detrimental. What you will get in each generation is subtle variations - variations that can survive for a reasonable period. It is this range of variations that is the usual fuel for selection. Your idea that you will get bright red and bright yellow salamanders competing is an extremely unlikely scenario. You will get slightly more yellow and slightly less yellow salamanders competing. And, yes, over hundreds of millions of generations, that sort of variation can turn a fish into an amphibian!

And yet, after all this, we still find yellow salamanders, and in a relatively small population. I say, again, that the populations are too small, and the generations are too infrequent, to support natural selection as described.

You can say it as often as you like, but all you are repeating is your lack of understanding. You should take a look at some of th

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[jandersen]

I think your considerations fall short when you compare he evolution of life with what you can do even on a massive computer.

1. I'm not sure how to 'translate' it to a computer analogy, but I think it is reasonable to say that each molecule (or pair of molecules or something of that order of size) corresponds roughly to a 'process' in your computer. Think about how many 'molecules' in this sense there are on the planet - even 1 liter contains something like ~10^20 of them, and each 'unit' is able to try to evolve, figuratively speaking. That's a lot - A WHOLE LOT - bigger than any computer we've ever even contemplated, I think.

2. The number of generations, especially on the molecular plane is incredibly vast. And the timeframe is not unlikely to have been something like many billions of years. Earth is about 3 - 5 billion years old; and there are reasons to believe that the first steps towards life had already occurred before that time (amino acids and other essential molecules have been observed in space)

3. Evolution works not only on the molecular plane - the genes - but also on how they are expressed and managed in the cells (see: 'epigenetics'); and for animals that possess culture (eg. whales, apes, oh yes, and humans) evolution also works on that level. IOW, there's a lot more going on that can change a species than just random mutations in the genes; epigenetics for example means that mutations don't necessary have any immediate effect because the gene isn't expressed. In times of environmental stress a number of mutations can suddenly be expressed at once, sometimes causing a large change in a species. Etc etc. Also, changes at the level of epigenetics appear to be heritable.

All in all, I can easily imagine life arising from 'dead matter' - if it actually makes sense to distinguish between dead and living. The more I think about it, the more it seems as if that distinction is a fairly random one.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[joss]

Rapid evolutionary responses can certainly occur, even in 3 generations, but this is not solving a design problem - they just show that if the good design already exists in the population it will rapidly take over if conditions necessitate that. I've read Dawkins .. he's an interesting writer but he doesn't understand probability.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[joss]

In industry we call people with PhDs "junior". I eat PhDs for breakfast ;)

Seriously though, it should occur to you that I wasnt in a position to do this kind of work and get paid [very nicely] for it entirely through chance. Sure, there are thousands of people with PhDs in GA research, I know some too. I stand by what I said though - only the very most capable and genuninely useful of those thousands of people will ever get a full time paid position using GAs in real world situations.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[oliderid]

What Darwin said is that they are clear evidence that species have involved. Nothing more and nothing else. He didn't argue about the way it happenned (IMHO).

A Dutch scientist (De Vries) claimed that this evolution was based on
mutations (decades after the Darwin initial observations). Mengel observations on heridity was the initial support for this theory.

You tried to confirm that Evolution happenned through mutations.

So basically what Darwin told us, the fact that there were evidences of Evolution can't hardly be refuted by your simulation. This is observable without any computer. You simply need to observe living species and fossils.

I know these day most if not all Biologists think that mutation is de facto the explanation of Evolution. Back in the Darwing days, that wasn't the case.

Olivier

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[trmcdougle]

"art, literature, philosophy, politics, friendship, and all the other illogical things we do that have no survival value, but which lend value to survival."

Actually all of the above do help survival, they all encourage, or are parts of, social cohesion, which creates larger group (societies) instead of disparate smaller groups (e.g. families/individuals). These larger groups have advantages over the smaller groups. (Pooling of resources in lean times, killing of larger prey animals, defense from predators etc.)

Even religion fits that category, for instance, in its role of social groups dynamics (rules for living together-e.g. Thou shalt not kill) enforcement.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[MoneyT]

Now, where's the evidence for this "intelligent being"? What is there to debunk? It's just an idea, and there's no evidence to argue against. There is no scientific debate of evolution vs. intelligent design, because intelligent design isn't based on science. Science requires evidence.

And the evidence that inert matter became alive is where? This is the key driving point for some people. The is evidence to suggest that a species can adapt to new conditions and potentialy give rise to new species from there, but so far, there has been no evidence (that I'm aware of) to indicate that inert matter can become alive.

ID has it's holes, Evolution has it's holes. The key is filling in those holes. Evolution does not preclude ID, ID does not preclude evolution.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[cecom]

Only an ignorant asshole would say that science "proves" that there is no such thing as a soul. The concept of a soul is as much outside the purview of science as economics is outside the scope of evolution.

I am not so sure about that. AFAIK, a "soul" is just the non-scientific explanation of how humans think. If somebody created a program that passed the Turing test, would you say that it had a soul ? Probably not. However you couldn't convincingly say that it didn't have a soul either. Most likely such a program, if ever created (and I am not saying it is possible) would be empiric proof that a "soul" doesn't really exist, except in the sense that a soul is just an abbreviation for "human behavior".

Lets talk science fiction for a minute. It would be very interesting if after hundreds of years of studying the brain, science determined that thinking just couldn't happen in it using the known physical processes. Perhaps thinking really happens in another dimension (since our reality with its physical laws cannot support such complex behavior) and our bodies are simply remotely controlled dummies. This is somewhat similar to the religious idea of a soul, but I wouldn't say it its outside of the purview of science.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[joss]

> In computers, most often, you'll find that each gene directly influences one particular aspect of the solution.

Give me a little credit - I wasnt doing this for fun. You're right, the mapping of a solution description to a format that actually has a chance of being solved via GAs is the most difficult and critical part of the problem. You can try to encode the solution directly by encoding the design parameters directly into the genome, and this is the kind of half assed solution described in some clueless books, but you will never solve remotely tricky problems like that. In situations where the solution is less obvious one needs to encode the problem as a custom designed set of instructions for building solutions to the problem and then use those as the starting point.

> Natural selection does not create complexity

Then what does create the complexity ? DNA is closer to a set of instructions for building an organism than it is the actual organism, but so what ? Natural selection is supposedly the mechanism by which the design problems actually solved

> Sopwith to jet fighter ain't that difficult

Then show me how to solve *that* design problem with a GA and I'll believe that life can be solved with a GA.

> PS: If you really think that a genetic algorithm with a fixed, hand-defined fitness function provides an acceptable picture of biological evolution "in the wild", then I'm sorry but NO, you DON'T understand artificial evolution "better than all but a handful of people on this planet."

What the fuck are you talking about ? I never suggested anything of the sort.
What I said was "life experience is equivalent to the evaluation function" ie the richness of life experience is not supposed to be a part of the design process according to evolutionary theory. Eg, it doesnt a snake won a battle with a wombat because there is no mechansim to use that experience to improve the design of the next generation. The only thing that is supposed to count is the fact that surviving the battle made it more likely to produce offspring.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL :-) Your post really is a flamebait - it cannot be a part of a meaningful discussions - but that doesn't mean that I (and many others I am sure) don't wholeheartedly agree with it. Religion is just blatant exploitation of people who are either weekminded, or just used to it since being kids (they "believe" in the sense that it gives them comfort to do things which they used to do when they were happy - e.g. in their childhood surrounded by loving parents by the fire, etc). I have no doubt that religion was created with the explicit intent of controlling the masses in a political sense.

BTW, my parents were both atheists, so it gives me comfort to bash religion - it reminds me of being happy by the fire with my parents, etc :-) Although, I am sorry to admit that in their old age may parents have started to give in to religion and say things like "we don't really know, bla, bla" ... sigh, it is only human.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[SeattleGameboy]

Wow, your understanding of Natural Selection is so incomplete and wrong it is almost breath-taking.

Natural Selection is (like many great ideas throughout history) a VERY VERY simple idea. It just says genes mutate and if it helps you reproduce, it gets passed on, if it does not, it fizzels out.

Let me see if I can explaing the concept in the simplest way possible. Let say I am baking a cookie for a competition. I have a recipe that I use which produces a terrible tasting cookie and I finish 1000th place out of 1000 competitors. However, the following year, I randomly change a part of my recipe - I may add more flour, or bake it longer, or add more sugar, or less egg, etc.. I enter the new creation in the contest and I KEEP the change if my standings improve and I ABANDON the change if my standings worsen.

Since there are almost infinite variations I can change, I may not win the contest in my life time, however, if successive generations kept the recipe and kept doing the same thing (experimenting with the recipe), eventually and surely, my standings would improve and may even get the top prize.

That is what Natural Selection is all about. It is just a trial and error system. If the change works, it gets passed on, if it does not work (help produce more offspring), it dies. Repeat over billions of years and you can create almost anything.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[airoldi]

From albinism.org: "The word "albinism" refers to a group of inherited conditions...." "For nearly all types of albinism both parents must carry an albinism gene to have a child with albinism." Stop gainsaying without support.

Your wolf analogy is the direct opposite of natural selection. There's nothing random about it. But let's get to the core issue.

Your point about the stages of color change is well taken. And some traits do confer a higher survivability rate, but since the rate of change starts small and changes slowly (as you say), so does the survivability advantage of the change. So let's say it's a hundred stage process from say a green (normal) salamander to a bright yellow one. Each iteration improves it's chances of survivability, as you say. Lets say, with birth and death rates, that there are ten million of these salamanders around at any one time. We'll use our previous numbers, and head to a new generation. 95% of the new ones aren't going to mutate at all, so we're down to 50,000. 95% of mutations are meaningless, so only 250 (1 in 4000) get a mutation that does anything at all. But did it occur on your gene? The are 10,000 of them, so your group of 250 has a one in 10,000 chance of getting the "one hundredth closer to bright yellow" gene. Meaning each one has only a 1 in 40 chance of getting to step one. Dice have no memory, so the next generation doesn't help you. In the next generation, one salamander out of ten million still only has a 1 in 40 chance of of getting one one-hundredth of the way to bright yellow. Go a hundred thousand generations, and the next one still rolls the same odds.

But let's say you get your guy. His dad gets naturally selected, he gets the trait, and he's produced. He's 1/100th less green than his buddies, he has a 1/100th better chance for survival than his compatriots. His generation, however, faces the same long odds at the genetic level. There's only a 1 in 4000 chance that he'll get a mutation at all, etc etc. It's only when we talk about this guy surviving to give offspring that the improvement kicks in and natural selection gets to play a part again. It's exponentially, astronomically unlikely that we get to step one hundred. Genetic drift will help a little, but not at first. Genetic drift is somewhat logarithmic, and the impact of it on early genetic mutation approaches zero.

And I've drastically oversimplified the problem. You've got millions of salamanders over millions of generations. Fine. It's a huge number. I'm trying to show you that the problem is exponentially greater.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

Johanson discovered an Australopithecus afarensis from the bones that he found, because he was trying to build one. From the article linked, you can read further down that some of the bones were found "up a slope" from where he found the original hominid bone.

It's quite likely that instead of discovering a complete (complete enough for forensic study) transitional hominid skeleton, Johanson instead found a skeleton of an ape, and a few human bones.

So one bone is found down a slope, anda ll of the rest are found together. Could you perhaps point out which of these bones is the human bone amidst the rest of the ape skeleton?

This simply because he was itching to find something he learned had to be there from his 15-20 years of evolutionary thought brainwashing.

The nice thing about any science is that all discoveries and claims are subject to "peer review". Perhaps you could explain how peer review failed to catch what you claim happened? Or is every biologist on the planet "brainwashed"? That's a rather convenient excuse for you to use when handwaving away evidence -- say that anything that leads to conclusions that you don't like is the result of "brainwashing". Almost makes me wonder if you've just got it set in your head that evolution is false and you're looking for any reason to dismiss evidence that you might possibly be wrong. What's that word? Oh, yes, "brainwashed".

Evolutionary theory lies outside of empirical science, simply because experimentation is not possible

This statement is simply false. Experimentation does not require that the entire process be duplicated. Predictions of observations that would naturally arise as a result of a process can help validate a theory. Example: ERV insertion points in non-coding regions of primate DNA. Any ERV insertion at the same place in "old world" monkeys and "new world" monkeys will also be found in apes. Any ERV insertion in orangutangs and chimpanzees will also be found in humans. Predictions of genetic markers such as this were made before DNA sequencing was done, and validated afterwards. The most rational explanation for these identical markers in non-coding regions is established lineages of common descent.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Illserve]

Got a tip for ya, those are the people that couldn't get grants.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Decaff]

From albinism.org: "The word "albinism" refers to a group of inherited

conditions...." "For nearly all types of albinism both parents must carry

an albinism gene to have a child with albinism." Stop gainsaying without

support.

This has no relevance to the point being debated, which was that albinism can arise spontaneously, and that minor changes in DNA can have dramatic effects.

Your wolf analogy is the direct opposite of natural selection. There's nothing random about it.

It is not the direct opposite. It illustrates how random variation in an animal can be selected to produce dramatic effects.

There is nothing random about natural selection. The randomness is in the variation that is selected, not the selection.

It is a very common mistake to assume that natural selection is random! It really, really isn't!

But let's get to the core issue.

OK.

But let's say you get your guy. His dad gets naturally selected, he gets the trait, and he's produced. He's 1/100th less green than his buddies, he has a 1/100th better chance for survival than his compatriots

There is no reason why the greeness and the survival chances should be proportional (1/100th less green may mean double the survival odds, if that means he is exactly camouflaged), but carry on....

[Lots cut out]

And I've drastically oversimplified the problem. You've got millions of salamanders over millions of generations. Fine. It's a huge number. I'm trying to show you that the problem is exponentially greater.

You are missing out something fundamental from your argument. First of all, you are wildly optimistic about the survival rates of each generation. The vast majority of a salamander population won't survive to breeding - they will be eaten. This means that in each generation there is enormous selection pressure. It also means that advantageous adaptations don't get diluted out in the way you suggest. Only neutral or disadvantageous changes get diluted out. Within only a relatively small number of generations a successful adaptation will be present in the majority of the population.

This dramatically changes the math.

Imagine a salamander that is slighly less green. He survives longer, and produces a few more offspring. His descendents also survive slightly longer (well, those who have inherited this gene do), and produce slightly more offspring. In a reasonably few generations the entire population has the gene (the ones who have it have out-bred the ones who don't). Effectively, the whole population has been ratchetted one step towards yellowness. (Actually, that is a bad thing to say, as it assumes that the genes are somehow targetting yellow as some eventual goal, which is nonsense). Now, along comes another mutation, which makes one of these alreadly less green salamanders even less green. Wow! That survives even better! Slightly more offspring etc. etc. Again, in a reasonably short time, the entire population is even less green.

You see, it is a combination of the selection pressure on each generation and the fact that genes are 'digital', and don't get diluted through breeding (your 'slight yellowness' will not become 'slightly less yellowness' in your descendants). That overcomes your math. There are no ever-decreasing probabilities.

We have actually seen this kind of spreading of adaptations through populations in the wild - a good example is some island finches which have shown gradual changes in beak shapes throughout a population to cope with the changes in food availability. This has been seen over a period as short as decades - it is evolution by natural selection happening right in front of our eyes!

Re: Darwinsim = Science?

[Drachemorder]

Current creationist thinking doesn't usually invoke any sort of water or vapor canopy before the Flood. Instead, the primary source of the floodwater is generally taken to be subterranean ("Fountains of the great deep", in the Bible). There are quite a few different creationist hypotheses for how this could have happened.

Also, I don't really think there's a contradiction between saying "God did it" and trying to find a naturalistic explanation. To Christians, God is the ultimate cause of natural processes anyway, so it's sort of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Penguinoflight]

I'm not an expert on Biology, and I can't point out which of "Lucy"'s bones are human/non-human.
Scientific discoveries are subject to peer review, but peer review takes time.
ERV-insertion sounds quite interesting, but it certainly doesn't fit with the empirical method.

I didn't make a post to start an argument, so I won't be bothered if you dislike my reply. My disbelief of evolution stems mostly from problems with foundational arguments that are required for evolutionary logic to have any meaning. I have no reason to believe that C14 dating would be accurate to validate million-year old bones; try asking a biology or anthropology teacher for a real discussion of radioactive dating... they are more disturbed than willing to help.

If you had conclusive evidence that common radioactive dating methods used by the biological community were inaccurate, you would reason that any discovery of a transitional species was nonsense. On the same token, the lack of evidence at least causes questions.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Maian]

It would be nice if you could futher elaborate why why evolution "doesn't account for either the rapid introduction of complete body types (phyla) that appeared during [the Cambrian Explosion]", rather than pointing us to a book.

A quick google search on "evolution phyla OR phylum" revealed this interesting link: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm According to that article, they have found evidence for the evolution of new phyla. Care to explain how that article is wrong?

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Dimensio]

I'm not an expert on Biology, and I can't point out which of "Lucy"'s bones are human/non-human.

So your claims regarding the Lucy find are nothing but conjecture, and you don't even have credentials to speak with authority on the matter. Why should I take your word on it over that of biologists and palaentologists who have actually studied the find?

Scientific discoveries are subject to peer review, but peer review takes time.

It's been over 25 years.

ERV-insertion sounds quite interesting, but it certainly doesn't fit with the empirical method.

How so? Predictions were made, DNA was sequenced, ERV sequences were found in strikingly predictable patterns.

My disbelief of evolution stems mostly from problems with foundational arguments that are required for evolutionary logic to have any meaning.

Yet you don't actually seem to have demonstrated any competence in evaluating the foundational arguments. For example...

I have no reason to believe that C14 dating would be accurate to validate million-year old bones

This statement demonstrates that you haven't even studied C14 dating. If you had, you would know that C14 dating is limited to 50,000 years (and on the far end of that spectrum it requires extreme care to produce valid dates). Anyone who speaks of C14 dating getting "millions of years" for dating bones hasn't studied C14 dating at all.

try asking a biology or anthropology teacher for a real discussion of radioactive dating... they are more disturbed than willing to help.

Actually, there's a poster on another forum who goes by the name "Coyoteman" who actually uses C14 dating in his work. He's always willing to share information about C14 dating, how it works, and how to verify that information received from it is valid.

If you had conclusive evidence that common radioactive dating methods used by the biological community were inaccurate, you would reason that any discovery of a transitional species was nonsense.

And yet, I've not seen any conclusive evidence to that effect. I've seen assertions, but typically they are based upon nothing at all, or upon fundamental misrepresentations of the applications of the testing methods -- C14 is a major victim of creationist misrepresentation, for example.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[corngrower]

I believe studies have been done on the percentage of people believing in evolution or creation versus education level. The higher the level of education, the higher the percentage of people believing in evolution. This would lead me to believe that evolutionists have on average a higher IQ than creationists.

Abstrating evolution to a mathematical level, the theory is very elegant and has a mathematical beauty about it. Given a phisical means or a system that follows certain basic mathematical rules, evolution happens. You end up with 'species' and some of those species are 'smarter' than others. The small, simple ones don't necessarily die away completely, just like what we see in nature. Creationism is by comparison, does not have any mathematical model and is of no interest or value.

I guess, I just can't see the point in believing in creationism. You can't predict anything from it. You can't use it as a basis for experiments. It doesn't really explain current observations very well. It has no value.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Copid]

I think the point is that the correllation between denying evolution and not knowing much about biology (as evidenced by making demonstrably false statements of fact that any competent biologist would know to be so) is incredibly high. Making statements impugning the research of scientists outside your field without being acquainted with their research is... well... not very logical behavior.

I'm sure you'd be offended if a biologist who clearly knew nothing about modern memory architectures started bashing the prevailing wisdom on cache design. You'd probably be especially troubled if he waved around his PhD in biology and got a lot of lay people to believe that you and everybody in your field are full of crap.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[DreadHarn]

I agree that I do not have the knowledge that a formally educated biologist does. However I am still a scientist and apply scientific methodologies not only to my field of expertise but to all aspects of life. This would include debates on evolution. There are many individuals who do not have a formal education in a field of science but are credible and capable of higher reasoning. The fathers of almost every field of science, made groundbreaking observations, that no other individual had made at that time. Many of their observations form the foundation for educated scholars today. My point is that you don't have to be an expert in a field to understand concepts or low-level detail.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Copid]

I agree that I do not have the knowledge that a formally educated biologist does. However I am still a scientist and apply scientific methodologies not only to my field of expertise but to all aspects of life. This would include debates on evolution. There are many individuals who do not have a formal education in a field of science but are credible and capable of higher reasoning.

There is a world of difference between being smart, logical, and analytical about something and actually being familiar with the body of research. The point is that logic is nothing without data, and the debates I typically see from creationists, however well reasoned they may be, are usually based on totally faulty understandings of the body of research or principles involved.

We see nonsense arguments involving poor understandings of information theory and thermodynamics. Another favorite is the argument that "there are no beneficial mutations." Maybe, "We've never observed X in a lab," when, in fact, X has been observed and written up in the literature. Then, there's my personal favorite, "There are no transitional fossils," coming from somebody who has clearly NEVER looked at a significant portion of the fossil record. The world is full of clever but naiive arguments by intelligent but uneducated amateurs. To really turn an entire branch of science on its head requires a little more background reading than most of the critics have done.

The fathers of almost every field of science, made groundbreaking observations, that no other individual had made at that time. Many of their observations form the foundation for educated scholars today. My point is that you don't have to be an expert in a field to understand concepts or low-level detail.

Where are the groundbreaking observations from creationists? I don't see any. I see a lot of amateurish reinterpretations of observations that were made by real scientists, but no significant independent work done to bring anything new to the table. Applying logic, however flawless it may be, to 5% of the data is unlikely to produce anything groundbreaking, especially if it's the 5% that everybody learns in high school. Most of the scientists I know are more than willing to listen to an amateur's ideas. They need to be show some decent background knowledge, though, and people without that background knowledge shouldn't play the arrogance card. The "I've only seen 1% of the data that you've had a chance to look at and even I can see that you're making an obvious mistake!" argument doesn't play well in expert circles for what should be fairly obvious reasons.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[DreadHarn]

There are plenty of creation or intelligent design scientists formally educated in the forementioned fields of science. Though much of the public at large (including those who have no formal education) tend to downplay the thoughts a theories of this particular set of scientists because they happen to be outside the scientific "norm". If I recall correctly, many great minds were labelled as kooks and hacks in their time, until someone later proved their points scientifically. What I am trying to say is keep and open mind and don't shut down ideas immediately because they don't align with your beliefs. Many scientists are just as guilty at doing this, as are creation scientists who deny factual information. "Where are the groundbreaking observations from creationists? I don't see any." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_sci entists#Science_or_Scientists_repressed_by_Christi ans Here is a link to an incomplete list of groundbreaking creationists. Individuals who had a firm belief in God and His creation. One that was not mentioned but was definitely a believer in God was, the father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel. If you want to deny these intellects, that is fine. But the fact remains that some of the most memorable scientists also had a belief in a higher-power not of this natural realm. I personally do not find a conflict with reason, science, and my belief in Jesus or God. Though many have mocked me and insinuated sub-human intelligence (because of my beliefs), most(flamers) have nary a credential as mine. I am not trying to brag, be arrogant, or act like I am superior, but to question someone's intellect when one's own level has not been confirmed(through a formal method) is foolish. It's 2:54 am, please excuse the grammar.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Copid]

There are plenty of creation or intelligent design scientists formally educated in the forementioned fields of science. Though much of the public at large (including those who have no formal education) tend to downplay the thoughts a theories of this particular set of scientists because they happen to be outside the scientific "norm".

The word "plenty" is a generous one. Behe is the one that comes immediately to mind, and his ideas are not so much downplayed because they're outside the norm as they are tackled head on in the literature. Behe is not particularly interested in admitting this, but his ideas were not dismissed without being addressed. There is a world full of people who would have you believe that they have the Next Big Thing if only the scientific community would stop suppressing them, but the fact is that most of them aren't right. Until somebody puts up something more than an argument from personal incredulity (or tortured mathematics with fuzzy definitions a la Dembski), those ideas are not going to get very far.

If I recall correctly, many great minds were labelled as kooks and hacks in their time, until someone later proved their points scientifically.

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. These guys have had a LONG time to publish some decent research, and it's just not happening. And it's not for lack of money or public support. They may well be right, but their tactics (go to the laymen and publish books instead of tackling peer review) and their arguments are not promising.

What I am trying to say is keep and open mind and don't shut down ideas immediately because they don't align with your beliefs. Many scientists are just as guilty at doing this, as are creation scientists who deny factual information.

I don't think that's what happens, for the most part. I think that if you look up any significant creationist argument, you'll see a decent sized group of scientists who address the topic thoughtfully and completely. I really don't think you'll find a single argument that has simply been dismissed because it sounds weird. For all of the "creation scientists" who say that they're being silenced by a biased peer review process, I say: post your paper and the rejection letters you got. Let's see them.

Where are the groundbreaking observations from creationists? I don't see any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_sci entists#Science_or_Scientists_repressed_by_Christi ans Here is a link to an incomplete list of groundbreaking creationists. Individuals who had a firm belief in God and His creation. One that was not mentioned but was definitely a believer in God was, the father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel. If you want to deny these intellects, that is fine. But the fact remains that some of the most memorable scientists also had a belief in a higher-power not of this natural realm.

Yes, many of our advances in science came from "creationists" but you're neglecting to point out a number of things. 1) You confuse "Christian" with "creationist" I seriously doubt that those examples were all creationists. 2) How many of those who belived in a literal Biblical creation were around before Darwin and modern geology? 3) I was actually asking what research creation scientists have done to support their belief in creationism. I don't see any research to speak of. The idea that creationism is valid and scientific because a number of scientists are/were Christian does not follow.

I'll be more impressed when you can say, "X is a creationist and here is is original research that supports creationism," rather than, "X is a creationist and has published a lot of articles on mechanical engineering, so creationism is well-represented in the scientific literature." Belief in a higher power is all go

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[DreadHarn]

"1) You confuse "Christian" with "creationist" I seriously doubt that those examples were all creationists." No, I didn't get to ask them which theory they lent support to. lol, but my point was not that. It was that they had a belief in God, yet remained respectable (and sometimes leading) scientists in their field. Christian != stupid as much of the scientific and non-scientific community likes to imply. "Indeed. And to defame an expert biologist's conculsions in his field of study when one has not shown any aptitude in the topic is likewise foolish." I agree, and am not making any scientific claims myself toward one theory or the other.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Derosian]

Look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Derosian]

I don't dispute either of these. I agree that many livings things appear to be related and fall into a "tree". And all the rest of the evolution as a "fact". I also belive that the "theory" is true, the problem I have is with people taking this theory and running their mouth off as if it is a proven fact. We have seen slight genetic drift in reference to environment changes, but that is it. We have not seen dinosaurs grow wings and feathers.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Alsee]

I have a question or two.

Would you say there is any "macro" evolution difference between humans and chimpanzees? And if so, please identify.

Obviously humans are mentally way above chimps, but anotomically our brains are almost indistinguishable. I see no reason that one or more "micro" changes in the brain could not have opened a quantum leap in conceptual and intellectual range for humans.

Humans clearly have vastly supperiour speech capabilities, but in fact this has already been indentified as resulting from a specific micro mutation in the voice box gene(s).

Humans clearly have slightly different proportions. We're taller, have relatively longer legs and relatively shorter arms. However I submit that making an individual bone somewhat longer or shorter is definitely a micromutation, and that a collection of such stretching and shringing in bone proportions is nothing but a collection of micromutations.

I was going to say we're less hairy - but then I remembered that in fact humans have the exact same *number* oh hairs as apes (and presumably chimps). The only real difference is that apes and chimps have longer thicker body hair. Human body hair is merely shorter and rather fine. Again a pretty micro chance that could easily because by one or a small number of point mutations in the genes regulating hair growth.

Humans are born with abnormally large skulls to hold an abnormally large brain at birth, and women evolved an abnormally large birth cannal in the pelvis to be able to deliver such abnormally large headded infants, but again this is another mere micro-tweaking in growth rate and size as with other bones. Again just an added micromutation.

Humans have a few individually minor tweaks to the shape of the pelvis and spine to support an upright walking posture, but again I submit that it consists of nothing but a rather small collection of decidedly micro mutations.

And at this point I'm pretty much running dry. I'm having a hard time coming up with more micro-anatomical differences between chimps and humans... but less being able to think of even a single "macro evolution" anotomical difference between us.

Oh wait, I just thought of one more difference between us. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but chimps and other primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes. However that too has been pinned down as an absolutely micro mutation. One of the human chromosomes is in fact a *pair* of ordinary primate chromosomes glued togther, end to end. Each half of that chromosome is a match for a primate chromosome, and in the middle there is a genetic sequence clearly showing two chromosome "end caps" glued together.

Maybe you can enlighten me. What macro evolution differences do you see between humans and chimps? Really the biggest difference between us is purely mental. I see no reason that mental difference could not be the result of one or more micro genetic changes in the brain that "merely" gave us a hugely beneficial increase in range and flexibility of thought and learning.

And if no strong case can be made for a "macro evolution" difference between humans and chimps, I fail to see the motivation for fighting against "macro" evolution in general.

We have observed and studied species diverging and splitting into two separate species. The several known examples of Ring Species makes this process crystal clear and obvious. A population builds up genetic variation and diversity (micro mutations), and the population spreads farther and farther apart, and when you seperate two subgroups they continue to "micro" drift farther and farther apart. Then you've got two populations that do not or cannot interbreed, and the two populations just keep accumulating more and more micro differences from each other. In fact there will often be active evolutionary pressure driving them farther apart, as the two species will each now find it advantageous to move into a different ecological unviro

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Alsee]

Evolution is one of the most well-established theories?

Yes. Try taking a college course in biology. Or ask any of the 99.5+% of professional PhD biologists who HAVE studied the field for years and who HAVE looked at the evidence and who do understand it and who accept evolution as the very foundation of the entire field of biology.

Or better yet ask any of the 99+% of Christian PhD professional biologists who will tell you the same thing. Somewhere in the ballpark of half of scientists are Christians, and they are not plotting in some atheist conspiracy of lies to exteriminate God or somesuch paranoid fiction.

Hundreds of new observations to support it each day? You're exaggerating, by a longshot.

It depends on how you want to do the counting, but his basic point is absolutely true. We have nearly a hudnred and fifty years of evidence all supporting evolution, and in the last several years with the development of genetic analysis, the new observations and new evidence has become an overwhelming flood. Endless new genetic analysis are being done across countless species every single day. And all of the evidence conclusively supports evolution. If one of those countless new observations each day were to turn up contrary to evolution, well that would be headlines. You generally don't hear about new observations supporting evolution because it would be like a new observation that the sky is blue. But if you look you can find MOUNTAINS of published papers on genetic analysis and how they support evolution.

There are also many established scientists who don't support it too.

As I indicated above, your "many" established scientsts amounts to a mere fraction of one percent amongst actual professionals in the field.

One of the anti-evolution groups was building up a signature list of "experts" and "scientists" to sign on that they doubt evolution. And they accepted signatures from anyone with a pulse and a half-way credible degree in any field of science or enginering. Signatures from anyone anyone from Architects to computer science degrees. I'm a bit vague on how many signatures they had at the time, but the number 400 pops to mind.

But the amusing thing is that National Center for Science Education put up their own counter signature registry in support of evolution, and they restricted their signatures to people with doctorates in actual science fields. The signature statement of principals reads:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

And they rapidly accumulated more signatures than the anti-evolution group. They currently have 700 science PhD signatures.

That second list wouldn't be so noteable except for one thing... it is entitled "Project Steve". They ONLY accept signatures from PhD scientists named Steve, or some variation thereof. For gender neutrality they also accept signatures from women named "Stephany".

The number of PhDs in actual fields of science named Steve who support evolution as absolutely well supported with overwhelming evidece is greater than the number of people with general levels of degrees in science or vaguely-sciencey fields.

And since the percentage of people named "Steve" is roughtly 1% of the population, and scince Project Steve has more signatures than the anti-evolution group, right there you have a more than 100-to-1 ratio in support of evolut

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Alsee]

I have a question.

Imagine it was the year 1900 and people were discussing chemistry. Would you have engaged in the following dialog?
You: "Would you mind providing explainign the origin of elements?"
Chemist: "Chemistry does not address the origin of elements."
You: "My point exactly."
Chemist: "So what about it? What do you intend to demonstrate via your point?"
You: "My point is simply that chemistry does not cover all of the bases, and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps."

Me URK? WTF?
Of course chemistry does not "cover all the bases". It would be several more decades before the theory of nuclear fusion was developed to explain how elements were formed in the cores of stars from hydrogen.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that the theory of chemistry does not explain the origin of elements.

Can you understand why I'd be more than a little baffled or skeptical about what sort of connection you were trying to make between chemistry and religion? I don't get your point.

Your whole line of comments and reasoning strikes me as a bit surreal. Or maybe I'm just missunderstanding you or maybe I'm missing something obvious. How or why would your comments have made any sense in the chemistry discussion? Or is biology some special field of science that should be treated differently than any other field of science?

-

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[ultranova]

The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method.

No, the theory of evolution is a way to interpret observations, just like any other theory. Scientific method is a way of testing theories by testing the predictions they make.

That is --- the validity of science implies the validity of evolution.

Science means study of surrounding reality. The concept of "validity of science" is meaningless, therefore it cannot imply anything.

If you deny the validity of evolution, then, by modus tollens, you are denying the validity of science. It's logic :-)

The premise "science is valid" is meaningless. The premise "if science is valid, then evolution is valid" is also meaningless. Your logic is therefore false.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm a little late to the party, but I figured I'd still join the fray here.

I've also worked with genetic algorithms, and on top of that, I've also worked with real genes. I can tell you categorically that real genes are far, far more complex than the piddly little algorithms I used. You're already aware of how difficult it is to just find an appropriate representation of the problem, not to mention finding a good fitness function. Then you have to worry about local optimization versus general optimization (less of a problem than annealing, but still an issue) and the fact that your machine really isn't beefy enough to go through a good size run (I'm talking millions of generations with millions of individuals). Now combine that with the fact that evolution is not simply the mutation of a few DNA strands, the reshuffling of some allels and the subsequent culling of failed experiments, and you'll realize that what you've and I have been doing with genetic algorithms is like playing with those giant Lego/Duplo blocks for 1 year olds. It sort of looks like construction or engineering, but it really isn't.

Want an example of evolutionary complexities that aren't represented in genetic algorithms? Symbiosis that leads to the wholesale absorption of an organism - see mitochondria. The cells that fused together like that just performed a huge, directed evolutionary step - nothing like that exists in the current realm of genetic algorithms. There's a lot more to it, but I'm sure you can figure it out if you read up on evolutionary biology, genetics and biochemistry.

In short - just because you can't figure out how people built the Colossus of Rhodes or the Space Shuttle by playing with Duploblocks doesn't mean that someone created these things ex machina. It simply means that we have a whole lot of distance to go before we can claim to understand biology, genetics and evolution.

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[mdmiller9]

Sorry for the quick response... I will put more time into this as I can... for now, consider an alternate interpretation of the same facts in the "ring species" cases....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bi rd.asp

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Alsee]

Ok, maybe I missunderstood your position and objection. I thought you were accepting new "micro evolution" improvments, but arguing that they somehow could not get macro. The ring species link reasoning is signifigantly different. That is based not merely on macro-vs-micro, but on the position of *no* mutation improvements at all.

Amusingly your ring species link could be interpreted in relation to the human-chimp and macro-micro issue as accepting that humans and chimps *are* related, just as the ring species seagulls are related. However I doubt that was your intent, chuckle. So I think there is still relevance to my question of what "macro" difference you see between humans and chimps.

However if the reasoning and position you are using really is based on no-new-information rather than macro-vs-micro, then much of my post becomes moot. The no-new-information argument requires an entirely different sort of response. The good news is that I just happened to write exactly that response to someone else, so I can just refferce my comment over there. The top half of this post, everything above the mention of fossils, is an absolutely perfect answer to your answersingenesis.org link and to any argument in general that evolution cannot or does not introduce new information.

-

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[AngryElmo]

"We have not seen dinosaurs grow wings or feathers" We have not witnessed the event occurring, but then I also did not see your mother give birth to you although the evidence says that she did. i.e. Past events can be inferred from existing clues. Otherwise forensics would be a fraud yes? Also it is populations that evolve - not individuals.. As to your particular example, what is wrong with Archaeopteryx as exactly a dinosaur with wings and feathers? There have been 10 fossilised examples of this transitional form discovered. You can see some more about this at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info .html Incidentally, here is another link you may find interesting to read (if you are really that interested that is - no shame if you have better things to worry about) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ :-)

Re:Darwinsim = Science?

[Bloke down the pub]

A genetic algorithm is a mathematical model inspired by observing nature, nature really couldn't give a crap what inspiration or models are created.

At least until she talks to an IP lawyer.

Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Extend?

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone else noticing this trend?

Happy Birthday Darwin...

[binaryspiral]

I still have a Flying Spaghetti Monster badge on my car though...

Re:Happy Birthday Darwin...

[Mixel]

Yeah, they're gonna have trouble with the 'extend' part of embrace and extend. Serious lack of foresight right there.

Re:Happy Birthday Darwin...

[Pneuma ROCKS]

Ramen!

Re:Happy Birthday Darwin...

[binaryspiral]

If I had mod points, you'd get one brother... :)

Re:Happy Birthday Darwin...

[schnitzi]

I have a Flying Spaghetti Monster eating a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish.

And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

I recently read this article about a guy who is doing exactly the opposite. It's just infuriating. I'm tempted to call it child abuse in some form or another, though the rational part of me reminds myself that it really doesn't matter that much. People believe all sorts of nonsensical things, yet manage to continue functioning. I mean, honestly, believing or not believing in evolution doesn't really affect that many things.

Evolution leading to complex organisms is at least tricky to understand . How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler? That's just as stupid as not believing in evolution, or believing the earth is flat, or whatever. We're surrounded every day by idiots who believe in bizarre things.

What I find amusing about that article I liked above, though, is the guy is teaching kids to doubt evolution on the basis that they weren't there to see it. Is that what he really wants to be teaching the kids? To doubt what they can't see for themselves? :D

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution leading to complex organisms is at least tricky to understand . How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

For a bigger shock, consider the idiots who approve of his performance.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

Of course he's "comparable" to Hitler: It is possible to compare Bush to Hitler: Bush is immensely less charismatic, competent or intelligent than Hitler.

Brought to you by the British campaign to eliminate idiotic American misuse of the word "comparable".

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

Here's an even bigger shock: approval is a multidimensional function. If you completely approval of Bush, then you're dumb and ignorant. If you completely DISapproval of Bush, then you're dumb and ignorant.

Re:And in other news...

[JanneM]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler? That's just as stupid as not believing in evolution, or believing the earth is flat, or whatever. We're surrounded every day by idiots who believe in bizarre things.

Well, Gandhi is comparable to Hitler. I'd say he compares rather favourably, of course, but comparable, still.

Re:And in other news...

[ockegheim]

Flamebait but so true...

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler
I drive an SUV -- and I'm actually pretty proud of the fact. says it all. SUV driving bush supporter. fuckwit all round

Re:And in other news...

[CyricZ]

Some of the most vocal opponents of the current American regime are those who actually fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts. They know the true horrors of war, and many of them know the actual smell of fascism. You can call them idiots of you want. However, I'll listen to them when they start putting out warnings.

You speak of discussing events one did not witness. Just like that man and his children may not have witnessed macroevolution, I take it you did not witness World War II. While I was young at the time, I did. I remember leaving London during the Blitz. It is hypocritical and ignorant for you to suggest that those who experienced it firsthand are incorrect when they correctly point out history repeating itself.

Re:And in other news...

[Eightyford]

Is that what he really wants to be teaching the kids? To doubt what they can't see for themselves?

Actually, yes. We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything. To me, the need for a continuous search for answers is one of the greatest attributes a person can have.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the worst poster on Slashdot. You've even surpassed dada21.

Re:And in other news...

[SetupWeasel]

I can tell you the one thing I approve of in the Bush presidency:

Longer Daylight Saving Time starting in 2007.

Other than that, I can't say I've found anything to approve of. Of course, I was one of the 10% or so that disapproved of him right after 9/11, so you could say I'm rather hardcore in my disapproval of him.

Re:And in other news...

[TallMatthew]

Evolution leading to complex organisms is at least tricky to understand . How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler? That's just as stupid as not believing in evolution, or believing the earth is flat, or whatever. We're surrounded every day by idiots who believe in bizarre things

I believe that Bush is comparable to Hitler, evolution is still an iffy theory (though creationism is ludicrous), the world isn't flat and that you are, quite clearly, an idiot.

How's that for bizarre?

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What I find amusing about that article I liked above, though, is the guy is teaching kids to doubt evolution on the basis that they weren't there to see it. Is that what he really wants to be teaching the kids? To doubt what they can't see for themselves? :D"

Absoultely. It's called empericism and is the very basis of science. You can't claim any valdity of a purposed hypothesis until you have observable data that, at the very least, lends credence to that hypothesis. If you don't understand that data and what it means you shouldn't be making a claim one way or the other.

Kids should doubt evolution until they understand the data behind it. When they do understand the data behind it then they can draw their own conclusions.

What's really sad about the whole thing isn't creationist claiming evolutionary theory is wrong, it's creationists (some, not all) having a better grasp of the data behind evolution than your average person. It's the same way some atheists have a better grasp of theology than your average person. However, neither of them use the same methods of the paradigimes they critize. Atheists don't look at theology with the mehtodoligies of faith and creationists drag the methodology of faith along with the empericism. *shrug* everyone does it to some degree or another... just if you're going to critizie a viewpoint with it's own methodology then you shouldn't drag your own into it.

just thinking aloud. Not so much a reply.

Re:And in other news...

[rjshields]

We're surrounded every day by idiots ... I drive an SUV

Point well made :-)

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

It is hypocritical and ignorant for you to suggest that those who experienced it firsthand are incorrect when they correctly point out history repeating itself.

Hypocritical? Ignorant maybe, but I don't understand what hypocracy has do with anything.

But regardless, no, they are completely incorrect when they point out that history is repeating itself. It is simply stupid to believe that Bush is going to suspend the constitution, set up a fascist dictatorship, and then start invading other countries to expand US territory while putting races of people he doesn't like into concentration camps to be exterminated. It is STUPID to believe that the Patriot Act is even in the same universe is what Hitler did. It is STUPID to believe that because Bush went too far with domestic spying (and I do think he want too far), that it somehow means that Bush is setting up a vast conspiracy to spy on normal American citizens not directly related to terrorism.

I don't care what they might've suffered in WW/II to make them believe this, just like I don't care why Christians don't want to believe in Evolution (though I do actually understand the latter), both are flat-out wrong, and aren't thinking rationally. But again, there are TONS of things that people don't think rationally about. I know there are things I'm not particularly rational about (though, I'm a lot more rational than anyone I know, but I'm rational enough to know that I can't be rational about everything).

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

So true but Flamebait...

Re:And in other news...

[St. Arbirix]

Actually, yes. We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything. To me, the need for a continuous search for answers is one of the greatest attributes a person can have.

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand. Very few people are in any position to vouch for the authenticity of much of the scientific experimentation that goes on. Another great attribute of humanity is the ability to pool a mass of knowledge much greater than any one individual could possibly hope to grasp on their own.

Re:And in other news...

[wanerious]

...and I just ran out of mod points. Nice.

Re:And in other news...

[Tinkster]

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but to me "We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything." suggests that you don't have kids ... :} Cheers, Tink

Re:And in other news...

[Eightyford]

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand. Very few people are in any position to vouch for the authenticity of much of the scientific experimentation that goes on. Another great attribute of humanity is the ability to pool a mass of knowledge much greater than any one individual could possibly hope to grasp on their own.

I agree with you for the most part, except for the abslute skepticism. I don't take anything as fact. I just look at everything as a probability. For example, I think the odds that some form of evolution is correct is about a million to one, based on my life experiences (which include what I read on slashdot, see on television, and hear in conversation). I'm still skeptical of evolution though. I don't know that it's true, but I'm pretty sure that it is.

Re:And in other news...

[ampathee]

The GP was pointing out the irony of a *Christian* teaching children to doubt the theory of evolution on the basis that they were not there to see it - they weren't there to see God create the earth either, but he wants them to believe *that* instead.

Re:And in other news...

[Eightyford]

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but to me "We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything." suggests that you don't have kids ... :} Cheers, Tink

Good call! Maybe I should have squeezed the word "ideally" in there somewhere.

Re:And in other news...

[plunge]

In this case though, its just the opposite. These kids are being told not to believe what evidence says unless it says what they want to hear and that unless they see something with their eyes then it's lies (i.e. trust your desires and own potentially faliable personal experience INSTEAD of direct physical evidence).

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

We're surrounded every day by idiots ... I drive an SUV [...] Point well made :-)

Actually, the beliefs about SUVs DO make my point, but not how you think.

Re:And in other news...

[notfancy]

We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything. To me, the need for a continuous search for answers is one of the greatest attributes a person can have.

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.

No, it's not impossible to maintain, and I'm of the opinion that no amount of skepticism is enough. You can exercise a healthy dose of prejudice (understood as that the momentary suspension of rational judgement, either because you've seen it before, or it's "intuitive" to accept at face value, or you don't have time to judge it now) to avoid the cognitive burden. It's all about the economy of thought: it is in principle better for you to be rational about the world, unless the cost of being so offsets its benefits. Every received idea, every prethought thought burdens you with the actual cost of you analyzing it, and the implied, future cost of you trusting it and being wrong about it.

Re:And in other news...

[DeBeuk]

If the reason the US got involved in WWII was their hatred of fascism, why did they wait until after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Surely the annexation of Austria or the invasion of Poland would have been enough reason.

And as for the currnt US government being able to recognize the smell of fascism, they should. It's really hard to wash that smell away.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

Ever hear of places such as Afghanistan and Iraq? Apparently not!

And funny enough, the Afghanis are still in charge of Afghanistan, and the Iraqis are in charge in Iraq. And also funny enough, we've spent enormous amounts of our own resources fixing up those countries. But maybe I missed the news where we added those countries as new states in the Union. Yeah, exactly like Hitler, there.

Whoa, again! I suppose you haven't heard of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the other detention centres (camps, if you will) where inmates were systematically tortured and killed.

"Systematically" tortured and killed? Yes, there was a limited prison scandal. No, we don't have an official policy of putting people in ovens. No, we didn't go around rounding up anyone who looked like an Arab for extermination.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You apparently have zero sense of proportion.

Re:And in other news...

[MillionthMonkey]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

When was it decided that it's just too offensive to compare any contemporary politician to Hitler? It's considered a below-the-belt insult.

This just floors me. You'd think we'd want to compare everyone to Hitler all the time. We can't afford to have that happen again.

We're determined to learn nothing, it seems.

Re:And in other news...

[FLEB]

So? Flamebait, but true!

Re:And in other news...

[plunge]

I agree about the hyberbole, but I do think there is a very real and legitimate problem in that it seems like lots of the people with locked up without any recourse (until the SC stepped in in a limited way, and still without much help) that have turned out to be completely innocent people who were basically sold to the US (we offered a reward for anyone without caring much who they really were or if they really were against) for money. Many of the people in Gitmo do not fit any of the definitions required even for enemy combatants: they were not demonstrably bearing arms, against the US or anyone else. They were sold to us by money by tribel warlords who had every reason to lie.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha... i hate that trailer loving tard too

Re:And in other news...

[JanneM]

I agree with you for the most part, except for the abslute skepticism. I don't take anything as fact.

Whew, that was a long, arduous hospital stay! Now, maybe if I step in front of _this_ bus, maybe it will not hurt me at all.

Yes, I'm overstating your case.

Re:And in other news...

[Jesus IS the Devil]

And how do you know the parent poster is American and not British, Egyptian, or Chinese?

Re:And in other news...

[lucas teh geek]

yeah, but the grandparent uses the word 'comparable' when he actually means 'is doing exactly the same things as'. look at posts above where he defends bush since he hasnt fired up the ovens yet.

Re:And in other news...

[zootm]

Actually, yes. We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything.

Agreed — the thing is, though, that arguing against science with religion doesn't work on a rational level. Religion is a belief, the questions that can be asked of it are distinct to those of science — this debate gets messy because people are pitting two disparate systems against one another. Science does not aim to disprove religion, so arguing against religion with science doesn't work (except with extremely anal literal interpretations, where the parts that are decided are fairly mundane). Religion does not aim to prove itself, being based on faith, so arguing against science with it leads to problems from their contrasting bases.

Re:And in other news...

[soupdevil]

You contrasted Bush to Hitler. Comparison deals with similar traits. Contrast deals with dissimilar traits.

Re:And in other news...

[Eightyford]

Whew, that was a long, arduous hospital stay! Now, maybe if I step in front of _this_ bus, maybe it will not hurt me at all.

That would make a hell of a comic strip!

Re:And in other news...

[jrockway]

> And how do you know the parent poster is American and not British, Egyptian, or Chinese?

Because his sig says, and I quote, "I drive an SUV -- and I'm actually pretty proud of the fact." :)

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything"

If you had a child that had discovered the terrifying and blood curdling word that is "why" you wouldnt be saying that.

Ive told mine that theres a space monkey controlling everything and if they need to know something they must first find him. In fact I havent seen my kids for a fortnight since I mentioned that....

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

You're right, Bush isn't even close to being comparable to Hitler.

Hitler at least managed to save Germany from a depression with a booming war economy. What has Bush done for the 295,731,134 people who were not in the world trade center?

Re:And in other news...

[R.Mo_Robert]

I know this was a joke, but I don't agree. My dictionary (granted, it's an American English dictionary) lists comparable as:

(of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar; of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison

So, it seems like a perfectly good use of the word to me. (In fact, it does have a "Usage" note--but it's about mispronunciation, since so many people put emphasis on the second syllable.)

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Hitler was a decorated war veteran and the author of a best-selling book.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

OH SNAP!

or something

Re:And in other news...

[roman_mir]

A so called True Flamebait.

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

Keep an eye on that story. Although there have been genuine innocents who were held and released, as they would have been anyway, so far there has been something like a dozen or more "innocents" who were released and then recaptured or killed later in attacks against the US or allies. Part of Al Qaeda's basic training is to claim to be innocent and the victims of discrimination because they know how it plays in the West.

Re:And in other news...

[Vellmont]

Can't we just agree that Bush is a fascist, but nowhere near the level of Hitler? Is that the standard you have to live up to these days to be considered a terrible leader that's ruining your country? Personally I compare Bush to other Presidents that have damaged the country. He's in the running with Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Nixon doesn't even come close. I'll take 10 Nixons before I accept one George Bush.

Re:And in other news...

[plunge]

And what if there are some of both?

And this is still chilling:
"Although there have been genuine innocents who were held and released, as they would have been anyway"

Held for years, disappeared from their families and loved ones without notice, and entirely without any recourse whatsoever? That's not something I want my country to be doing to anyone, just as I don't want any country to do it to my citizens.

The problem with saying that any class of people is outside of the need for due process is that this means that ANYONE can be put outside of due process at any time. Once you've taken a random person, if they have no due process, they cannot even contest the matter of whether they really fall into this special class or not.

Re:And in other news...

[Suddenly_Dead]

Ben Watson wasn't quite as confident. His father, a pastor in Staten Island, N.Y., had let him skip a day of second grade to attend. Ben went to public school, the Rev. Dave Watson explained, "and I thought it would be good for him to get a different perspective" for an upcoming project on Tyrannosaurus rex.

Oh hell. It's not only bad for the kids, think of the poor teacher that has to mark that.

Re:And in other news...

[rknop]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

Here's one way in which they're comparable: Godwin's Law. Say something about Bush, and it can completely and irrelevantly hijack a thread.

-Rob

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, just like John Kerry!

Re:And in other news...

[Jafafa Hots]

but that's not what he is teaching the kids... he is teaching them to doubt scientists, but to trust him completely, to trust the church completely, and to trust completely in a being he has told them exists.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an even bigger shock: approval is a multidimensional function. If you completely approval of Bush, then you're dumb and ignorant. If you completely DISapproval of Bush, then you're dumb and ignorant.

This may come as a further shock to you, but it is quite common to reduce a complex, multidimenional function down to a single binary value: approve or dissaprove. Each person is going to take a different approach, weighting the various dimensions as they see fit. If, at the end of such a process, your conclusion is that you approve of Bush overall, you are a complete and utter dipshit waste of DNA who should be shot multiple times in the head.

Re:And in other news...

[AuMatar]

I think a better comparisson would be Bush to Mussolini. Both are facists. Both have very similar politics. Unlink Hitler, Musolini didn't have the genocide thinking.

Of course, Musolini did manage to get the trains to run on time. So unlike Bush, he was at least somewhat competent.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Comparison deals with "comparable" traits (i.e. traits that are in some way comensurable) - it does not care whether the result is "similar" or "dissimilar". As such, the result of a comparison can be "they resemble each other" or "they are different." Contrast is the emphasizing of differences.

Whoever modded you insightful needs to share the dictionary that you should buy.

Re:And in other news...

[Chowderbags]

The point was the absurdity of teaching kids to doubt evolution since they haven't personally witnessed it, yet on the other hand telling them to believe in God.

And I've yet to see a creationist who didn't twist half-facts and full lies (even if they aren't their own). Every time they trumpet some point in history where someone faked a fossil or made something up, they ignore that it was scientists who figured it out, not creationists. Do the leaders of the creationist movement know more? Maybe. Do they really believe all the crap they spew? Sometimes it's hard to tell, given the sheer audacity.

And while you're right that atheists don't look at theology with the method of faith, that's hardly relevent to what atheists are trying to point out. Atheists who try to show the Bible wrong don't need faith to show glaring contradictions. If you want to get into the realm of simply "There is a god", then you may have something, but by that point the deity is pretty much non-effective as far as human events is concerned.

Re:And in other news...

[MSBob]

There are lots of similarities between Bush's and Hitler's style of governing. What's your point?

Re:And in other news...

[dominion]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

Drawing a corollary between disingenous, immature, or mostly just plain bad political analysis and a complete ideological rejection of modern biology and science doesn't do well to prove your point.

Re:And in other news...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, it's not impossible to maintain, and I'm of the opinion that no amount of skepticism is enough.

Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.

You hear something from a friend, but you're skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you're skeptical of them. Where does it end?

When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they're not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.

Re:And in other news...

[MMaestro]

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.

I don't think its really a matter of there being too much in the world to understand, its more of an issue of which topics people spend their time thinking about. Just look at the mass media as an example.

We have millions of people worldwide comparing George Bush to Hitler, when any historian knows Bush is barely a punk compared to Hitler in terms of aggression (Afghanistan was U.N. sanationed and any politician knows the hardliners were looking for an excuse to go into Iraq for years) and number of dead on account of their policies/wars/actions (Bush's couple thousand to low tens of thousands versus Hitlers 10+ million in the Russian campaign alone). Not exactly logical there, considering how many WWII historians point out the fact that on no less than 3 major occasions could Hitler have been stopped -legally- both domestically and internationally.

If politics is too contraversial, how about something as simple as the conspiracy theory about how the U.S. never landed on the moon, all the videos of space walks were made up here on Earth and all the money that went into funding the space program was embezzled. It'd take a few years worth of high school, maybe a semester of college physics, but anyone whos really interested could figure out its true and the landings did happen.

Re:And in other news...

[radtea]

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.

The general principle should be not "to doubt and question everything", but to be willing to doubt and question anything.

It is simply silly to actually doubt and question everything. It would be a huge and pointless mental burden.

But the willingness to question anything seems to me to be an essential attribute of a civilized, rational person. I know damned well I don't have all the answers, but it seems to me insane to suggest that there are some questions that ought not to be asked.

The opposite of this view is religion. All religions place some questions beyond the pale. Christians are not allowed to question the divinity of Jesus. Jews are not allowed to question their special relationship with God. Muslims are not allowed to question the unity of God. None of them are allowed to question the existence of God in the form of any serious doubt.

This kind of willful epistemological blindness will always be opposed to science, which holds that we should be willing to ask any meaningful question.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yet another thing in which Kerry (and even Hitler, for God's sake) is better than Bush.

(Disclaimer: I really don't care about Kerry, but I bet he wouldn't have been nearly as bad as Dubya).

Re:And in other news...

[nwbvt]

Its one thing to learn from experts in the world, its another to blindly trust anything that anyone with the label 'expert' says. Some skeptisism is still needed. For instance, there is a theory out there that at the center of the earth a nuclear reaction generates heat. There is very little evidence for it and is highly disputed amoung scientists. But I've heard people repeat that theory as if it were proven.

No, you don't have to play Descartes and doubt everything except that you yourself exist in some form. But don't just repeat everything you hear on the Discovery Channel as if it is unassailable fact.

Re:And in other news...

[HrothgarReborn]

I agree. As St Paul said:
Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.
1 Thessalonians 5:21

That is the foundation of both science and any religion worth believing in. Any world view that shackles God from revealing more information about who we are and where we came from is incapable of surviving in our modern world and will attract only the most zealous and irrational elements until it sputters out. Religion has been forced to reinvent itself to cope with the knowledge that science brings. If a religion is true, new knowledge should be welcomed as a new supplement to revealed truth. Apparent contradictions should be attributed to mans inability to understand the knowledge previously given. I for one am glad we live in this time when so much knowledge is available rather than those primitive times when the creation stories of Genesis were first formed. Perhaps faith was simpler then when people could comfortably think of God molding man from clay and did not have fossil records to trouble his mind, but they miss the incredible wonder we can feel today as we realize just how complex the process really was and what remarkable creatures we really are.

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

In WWII, there were some soldiers who could have been held up to 6 years. In Viet Nam, there were airmen held for at least 8 years. During those conflicts there were civilians held as well for various reasons and for various lengths of time. That is part of the nature of war. What makes things even nastier in the present conflict is that Al Qaeda and its associates aren't a country, don't fight by the rules, consistently lie, indiscriminately murder, expose all around them to danger, and leave their members little recourse if they are captured. Legally they aren't much different from spies.

Although it may make you uncomfortable, there is a difference between ordinary criminal law and the law of war. The standards and expectations are different, and for good reason.

The people being held under the law of war and as part of the conflict are clearly a separate class of people both practically and legally. If they start holding ordinary criminals, even murderers and rapists, as if they were terrorists, there will be a wide outcry.

If you have a way to see through the lies and deception of Al Qaeda members, to separate the involved from the uninvolved, the innocent from the guilty, without requiring evidence and legwork, I'm sure that the US military would gratefully receive it. By the way, the consequences if you are wrong isn't a stolen car, but people dying.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wham!

Re:And in other news...

[killjoe]

"Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others."

Actually how can you be so sure of your experiences. How many times has this happened to you?

You hear something, you say to your friend "did you hear that?". He says "hear what?". You say "oh it must be nothing". So who is right? You or your friend. How many times have you thought you saw something by the second time you looked it was gone? Was it there in the first place?

Something even more troubling.

How many of your memories are accurate? How many of them are more like how you wished things were? How many of them are blurred via associations of other things going on around you at the time?

Was that girl friend in high shcool really that hot? Was that fish you caught really that big? Was that sea during your summer vacation really that blue and clear? Was it?

Re:And in other news...

[alecf]

The opposite of this view is religion. All religions place some questions beyond the pale. Christians are not allowed to question the divinity of Jesus. Jews are not allowed to question their special relationship with God. Muslims are not allowed to question the unity of God. None of them are allowed to question the existence of God in the form of any serious doubt.

This attitude is a religion in itself - and your generalizations are basically based on observations of religion based purely on the media or by listening to others like yourself. Instead of going to the real sources, you're using the very tools that religious fanatics blame for being the downfall of our society. Ironic.

Many, MANY forms of christianity encourage the questioning of the divinity of Jesus - the hope is obviously that you'll ultimately agree, but many believe you don't have true faith unless you can truly question it, and still believe. I won't even get into Judaism of Islam.

What I find the most disappointing about this whole debate is the rash generalizations people use to describe the "other side" - like saying "Christians are against evolution" and so forth.

It's like saying that all geeks are hackers, or that all hackers are criminals, or even that all geeks prefer C++. None of these statements are valid. And it is not because there is some small exception to some general rule. I'm guessing that most programmers do not in fact prefer C++ and instead have a great variation in language preference.

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

I believe that Bush is comparable to Hitler,...

How's that for bizarre?

Right up there with substituting cottage cheese for concrete.

Re:And in other news...

[jcr]

I'd love to counter that clown with "How do you know that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed? were you there? NO? Ok, then: let's move on to what the evidence shows."

-jcr

Re:And in other news...

[jcr]

Musolini did manage to get the trains to run on time.

No, he didn't. He just made it illegal to say otherwise.

-jcr

Re:And in other news...

[JohnFluxx]

Then it should be done universally, with everything to the same level. They should doubt the theories of gravity at the same level as the theories of evolution. Increasing your doubt about one particular point for no reason other than spiritual or religious reasons is just wrong.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler? That's just as stupid as not believing in evolution,

Why is this stupid? Is there a logical reason Bush can't be compared to Hitler?

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but so... Flamebait.

There. we're done. Can we go now?

Re:And in other news...

[JohnFluxx]

It's gonna be hell explaining that to your kids.

"Daddy, where do kids come from?" "Well, you probably came from your mum, at least I can infer that from seeing her grow fat, and then going to hospital. And from what I've read all the other kids came from their parents. But I can't prove it, so you should doubt it. It could just all be a cover up."

Yeah, let's give them every possible scenario :)

Re:And in other news...

[JohnFluxx]

They have never jumped off a cliff either. I strongly suggest you teach your kids to doubt that it will hurt them. And there is no proof at all that if your kids jump in front of a moving bus that it will kill them. Tell your kids to do that please.

Re:And in other news...

[Eccles]

I dunno, my son questions a heck of a lot of what I tell him...

Re:And in other news...

[plunge]

The problem is, because these people are not a nation, but an amorphous group of people to whom anyone can belong, and because this is not a war in any normal sense of the world, (it can never have a clear end) and these new powers can effectively be exercised on anyone at any time, forever.

"In WWII, there were some soldiers who could have been held up to 6 years. In Viet Nam, there were airmen held for at least 8 years."

Except these people were protected under a system that the world had worked out so that certain standards as to their treatment and their status applied. Instead of working any of these very new powers out, we've made them up. In secret. With only a few people in the entire world even knowing what they are.

"If they start holding ordinary criminals, even murderers and rapists, as if they were terrorists, there will be a wide outcry."

It's clear that we already HAVE held completely innocent people as if they were terrorists for years, and then kicked them to the street. Some we apparently kidnapped in allied countries without consulting the nation, spent months allegedly beating and abusing them, and then kicked them out on the street after we realized that they just had the same name as someone we were looking for.

If we can do, any nation is justified in doing it. That's not what we want.

"If you have a way to see through the lies and deception of Al Qaeda members,"

Right now it's quite apparent that our own government will lie about what its doing, to its own people (to whom it is supposed to be a servant of), to the world. Even on matters that are irrelevant to national security that seem to have more to do with covering ass. I believe very strongly that Al Qaeda is a threat and will lie. But I also have no faith that this government will act in a way I can countenance. That's why I want clear standards made out in the open, not in secret.

"to separate the involved from the uninvolved, the innocent from the guilty, without requiring evidence and legwork, I'm sure that the US military would gratefully receive it. By the way, the consequences if you are wrong isn't a stolen car, but people dying."

Same with killers. Same, apparently, even with domestic terrorists (like McVeigh, who killed more Americans in one attack than all but the 9/11 attacks). Certainly we need to set the limits to the situation. But just because the consequences are high doesn't mean there get to be NO limits, or that our leaders get to make up their own limits and standards of conduct in secret without the people knowing what is being done in our name "for our own good." That exceeds their legitimate power.

Re:And in other news...

[swillden]

Christians are not allowed to question the divinity of Jesus. Jews are not allowed to question their special relationship with God. Muslims are not allowed to question the unity of God. None of them are allowed to question the existence of God in the form of any serious doubt.

All of these statements are false.

You need to be willing to question your sources of information about religion. Keep in mind that slashdot is a particularly poor one ;-)

Re:And in other news...

[noerobert]

I'll give you charismatic and intelligent but Hitler's lack of competence is why you arn't required to speak German, and carry around a your genetic purity card. Though I do agree that many people misuse the word comparable.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

But regardless, no, they are completely incorrect when they point out that history is repeating itself. It is simply stupid to believe that Bush is going to suspend the constitution, set up a fascist dictatorship, and then start invading other countries to expand US territory while putting races of people he doesn't like into concentration camps to be exterminated.

Why? Hitler did not immediately start invading other countries or gassing Jews. He first built up a propaganda programme to make Germans feel he had their interests at heart. bush is going down EXACTLY the same path as pre-war Hitler. Just because he hasn't done all of the things Hitler has done, does not mean there aren't similarities.

It is STUPID to believe that because Bush went too far with domestic spying (and I do think he want too far), that it somehow means that Bush is setting up a vast conspiracy to spy on normal American citizens not directly related to terrorism.

Why? It actually appears he is already doing this - spying on environmental and human rights groups.

Re:And in other news...

[Roxton]

Living with skepticism requires progressive abolition of social naïveté. I don't trust scientists because they're called "scientists." The only reason I make use of scientific consensus is because I've developed a knowledge of how the academic community functions and have come to understand its properties.

A lot of what people call stupidity is really social naïveté. You know that hoax letter going around, supposedly sent from the dean of whatever school to its students saying not to masturbate in public restrooms due to problems with pipes clogging and bursting? Someone once asked me if it was real. That's really not stupidity; it's just a severe lack of knowledge about the way things work.

Just because you aren't certain about information doesn't mean you can't make use of it. That's an important leap to make. Religion allows people to operate with a presumption of validity in the concept of absolute certainty. For some people, losing that certainty would imply a paralysis of motive. Fully comprehending that one can move beyond that point is a huge leap for some people.

Re:And in other news...

[shawb]

Honestly, I would not put Bush anywhere near Hitler. I do, however, believe that comparisons between the policies of Bush and McCarthy would prove valid or at least interesting.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Whay are you talking about times of war? The US is not at war with Iraq. In fact, didn't they hold elections? Isn't American occupying and trying to govern Iraq?

So, how can we be considered "at war" with Iraq?

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Care to explain what you mean, or is reasoning and intelligent discourse not your strong suit?

Re:And in other news...

[notfancy]

It might be arrogance, it could be distrust... Let me just say that the point I was trying to make was larger than what you quoted.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

Care to explain what you mean, or is reasoning and intelligent discourse not your strong suit?

Actually, reasoning and intelligent discourse is my specialty, but the subject is fairly off-topic, not to mention that I answered someone else's question not too long ago. The bottom line is that the whole "SUVs are evil" concept is just lazy thinking by people who have no idea what the bigger problems are, so they pick on an easy target. It just proves that people would rather believe things that make them feel good (and righteous) than face real truths.

It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper. No one wants to believe that, because it makes them feel good to recycle paper, and environmentalists "feel" that it's the "thought that counts" rather than the reality.

Re:And in other news...

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Emmm.
Kid, overall aggressiveness is not the only reason "millions of people" think GB is a NAZI. We (count me in, using a relaxed definition of "nazi") are seeing VERY disturbing things happenning, very similar to the things happened that made Hitler the Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

You should have noticed the changes in the US in the last years, starting from the destruction of the WTC (~fire of the Reichstadt) followed by the perceived election fraud (Diebold), the illegal arrests (Guantanamo) and the reduction of personal freedoms.

If this happened here (Argentina), people would be REALLY alarmed (go and find out what happened during the military regimes in South America). Military regimes have started with less than what's happening in the US.

It's fair to say that Bush is no NAZI in the strict sense, but let's say he's acting "a little funny" for a democratic president. In fact, the US also reminds me of 1984 (perpetual war, anyone?).

Anyway, you should also take notice of the events going on the inside of the US to know WHY lots of people are calling him a NAZI.

By the way, I guess we should call him "that fucking fascist that is making a mess and is going to wreck the whole world (starting with the rights of his own people)", but NAZI is a good approximation, and shorter.

Re:And in other news...

[vertinox]

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.

Its preferable to blind acceptance. The best solution is to "accept things as true but could be horrible wrong and I won't be bothered if they do turn out to be wrong".

I mean I accept reality as it is presented to me, but if 20ft cat aliens show up tomorrow and say intelligent monkies make us 200 years ago and fabricated our history I won't be too upset because I assumed everything to be true but capable of being wrong.

Although, I think most of everyone will be jumping off bridges and taking cyanide pills as soon as they find out the truth.

Re:And in other news...

[daliman]

You missed the point; I don't think the GP disagrees with your sentiment, it's just amusing that a Christian would teach people to doubt that which they can't see for themselves. 'Cause, you know, faith, god and all that jazz, pretty hard to see for yourself.

Re:And in other news...

[Eightyford]

Then it should be done universally, with everything to the same level. They should doubt the theories of gravity at the same level as the theories of evolution. Increasing your doubt about one particular point for no reason other than spiritual or religious reasons is just wrong.

I agree.

Re:And in other news...

[Jesus IS the Devil]

That doesn't say anything. I'm American and I HATE SUVs. So can I assume you don't take showers?

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

The US is at war with Al Qaeda.

Some of that war is currently being fought inside Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.

Re:And in other news...

[Sean Hederman]

Interesting, I thought this was currently accepted. As I recall nuclear fissions dicovery was hailed as a way of explaining the heat of the centre of the Earth. If it isn't happening, what else has kept the Eart hot all these billions of years?

Re:And in other news...

[scotch]

It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper.

Where did you get your info about recycling paper? A quick google turned up this:

Recycling paper saves energy, water, space at landfills, and disposal fees. The paper industry saves about 20 percent of the energy required to make paper and paperboard from fresh lumber. Recycling paper also saves about 50 percent of the water required to produce paper from fresh lumber and alleviates the shortage of space at landfills. When waste paper is recycled instead of buried, each ton of waste paper saves the charge to municipalities for dumping, often called the tipping fee.
-- https://energy.navy.mil/awareness/365newfacts/365e wfacts10.html

though of course I'm not an expert - your claim about recycled paper just sounds like one of those myths going around that have no basis in fact. References?

Re:And in other news...

[scotch]

Ha ha - disapproving since 9/11? You're such a newb. There's a whole community of people that have been disapproving of him since all the way back to his chicken-hawk routine during Vietnam.

:)

Re:And in other news...

[gomoX]

Logic 101: Modus ponens
Only americans can be proud of SUVs. (note, not "all the americans")
$PERSON is proud of his SUV.
-> $PERSON is an american.

Re:And in other news...

[jschottm]

Comparison deals with similar traits.

Dictionary.com's definitions

Note the second definition:

To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.

Note the usage notes, which state that the preposition "to" is generally indicates that compare is being used to highlight differences between the two (or more) things, while "with" is usually used to indicate similar traits. Note that the origional post stated:

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

Also, recall that a rather famous playwright and poet once asked,

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Clearly, the intent is to compare a human being with a temporal event, things that don't share precisely similar traits.

Re:And in other news...

[bheer]

If this happened here (Argentina), people would be REALLY alarmed (go and find out what happened during the military regimes in South America). Military regimes have started with less than what's happening in the US.

Yeah, we had a softie prez who got blowjobs in the Oval office and whose solution to every military problem was to lob softball Tomahawks at them. No thanks, I'll take a hardline stance from the prez anyday because that's what we need NOW.

And the US != Argentina. Much longer tradition of democratic rule, instead of a coup-riddled history. Stop projecting your insecurities on us.

It's difficult for a lot of people to grok (the same who were predicting utter defeat for Bush in the 2004 elections). Dubya doesn't care for being 'politically correct' (ironically this boosts his popularity with a lot of people who see him as an 'outsider president') but democracy is something he genuinely believes in-- and has even got into fights with agencies like the CIA because they felt maintaining the status quo would be 'cheaper'.

I disagree with a lot of Dubya's policies (most notably stem cells) but I'll be the first to say the status quo in the Middle East is untenable in an era of globetrotting radical mullahs. And this problem won't go away by appeasing or ignoring Muslims, it'll go away only when Muslim societies are free of their tinpot rulers.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

Unfortunately, I can't find the study I saw. It was quite a while ago, but it did end-to-end energy and pollution comparisons. Usually these stats don't take into account the full picture. In fact, it's pretty amusing to do a google on the subject. Some excerpts:

"Making recycled paper instead of new paper uses 64 percent less energy and uses 58 percent less water."

"A paper mill uses 20 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper"

"Producing recycled paper involves between 28 - 70% less energy consumption than virgin paper and uses less water."

"Production of recycled paper uses 80% less water, 65% less energy"

"There can be no definitive statement on which uses more energy because each forest, producer, vehicle, mill and so on will have its own way of working, and the different types of energy-use also have different environmental impacts. Broadly the reprocessed fibre in recycled grades is more efficient in energy terms." (at least this one tries to be honest, even though it spins it the way they want to)

"Producing recycled paper uses much less total energy than producing virgin paper. Depending on the grade, producing recycled paper may use more or less purchased energy (a subset of total energy), in the form of fossil fuels and purchased electricity. Virgin freesheet grades require slightly less purchased energy to produce than recycled ones, because some of their energy needs are met by burning wood-derived process waste. Virgin groundwood papers, by contrast, require more purchased energy to produce than do recycled groundwood papers." (this one at least admits that more fossil fuels are used by recycling)

"Recycling paper saves trees and uses 70% less energy, 60% less water and creates 50% less pollution than making paper from trees." (Wheee! More numbers pulled out the air!)

"It takes 60 percent less energy to manufacture paper from recycled stock"

"Making recycled paper uses 30 to 55 percent less energy"

Anyway, it should be apparent that these numbers are all over the map, and funny enough, no one ever gives a reference for where they come from. I wish I could find the study I saw, it was really good. I should've kept a link around for when this subject inevitably comes up. To tell you the truth, I don't usually get into it anymore because no one wants to believe it, so it's not a particularly fruitful subject to discuss. But I'm apparently bored enough tonight. :)

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

1. Al Qaeda is not from Iraq. In fact, Al Qaeda is probably a creation of the US, whose actual existence has been exaggerated.

2. Normal Iraqi people are not members of Al Qaeda. But they are the people being detained.

3. The idea of a "war" against such an amorphous and vague group is ridiculous. They should be targets of law enforcement. War is about nation-states and armies fighting one another. "War on Terror" is a misnomer.

4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

The bottom line is that the whole "SUVs are evil" concept is just lazy thinking by people who have no idea what the bigger problems are, so they pick on an easy target.

I'm not sure where you get this. I would not ascribe a human quality like "evil" to an inanimate object like an SUV, and pretty much nobody does. The fact is that SUVs are destructive and polluting. Do you deny this?

It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper

You are clearly deluded, because this is not "the truth." Where do you get your propaganda from? In reality, people who oppose SUVs do not do so because they are "evil" and you obviously haven't taken into account the entire costs of recycling paper versus throwing it away and chopping down more trees.

What are your sources?

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Use some logic. How can it cost less energy to chop down a tree, ship it to a factory, then turn hard, wooden material into paper, than it costs to turn used paper, which is already in a pre-processed form that easily turns back into paper?

Not to mention the fact that the used paper has to to travel a much shorter distance to the recycling factory, than it does to come from the countryside to the city for consumption. And what about the costs of disposing of that paper without recycling it?

Re:And in other news...

[maxume]

Depends on who you ask:

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=comparison

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compariso n

American Heritage and a couple of others include similarities *and* differences.

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

1. Al Qaeda is not from Iraq. In fact, Al Qaeda is probably a creation of the US, whose actual existence has been exaggerated.

Al Qaeda is a world-wide organization with a presence in Iraq. It trained tens of thousands of terrorists in camps in Afghanistan while it was ruled by the Taliban. Your information is faulty.

2. Normal Iraqi people are not members of Al Qaeda. But they are the people being detained.

Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq, along with various Islamic extremists, tribal militias, Iranian agents, and dead-enders from the Baathist regime. They hide among the population which is turning against them. Ordinary people are turning them in.

3. The idea of a "war" against such an amorphous and vague group is ridiculous.

War on Al Qaeda is about the same as war on pirates in centuries past, or various guerilla groups. Nothing silly about it at all.

They should be targets of law enforcement.

Al Qaeda and associates have become a large enough problem that they are no longer a simple law enforcement problem. It is now often falls in the paramilitary or military problem scale.

War is about nation-states and armies fighting one another. "War on Terror" is a misnomer.

There is an entire range of conflict that encompasses war. It isn't just nation state vs nation state.

War on Terror is shorthand, not misnomer.

4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs.

In order to qualify for the protections of a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions you must meet certain standards. Al Qaeda and company violate the standards and therefore don't qualify for the protections and priviledges.

...therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs

Faulty logic, and quite silly.

Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?

Re:And in other news...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Whoa! It's the "But Clinton..." defense that Republicans like to use when they are cornered.

Give it up. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a Republican, but you shouldn't stick up for Bush. Surely there must be someone in your party worth sticking up for.

Just a tip, don't look in Congress for that guy.

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

I think that you have the situation completely wrong, in multiple respects.

Contrary to your assertion that there are all sorts of new powers being invented or used, what you see is the use of wartime powers by the executive branch against an enemy which is outside the law.

The President as Commander in Chief has enormous powers in wartime, some of which haven't been used in the 50 years prior. The Congress has authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of 9/11. There is an organization which has declared itself to be at war with the US. The gloves are off, and Al Qaeda members will be captured or killed for as long as it takes, even if it is 50 years. (The Indian wars lasted about 40.)

By the same token, Al Qaeda has stated its intent to kill 4,000,000 Americans (1/2 women and children I believe) and make many more homeless. In violation of every precept of civilization they recognize no innocents in combat, but make war on the young, the old, the sick and infirm, ordinary people going about their business, just as if they were soldiers. If Americans don't have the will to stop them, there isn't any reason to believe they won't succeed in their goal.

The Geneva conventions are a mutual treaty among nations, but other groups can qualify for its protections and privileges if they comply with its provisions. Unfortunately Al Qaeda and company has placed themselves outside of it by ignoring it and regularly committing war crimes and therefore they are entitled to none of its protections. We are under no obligation to extend any more rights to them than we are required to legally, which is very little. It is entirely possible that we would be acting consistently with international law to execute them all as spies, but we aren't doing that. Instead we are holding them, and in some cases returning them to their nations of origin under custody. Other nations are not released from their treaty obligations toward us by our actions against Al Qaeda. If we go to war with them they are still bound by the treaty and international law. Al Qaeda and kin have long tortured and executed anyone who falls into their hands, including beheading. That probably won't change.

It is sad that innocent people get caught up in this, but it will happen, just as many innocent people are killed in war. There is no way to apply an antiseptic standard of faultless action in dealing with simple criminals, let alone a massive and yet subtle undertaking like the war against Al Qaeda. It isn't possible. It would also be completely wrong-headed to demand that we don't defend ourselves if we can't do it without any innocent people being detained, hurt or killed. The US has gone to great lengths to to minimize the death of innocents, but it will happen none the less. Blame Al Qaeda who shields themselves with innocent lives as often as they attack them.

As to the question of secrecy, that is the nature of this war. Secrecy protects the way we get information, and denies information to the enemy, such as who we have captured, how we found them, what they are telling us, how we are using it, what we are going to do next. Sometimes the very knowledge of the existence of a method tells the enemy all that they need to know to avoid our using it. There have been a number of occasions so far during this war when a journalist was more concerned with a scoop than he was with the US being able to count on a technique to find the enemy and so broadcast the information about its existence as use. As a result, Al Qaeda became aware of the technique and changed its behavior, and became harder to find and counter, but at least some journalist got a by-line out of it.

The conduct of this war won't be reduced to a simple set of open rules. That would be too limited and telegraph our actions. We shouldn't treat Al Qaeda fairly, only humanely if captured.

Ordinary criminals are different, should be, and are, treated in the usual way. There are indeed limits.

Most of the oversight in this war will be by the various branches of government playing their respective roles.

Re:And in other news...

[theLOUDroom]

I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.

Why?

You go on to talk about pooling knowedge, but skepticism doesn't prevent me from learning or sharing ideas.

I think it's a much better viewpoint to consider nothing sacred. Maybe Newton was right, maybe he wasn't. Einstein, learned Newtons ideas, but he maintained his own skepticism about them.

Believing in anything 100% is a bad idea. It means no matter the evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe your original stupid idea.
IMO, it's the fundamental difference between religion and science.

Re:And in other news...

[drgonzo59]

As far as charismatic goes he is not that much further along than Hitler. Or rather, Hitler was fairly charismatic for his time. You have to keep in mind that you are looking back at Hitler after all he has done, and you grew up to associate his mustache and his haircut with "evil" and "monster" but for his contemporaries he was rather charming -- someone would need to be to rise to power that quickly, even in Germany...

Re:And in other news...

[cobras2]

>Science does not aim to disprove religion,

The rest of your post is good, but I'd just like to point out here that although *science* does not aim to disprove religion, *evolution does*. If you think I'm wrong, please, go read biographies on all of the early promoters of evolution.

So, is that a reason in itself to disbelieve evolution? Not necessarily, but I think it's a good reason to look critically at evolution in order to decide whether you/we/Them/whoever think it's a good theory because it's a good theory, or because those early promoters did a good job of promoting it as if it was a good theory, when all it realy was was an excuse to get rid of this whole "God" idea?

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please... See you are just showing your ignorance of anything outside your own "world".
Everyone outside of the USA knows that only the Americans call them "SUV"s.

Re:And in other news...

[bheer]

> Whoa! It's the "But Clinton..." defense that Republicans like to use when they are cornered.

I'm not invoking the Clinton defense. I'm saying his softball tactics were worse than useless, they exacerbated the problem. Comprende?

And supporting Bush != Supporting Republicans. As it happens, I'm an independent and am not particularly attached to Bush (though currently he's the best option I see). I think the mideast status quo is untenable because a lot of our problems with the 'arab street' is really the handiwork of tinpot rulers protecting their own turfs and holding us hostage to oil. I don't mind voting for anyone who has a realistic solution for solving this mess.

Of course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get attacked as a baby-mulching Republican shill. And then they wonder why middle-of-the-road voters get turned off Democrats... *shrug*.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have noticed the changes in the US in the last years, starting from the destruction of the WTC (~fire of the Reichstadt)

They tried blowing up the WTC with a truck bomb. Clinton fucked up badly if they simply targeted the same building again less than a decade later. I say Bush is simply doing what we should've done in 1993. Terrorism in the U.S. is not new.

followed by the perceived election fraud (Diebold)

Thats why Slashdot seems to have a new article bashing Diebold every month reminding us that we need to be paranoid of the vote tallying machine manufacturers. Never mind the fact that Slashdot reported on dozens of follow up stories after the election on post-election recounts.

the illegal arrests (Guantanamo) and the reduction of personal freedoms.

The Supreme Court recently overturned many of the arrests and some of those arrested have already been released. I'd say the checks and balances system is doing fairly well.

It's fair to say that Bush is no NAZI in the strict sense, but let's say he's acting "a little funny" for a democratic president.

Abe Lincoln started the precedent of suspending Habeas Corpus during wartime and yet historians don't call him a fascist/dictator (let alone the P.O.W./human rights violations and military use of 'total war' under his presidency against the South.) Theodore Roosevelt was a warmongering, economy damaging president who interfered with Central American politics to build the Panama Canal yet was applauded later for the vast income it brought the nation and region. F.D.R. was borderline/completely tyranical in his presidency. Four terms unheard of previously, the internment/imprisonment of Japanese Americans (illegal on several levels), the confiscation of private property (violation of the Constitution), the failure to protect private property while people were interned/imprisoned, the authorization to develop the nuclear bomb (which should have been a military, not political, decision), the illegal trade of war material with Britain under the declaration of neutrality (violation of international law), the list goes on. Bush is a wuss compared to these guys, Bush is not waging total war in Iraq or Afghanistan, his use of the U.N. against Iran and North Korea looks wimpy compared to T.R. 'speak softly and carry a big stick' policy and if Bush was president during WWII he would probably be impeached for NOT being hard enough on Japanese Americans.

Given the past history of presidents during wartime Bush sounds just about normal to me. In fact, I think hes acting "a little funny" for not bitching out the U.N. after they found the documents proving European companies were illegally violating the U.N.'s Food for Oil program in Iraq.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

you read one "study" claiming something, in spite of um'teen other studies claiming the exact opposite and you choose the believe the loner? you point out that those numbers are all over the place; thats partly true. only partly because they all agree its using less; not a single one you found from google stated more. believing something based on zero facts in spirt of loads of evidence to the contrary? you should be a creationist you SUV driving fuckwit

Re:And in other news...

[mosb1000]

Not really, your municipal recycling center has to collect the paper, sort it, then ship it to a facility where they grind it up, bleach it, and turn it back into paper. It's essentially the same process as making new paper from the beginning, though it produces a lower grade product, which is why it is blended with new stock for most uses. So, for some applications, it's more efficient to use a blend, others it's more efficient to use new fiber.

You can tell that the benefit of recycled paper is marginal because there are very few for-profit operations that collect paper for recycling, though many for profit operations buy it from them (at extremely low cost) and use it.

Re:And in other news...

[Jason Earl]

Interesting, I thought this was currently accepted. As I recall nuclear fissions dicovery was hailed as a way of explaining the heat of the centre of the Earth. If it isn't happening, what else has kept the Eart hot all these billions of years?

Apparently the mole men living inside the earth drive really big SUVs.

Re:And in other news...

[tmossman]

>Is that what he really wants to be teaching the kids? To doubt what they can't see for themselves?

>>Actually, yes. We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything. To me, the need for a continuous search for answers is one of the greatest attributes a person can have.

I agree. Our children should be raised on healthy food, decent values, and taught to question everything for themselves. Obviously, on that last one, you're gonna have to make some concessions on some of the more-controversial or difficult to understand (even for adults) issues, but on the whole, yeah, we need new generations with respect for the search for answers, rather than drones puppets and parrots coming out of our schools.

>>>I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand. Very few people are in any position to vouch for the authenticity of much of the scientific experimentation that goes on...

That is the pitfall of this view, and strong forms of positivism. Hopefully though, these theoretical students will have been tought not just to "question absolutely everything" for themselves, but to have a greater understanding of how we come to declare things known--i.e., part of teaching them how to question, is (should be) learning processes by which we come to agree as a community on the validity of something. I personally personally don't have time to verify for myself the vast number of things about which I wonder, but using the same sense of reason appled to other sources (i.e. how reputable is this source on this topic?), I can get a picture suitable for my own needs and intellect level.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Not really, your municipal recycling center has to collect the paper, sort it, then ship it to a facility where they grind it up, bleach it, and turn it back into paper

But the recycling centers are usually much closer to where the waste is gathered, than they are to the trees. It's a lot harder to grind up a tree than it is to make a soup of old paper.

It's essentially the same process as making new paper from the beginning,

No, it's very different. The wood has to be processed into pulp first. The wood weighs a lot more (more transport costs). The used paper is lighter, already is close to pulp, and is closer to the manufacturing centers than the trees are.

You can tell that the benefit of recycled paper is marginal because there are very few for-profit operations that collect paper for recycling, though many for profit operations buy it from them (at extremely low cost) and use it.

What the hell are you talking about? recycling paper is quite profitable, and there are thousands of for-profit companies that do it.

I also notice you didn't mention the problem of waste disposal if we don't recycle, nor the problems of increased erosiion and other environmental effects if we have to cut down more trees if we are not recycling.

Re:And in other news...

[StressedEd]

...but if 20ft cat aliens show up tomorrow and say intelligent monkies make us 200 years ago and fabricated our history..

I would be busy getting lab tests on the water supply. ;-)

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Al Qaeda is a world-wide organization with a presence in Iraq.

What evidence do you have of their presence in Iraq?

They hide among the population which is turning against them. Ordinary people are turning them in.

So, why are ordinary Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured, even if they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism? If we are at war with Al Qaeda, saying that we should imprison Iraqis (without rights or trial) is like saying that the French should be imprisoned in WWII, because we were at war with the Nazis.

War on Terror is shorthand, not misnomer.

We also have a War on Drugs. Does that mean that drug users should be denied constitutional or international law rights? If it counts as war, why aren't they treated as POWs?

In order to qualify for the protections of a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions you must meet certain standards. Al Qaeda and company violate the standards and therefore don't qualify for the protections and priviledges.

Please explain this. If they are not enemies in a war, then they are civilians, and deserve civilian protections. If they are enemies in a war, then they should be treated as POWs. There is no third category recognized under US or international law.

War on Al Qaeda is about the same as war on pirates in centuries past, or various guerilla groups. Nothing silly about it at all.

Well, under US law and international law, pirates, guerillas, and war criminals are granted criminal trials if captured.

Faulty logic, and quite silly.

Why is it silly?

Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?

Yes, I have. Might I suggest you actually explain what you mean? Where is it in the Geneva convention that allows anyone to be treated the way the US is treating prisoners? You don't actually present a logical argument. You just say "this is silly" and don't explain why.

Aside from the Geneva conventions, what about the conventions against torture? What about George Bush saying "The US does not torture"?

Re:And in other news...

[StressedEd]

Of course, Musolini did manage to get the trains to run on time...

I'm with the other poster on this one, except with a suitable link: Mussolini, just your standard propaganda loving fashist.

Of course the corolory that; if you do make the trains run on time you are not a fashist is something of a non-sequitur.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

One more thing:

Even if you are correct that Al Qaeda is not allowed Geneva protection, or protection against torture - how is this relevant to innocent Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured? They are not members of the "enemy" - they are members of a supposedly now democratic and "free" Iraq. So how can they be allowed to be treated like this?

Re:And in other news...

[mwvdlee]

Or you can just assume that a given experience is most probably true but know that there remains the incredibly small possibility that it might be false.

A scientist who thinks with absolute certainty is no better than a religious man.

Re:And in other news...

[MostlyHarmless]

I agree that Bush is comparable to Hitler. Clearly, Bush < Hitler. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any two world leaders -- nay, any two strings at all! -- are comparable.
</pun>

Re:And in other news...

[tuomasr]

Actually, yes. We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything. To me, the need for a continuous search for answers is one of the greatest attributes a person can have.

But the real question is (in the spirit of the off-spun discussion): Is our children learning?

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

What evidence do you have of their presence in Iraq?

Here is a start. Or this. Try going to news.google.com and search on iraq + al qaeda, or al-Zarqawi. Its not hard to find.

So, why are ordinary Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured, even if they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism?

By whom? I don't think the US is doing this. There was the rogue bunch of soldiers at Abu Gharaib, but most of them are already in jail for their crimes. Several months agao there were some Iraqi interior ministry units that were going rogue, but they are being reigned in following raids by the US and other Iraqi government agencies.

We also have a War on Drugs. Does that mean that drug users should be denied constitutional or international law rights?

The war on drugs, like the war on poverty, isn't a "real" war, a shooting war. Its metaphor.

Please explain this. If they are not enemies in a war, then they are civilians, and deserve civilian protections. If they are enemies in a war, then they should be treated as POWs. There is no third category recognized under US or international law.

Yes, there is, that is where the term "unlawful combatant" or enemy combatant comes in. You have to obey the law of war and the treaty to qualify for the special protections and privileges of the treaty. Al Qaeda and company regularly commit war crimes, and fail the tests in Convention III, article 4, paragraph 2:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Qaeda fails at least 3 of the 4 tests and therefore doesn't qualify for POW status under the Geneva Convention provisions. If you really did read them, you know that means they aren't entitled to prepare their own food, and get paid a wage, for example.

Paragraph 6 refers to a Levee en mass and doesn't apply.

Why is it silly?

To try and prove that there isn't a war because some prisoners do not qualify for the special protections of prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions is silly.

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

Even if you are correct that Al Qaeda is not allowed Geneva protection, or protection against torture - how is this relevant to innocent Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured? They are not members of the "enemy" - they are members of a supposedly now democratic and "free" Iraq. So how can they be allowed to be treated like this?

Would you mind showing some evidence of this from a reputable news site? Other than some criminal acts for which the guilty have already been punished, I don't know what you are talking about.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Excuse me?

Do you even read the news? Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were released without charge. If you are not aware of this, you obviously are not informed enough. Are you saying that all these people were enemy combatants or criminals? If they were, why weren't they charged?

Iraqis were indiscriminately rounded up and imprisoned at Abu Ghraib I don't make a habit of archiving stories that have been so widely covered across the globe as to be common knowledge, but a quick internet search gives this link:

There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained--indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released.

There are other sources out there, but I don't see why I should do your research for you. Moreover, the lack of transparency means that the administration is not giving details of who is imprisoned, so we have no real way of tracking these abuses. That is wrong in itself. Any system of justice, military or civilian, should be accountable and transparent.

What if this happened on American soil? What if there were terrorist cells in America, and YOU were suspected of being involved, and imprisoned indefinitely without access to lawyers or any trial? This is not spreading democracy or freedom, it's just spreading fear and injustice.

Re:And in other news...

[dangitman]

Here is a start. Or this. Try going to news.google.com and search on iraq + al qaeda, or al-Zarqawi. Its not hard to find.

All I see in those links are allegations by the new Iraqi army, or the US administration. Neither of these are trustworthy sources. Anyone can claim they are Al Qaeda. Doesn't make it so.

By whom? I don't think the US is doing this. There was the rogue bunch of soldiers at Abu Gharaib, but most of them are already in jail for their crimes

Actually all the evidence points to this not being rogue elements, but a systematic plan, ordered from above. Even if they were rogues, that doesn't mean the torture did not happen. Only a fraction of the torture evidence has been released to the public.

If it were just a few "bad apples," then why is the administration arguing about the definition of torture, and the right to torture?

Yes, there is, that is where the term "unlawful combatant" or enemy combatant comes in. You have to obey the law of war and the treaty to qualify for the special protections and privileges of the treaty. Al Qaeda and company regularly commit war crimes, and fail the tests in Convention III, article 4, paragraph 2:

So, they are civilian criminals, who should be treated under civilian law. And what of those who are imprisoned, but are NOT Al Qaeda members? You cannot possibly tell me that thousands of Iraqis have suddenly become members of Al Qaeda, when Al Qaeda never even existed in Iraq before the war.

To try and prove that there isn't a war because some prisoners do not qualify for the special protections of prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions is silly.

"Special protections"? In many ways, POWs get less protection than civilians.

In any case, how does this apply to iraqi civilians who aren't terrorists? Why aren't they getting civilian protections? Even if the torture victims were all Al Qaeda members, how does this justify torture? What is the purpose of denying any human rights to prisoners, whether they are civilian or enemies?

Re:And in other news...

[TheOrquithVagrant]

Well... you know, I wouldn't necessarily take that as hard evidence they weren't innocent at the time they were first caught. Being locked up for years without any kind of trial and accused of all sorts of shit when you knew you'd done nothing to deserve it just MIGHT incline you to get rather pissed off at your captors. Especially if you're surrounded by other prisoners whose arguments against the captor nation suddenly sound rather convincing.
Any innocents locked up there would be pretty prime recruiting material for any genuine al queda folks they might be mixed in with.

Re:And in other news...

[Haeleth]

Also, recall that a rather famous playwright and poet once asked,
    Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Clearly, the intent is to compare a human being with a temporal event, things that don't share precisely similar traits.

Moreover, he goes on to say "Thou art more lovely" - which is perfectly analogous to saying "Bush is less charismatic".

Re:And in other news...

[Haeleth]

All religions place some questions beyond the pale. Christians are not allowed to question the divinity of Jesus. [...] None of them are allowed to question the existence of God in the form of any serious doubt.

Allow me to introduce you to an organisation called the Church of England, where probably no more than half the members and priests believe in God. :P

Re:And in other news...

[zootm]

The rest of your post is good, but I'd just like to point out here that although *science* does not aim to disprove religion, *evolution does*. If you think I'm wrong, please, go read biographies on all of the early promoters of evolution.

Regardless of the original promoters' motives, I like to think that it wouldn't become widely-accepted within science unless it had solid backing.

So, is that a reason in itself to disbelieve evolution? Not necessarily, but I think it's a good reason to look critically at evolution in order to decide whether you/we/Them/whoever think it's a good theory because it's a good theory, or because those early promoters did a good job of promoting it as if it was a good theory, when all it realy was was an excuse to get rid of this whole "God" idea?

I agree — everything in science should be looked at critically, that's the point. The fact that evolution has been looked at critically for so long (and, as a result, has been modified many times as parts of it were found to be deficient) should at least give it a little credence. And the fact that no theory has been brought forward which comes even close to it acts quite well in its favour also.

Of course, if something better should come along down the line, science is basically bound to accept it, by the basis of what it is. I really doubt that it'll be a revolution, though, rather than an evolution (sorry for the pun) of the existing evolutionary theories.

Re:And in other news...

[Zardoz1974]

Among the enegry cost not included in the "Reports" is the cost of hauling the used paper from the widely spread first users.(IE: your house or work)to a "recyling center" (fuel not included in cost) Where it is put in storage(fuel to move) and then it is (full truckload) loaded (fuel not included in cost) shipped to a pulp mill (fuel not included in cost) Most of which are on the East Coast http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/data/mills/mill200 5p.gif (Not all but very few are located near the sorce of the waste paper, they STINK so no big city wants them) and unloaded (fuel not included in cost) and stored until used. As to the water it is not just used and dumped but is re-used over and over with more water added as needed

Re:And in other news...

[maxwell demon]

You hear something from a friend, but you're skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you're skeptical of them. Where does it end?

Solipsism?

But if you are truly sceptic, you of course must also doubt the rule that everything is to be doubted ...

Re:And in other news...

[Isldeur]

How about the idiots who, for example, think Bush is comparable to Hitler?

Of course he's "comparable" to Hitler: It is possible to compare Bush to Hitler: Bush is immensely less charismatic, competent or intelligent than Hitler.

Awesome turn of phrase. And let me be the first to add; Thank God for incompetence! ;)

Re:And in other news...

[FoamingToad]

The limits of empiricism - the extent to which one can deduce things from rationality without recourse to assumption - were quite heavily debated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries following Descartes.

Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure reason, which goes so far as to state that certain concepts, including Time and Substance, require an assumption on the part of the observer and cannot be deduced from a priori concepts.

Hence absolute skepticism does not work - according to Kant anyway.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"A million to one" refers to betting odds - for one (pound|dollar|euro) wagered, you receive a million (pounds|dollars|euros) back if you win. As you might imagine, bookies offer these odds only for practically impossible events.

Basically, "million to one odds" means that you think something is extremely unlikely.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but virtually all wood used from paper is harvested from...wait for it...tree farms. When they chop a tree down you can bet they'll be planting a new one right away.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missread the earlier post. He said that Bush is *less* charismatic than Hitler. Hitler was extremely charismatic, and the post agrees with that.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

The wood has to be processed into pulp first.

Yes, but what you're missing here is the fact that you have to turn dirty, inky, coated garbage back into nice paper, versus starting with nice, clean trees (from tree farms conveniently located close to the processing plants).

Re:And in other news...

[shorgs]

Off topic, sorry...

Those people out there that question why someone would get so emotionally upset as to compare US President George Bush to Hitler haven't been exposed to unfiltered information about this war.

IraqBodyCount.net who relies on Mortuaries and Medics, the Free Press, and Iraqi Journalists reports that the estimated civilian body count is between 28,000 and 30,000. The attacks on the WTC resulted in 2,752 civilian casualties according the AP.

So by all accounts Iraq has at least suffered the effects of at least 9 to 10 September 11th attacks since the start of combat.

And Iraq's population was estimated to be about 26,074,906 in 2005 by the World Fact Book. The USAs was about 295,734,134 in 2005 by the same source. So the US population is about 11 time larger than that of Iraq.

So if you want to see the equivalent effect in the US you would have to take September 11th, multiply it by a conservative 9 times to bring it up the Iraqi civilian casualty toll, then multiply it again by 11 times to adjust it accordingly to the population. That comes out to about 272,448 civilians dying in the US in order to convey the scope of what Iraq has been going through since the start of the Iraq war. That's 272,448 and look at how devastated we were when we lost 2,752.

So while I wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler myself I can understand why some people may feel that way.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone outside of the USA knows that only the Americans call them "SUV"s.

Au contraire! De repente! SUV is one of those terms that is spreading across the globe.

Re:And in other news...

[OhHellWithIt]

We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything.

My daughter doesn't need any further education in this skill.

Re:And in other news...

[Bob3141592]

Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.

You hear something from a friend, but you're skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you're skeptical of them. Where does it end?

When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they're not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.

I don't know. While I find your reasoning perfectly sound, I'm still skeptical of your conclusion.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

Re:And in other news...

[Politburo]

Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?

That would only prove you even more wrong. Geneva says that signatories should follow the rules, even if the enemy isn't. In fact, it's Article I, "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." Emph. mine.

And Article II: "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."

And let's look at Article V: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 [POWs], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

While you can use slippery lawyer talk to try and get al qaeda members out of the POW definitions in Article 4, it simply isn't a logical argument, and it is completely bereft of any moral standing. You want so badly for this to be a "WAR", but then you want to throw away the protections that we've agreed to for the treatment of prisoners of war, because.. oh.. uh.. they're not prisoners.. or something.

Re:And in other news...

[dcw3]

Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.

You hear something from a friend, but you're skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you're skeptical of them. Where does it end?

When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they're not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.

Having come from a rather large Catholic family, and having attended CCD and Catholic schools that were teaching "the one true religion" back in the 60s, I'm wondering when exactly it was that I became skeptical. Was it arrogant of me to not trust in the "experiences and knowledge of others"? I understand the point that you're trying to make, but there are numerous examples where blindly believing what everyone is saying ends up being simply wrong.

Re:And in other news...

[JohnFluxx]

This happens in all wars it seems.
Someone else has posted a very interesting comment about how the Japanese were convinced that the Chinese kept attacking them and that the Japanese people felt they _had_ to attack to defend, and said there were 28 books on how much trouble the Jews were in Japan, despite there not actually been any Jews in Japan, and how films were made about how much good Japan was doing in China..
The point being the government likes to convince us we are doing the right thing.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

The problem with all that is that the fault for the deaths lies solely with Saddam Hussein and Terrorist organizations, not George Bush. People die in war. That's simply the way it is.

Since Hitler is all over this thread, let me use a Hitler analogy: should we not have attacked Germany to bring down Hitler because of the innocent German civilian casualties that were caused?

Re:And in other news...

[Sgt. Sasquatch]

They are a creation of the US, however not exaggerated. If those of you from the US recall the Cold War between you and Soviet Russia? Yeah, in that war you backed an organization that you know as Al-Qaeda while the Russians were occupying Afghanistan. This kept the war indirect, and no Americans were endangered. However you put other people in danger and now Al-Qaeda has taken the money and weapons you gave them and used them for terrorism which has made America directly involved completely destroying the original intent of that whole move. I would personally just say that while Bush isn't the greatest leader and could be the worst, it is America's policy of going to war to fix everything that is the problem. Just try a peaceful resolution every now and then.

Re:And in other news...

[kartaron]

1. Al Qaeda is not from Iraq. In fact, Al Qaeda is probably a creation of the US, whose actual existence has been exaggerated. Nazi's werent from Egypt but we found quite a few of them there. Where they are from isnt as important as where they are now. As for Al Qaeda, were they created or only exaggerated by the US? Make up your mind. 2. Normal Iraqi people are not members of Al Qaeda. But they are the people being detained. Well all of them arent being detained so something must make them stand out. Id love to see your sources on their criminal standing. Exactly how do you know that none of the Iraqi detainees are Al Qaeda? 3. The idea of a "war" against such an amorphous and vague group is ridiculous. They should be targets of law enforcement. War is about nation-states and armies fighting one another. "War on Terror" is a misnomer. Two specific wars into the 'war against terror' and war is now an incorrect label? Perhaps 'War against nations harboring or sponsoring internation terrorists' is a bit long to repeat 30 times in a speach. 4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs. The geneva conventions specifically exclude protections for soldiers fighting without a uniform. In effect the other side has no standing forces and are fighting a covert (spy) campaign. We are actually dealing with the prisoners very humanely considering how spies have been dealt with in the past.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is also a difference between 'blindly believing' and 'accepting as truth until given reason to doubt'. One is healthy - the other is not.

Re:And in other news...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Am I the only one who remembers the cries of "Wag the Dog" when Clinton sent some high explosives into Afghanistan? No matter what Clinton did, there's a group of people who hate him so much they will just attack him, question his motives, and declare that it was the wrong thing to do. I'll grant you, your use of the "But Clinton..." defense wasn't exactly orthodox, but it's got the hallmark accusations of appeasement of terrorists, and blowjobs in the Oval Office, so I think it qualifies as an obtuse invocation.

To address the "softball tactics" accusation, I think that the tactics employed by Clinton and those employed by Bush are pretty much equally useless. I think it's obvious that hardball tactics have created a lot of terrorists, but there has to be an entirely different tactic employed if the root problems which cause terrorism are to be corrected.

Of course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get attacked as a baby-mulching Republican shill. And then they wonder why middle-of-the-road voters get turned off Democrats

Watch in November, and you'll see how middle-of-the-road voters are turned off Republicans.

Re:And in other news...

[pryoplasm]

Sorry, but as civillians, and not in a standing military organization, nor clearly wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from standard citizens, those who enter combat under such means are unlawful combatants. They get treated differently under LOAC [law of armed conflict] because they are not prisoners of war, but rather unlawful combatants.

Re:And in other news...

[Pragmatix]

1) Al Qaeda is the creation of Osama Bin Laden partly as a response to his desire to overthrow the Saudi government and install a theocracy (guess who would be in charge?). Since the US has troops in Saudi Arabia, it makes it difficult for him to overthrow the government, hence his agenda to get us to remove ourselves from the middle east. 2) There are plenty of bad people in Iraq who are not members of Al Qaeda, and need detention. We shouldn't be there at all, but that is a separate supbject. 3) I agree, war is a political tool to keep the sheep in-line 4) Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva convention and they are not a recognized nation, thus the Geneva convention does not apply.

Re:And in other news...

[idsofmarch]

Al Qaeda was not so much 'created' as influenced, supported and armed by the US, specifically the CIA. Al Qaeda and Osama are our own golem.

Re:And in other news...

[bombadillo]

3. The idea of a "war" against such an amorphous and vague group is ridiculous. War on Al Qaeda is about the same as war on pirates in centuries past, or various guerilla groups. Nothing silly about it at all.

Oh, you mean like the Pirates sponsored by the British Empire....

Kind of like Reagan sponsoring OBL and fundamentalists in the 1980's.

Rogue groups have to get sponsorship from some where. Alqueda is a spawn of our own foreign policy. Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism. Our targets should have been set for Saudi Arabia. But , why ruin a good relationship for 3 thousand lives, a couple of buildings and airplanes....

Re:And in other news...

[radtea]

This attitude is a religion in itself - and your generalizations are basically based on observations of religion based purely on the media or by listening to others like yourself.

Fascinating--you apparently know all about me, my religious upbringing, my studies in ancient Christianity and the history of the English church, and my broad reading in non-Christian religions. This is a fine example of religious thinking: when faced with something that challenged an article of your faith, you made something up that protected your faith.

I grant you that many minor Christian sects have at one time or the other questioned the divinity of Christ. The Gnostics were at it pretty much from the off. But no major Christian denomination would even consider recognizing such sects as Christian until the latter half of the twentieth century, and the Christian denominations to which the majority of Christians have been subject since the Middle Ages have spent far more time killing people for questioning Christ's divinity than encouraging them.

You need to look at Christianity beyond what a few atypical modern sects believe. I've known UU's who call themselves "Christians", but that does not make them so. Based on my deep and extensive knowledge of Christianity across the last two thousand years and across the world today, including many years of personal experience as a Christian I am comfortable standing by my assessment of Christ's divinity as central to Christianity's mythos (in saying "divinity" I intend to be agnostic regarding person/body distinctions.) If you take away the divinity of Christ you are left with just another Jewish preacher, a footnote to history whose sacrifice on the cross was simply an unfortunate turn of political events, no different from any other Jewish prophet who came to a bad end at the hands of secular or religious authority.

You and people like you may want to call yourself Christians, but I am willing to bet you are in fact Christian-inspired humanists, and that you do not believe anything that the majority of Christian thinkers or followers at any time in the past two thousand years would recognize as being doctrinally close to the teachings of Jesus or the Pauline church. You cannot simply believe whatever you damn well please and claim on that basis that you are a Christian. The Nicen Creed, the 39 Articles, something has to be held in common between Christians, or the word means nothing.

Finally, if being willing to question everything is in your view a religion, then what in your view is not a religion? Or by "religion" do you simply mean "any set of foundational beliefs whatsoever, however tentative, however open to revision, however empirical"? If so, then I can only say,
"that word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means." It is certainly nothing like what most people mean by it, as most people have no difficulty at all distinguishing religious beliefs from empirical, scientific, or humanist ones.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

you read one "study" claiming something, in spite of um'teen other studies claiming the exact opposite and you choose the believe the loner?

Those aren't studies, those are blanket statement intended to convince people of something. I believe the one study because it was an actual STUDY. It was science. It's not someone trying to sell me something with no evidence.

Re:And in other news...

[plunge]

"Contrary to your assertion that there are all sorts of new powers being invented or used, what you see is the use of wartime powers by the executive branch against an enemy which is outside the law."

We have a "war" declared not on a nation or even an organization, but an amorphous, rootless concept. "Al Qaeda" is a term we apply to all sorts of different groups, loosely affiliated. Of course, by your definition of war, we've been at war the vast majority of our nation's history. Shouldn't we drop the "special powers during wartime" nonsense if our President is basically always going to have these powers all the time in perpetuity? Doesn't that demand some sort of serious discussion in our society as to what our standards are really going to be if we are going to function in perpetual war from now on? I'm not saying they shouldn't be broad or as powerful as they need to be. But they shouldn't be rushed into being out of the public eye without any serious discussion about where we are going as a nation. That's a TERRIBLE precedent.

What we have is clearly already stretching things out of their normal, designed function for wars with foriegn nations. How can you possibly assert that the current administration hasn't made things up? It took a look at a law and said "too much effort, doesn't matter, we can do what we want if we say it's important." It's "oversight" wasn't allowed to do or say anything against it. It refers to acts of Congress restraining it as "advice that we are happy to listen to." It's made up new policies about prisoner treatment and detainment out of whole cloth, changed standards and values we were supposed to have without asking. It's off any existing rulebook. Now, that's not its fault. It didn't create all these unforseen situations. But the precedent that, if there are no existing rules, it should just make them up even when they go way outside previous standards in other cases is just the wrong way to work things.

"It is entirely possible that we would be acting consistently with international law to execute them all as spies, but we aren't doing that."

Spies? People taken from their home country, by force, with no serious standards of proof or evidence that they even bore arms against anyone? Don't you see how none of this actually responds to my point? If there is no due process at all, then there is no due process for anyone anywhere.

"In violation of every precept of civilization they recognize no innocents in combat, but make war on the young, the old, the sick and infirm, ordinary people going about their business, just as if they were soldiers."

I wonder where they got that idea? Oh yeah: Hiroshima, which was exactly the same, tactically. In fact, that was their exact reasoning: when at war, do the things that you think will knock out the enemy's will to fight. What is our response to that sort of logic? "It was necessary to save more lives of our people and theirs" Oops, that's perfectly applicable to their strategy too. See the mess we get into when we start validating the tactics and reasoning of the enemy out of mere convienience without asking anybody or thinking of the consequences?

"As to the question of secrecy, that is the nature of this war. Secrecy protects the way we get information, and denies information to the enemy, such as who we have captured, how we found them, what they are telling us, how we are using it, what we are going to do next. Sometimes the very knowledge of the existence of a method tells the enemy all that they need to know to avoid our using it. "

Maybe, but that's why we have normal channels of checks and balances that can still keep things secret. This administration has bypassed those countless times, seemingly not out of need, but out of not wanting the checkers and balancers to know what was done. And sometimes, tactics like stress positions and water boarding, or defacing the Koran, challenge norms that the government just does not have the right to undertake on its o

Re:And in other news...

[Joseph Hardin]

Logical fallacy: Begging the question. You assume more or less what you are trying to prove as your hypothesis.

Re:And in other news...

[NeutronCowboy]

It's not impossible to be an absolute skeptic. It just means that the body of knowledge you operate with is close to zero. In short, you'd live in a cave and subsist on hunting and gathering, with a bit of agriculture thrown in. Cuz, you know, that new-fangled "clay" that everyone keeps talking about might just be a bunch of baloney.

People thorougly overestimate their deduction quality when they state something like "doubt everything". At some point they will make a decision based on incomplete information - it is inevitable. And quite often, they'll make the decision based on what feels right - cuz, you know, "who knows whether anything is right?" What they actually mean is "I doubt everything that doesn't agree with my gut feeling."

Re:And in other news...

[NeutronCowboy]

My dad designed paper mills for a living. I was lucky enough to peer over his shoulder and have him explain to me how a tree gets turned into nice, white paper. The process is far dirtier and expensive than you'd ever believe.

Problem #1: cellulose. Trees have lots of it, and it makes for terrible paper. Generally, it needs to be dissolved with some rather nasty chemicals.
Problem #2: tree soup is dirty. Lots of resin, minerals and all kinds of particles. It needs to be washed out. You need water - lots of it. Paper is actually one of the most water-intensive processes known to man.
Problem #3: tree soup is... well, soup. You need to make it sticky. So you add glue. Glue is nasty, and full of ugly chemicals.
Problem #4: Basic paper is pretty grey. To turn it the pretty bright white, you need more chemicals. Lots of them. One major breakthrough in the 80s was the use of hydrogen peroxide instead of some of the nastier stuff (think clorox).

And this is just of the top of my head, after about 15 years of not having looked at it. Paper processing is an ugly, dirty job that sucks up a ton of energy. Oh, and trees are generally not close to the processing plant. Processing plants are huge beasts, and you need only a few per country. There is no such thing as a "local" paper mill. Considering the amount of stuff you take out of a tree before you get to paper, it is a lot more expensive to carry trees (not to mention less efficient) around then it is to move used paper around.

In short, you have no clue what you're talking about. Instead of remembering that one study you might have read, you might want to read up on how paper is actually made. Or work for Kimberley-Clark as paper plant designer. Either which way, get some real knowledge, not just some information snippets.

Re:And in other news...

[pclminion]

Brought to you by the British campaign to eliminate idiotic American misuse of the word "comparable".

I think I like our meaning better. Your meaning is essentially useless. "Comparable" in the sense that two objects can be compared would imply that somewhere there exist two objects that can NOT be compared. Care to explain which objects those are, and why they can't be compared?

So we took a word that had a useless meaning and made it useful. What exactly is your point?

Re:And in other news...

[pclminion]

Actually, yes. We schould teach our children to doubt and question absolutely everything.

No. We should teach our children to apply good judgment. Sometimes this means doubt, but not always. Do you actually think you should teach your children to "doubt and question" YOU, as a parent? Should they doubt and question your suggestion that they doubt and question everything? How about their own sanity, should they doubt and question that?

I'm not being pedantic here. Raising our children to be distrustful and paranoid serves no productive goal. Teaching them to ASCERTAIN and JUDGE the truth of what they see is of paramount importance.

Re:And in other news...

[owlstead]

"Many, MANY forms of christianity encourage the questioning of the divinity of Jesus - the hope is obviously that you'll ultimately agree, but many believe you don't have true faith unless you can truly question it, and still believe."

The hope? What I've seen, it's more like that you may question it playingly for some time, but not for real. If it starts to get too real, bad things are bound to happen. In some countries where people can afford to do without a god (in other words, lead a happy, rather certain life) there is some doubt allowed. But for many religious believers, this is not the case. In the higher echelons, even smaller doubts are - uh - not encouraged.

Anyway, if there is really one correct religion, then why are there so many of them? I mean, most believers even don't hear about the others their entire life. How is one to choose the real religion that way? Do they all go to hell, as many religions suggest? In my opinion, doubt and doctrine are the pillars of most religions. And doctrine might even be a bigger pillar than doubt.

Re:And in other news...

[Reality Master 101]

And this is just of the top of my head, after about 15 years of not having looked at it. Paper processing is an ugly, dirty job that sucks up a ton of energy.

Who said it was an easy job? The premise is that recycle processing is an uglier, dirtier job that sucks up more energy.

Oh, and trees are generally not close to the processing plant. Processing plants are huge beasts, and you need only a few per country. There is no such thing as a "local" paper mill.

-shrug- I'll accept your information on that. It doesn't matter anyway. It doesn't speak to the question of whether one is more efficient than the other.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You never did the Kenosha Kid.

Re:And in other news...

[gomoX]

That is right if you don't get the joke. The 1st premise was implied.

Re:And in other news...

[RobertLTux]

it all boils down to "In the beginning %X" wether you believe in GOD(s) or chance or .. you must each day answer the question of WHY DO I EXIST aka what am i here for??

Re:And in other news...

[cold fjord]

I'm not sure that you actually understand the meaning of the Geneva Convention articles that you quote, or what the designation of Prisoner of War means under the terms of the treaty.

Articles I & II establish that the treaty governs all conflicts regardless of where or who is in conflict, and that the treaty will be complied with. That doesn't negate the tests of Article IV paragraph 2 to determine who qualifies for special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War.

Article IV, paragraph 2, establishes tests to determine who qualifies for special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War. Al Qaeda fails at least 3 of the 4 tests. Failing those tests means that they don't qualify for the special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War. Paragraph 6 applies to a Levee en Mass and doesn't apply.

Article V simply requires that the Geneva Convention applies as long as a detainee is held, and that they be assumed to qualify for the special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War until a different determination is properly made. Once again, that doesn't negate the tests of Article IV paragraph 2 to determine who qualifies for special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War.

While you can use slippery lawyer talk to try and get al qaeda members out of the POW definitions in Article 4, it simply isn't a logical argument, and it is completely bereft of any moral standing. You want so badly for this to be a "WAR", but then you want to throw away the protections that we've agreed to for the treatment of prisoners of war, because.. oh.. uh.. they're not prisoners.. or something.

I realize it might seem unfair to actually apply the treaty as written and hold people to it, but there are some practical advantages to doing things that way. First, the standards are clear. There is nothing slippery about it. It is all very straight forward under the treaty and the law of war. Captured Al Qaeda members will be treated humanely, but not as Geneva Convention Prisoners of War if they don't abide by the laws and customs of war. As things stand today, they are unlawful combatants, or simply enemy combatants.

Second, it considerably simplifies dealing with them. It means that Al Qaeda members don't qualify to be treated as Geneva Convention POWs which would entitle them to be paid a regular wage (Article 60) by the US, would entitle them to prepare their own food (Article 26) (which would require knives and other potential weapons), and would require furnishing them a store with snacks and dry goods (Article 28), and to write home (Article 70) to let Osama know they've been captured but Abdula wasn't (so the attack can continue), as well as many other rights afforded legitimate Geneva Convention Prisoners of War.

Third, it gives them an incentive to comply with the treaty and the law of war. (You do think that it is a good thing to encourage them to obey the law of war, right?) They might qualify for treatment as Geneva Convention POWs if they obeyed the treaty and the law of war. Nothing requires them to chop off the heads of their prisoners (a war crime = treaty noncompliance) or the other ghastly things that they do. Not requiring them to live up to the same standard as anyone else to receive the benefits of the treaty decreases their incentive to comply with the treaty. That isn't a good thing.

There really isn't much to be confused about in this.

Reminds me of The Naked Gun...

[tyrione]

Blind Faith standing over Skepticism and to save face as the outline of the body of Truth lies floating in the Bay the reponse can only be...

"There's nothing to see here...nothing to see."

Re:Reminds me of The Naked Gun...

[eosp]

...so please move along.

Doonesbury?

[Pi_0's don't shower]

This somehow reminds me of a man going to the Doctor's office:

Doc: Well, I'm afraid you have tuberculosis. I need to know, are you a creationist?
Patient: What does that have to do with anything?
D: Well, I could give you the drugs that would cure Tuberculosis as it was discovered in 1937, or the modern drugs that treat the disease as it has evolved into today.
P: What's so great about the modern drugs?
D: They're intelligently designed...

Re:Doonesbury?

[tomee]

Here's the link. I loved that one.

Re:Doonesbury?

[teslar]

This in turn reminds me of a French comic strip I saw years ago somewhere... I tried googling, but couldn't find it... anyway, it had three frames and went like this:

1st frame: A guy is giving a presentation to the reader, with a slide projector screen behind him. He says: "God created Man in His image."

2nd frame: shows the picture of a caveman

3rd frame: Guy says "then man evolved. As for God, we don't know."

I liked it a lot :)

Re:Doonesbury?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/i ndex.shtml#virus_argument

Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[countach]

Christian theistic evolutionists have got some very hairy questions to answer....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejec ted.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/th eistic_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/th eistic_evolution.asp

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Digital Vomit]

These are considered "very hairy" questions? Most of these questions I would consider to be of the type "begging the", not "very hairy". The first link, especially, is pretty worthless.

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[tengennewseditor]

Those questions are asking you to reconcile dogmatic fundamentalist interpretations of the bible with evolution.

But yes, fundamentalist christians that are also evolutionists have some pretty hairy questions to answer...

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the type of questions posed in your first link that caused me to think twice about believing in Christian theistic evolution.
I've since given up believing in the Bible altogether.

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my understanding that a couple generations of Roman Catholic theologians and many other religious people don't have a problem with the idea of biological evolution. Most of the problems you cite relate to a specific, narrow interpretation of Biblical literalism. A simple answer is: don't take everything so literally. It simultaneously solves a number of other problems, such as the places here and there in the Bible that are self-contradictory or obviously at odds with reality if you do take them strictly literally (like the "whole world" returning home to be taxed by Caesar, or the whole world being flooded, for which there isn't any geological evidence).

Biological evolution is no more at odds with Christianity (or any other religion) than gravity or atomic physics. Science and religion address different things in different ways. Yes, some theological interpretations have a problem with science (e.g., historically, some theological interpretations had a problem with the Earth not being the center of the universe), but many don't. People can choose to believe what ever they want, but why imply they must choose between Christianity and accepting biological evolution scientifically?

It's like claiming the only choices are between geocentrism or no religion at all. People used to fervently think heliocentrism was a huge problem for religion. They got over it. Saying there were some "hairy questions" for theistic heliocentrists to answer shouldn't put them off if they have faith.

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[ademaskoo]

How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?

Yep. Apparently so.

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you, you stupid left wing motherfucker

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Liberal Mafia]

So which chapter of Genesis are we to believe?

Chapter 1, in which man and woman are created simultaneously?

Or Chapter 2, in which God creates the man first, and only creates the woman some time afterward?

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Garse Janacek]

An amusing (to me, as a Christian who believes in evolution) point about the second link... the article says:

I see this as a variation on an old question. 'Did God really say that He created man from the dust of the ground and not through a process of molecules to man evolution?' is similar to what the serpent asked Eve ... 'Did God really say ... ?' The answer is, 'Yes, God really said it.'

The problem is, the passage he's referring to where the serpent talks to Eve says, "Did God really say that you are not to eat from any tree in the garden?" -- to which the answer was of course no, God had only forbidden one tree. The question was just to make her confused and defensive.

No real point here, I just find it amusing that his parallel really implies that we should say no to his question, which is of course fine with me...

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother.

Re:Problems for theistic evolutionists...

[Crazyscottie]

I'm not sure whether you're trying to prove a point or just offering some information, but I can "prove" either side to you based on my own point of view.

Assuming evolution directly contradicts the Bible, it would be very easy for a scientist to claim that the Bible is just a collection of myths. Bam! Science wins!
It would also be easy for a Christian to claim that all evidence for evolution was planted by Satan. Bam! Religion wins!

So one could argue (on a very twisted level of logic) that we've just "disproven" both theism and evolution. I hope atheistic spontaneous creation sounds plausible to everyone, because it seems like that's where we're headed!

Looks like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Christianity is evolving... how long before they stop celebrating the return of the dead?

Re:Meanwhile...

[nyrk]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Knowing vs. believing

[Sky Cry]

One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands. That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts, that Earth is older than a few thousands years, etc.

Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, they are. Belief without proof is the antithesis of the scientific method and all the principles of science. To embrace science and faith is doublethink.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

In fact, Kenneth Miller has advanced a very plausible religious view in his book "Finding Darwin's God" that reconciles the two. It's based on several ideas:

1) If God knows all causality, then he could have brought about everything into being originally AND have it, from science's view BE random and undetermined. The two are not mutally exclusive when God is the best pool player of all time, setting up the most elaborate shot of all time.
2) God could act via influencing things in ways that, due to quantum outcomes, would indeed be like magic to us, and undetectable or testable (hence we can still believe in a God that does miracles)
3) Evolution itself has plenty of room for a valid new theology based on the idea that God would WANT life to be free of God's direct design. This is known as "liberation theology" and though many Catholics disdain it, it's perfectly plausible.

If the above is true, then both atheists and theists can agree on everything concerning the physical world, without conflict. The atheists certainly wont agree with the faith theology above, but the theists can believe it without having to make any claims that have consequences which rule out the legitimacy of atheism (i.e. the not believing because there is no good evidence kind)

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Angostura]

Sad that 1. and 3. Appear to be directly contradictory. Can't have it both ways, can you?

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

If the above is true, then both atheists and theists can agree on everything concerning the physical world, without conflict.

Almost right. If the above is true, then atheists and particular kinds of theists can agree on everything concerning the physical world, without conflict.

The trouble is, the vast majority of theists today follow particular religions that preclude this worldview. Try presenting the above to somebody who believes their god created mankind in exactly the form it's in today and see how far you get.

There is an additional problem that the physical world is not the only place where athiests and theists disagree. As an atheist, I find many of the acts of the god described in the Old Testament to be repugnant and immoral.

So yes, I agree that it's possible - in theory - for an atheist and a theist to have a compatible worldview. Unfortunately, it's not possible in practice because theists won't accept such a worldview, as even though it allows for a god or some gods, it doesn't allow for their god or their gods.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

Well of course, and I think any reader of my post would see that I meant that theists would accepted those things COULD have a via theology that even atheists could find little factual complaint in (other than that they don't believe it)

"As an atheist, I find many of the acts of the god described in the Old Testament to be repugnant and immoral."

But many theists do as well. That's why they think that the Bible is man's imperfect record of an imperfect and confused, but improving, experience with god.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[rjshields]

Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.

Science is based on consensus of opinion and may change over time. The two *are* mutually exclusive as religion implies faith over consensus of opinion. Religion requires total belief (faith) in the subject, which does not allow for debate. If science proves reigion to be wrong, there is no room for manoeuvre on behalf of the religious since religion purports to be truth.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

You can, actually. 3 is not about everything being TOTALLY outside God's influence, just substantially. Many believers think it important that God at least intended the world to be complex enough that complex life would arise, and of the sort that could relate to God. But God could leave most of the rest to work itself out.

And remember: these are offered as possibilities for solving the dispute. Yuop can accept any or none of them as needed. I don't accept any of them because I see no reason to justify a God I don't believe in (since I see no reason to believe). But others do care, and are interested. They can believe the strongest form of 1 (God determined absolutely everything AND from our perspective it looks exactly like random chance) or the strongest form of 3 (that God left everything up to chance and then contacts people if and as they request him).

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Elwood P Dowd]

One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands. That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts, that Earth is older than a few thousands years, etc.

I don't disagree with your point. However, "Intelligent Design" is different from believing that God may have guided evolution. Many scientists believe that God guided evolution, and certainly none have disproven or care to disprove it. The point of "Intelligent Design" is that evolution is impossible without the help of an intelligent designer, and that this can be proven via scientific evidence. Their evidence has proven to be a pile of crap.

Since lots of people believe that God guided evolution, many people assume that "Intelligent Design" is the same as the thing they believe, because what they believe makes sense.

So "One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands" is true, while "That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts" is not.

The Catholic Church, for example, states clearly that evolution is a fact, God guided evolution, and Intelligent Design is spurious crap.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[tooth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Kjella]

Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.

Except most people believe in a form of God which is pretty mutually exclusive with the evidence.

Let me make two assumptions:
#1 God exists. By god I mean some form of whatever deity we're discussing here.
#2 God is honest. By which I mean that reality is as it appears to be.

Now, if the second assumption wasn't true, then you can't trust anything. That is the kind of god who digs down dinosour bones and hang up the blinking lights in the sky. Darwins theories are null and void because they could all be some gigantic test of faith or whatever else little game god wants to play. You can't dismiss the possibility, but that's the sort of guy he is I sure don't want to worship him.

If we accept both assumptions, then you can hardly come to any other conclusion than that mankind is utterly insignificant in Creation. Mankind has existed for a split second of the Universe's 14 billion year old existance. We're one little race in a spiral arm of a huge galaxy among countless other galaxies. God wouldn't need to spend all that time, god wouldn't need to create all that space. It proves mankind wasn't exactly central in his plan, we're a detail, an afterthought. We're probably one of countless forms of life in the Universe, and if one of them came to wipe us out tomorrow it'd be just one more of countless extinctions we've observed. God wouldn't protect us, god wouldn't send us to heaven - unless there's a heaven for all forms of life and I have a big problem believing in ant heaven - we'd just be one more race found in history books. In short, the facts say we're nothing special and so there's no point in worshipping god.

Of course, my first assumption could be wrong - in which case there's definately no point in believing in God. What I'm saying is that science hasn't proven or disproven the existance of god, but I can't logicly reconcile science with any meaningful or worthwhile belief in god. What or who created Big Bang isn't really of any concern if it doesn't influence my life in any way.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

Again, I ain't saying that I believe it or that there is any compelling reason to believe ex nillo. But it's certainly a path towards a theist reconcilling their beliefs (which they already hold) with all of science.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[MutantHamster]

The problem with this is that you may personally believe that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old but that's not what the Bible says. I mean, if your religion is such that you have to constantly go back and fix all the inconsistencies with science (AKA the way things actually are) then what does that say about the religion?

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Skippy_kangaroo]

If we accept both assumptions, then you can hardly come to any other conclusion than that mankind is utterly insignificant in Creation.

Maybe you can, but the whole point about Jesus (you know, that whole Son of God, died on the cross for your sins thing) is that mankind and individuals are significant. Ergo, your logic is faulty. You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about God and what he would or wouldn't do. Perhaps you should restate your post to include the 10 or so actual predicates to your argument rather than the two spurious ones you list. Hundreds of millions of Christians need only add one more:

#3 Jesus died for my sins

and they can recognise their significant to God. You, however, require:

#3 The volume of the universe is large and humans are small in volume
#4 God cares about the volume of things when measuring significance
#5 There are many other inhabited planets in the universe
#6 God only has a finite amount of care so can't care much about any individual planet
#7 God cares about things in proportion to their period of existence
#8 It took a lot of time for God to create the universe and he overachieved if all he wanted was a bunch of humans

to come to your conclusion.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Breakfast Pants]

Whoa, talk about hidden premises...

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

"... This is known as "liberation theology" and though many Catholics disdain
it, it's perfectly plausible."

Except that's not what Liberation Theology
actually refers to.

Geez, can't anyone get anything right these days?

Re: Knowing vs. Believing

[kornichon]

Science is based on consensus of opinion and may change over time.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one...

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. --Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming

When I accept that F=ma, I do so because it is what it is. That's the law. That's how things work. It's been observed, tested, tried, questioned, proven. Time and again. Not because it's the prevailing consensus.

Re: Knowing vs. Believing

[kornichon]

One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands. That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts, that Earth is older than a few thousands years, etc.

Unless you believe that the Bible is the inspired unerring Word of God...

1. The Bible says the universe was created in six literal days. The only places in the Bible where "days" does not means days are rather obvious, like "in the days of Jeho-whatsisface".
2. The world was corrupted after Adam and Eve rebelled. Only at this point does death enter the picture. This is incompatible with long ages of death and struggle prior to the advent of man.
3. The Bible says man is created in the image of God. This is in direct opposition to the view that man and ape share an ancestor.

The list goes on and on. The point, however, is that in order for the two ideologies to co-exist, one must believe that the Bible is not God's inspired word.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Shelled]

I suppose it's possible but I don't see what additional explanatory power is gained. Leave the 'guiding hand' in or remove it, no difference. For all its utility might as well credit Slarty Bartfast. It's only utility is to those with a vested emotional attachment to certain concepts.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

Well, yes. How does everyone keep missing that point? It's advice for theists. If you're a theist, it doesn't apply to you.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

that last time should be "atheist", obviously.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

Sorry, that should be Libertarian, not liberation.

Re: Knowing vs. Believing

[JohnFluxx]

Wasn't there an evil snake in pre-corrupted version?

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, except that for theists, what you are essentially saying is that God is (because he wants to be) irrelevant to the world. That sounds a heck of a lot like agnosticism. Not many baptists, catholics, muslims or jews are going to sign up for that.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[SirBruce]

1) If God knows all causality, then he could have brought about everything into being originally AND have it, from science's view BE random and undetermined. The two are not mutally exclusive when God is the best pool player of all time, setting up the most elaborate shot of all time.

Unfortuantely, this idea of a "hidden determinism" is simply logically impossible, given what we currently know about quantum mechanics. Hidden variables simply don't work. And if you believe God can do the logically impossible, then there's really no reason to debate further, since you can literally believe anything.

But for those who believe that God, if he exists, must be constrained by logic, then hidden variable determinism is simply not possible.

2) God could act via influencing things in ways that, due to quantum outcomes, would indeed be like magic to us, and undetectable or testable (hence we can still believe in a God that does miracles)

Again, see above, but I suppose if one believes God's own actions are not deterministic, then he could influence everything via QM. But it's unclear how God could actually achieve any particular outcome; ultimately he'd be violating statistical properties that could be measured with enough sensitivity. But if we're talking about very small changes over eons, then it might be impossible to distinguish a God-influenced universe from simply a "luckier" one. See the Anthropic Principle for more thoughts along these lines. :)

3) Evolution itself has plenty of room for a valid new theology based on the idea that God would WANT life to be free of God's direct design. This is known as "liberation theology" and though many Catholics disdain it, it's perfectly plausible.

Actually, I don't think you meant "liberation" or "libertarian" theology, but simply so-called "liberal" theology, which is more of a fuzzy notion about God and theology where every viewpoint is potentially valid and all persons must engage in their own spiritual journey to find truths they and their community find seem to work for them within the context in which they live. In some ways, it's Protestantism to the extreme, although the irony is that modern Christian fundamentalism has Protestant roots, where the authority of the majority simply substitutes for that of the Pope when interpreting scripture. But I digress...

To get back to the notion that God has a teleological purpose in mind for man, well, I'm sure you know that's well-explored territory in postmodern Christianity (a form of liberal theology itself). But I feel it necessary to point out the conflict between God's omnipotence, Free Will, and the Existance of Evil. Unless one believes in the Actual Choice conception of Free Will (which seems unpalatable, if not illogical), then one of the above three has to give, and we know it's not Evil. And given that Free Will is an essential element to Liberal theology, it would seem that God's omnipotence, even within the logical realm, must be discarded, and in that case one has to question just to what extent God can influence the universe teleologically.

In retrospect, I got way more out of the Philosophy of Religion classes in college than I did from Calculus...

Bruce

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[sol_geek77]

I agree with you point but I would substitute faith for religion.

I personally have many issues with religion of all types, but I have a strong faith. Religion can be bad even in God's eyes.

Romans 2:17-24 "17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'"

Substitute Jew for any religion.

On the other hand faith is what I have.

Heb 11 "1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

I am certain of a few things in life that I can not see nor that science can not either prove or disprove. Just because evolution exists doesn't mean that God does not. If everything in the Bible could be proven to be false, I would still have faith in some creator of the universe. Why, the same reason I have faith that my wife and child love me... Because I know they do. There are some things in life that science can not prove or disprove.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[plunge]

Not irrelevant at all. That's the point. God doesn't direct the world to be the way it is. But when beings of sufficient spiritual understanding seek a connection with something more, God responds. Which can include all manner of miracles and Jesus and what have you. Your mileage may vary, and of course you're going to lose the atheists on those. But as far as physics, biology and so on... no problem.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[pembo13]

My view on this is simple. I believe in an all powerful God. I see no reason why God coudln't use such an elegant design as evolution to create all life. The same goes for many mircales. When he made everything, he knew what he wanted it to do from then to eternity. Peace

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should read your own source first; Occam's Razor says nothing about "simpler explanations", only that causes should not be multiplied needlessly. The theists posit God as a source of creation; the physicists... well, they have a bunch of theories, most of which boil down to "uh, an explosion of spacetime happened somehow and here we are!". Seems to me that both sides of this debate rely on a single "cause", and thus Occam's Razor isn't very relevant.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[scutato]

I believe this is limiting God quite a bit. Take this scenario.

Imagine Bob, a brilliant programmer. Jack of all trades. Indeed, master of all trades. One day, Bob gets the idea to create an elaborate virtual world across hundreds of servers (Bob is very rich). This virtual world will have its own set of scientific laws. The world will be inhabited by a race of "artificially" intelligent beings.

Over many years, Bob finishes his creation! He brings into existance the first beings, and they reproduce, and their offspring reproduce. In no time, an entire race is living in Bob's Virtual World (tm).

Imagine the power at Bob's fingertips. By tweaking a database, he cures the sick. At the press of a button, the sun blackens, leaving the world in shadow. He knows the future, and he can alter the past. Bob is all-powerful, as far as his virtual world is concerned. He can do anything.

Compare this to God. God created the world, indeed all of existance as we know it. He can do anything, because he exists outside of our realm of understanding, yet within every aspect of what we consider "real."

This is the power of God.

(disclaimer: God's creation is obviously much more complicated and amazing than Bob's; the above is just for visualization purposes)

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[mrpeebles]

> Hidden variables simply don't work.

Only hidden variables that are observable are out of the question (and even then, only those subject to Bell's assumptions.) This is a metaphysical statement.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[sentientbrendan]

yes. let's pretend that quantum mechanics allows god to exist... because few people understand enough about it to say how full of shit that is. let's put god in all the gaps in our understanding of things then, when we understand more things, move him out of those gaps into other gaps. lets never define what god is in any meaningful way because then there's always the possibility that someone could prove us wrong. let's hide from reality and make ever more complex models of how an all powerful, all knowing, benevolent being rules over a chaotic and sometimes evil world. let's avoid the truth at all costs.

because...

Re: Knowing vs. Believing

[CRCulver]

The Bible says the universe was created in six literal days. The only places in the Bible where "days" does not means days are rather obvious, like "in the days of Jeho-whatsisface".

2 Pet 3:8 reads "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." If the temporal aspects of Genesis are read as God's viewpoint, then there is no need to assume six literal days.

For an Orthodox perspective on the Creation, see the catechism The Living God (SVS Press, 1989).

The world was corrupted after Adam and Eve rebelled. Only at this point does death enter the picture. This is incompatible with long ages of death and struggle prior to the advent of man.

Death here refers to death of the soul--its passing utterly away from God instead of coming nearer and nearer to theosis--not death of the body.

The Bible says man is created in the image of God. This is in direct opposition to the view that man and ape share an ancestor.

This has been interpreted in at least two ways. The first is that Man was made self-aware, like God, alone among animals. The second is that even before the Creation God, enjoying the vantage point of eternity, already knew that the Son would be incarnate and suffer to liberate the human race, so Man was created as the race that the Son eventually dwelt among and so is truly in the image of God.

The point, however, is that in order for the two ideologies to co-exist, one must believe that the Bible is not God's inspired word.

Instead of assuming that you know what "inspired" means, you should look at the Greek text of 2 Timothy 3:16. The word sometimes translated "inspired" is "breathed-upon by God." Instead of implying that the Scriptures are 100% literal historical fact, the word is meant to emphasis how they are useful for teaching (read on in 2 Timothy).

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Kjella]

You, however, require:

#3 The volume of the universe is large and humans are small in volume
#8 It took a lot of time for God to create the universe and he overachieved if all he wanted was a bunch of humans

That directly follows from #2 as an observable fact. It is not an assumption.

#5 There are many other inhabited planets in the universe

This hasn't been observed - yet. But religion has been beaten back at every step of the way. Earth isn't center of the Universe. Stars are like the Sun, a star. There are planets orbiting other stars. Everything we observe suggests that Earth is like billions of other planets in the Universe. If there is no other life, then this is no random event and god must have created life on this planet only. I'd say creating billions of dead lookalikes is being dishonest right up there with digging down dinosaur bones.

#4 God cares about the volume of things when measuring significance
#6 God only has a finite amount of care so can't care much about any individual planet
#7 God cares about things in proportion to their period of existence

These three I can lump right in with:
#3 Jesus died for my sins

Because they boil down to exactly the same thing, seeing as Jesus (as in the Son of God, not the carpenter) is an unverifiable piece of religious mythos. I think I can sum these up as:

#3 Even though I've got no reason to, I believe god cares about my little corner of the universe, in the short little slice of time we've existed, and even though we tend to treat his other creations poorly I think he cares about my species in particular (at least more than them), to the point where he sent his son in the form of my species to die for my sins.

I'm sorry, but that's just a little more presumption than I can manage to work up.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[a.d.trick]

3) Evolution itself has plenty of room for a valid new theology based on the idea that God would WANT life to be free of God's direct design. This is known as "liberation theology" and though many Catholics disdain it, it's perfectly plausible.

Yes and no. I personally don't see too much of a problem with evolution (a least at some level) and what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, I do have a problem with liberal theology (liberation theology is something quite different). The problem is that they go an jump in bed with all the latest hypothesese, and then draw the wildest conclusions. This kind of behaviour is fine for scientists, it's their job; but when your trying to put together a theology that is sound and othodox, it won't do at all. Personally I think that the Roman Catholic Church are being quite prudent.

Stop trying to marry religion and science, you'll end up lossing both.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[CaptainZapp]

Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed; but when faith is packaged and sold as "science" then this is - at the very minimum - intelectual dishonesty.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[TheDauthi]

Only local hidden variables are discounted via Bell's experiments. There is currently nothing that states that non-local hidden variables cannot exist. In fact, the Bohm interpretation [contrived as it is] shows that it is possible to have a non-local hidden variable theory that can agree with quantum mechanics. There are yet a number of places where God could be hiding in our universe.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Chemicalscum]

The trouble is, the vast majority of theists today follow particular religions that preclude this worldview

Wrong the majority of theists, at least Christian ones, belong to the Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Unitarian or other mainstream churches that support evolution as being compatible with, but separate from religious belief. This is what the original posting on this thread is all about.

It is only a large section of Evangelicals and Southern Baptists that take a fundamentalist biblical literalist approach opposed the the theory of evolution and they are largely confined to the US.

I am an atheist, but I a have considerable respect for those christians that hold a theology that is compatible with modern science while only the deepest contempt for those dangerous fundamentalist that have launched a war science.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[caranha]

then one of the above three has to give, and we know it's not Evil.

Er, I don't know about that. While I'm areligious myself, I had plenty of catholic friends while I was in Uni, and most of them, and other christian folks I've met, seem to think that this concept of evil, satan and hell to be quite old fashioned, and of lesser importance in their religion.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[turkeyfish]

From the perspective of science, your argument is bunk. Science has no use or need for alternative explanations that in essence provide no further explanation. While one can rationalize any theology to conform to the observations made by scientists, science itself has no need for such rationalization as it provides no explanatory power whatsoever, it adds nothing to what we already know. Belief is equivalent to making an assumption. If you are ardent in your belief you may require a higher level of disproof of your notions to get you to change your assumptions. If you want, you can insist in keeping your beliefs regardless of whether or not they have any observable basis in reality. However, this is not the same as science, as science requires an additional step. That step is namely finding observations that are logically inconsistent with ones assumptions (hypotheses). This process is iterative, and one can, at least in principle conduct many such tests (searches for evidence of inconsistency). Science advances by discarding "explanations" that do poorly at providing insight into the underlying principles or ideas that can be used to predict the outcomes of such repeated explanation. Scientists no longer spend much time attempting to study whether or not the earth is flat, because so many observations have been made that disprove it. The same is true of creationism. We already know that life in all its forms did not simply spring into being at one time, rather they evolved from one another through changes in their genes. The process is continously observed and documented throughout the animal and plant kingdoms and with increasing advances in molecular genetics for microorganisms. There is little useful information in a science of "creationism" that doesn't provide any useful predictive explanations, in contrast to Darwinian theory which continuously provides us with new and important insights into the origins and organization of life as we know it. Consequently, modern scientists can comfortably ignore it (at least until creationists actually come up with some observable evidence to the contrary) just as we have long discarded useless ideas such as a flat earth (even though the Bible tells us the earth has "corners" and "ends" and "edges"). Argument that attempt to harmonize theology and science are silly, at least from a perspective of scientific inquiry as they simply are unnecessary and useless to the conduct of science. No one says you can't have a theological perspective. Its just of no value to the conduct of science. Science has no way to discuss theological issues(except perhaps via PET scans of theologists in action) because they can never be asked in a way in which one could obtain an answer (refutation). Hence, such an effort would be a meaningless excercise.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[barawn]

Unfortuantely, this idea of a "hidden determinism" is simply logically impossible, given what we currently know about quantum mechanics. Hidden variables simply don't work.

That's not what Bell's theorem says. Bell's theorem says that local hidden variables don't work. Global hidden variables still would. In fact, it's relatively easy to construct a global hidden variable theory that's indistinguishable from quantum mechanics. Occam's razor disfavors that hypothesis, but it certainly doesn't make it impossible.

Of course, at that point, you're arguing metaphysics - at which point, it's unsurprising that you've just justified a religious standpoint.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Alsee]

Only hidden variables that are observable are out of the question

Incorrect. Even unobserverable hidden variables are ruled out. It is possible to come up with arrangement of entangled properties where there is *no possible* consistant set of real values, hidden or not. In a system with quantum values of +1 and -1, you can have an entanglement where measuring it in one grouping proves that there is always an even number of -1's, and measuring it in a different grouping proves that there is always an odd number of -1's. The experiment looks roughtly as follows:

observed(A*B) * observed(C*D) * observed(E) = -1
observed(A*C) * observed(B*D) * observed(E) = +1

The fact that the individual values of A,B,C, and D are required to be hidden is irrelevant. There is no way to fill in consistant values of +1 and -1 for A B C D and E that can produce the observed measurements. The problem isn't that we can't see the hidden values.... the problem is that no consistant set of real values can even exist. There is no possible arrangment of consistant real values that can produce the observed outcome.

The fact that there is no possible set of real values that could produce the observed outcome is pretty bizzare and unbelievable, but no more unbeliveable than the "no hidden values" proof. Why should it be surprizing when we find it impossible to assign coherenent real values to something that doesn't exist?

Quantum weirdness at its best. Heh :)

-

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[barawn]

But I feel it necessary to point out the conflict between God's omnipotence, Free Will, and the Existance of Evil.

Oh, jeez, I nearly missed this one.

You've just trivialized a really, really difficult problem in philosophy: the problem of evil. It doesn't have a satisfactory answer, unlike what you're trying to say.

The problem arises from the fact that you've got three poorly-defined terms - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Unsurprisingly, when you've got 3 poorly defined terms, you can get a contradiction.

If you properly define them, however, the contradiction can easily go away.

One easy answer to your above statement is this: you're assuming that it is possible to construct a Universe without evil. While you can imagine one, that doesn't mean that it's possible. (I can imagine myself travelling faster than light. That doesn't mean it's possible).

In fact, it's easy to reconcile the three if you believe that our Universe is the one of least evil. Given the lack of handy alternative Universes, it's difficult to disprove this statement (or support it, but it's a belief, not a hypothesis).

The other easy answers to your statement involve proper definitions of the other two terms.

Easier contradictions along the same line involve the question "can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" The answer there along the same lines as before is "there is no such thing as a rock that God cannot lift."

The problems all arise in poor semantics, and are all extraordinarily similar to problems in set theory (unsurprisingly) where the creation of an all-inclusive set fails the Zermelo-Frankel set construction axioms (specifically, the axiom of separation), leading to the wonderful statement "the set of all sets is not a set". The wording of the question above is almost entirely equivalent to Russell's paradox.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

God and Chuck Norris are not subject to the statistical properties or logic inherent in Quantum Mechanics.

Why?

Cause Chuck said so.

Re: Knowing vs. Believing

[onemorechip]

Your Crichton quote, Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had, is using consensus differently from the original poster that said Science is based on consensus of opinion. Both are wrong in different ways.

OP was wrong because science is not based on consensus. Science is based on method. Good methodologies produce good science, and bad methodologies produce bad science.

Crichton was wrong because there is no great evil thing that can be labeled "consensus of scientists". There rarely is a true consensus in science, unless it's on such obvious things as whether the Moon is made of green cheese. Crichton's phrase would not be found in scientific journals, because it is an invention of the popular press (i.e., people like Crichton). Furthermore, when he writes, it is a way to avoid debate, he seems to be advocating that scientific theories should be established by winning debates, rather than by following scientific method. I couldn't agree less.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I used sloppy language. I didn't really mean "observable", as in a QM operator with real eigenvalues, etc, I meant not metaphysical, as in that it produces measurable effects in some sense. In any case, I wasn't aware of this interesting subtlety. I'm not sure I understand it though. It seems like it would be possible to be clever and rewrite A,B,C,D,E such that you do form a measurable observable? At the very least, you could use as your observables your listed AB, CD, AC, BD, and E. But I guess the idea is that measuring an single one of those doesn't defeat quantum weirdness. Still, it seems like if you really thought about it, then you COULD figure out how to rewrite them. As I understand you, though, you cannot?

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Alsee]

let's pretend that quantum mechanics allows god to exist

Gah!! Don't DO that!
You're making the exact same invalid argument that the religious fundies are making, except from the exact opposite religious fundie position. You are making the dangerous - and invalid - claim that science and religion are in conflict.

Would you say "let's pretend that quantum mechanics allows invisible pink unicorns to exist"?

No, that's silly. Quantum mechanics does not - and cannot - say that invisible pink unicorns do or do not exist.

I agree that believing is some invisible man in the sky is silly, but trying to claim that science rejects or somehow disprooves god amounts to "atheist fundamentalism", and it only plays into the hands of religious fundamentalists trying to manufacture a conflict between science and religion.

If you want to engange in evangelical atheism (which to be fair *is* what you were doing), fine, I wish you the best of luck. However do us all a favor and don't do it anywhere in the vicinity of evolution debates. The LAST thing we need is anyone fueling the anti-evolution nonsense evolution somehow equals atheism, that evolution is some atheist conspiracy to banish god, and that they are somehow being oppressed by atheists when highschools teach evolution.

Do not alienate the reasonable PRO-SCIENCE religious majority.

I agree with you that any foolish "god of the gaps" theism is going to constantly run into conflict with science as science squeezes and eliminates various gaps. However not all theism is "god of the gaps" theism.

The reasonable non fundie pro-science people on both sides need to be allies against the unreasonable fundie anti-science cranks trying to manufacture a conflict between science and religion.

-

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[SirBruce]

You make a good point, as others have pointed out. While I am not so firm a believer in SR that I don't think it can't be violated, I'm not willing to believe in some sort of global, instantaneous hidden variable theory. But it certainly is possible. :)

Bruce

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[SirBruce]

You've just trivialized a really, really difficult problem in philosophy: the problem of evil. It doesn't have a satisfactory answer, unlike what you're trying to say.

It's a perfectly satisfactory answer to me! Other philosophers and theologists have their own problems with it, but not me. I wouldn't say I "trivialized" it, though; I believe I summarized the most crucial aspects that were relevant to this particular context.

The problem arises from the fact that you've got three poorly-defined terms - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Unsurprisingly, when you've got 3 poorly defined terms, you can get a contradiction.

Nope, that's not the problem here. When defined properly as they are meant, there's still a contradiction with free will and evil. One of them has to go.

If you properly define them, however, the contradiction can easily go away.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps if you IMPROPERLY define them...

One easy answer to your above statement is this: you're assuming that it is possible to construct a Universe without evil. While you can imagine one, that doesn't mean that it's possible. (I can imagine myself travelling faster than light. That doesn't mean it's possible).

This answer doesn't work, if you do some reading past your intro philosophy text. Assuming a Universe without evil is impossible because of Free Will requires an "actual choice" conception of Free Will, which doesn't make sense. If you had some other "reason" why evil must exist, you'd have to show that; you can't just say, "There might be one, so we're going to assume God is anyway for some reason we don't know."

In fact, it's easy to reconcile the three if you believe that our Universe is the one of least evil. Given the lack of handy alternative Universes, it's difficult to disprove this statement (or support it, but it's a belief, not a hypothesis).

Sure, but again, see above. :) And we can easily imagine universes less evil, as you yourself suggested before. You can't say, "Well, they may be impossible, so we'll just assume they are." You have to demonstrate that.

The other easy answers to your statement involve proper definitions of the other two terms.

I'm afraid not. Define them as you like; you can't avoid the problems (at least, not unless you define them down to such an extent that they mean something else entirely).

Easier contradictions along the same line involve the question "can God create a rock that he cannot lift?" The answer there along the same lines as before is "there is no such thing as a rock that God cannot lift."

This is actually a different line, involved God doing the logically impossible. I already addressed that earlier.

The problems all arise in poor semantics, and are all extraordinarily similar to problems in set theory (unsurprisingly) where the creation of an all-inclusive set fails the Zermelo-Frankel set construction axioms (specifically, the axiom of separation), leading to the wonderful statement "the set of all sets is not a set". The wording of the question above is almost entirely equivalent to Russell's paradox.

I have no real idea what you're referring to here, but I can assure you, it's not a semantic problem. Unfortunately I don't have a reference to the article I'm thinking of handy, so I understand if you don't take my word for it.

Semantics are an interesting diversion; to a certain degree, every argument is a semantic argument. But even if you properly define things in a way everyone can agree for the sake of the argument, the Problem of Evil still exists. It can, though, lead to insight into one's definitions -- perhaps God isn't strictly "omnipotent", but is still more powerful than anything else that exists; perhaps God isn't strictly "omnibenevolent", but is still nicer than anything else that exists, etc.

Bruce

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[barawn]

It's a perfectly satisfactory answer to me!

This is kindof the definition of trivialize - make it seem as if there's no debate, because to you, there isn't. There is a debate (and has been for hundreds of years...) and so, you're trivializing it.

And while responses are found in philosophy texts, they all use logic on objects that can't support them - as you can find in any introductory mathematics text.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps if you IMPROPERLY define them...

That depends. Define omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. If the definition you use is one that contains a contradiction, and the one I use does not, and they produce exactly the same results in all other contexts, how is mine incorrect and yours correct?

If you had some other "reason" why evil must exist, you'd have to show that; you can't just say, "There might be one, so we're going to assume God is anyway for some reason we don't know."

It's not an assumption. It's a definition of what good and evil are. None of the terms are well-defined. What you're looking for is a set of definitions that 1: are as close to the common definitions as possible, and 2: support logical statements. It's exactly the same as in physics - you have a common concept ("force") that when you exert force on something, it moves. What you're looking for is a rigorous definition of that concept that can exist inside a logical framework.

And we can easily imagine universes less evil, as you yourself suggested before. You can't say, "Well, they may be impossible, so we'll just assume they are." You have to demonstrate that.

Imagining doesn't make something plausible. I can imagine that I can breathe water. That doesn't make it plausible. Determining whether or not "less evil" Universes exist isn't the point. If a situation exists where omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence, and free will can all be satisfied, then there isn't a contradiction. All the contradiction shows is that the naive definitions of the above can't support a God.

However, they can't support anything at all. You can't have a naively omnipotent being, because he can't create what he can't create. You can't have a naively omniscient being, because he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Clearly the problem lies not with the definition of God, but with the definition of the 'omni' terms!

This is unsurprising, because, as I stated, the naive definitions of the above violate the fundamental set construction theorems, so using basic logic on them (unsurprisingly) fails. If you go look up the argument for why "the set of all sets is not a set", it's the exact same wording . Russell's paradox says "can there exist a set M such that A is in M if A does not contain A"? If M exists, then it is not a member of M. But if M is not a member of M, then it has to be a member of M, by the definition above. The exact same argument as above.

That's why the previous answer does work, and the arguments that people give against it are completely fallacious. They say "you're assuming things, you have to prove them" when the problem is that originally you assumed a definition of 'omni' that isn't workable. It's not an assumption. It's a redefinition to correct limitations of the original terms.

(at least, not unless you define them down to such an extent that they mean something else entirely).

This doesn't make any sense. The problem lies in the definition, because there's no extant rigorous logical definition. It's not like a bird. I can't define the sky to be red, and a blue bird to be blue, because there's an extant definition of blue which defines the two to be common. There's no such preexisting logical definition of the above.

Take omnipotence - the naive definition is "all-powerful" or, equivalently, "capable of anything." In set theory, you'd describe it as "the set of all actions."

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Alsee]

I'll try to explain the issue a little better. In Quantum mechanics when you measure something you pretty much "destroy" the thing you were trying to measure. If the thing you are measuring has two properties, you can measure one or the other, but not both because measuring one destroys the thing and you can no longer measure the second property.

The the issue is pretty much that you are limited in the number of measurements you can make. In some systems you can make at most two measurements, and in other systems you can make at most three measurments.

So we are looking at a system that has five (or it might have been six) properties - A B C D and E. Each of those properties has a value of +1 or -1. In this system we are allowed to make at most three measurments. You could measure A and B and C if you like, and you'd never be able to look at C or D.

One of the tricks is that you can do fancy measurements. As one of your three allowed measurements, you can measure A*B. If A and B are the same you get a +1 result. If A and B are different you get a -1 result. This basically tells you if you have an even number of -1's or an odd number of -1's.

If you measure (A*B) and then measure (C*D) and measure E, your maximum three possible measurements, and multiply the results, you get a +1 or a -1. You get a +1 if there are an even number of -1's in the ABCDE group or you get a -1 if there are an odd number of -1's in the ABCDE group.

It is possible to create an entangeled state for the system where each of A B C D and E are random but linked. Linked in a way that measuring (A*B) and measuring (C*D) and measuring E tells you that there is ALWAYS an even number of -1's in the complete set. But it is also linked in a way where measuring (A*C) and (B*D) and E tells you that there is ALWAYS an odd number of -1's in the complete set.

I may have gotten some minor detail wrong - I remember that E was a somewhat different sort of value than A and B and C and D, but the basic logic involved - the basic problem it presents - that part I have bascially correct. There are a set of values and we can't individually measure all of them at the same time, but we can measure certain properties of them as a group. We can measure if there's and even or odd number of -1's, and that the system simultaneously must have an even number of -1's and must have an odd number of -1's. That there's no possible way to fill in real values for the unmeasured parts of the system to satisify the conditions of the system.

It's much like like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which says you cannot measure both the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. If you measure the exact position, it's not merely that you are prohibited from measuring the momentum... when you measure the exact position the momentum value literally does not exist. There is no real hidden unmeasured value.

It's much the same here. If you measure A and B and C, you are prevented from measuring C or D... and that does not merely mean that C and D are unknown... it means that C and D do not actually exist and do not have actual values.

If you measure (A*B) and (C*D) and E, you can find out that A and B are the same and find out that C and D are opposite... but A and B and C and D do not actually have values. The fact that A=B exists, but there is no actual value for A or B. The fact that C is the opposite of D exists, but no actual value for C or D exists.

Anything that quantum mechanics prevents you from being able to measure is not merely unmeasureable... that unmeasureable value actually does not exist. At least it does not exist in any ordinary meaning of the particles having single real values. What *is* possible for example is the "multiverse" model of quantum mechanics where everything that can happen does happen. In one universe A would have a value of +1 and at the same time A would have a value of -1 in another universe. Those two universe would overlap and interfere in a way that there was no single real

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[tooth]

I didn't say anything about "simpler explanations" either.

"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity."

formula 1: evolution + specification + mutation + most suitable + [God|FSM] = humans

formula 2: evolution + specification + mutation + most suitable + nothing else = humans.

asume same values for all variables.

which one do you think fits the premise of Occams Razor (without necessity) and achieves the same results?

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[tooth]

Replying to my own post.. anyway.

If you think about the "simpler explanations" thing. Whats more simple "God created everything in 6 days and had a kip on the last one, trust me" or "beings evolved over millions of years, heres how..."

In my mind the first one is a much simpler explanation, but it doesn't fit the facts. The explanation has to be simple AND fit the facts. (eg the earth was made by God to look 4.5 billion years old but is really only 7000 years old vs. the earth really *is* 4.5 billion years old)

It's not only about being simple. And besides, these ID and "creative scientists" guys seem like their hypothosis is "what that scientist over there said + throw some "God" in there too (btw, none of this is in the bible, but don't mention that, we'll call it a metaphor)" to paraphrase the style of your post.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[sentientbrendan]

?

I was pretty directly criticizing the "god in the gaps" position. I don't recall saying that science disproves the existence of god.

>You are making the dangerous - and invalid - claim that science and religion are in conflict.
have you ever even heard of the enlightenment? to say that science and religion do not come into conflict is to pretty much ignore everything that's happened in the past 300 years. science is all about conflict, with religious groups, with other scientists, whatever. you can't be a scientist and a coward.

I guess I don't consider making totally legitimate criticism of someone else's point of view as "evangelism." Reason is not a religion. If you have some real criticism of an argument I make, bring it forward, but don't just dismiss me as an evangelist. that's pretty insulting.

>Do not alienate the reasonable PRO-SCIENCE religious majority.
I once had a roommate once who believed in a young earth... as in the earth is 6000 years old and people and dinosaurs lived at the same time... he was a chemistry major, and if you asked him I'm sure he'd say he was "pro science"; however, his religious views have been disproven and are not wide accepted among educated people. if I made him "anti science" by telling him that, it is no loss.

my point is that by telling the truth you will always risk alienating people who are wrong. hopefully they wont be big babies about it and just get pissed off at you. hopefully they will either point out a flaw in your reasoning, or seriously consider what you said might be the truth. if they don't? fuck them. have some courage and say what you think.

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Alsee]

I don't recall saying that science disproves the existence of god.

You said "let's pretend that quantum mechanics allows god to exist".

The direct meaning of that is that quantum mechanics does not "allow" god to exist. That is a simply false claim. Your new post appears to indicate you did not intended to claim science disproves god. If you agree that was a slip of the tongue, ok, slip of the tongue. On the other hand if you reassert that Quantum Mechanics disproves god, well then you are straying dangerously close to a "fundamentalist atheist" label. ::evil grin::

evangelist. that's pretty insulting.

Just because you and I are atheists does not let us escape the term "evangelism" if we try to "convert" people to atheism. If we argue for the non-existance of god.

I make it a point to be a hypocrite. I don't think you can effectively or logically fight hypocrisy while engaging in hypocrisy. Why does the ACLU will essentially all of their school prayer court battles? Because it is unconstituional for any school official to abuse their government power to promote or suppress prayer by students. I think students praying to some invisible man in the sky is (at best) a waste of time, but the best way to get religious folk to come together and support Separation of Church and State is by by the very fact that it is the exact same thing that says shool officials can't suppress prayer. Anyone who wants organized school prayer and who bristles at the thought of a school suppressing or prohibiting such prayer is a hypocrite. Any such person is violating the constitutional right of religious freedom.

Sometimes avoiding hypocricy is a pain in the ass. Sometimes avoiding hypocricy means arguing with one hand tied behind my back. And in this case it means that "evangelical atheist" is a valid term, no matter the fact that "evangelical" has earned a strong connotation of "evil idiots spewing crap".

to say that science and religion do not come into conflict

When science and religion come in conflict it's because some idiot is trying to use his "divine scripture" as a science textbook.

If someone keeps their religion to stories about some undetectable guy in the sky, and talking about some undetectable soul, and they sing chants asking god to make it rain, and they in general mind their own business and don't make scientific claims about the physical world... well... then science and religion can't come in conflict. I don't believe it, and as much as I'd like to get rid of it, I am acutely aware it is a very bad idea to attempt to use the force of government to stamp it out. Just so long as they don't hurt anyone, and just so long as they don't try to hijack the force of government themselves. Freedom of Religion is a Good Idea, infinitely better than all the historical bloodshed.

I generally don't bother trying to win anyone over to atheism. Rarely worth the effort. I find it far more productive to let them keep their God stories and just push for agreement on the practical issues like Separation of Church and State and evolution in the schools.

If you want to engage in evangelical atheism, I honestly wish you the best of success. We need a lot fewer people believing horoscopes and following mythology. Just please please please don't do it anywhere near issues like evolution. It just fuels the fire and fuels the rediculous claim that evolution equals atheism.

by telling the truth you will always risk alienating people who are wrong

Some people can be faced with physical reality and who can be nudged to find some way to resolve any religious conflict they have with physical reality. Move them up a notch to science accepting religious people. On the other hand if you try to undermine the idea of God itself(*) in the process, you're probably going to trigger religious anti-rationality defence mechanisms and just make things worse. If you try to attack God with science they will probably just reject science.

(*) Footnote on weird sentence structure. "the idea of God itself", the word "itself" reffers back to "idea" and not "God", therefore the inanimate "it" form.

-

Re:Knowing vs. believing

[Anonymous Coward]

Belated, but if you see it: thanks for giving me the direction I needed toward a legitimate understanding of something I intuitively sensed but failed to study towards (the difficulty of philosophy and logic viz. non-rigorous objects).

Re:Meanwhile...

[2nd Post!]

Why? They're doing a fine job of destroying themselves. Worry about your own house before you worry about your neighbors :D

Totally wrong

[user9918277462]

This claim by religious moderates that so-called "faith" and rational biological science are compatible is total nonsense. As neuroscientist and author Sam Harris argues in his excellent book The End of Faith, this kind of claim can only be made when you selectively disregard large portions of biblical text while arbitrarily interpreting others in a "metaphorical" sense.

Christian (and Islamic and Judaeic) dogma inevitably and logically results in fundamentalism and rejection of all secular (ie, rational) thought and belief. To think otherwise is to ignore the very scripture one claims to believe in.

(Long Now has a great talk given by Harris available for free download in Ogg Vorbis or MP3)

Re:Totally wrong

[plunge]

Harris is wrong simply because disregarding large portions of the text or interpreting other parts as metaphorical is perfectly legitimate as a belief system. How can he possibly argue otherwise? Who is he to say on what someone's faith should be built upon? Especially when for most religious moderates, their "faith" is primarily about values and life lessons and human feelings, not dogmas.

Re:Totally wrong

[user9918277462]

One of Harris' most compelling points is that submission to irrational belief is simply not necessary to live an ethical, fulfilling life. It is entirely possible to build a science of ethics, a body of knowledge that is entirely empirical, testable, falsifiable and logical. Certain traditions of Eastern thought (parts of the Buddhist canon in particular) have already carried this idea for thousands of years; they are not based on irrational dogma or infallible books of fantasy but instead on testable, verifiable human experience.

I would encourage you to read his book yourself, even if you disagree it has the potential to open up an interesting discussion at the very least.

Re:Totally wrong

[Secrity]

It would not be a matter of ignoring Scripture, it would be a matter of ignoring what some people claim is scripture.

Re:Totally wrong

[Moofie]

I DON'T claim to believe in Scripture. I claim to believe in God.

I don't need you, or Sam Harris, or my pastor, or the Pope to approve of my relationship with God. Thanks for asking, though.

Re:Totally wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Harris is wrong simply because disregarding large portions of the text or interpreting other parts as metaphorical is perfectly legitimate as a belief system.

Harris's point is that what the moderate disregards is somewhat arbitrary. The moderate thinks it's wrong to murder a gay man, so the moderate disregards where the Old Testament instructs him to execute gay men. The moderate is basically left in a kind of dishonest position where they rely on reason and compassion to trump religion, but yet in all other cases they hang on to religion for the fluffy stuff and to artificially select the good bits out. Harris argues that the fundamentalists and the nonreligious are both similar in that their conceptual framework is more consistant, while the moderate's conceptual framework is filled with contradictions between their beliefs, behaviors, religion, ... This isn't the crux of Harris's point though, he uses this to argue more important things.

How can he possibly argue otherwise? Who is he to say on what someone's faith should be built upon?

Well actually, Harris argues for an end to Faith period. No faith. One of the major points of his book is that faith is dangerous and debilitating in many ways. This is pertenent to today, because Moslems are killing themselves to kill others based upon their faith that such an action will grant them paradise after death. The point is obvious, that a reasonable person would never do such a thing. This is an action of the religious extremist acting upon faith. Harris ties this in with the reasonable moderate persons, but I don't want to give everything away.

Especially when for most religious moderates, their "faith" is primarily about values and life lessons and human feelings, not dogmas.

Yes, fuzzy things and things that could be gotten without faith. This wouldn't be so bad in it's self, except that Harris makes some more arguments that I don't want to spoil.

I just started it after seeing him on CSPAN. It's pretty good so far.

Re:Totally wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that makes you a non-christian/Jew/Muslim. You need follow the doctrine of that religion. If you just follow and beleive in 'god' as you see him, then you are spirtitual but not religious. Two different things.

Re:Totally wrong

[plunge]

I have read it. I bought it when it first came out. I believe I even saw him give a talk at the Center for Inquiry. But I disagree with him. What you just said has almost nothing to do with what I said. I said that it is legitimate to be a theist and not read the Bible literally: to even think that it is grossly imperfect and misguided at times. What you said was that it is not necessary to believe to have good values. I completely agree. And I never said anything against that idea! I just think that the idea that theists who are not fundamentalists are "bad theists" is flawed.

Re:Totally wrong

[plunge]

"Harris's point is that what the moderate disregards is somewhat arbitrary."

While true, this point is not exactly new nor is it some powerful blow against moderates that has no possible reply. Heck, many NON moderates: many near fundamentalists believe in a sort of "bible is not enough" view in which prayer and inspiration from God override Biblical commands, which people may not properly understand. And many moderates believe that the Bible is imperfect: that the Torah is not really God's laws or opinions directly, but part of a developing tradition of stories that all fall into an attempt to understand God.

"Well actually, Harris argues for an end to Faith period. No faith. One of the major points of his book is that faith is dangerous and debilitating in many ways."

I agree with this idea. Indeed, I'm an atheist. But I'm also a realist, and I don't think this argument is really all that strong, or that everyone will accept that all faith is bad. Some people think that THEIR particular faith is good. And frankly, by and large they seem right: it isn't bad. Harris makes a case that fundamentalists are the "real deal" when it comes to religion, and moderates are just imperfect or would be atheists who can't give up something that's fundamentally bad. I disagree.

"Yes, fuzzy things and things that could be gotten without faith."

To a certain degree, I don't argee. Moral values have no objective basis that could convince all comers. Either you believe that something is wrong, REALLY is wrong, or you don't. It's not the same sort of faith as faith that the earth is 6000 years old, but I don't see how anyone can think that "rape is wrong" is something one can rationally prove, as opposed to just feeling or believing. I'm not saying that faith in a GOD is necessary to believe those things, just that given that morality is pretty hard to justify, I'm not prepared to rule anything out as one way to get there either.

"This wouldn't be so bad in it's self, except that Harris makes some more arguments that I don't want to spoil."

Why not spoil them? I've read the book, you've mostly read it, so we might as well discuss them.

Re:Totally wrong

[Spy der Mann]

Christian (and Islamic and Judaeic) dogma inevitably and logically results in fundamentalism and rejection of all secular (ie, rational) thought and belief. To think otherwise is to ignore the very scripture one claims to believe in.

How funny, the papal Encyclica "Fides et Ratio" says otherwise.
I think your friend Harris is misunderstanding at least one point of christianity.

Re:Totally wrong

[ClamIAm]

Not all Christian and Muslim sects follow the doctrine you imply they do.

Re:Totally wrong

[dbIII]

this kind of claim can only be made when you selectively disregard large portions of biblical text

No problem - you do that if you eat bacon and a lot of the nastiest fundamentalists are merchants in the temple anyway.

Re:Totally wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I said that it is legitimate to be a theist and not read the Bible literally: to even think that it is grossly imperfect and misguided at times.

What is the difference between picking and choosing the bits of the Bible that you like and "interpreting" other bits to suit your desires; and merely making up a religion of your own choosing? As far as I can see, the only difference is that a person who does the latter knows he's kidding himself, and a person who does the former is merely using bits and pieces of the Bible to rationalise their own fantasies.

Re:Totally wrong

[plunge]

Or to work out some belief and conviction that one has that they cannot shake. I can't begrudge someone's sincere belief. Sorry, I just think you are selling people short. Worse, you're selling short exactly the sort of people who make up the MAJORITY of those people who would otherwise be our allies against fundamentalists.

Re:Totally wrong

[TapeCutter]

"This claim by religious moderates that so-called "faith" and rational biological science are compatible is total nonsense."

I am not religious but I am interested in philosophy and belive that if you look closely EVERYTHING is ultimately based on "faith" in something. Science is based on the "faith" that the Universe is predictable and exists outside ones own thought processes. Not a huge leap of "faith" but still a leap.

Re:Totally wrong

[Peter La Casse]

This is a good point that I think is often overlooked. I like to define faith as the axioms of one's belief system. Do you believe (as I do) that logic is valid, despite the fact that it's unprovable? We choose to believe it, based on our life experiences. We have faith.

Re:Totally wrong

[jcr]

I DON'T claim to believe in Scripture. I claim to believe in God.

Oh, let me assure you that scripture exists.. I've seen many instances of it.

-jcr

Re:Totally wrong

[Arker]

Actually, Sam Harris' argument only makes sense if you first define most religion out of the picture.

His argument, specifically, pretends that fundamentalist-literalist theology is the sum of all religion. In fact it's not, it's a minority.

The interesting thing is, there are two groups that like to pretend that this fundamentalist-literalist theology is the only form of valid religion - the fundamentalists themselves, for obvious reasons, and the doctrinaire atheists - because that form of religion is so very easy to criticise. It's utter nonsense, and can be quickly and conclusively shown to be utter nonsense to anyone not already commited to it. But it's far from the only form of religion.

It's perfectly possible for non-literalists to have faith in G_d without that contradicting scientific knowledge of evolution in any way.

Re:Totally wrong

[Moofie]

Who asked you?

Re:Totally wrong

[Moofie]

Point to you. : )

Re:Totally wrong

[Garse Janacek]

Actually, though it would shock a lot of modern fundamentalists, it seems evident that a significant minority (though I believe still a minority) of the church fathers interpreted the creation story in Genesis as non-literal, long before there was a solid scientific reason to doubt it.

Certainly in order to reconcile a Biblically grounded faith with modern science, one needs to interpret some passages as metaphorical, but this does not mean that the choice about what is and is not metaphorical is somehow "arbitrary" -- it simply means we need to be careful in determining what the author of the text was trying to communicate (and since the entirety of the Bible was written long before modernism or the scientific method, the authors were rarely trying to communicate scientific ideas or natural history).

Christian (and Islamic and Judaeic) dogma inevitably and logically results in fundamentalism and rejection of all secular (ie, rational) thought...

This only follows from your assumptions about how one needs to interpret scripture. Since many (though sadly not all) of the people who actually have faith and are thus compelled to interpret scripture in an applied way disagree with those assumptions, your conclusions about the inevitable results don't follow.

Re:Totally wrong

[femto]

> Christian (and Islamic and Judaeic) dogma inevitably and logically results in fundamentalism and rejection of all secular (ie, rational) thought and belief. To think otherwise is to ignore the very scripture one claims to believe in.

Only if you base your entire religious belief on the scripture. Fundamentalists are generally "bible based".

Catholicism, the major form of Christianity (as in it has the most followers), doesn't draw its authority from the scripture. It draws its authority from the "Church", which traces its succession directly back to Jesus. The "Church" is the body of people who follow the teachings of Christ and is headed by the Pope (though even some Catholics reject the Pope's authority). The Church wrote the scriptures (based on what Jesus said to the first Church members) with inspiration from God. It hardly seems logical for a Church to draw authority from a document that didn't exist when it was founded!

Rather the teachings of the Catholic Church are based on the traditions of the Catholic Church, which have been passed through the millenia from person to person. At an early stage many of these traditions were recorded as scriptures, so forming an important (but not the only) part of the Church's thinking.

To use a crap computer analogy (this is slashdot after all), a fundamentalist believes that one can 'cold boot' a Chuch from a bible. Catholics contend that it is impossible to 'cold boot' off the bible as the complete message is passed from Christ via the members of the Church.

The way I think of the tradition of the Catholic Church is to compare with the dreamtime stories of the Australian aboriginies. These stories have been passed down by word of mouth through the millenia. As I understand it their learning and accurate recital is important to the Aboriginies. Consequently the stories (and their accurate reproduction) have well outlived their source and are as accurate as the written word (after all they are not subject to typographical errors and there is massive redundancy in the transmission system).

As you can imagine, many non-Catholic Christians reject the above (it's the reason they choose not to be Catholics). It's interesting to note that in fundamentalist bookshops it is possible to find books on how to convert a Catholic to 'Chistianity'.

To finish off, the major Christian religions are not exclusively based on scripture, and so not deterministically locked into the fundamentalist "anti-science" position you postulate. Rather they are driven through God acting through PEOPLE. People tend to have human reactions to individual situations. At the level of the individual religious organisations are generally very compassionate. We are dealing with people here though so there are plenty of exceptions. Bad things do happen at the institutional level (such as the inquisition) but over (glacial) time such insanity gets recognised by enough PEOPLE in the Church and gets stopped.

I'm not writing this rant to shove any views down your throat or say to anyone that they should become a Catholic. Just to point out that your initial assumption that "the scripture is the be all and end all" is not accepted by the majority of Chistians. Christians follow the teachins of Christ, which is not identical to the bible!

(Sorry, not, if I've offended some fundamentalists by using the term Christian to refer to a follower of Christ rather than a bible basher.)

Re:Totally wrong

[gillbates]

Actually, you need not selectively disregard those large portions of text if you allow recognition of the author's intent. Genesis was not written nor intended to be a scientifically accurate depiction of the creation of the Universe, but rather to show the relationship between God and his creation, and how mankind is supposed to relate to God and said creation. The depictions of the creation of the world were given in terms with which the reader of the time would be familiar.

In fact, it is kind of interesting that our notion of time is a relatively recent invention. Imagine having to explain the Big Bang to an audience whose shortest concept of time is the day. Does it really surprise anyone that the author of Genesis chose to relate a near instantaneous event as "God spoke..." How else would a 12th century BCE writer depict it? And why would you bother with exact notions of time if the subject of your discourse is the relationship between a supernatural deity and mankind? Does anyone really believe that the Genesis account includes everything God did when creating the world?

And the notion of religion being incompatible with rational thought is likewise bunk. It was the Church that started the university system, and the Church that funded most of the scientific endeavors before government sponsorship became widespread. Is it any surprise that the scientific research leans toward supporting atheist philosophy when funded by states which pride themselves on the "Separation of Church and State?" The sad fact of the matter is that, at least in the U.S., any scientist which endorses a theory which coincides with a religious tenet risks being ostracized by the scientific community, regardless of the merit of his claims. In the U.S. at least, there is no true science when it comes to matters such as evolution: your choice as a researcher is to either tow the atheist party line, or risk being called a creationist. There is no serious skepticism with regard to evolution, and this is a considerable weakness for a discipline that wasn't a true science until the 19th century.

In fact, it requires a suspension of critical thought to believe the philosophy of evolution. While recent research has made good strides in areas such as microevolution, the fact that the popular notion of evolution can be disproved by any competent statistician does not bode well for biology. It isn't the least bit unreasonable or irrational to be skeptical of a discipline that wasn't even a true science until the 19th century. If the early theories of evolution had been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that physics and chemistry required:

1. Evolution would not be such a large embarassment to biology today, and:
2. We might actually have a theory of evolution which is mathematically plausible.

The problem is not religion vs. science; it is that biology has accepted theories without the rigorous scrutiny emblematic of other disciplines. It deserves to be ridiculed because it claimed to be a science while denying the healthy skepticism essential to determining truth. In short, it became the religion of materialists, and lost its true commitment to scientific truth.

Re:Totally wrong

[TapeCutter]

"Do you believe (as I do) that logic is valid, despite the fact that it's unprovable?"

Yes I do, I also think it is far more useful than the "because X said so" world views. The philosophical question of wether logic is "real" or just seems that way because we can't escape the biological foundations of thought is another matter.

"I like to define faith as the axioms of one's belief system"

Well said, axioms are simply assumptions that by definition are accepted without proof. eg: Newton wrote in The Principa that he assumed time was constant, the assumption appeared to be an "obvious fact"....until Einstien came along.

Re:Totally wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't answer my question. What's the difference between selecting bits of a religion that you happen to agree with while ignoring the bits you don't agree with, and making your own religion up?

I can't begrudge someone's sincere belief.

Just because they believe it sincerely, it doesn't mean it's any more justifiable. Hitler sincerely believed that he was doing the world a favour by getting rid of all the Jews. Obviously the sincerity of a belief isn't the important factor you make it out to be, or everybody would be excusing genocide with "but at least he really believed in what he was doing".

Worse, you're selling short exactly the sort of people who make up the MAJORITY of those people who would otherwise be our allies against fundamentalists.

That sounds suspiciously like "humour these nuts because they're on our side". Sorry, but I won't do that.

Re:Totally wrong

[jazman]

> Christian dogma inevitably and logically results in...rejection of all rational thought and belief

Quote please. I admit I don't know the Old Testament inside out (which is the part of the bible that corresponds to part of the Koran and the Torah, so what you're referring to must be in there, as opposed to the New Testament which isn't shared by Jews and Muslims); I know "Thou shalt reject all rational thought" isn't one of the TC's, so where is it please?

Or is that just a wild assumption based on no actual evidence, which is what you appear to be accusing fundies of?

BTW, secular doesn't mean rational. Look it up. One does not exclude the other; secular and non-secular only relate to one's assumptions, not one's ability to think about those assumptions.

Re:Totally wrong

[plunge]

"You didn't answer my question. What's the difference between selecting bits of a religion that you happen to agree with while ignoring the bits you don't agree with, and making your own religion up?"

Not much. But then, what's your deal with either? Why does it stick in your craw so much that other people believe things YOU don't think are justified? Instead of just a nanny-state, we really need you nannying around people's personal convictions?

"Just because they believe it sincerely, it doesn't mean it's any more justifiable. Hitler sincerely believed that he was doing the world a favour by getting rid of all the Jews. Obviously the sincerity of a belief isn't the important factor you make it out to be, or everybody would be excusing genocide with "but at least he really believed in what he was doing".

No, and that you compare some granny with conviction that God is a loving spirit who gives her strength with Hitler says far more about you than anyone else. It people do bad things, we can call them on it. If people push bad policies on others, we can call them on it. I just don't see the purpose in policing or getting all worked about the perfectly sociable beliefs of the majority. Especially when they are based on some personal experiece I have no access to and cannot really comment on.

"That sounds suspiciously like "humour these nuts because they're on our side". Sorry, but I won't do that."

More, I suspect, out of your own ego and misanthropy than any actual concern for the good of the world. These "nuts" are the people all around you, who aren't hurting anyone with their beliefs, and who find them comforting. I'm not going to begrudge them that if they are otherwise good people. It's not really my business, and if I went around screaming about the flaws or idiosyncrancies of everyone I met, I'd be a jerk, not some sort of self-styled prophet of truth.

Re:Totally wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

> What's the difference between selecting bits of a religion that you happen to agree with while ignoring the bits you don't agree with, and making your own religion up?

Not much. But then, what's your deal with either? Why does it stick in your craw so much that other people believe things YOU don't think are justified?

Stick in my craw? I'm merely responding to your claim that "it is legitimate to be a theist and not read the Bible literally: to even think that it is grossly imperfect and misguided at times.". I'm explaining why I think it is an absurd position to take.

As you don't think there's much difference, and as you consider selecting your favourite bits is not absurd, can I conclude that you believe making up your own religion is not absurd?

Instead of just a nanny-state, we really need you nannying around people's personal convictions?

Excuse me? Since when did I claim that you shouldn't be allowed to believe fairy-tales? Do you take any criticism as a threat?

No, and that you compare some granny with conviction that God is a loving spirit who gives her strength with Hitler says far more about you than anyone else.

Hear that whooshing sound? It's the point flying way, way over your head.

I didn't compare anybody to Hitler. That was a device known as reductio ad absurdum. I took your argument that conviction is admirable, applied it to another example, and arrived at an absurd result. That shows that your argument is not valid.

If you think I compared anybody to Hitler, then you need to take some reading comprehension lessons. Honestly. The extent to which they were "compared" was that they are both considered to be human beings capable of conviction.

Also: I hope you realise that by considering the granny to be better than Hitler, you are comparing the granny to Hitler.

So what do you think comparing a granny to Hitler says about the person making the comparison? You've implied it says something, please elucidate.

> That sounds suspiciously like "humour these nuts because they're on our side". Sorry, but I won't do that.

More, I suspect, out of your own ego and misanthropy than any actual concern for the good of the world.

Sorry, but you guessed wrong. I won't do it because it's dishonest. I'm not going to pretend to like somebody just to get them to do what I want. It's more preferable to me to live in a world where "moderate" religious people side with fundamentalists against me than to lie to the "moderate" religious people in order to get them to side with me against the fundamentalists. It's nothing to do with ego or misanthropy, and everything to do with being a decent person.

Re:Totally wrong

[plunge]

"As you don't think there's much difference, and as you consider selecting your favourite bits is not absurd, can I conclude that you believe making up your own religion is not absurd?"

Claiming that people are picking their favorite bits isn't what these people feel they are doing. They feel they are trying to work out insight based on something imperfect.

"If you think I compared anybody to Hitler, then you need to take some reading comprehension lessons. Honestly. The extent to which they were "compared" was that they are both considered to be human beings capable of conviction."

Right, and you seem to judge harmless convictions about morality and such just as "nutty" as genocidal ones: that granny is just as much a nut as Hitler because they both held convictions that they couldn't prove to you. But that's just dumb.

"It's more preferable to me to live in a world where "moderate" religious people side with fundamentalists against me than to lie to the "moderate" religious people in order to get them to side with me against the fundamentalists. It's nothing to do with ego or misanthropy, and everything to do with being a decent person."

Where did you get "lie" to anyone from? I didn't say lie to them: I said don't pontlessly be a dick to them because you sell them short. I'm not going to insult and attack theists for believing things I don't believe out of some sort of arrogant idea that I know what beliefs are stupid and what aren't. All I know is what beliefs I don't find justification for, and what I don't. People believe all sorts of things that they cannot prove to me, but that I don't have any quarrel with as long as they don't expect me to believe them and they don't harm anybody. There's a big difference between being unable to objectively prove something and just having a personal belief.

Re:Totally wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming that people are picking their favorite bits isn't what these people feel they are doing. They feel they are trying to work out insight based on something imperfect.

What they feel they are doing and what they are actually doing are two very different things. For instance (not to go political, but he's a perfect example), Bush might feel that he's "working out insight" from an imperfect Bible, but he's simply ignoring the bits he doesn't like (e.g. thou shalt not kill).

you seem to judge harmless convictions about morality and such just as "nutty" as genocidal ones: that granny is just as much a nut as Hitler because

TAKE READING COMPREHENSION LESSONS! Seriously. I'm not kidding. You need to go back to school. You are unable to read and comprehend a very simple point. AT NO POINT DID I SAY THAT THE GRANNY IS JUST AS MUCH A NUT AS HITLER! If you can't understand that I was attacking the validity of your argument that sincerity of a belief does not justify it, then please, give up and don't bother responding, you are clearly too stupid to bother with.

Where did you get "lie" to anyone from?

I explained why I think that such actions are absurd, and you think that it's bad that I do so because they "would otherwise be our allies against fundamentalists". Like I already said, that sounds suspiciously like "humour these nuts".

I'm not going to insult and attack theists for believing things I don't believe

Except I haven't "attacked" people for that. I'm specifically criticising the act of cherry-picking bits and pieces you like, not believing in the whole thing. Fundamentalism is more rational than what boils down to making stuff up using other religions as inspiration.

Dr. Fun's funny cartoon on this!

[antdude]

God is actually Charles Darwin according to this funny Dr. Fun cartoon. :D

Re:Dr. Fun's funny cartoon on this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin does actually look uncannyly like the stereotypical image of God.

Good...

[Ostien]

I find it promising that this gap between religion and science is finally being bridged. Will this bring about a closer relationship with religion and science? Perhaps the field of genetic/stem cell research is next to be discussed openly between these two groups. One can only hope.

/2cents

Re:Good...

[Terminal Saint]

Actually this isn't some new development, we're just hearing news about liberal Christians who felt this way all along as opposed to the fundies who keep making the news.

Re:Good...

[DrIdiot]

I'm not sure what you mean, but science and religion shouldn't mix. They should understand each other, realize the distinction between each other, and make peace. I'm nonreligious, but it really irks me when people consider science to be an undeniable truth. It isn't. A lot of people treat science as a religion. They follow it with blind faith and a closed mind.

A fundamental postulate of science is that the universe behaves in a rational and predictable way. That seems intuitively reasonable, so most people accept it. But science does not deal with absolute truths. Based on observation and experimentation, science gives us predictions. It gives us models. Chemistry lets us predict what will happen when we mix hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide (you get water and salt). Physics tells us how fast a 10 kg object will accelerate if we constantly apply 50 newtons of force to it (5 meters per second per second).

These things are pretty well founded and genreally accepted as "truth," and for all practical purposes, that's fine. But for philosophical purposes, it's dangerous. Things that were once regarded as undoubtedly true have been shown to be false or true only in certain situations. The most famous example is of course Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

Religion, by definition, is based on faith. You don't need evidence in religion. Science, however, requires evidence and extensive experimentation to verify things - science, in a way, is just a best explanation at the time, not an absolute and undeniable fact.

'Bout Time...

[Vorondil28]

I'm glad to see there's some people out there that don't think religion and science are mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world. To each his own, but IHMO, both religion and science have productive places in society.

After all, a true person of faith would encourage science because it will only prove what he/she already believes to be true, right?

Re:'Bout Time...

[penguinoid]

I'm glad to see there's some people out there that don't think religion and science are mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world.

Because we all know that science == evolution. Evolution is the current theory (not derrogatory, but the theory has changed a bit, and will likely change again), but it is not the whole of science. These folks are basically saying that they believe in the Bible, so long as it doesn't contradict the latest science. Others will believe in science so long as it doesn't contradict the Bible. Personally, I'm waiting for DNA to be compared bit by bit by statisticians, so that they can say "evolution has a one in n chance of being false", with n in the millions at least, rather than saying "most scientists say that evolution is true". This in my mind is necessary before anyone can go claiming that evolution goes on the same level as the laws of physics.

To each his own, but IHMO, both religion and science have productive places in society.

I'd say religion is an excellent guide for morality (human nature has not changed much in the past few thousand years), but if I get sick, I'll go to the doctor :-)

Re:'Bout Time...

[Chrax]

Erm, compare DNA to what? Besides, what would it indicate? The probability of this DNA spontaneously forming? Nobody thinks that's what happened.

Re:'Bout Time...

[jcr]

After all, a true person of faith would encourage science because it will only prove what he/she already believes to be true, right?

Actually, the Catholics are pretty clear on this these days: if you think you see a conflict between the real world and the book, then you're just not understanding the book. RC doctrine doesn't require you to fudge the data.

-jcr

Re:'Bout Time...

[Vorondil28]

RC doctrine doesn't require you to fudge the data.

Who said anything about fudging data?

...the Catholics are pretty clear on this these days: if you think you see a conflict between the real world and the book, then you're just not understanding the book.

That's my point. If you believe the book, and you believe in good, objective science, any conflict between the two is a misunderstanding of the book because good, objective science is reliable and factual. So, assuming someone is a believer in both, they should encourage science in order to promote accuracy and objectivity. Then, if they see a discrepancy, it is a misinterpretation of the book, and if they line up, it only proves what the book taught them in the first place.

Of course, we have to ask ourselves how much of science is, in fact, good and objective. There are so many people out there who are either funding or conducting research who have so much personal investment in one side or the other of an issue it's hard to tell what is truth and what isn't. But that's a whole different can o' worms...

Re:'Bout Time...

[FidelCatsro]

My position on this is,
G-d being outside time and Space , beyond the universe so to speak , is unknowable.
So you separate Science which is of the knowable , with that which is wholly unknowable . The minute you try to mix the two you just get into a lot of problems that really need not be there.

Re:'Bout Time...

[Vorondil28]

Not to flame or anything (seriously), but what's your point?

Re:'Bout Time...

[FidelCatsro]

Science and Religion are not opposed and should not be. Anyone who tries to find Scientific Justification to Religion is just going to run into far too many problems , problems that need not be there.
If a Scientist tries to disprove or prove the Existence of the Divine then they are playing a fools game and wasting their talents.
When A religious person tries to Use science to justify their belief then they are bound to run into as many problems.

The Divine is by its very nature unfalsifiable , thus it can not be Scientifically counted in one way or another.

So I guess my point is , Keep the two separate as they really do not make for good company at the same party.

Creationists are the epitome of this problem , they have taken Biblical criticism and then decided "Hm .. ok let us take this literaly " .. and then all hell breaks loose .

Re:'Bout Time...

[Alsee]

Because we all know that science == evolution.

Correct. The worst offenders of the anti-evolution idiots have also been arguing against and trying to undermine astronomy, paleontology, geology, hydrology, sedimentology, nuclear physics, and just about any other field of science you care to name. Some of those attacks are by the Young Earth cranks who attack everything indicating the earth is more than 6,000 years old (and basically all of science says that the earth is more than 6,000 years old), and other attacks on various other fields are because all of science is interconnected, and the evidence supporting evolution comes from other fields.

It's merely evolution that gets singled out for special treatment and the lion's share of the attacks.

Personally, I'm waiting for DNA to be compared bit by bit by statisticians, so that they can say "evolution has a one in n chance of being false", with n in the millions at least

That's pretty much happened already.

One of the central items of evolution is common decent. Common decent pretty much implies all of evolution, and in particular it directly requires so-called "macro evolution".

Well, common decent predicts an extremely strict tree pattern across the DNA of all species. The tree of common decent has not merely been confirmed to a "one in n chance", with n in the millions, it has been confirmed to a "one in n chance", with n being more a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion and more.

We are talking a one in n chance, with n being a several HUNDRED digit number. There is NO way that this extremely strict tree pattern of common decent could have been produced by mere chance. Either evolution is fundamentally correct, or some other process fundamentally equivalant to evolution (and producing the same family tree of life) is correct, or God (or some alien with Godlike powers) deliberately planted false evidence because he WANTED us to believe that evolution was true.

For example every once in a while a random bit of viral DNA gets inserted at a random location into a host cell's DNA. The viral DNA goes intert, but it gets passed down to all decendants. It gets passed down into the entire subtree from that insertion event.

Well, countless examples of that sort of insertion event have been found. For example there was one (or more) such events in the human-chimp common ancestor. An exact sequence of viral DNA appears in the identical location in both the human and chimpanzee DNA. That particular viral DNA at that location is not found in any species other than humans and chimps. The odds of identical viral DNA being independantly inserted into both humans and chimps at the exact same location is virtually zero. Going a bit further back in the tree of common decent, there is another random bit of viral DNA that was inserted into a specific location in the human-chimp-ape common ancestor. That exact bit of viral DNA appears at that exact location in those three species, and is found in no other animal. There is no such example - and can never be such an example - shared by both humand and apes but not in chimps, because the human-chimp branch point is a sub-tree of the human-chimp-ape branch point, and a single insertion event could not be passed down to both humans and apes without passing through the human-chimp common ancestor and thus be passed into chimps as well. Going further back in the tree of common decent, there's one or more examples of a specific viral DNA sequence at an exact location in all primates, and which is found nowhere outside of primates. That exact sequence appears at that exact location because there was a single random insertion event in the primate common ancestor, and that DNA at that exact location got passed down into all decendant

Re:'Bout Time...

[Vorondil28]

Okay, I can see that, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I agree in that science shouldn't be approached with the intent of proving/disproving a religious belief -- that just isn't objective science. However, if someone's view of the world is primarily religious, they should encourage objective science because it will help them better understand their beliefs.

For example, let's say I'm a Buddhist and do a lot of meditating. I can learn a lot about meditation from Buddhist writings, but what if some curious scientists want to better understand what happens to people when they're in deep meditation? I should encourage such research because I could possibly use their it to help me on my way to Nirvana. Now I've gained another tool on my road to Enlightenment, and science has learned something new about the human body/psyche/etc'. (Same with research involving evolution - if it's good science and it falls in line with a Christian's view of the origins of life, hip, hip, hooray, the Bible is right. But if it doesn't (and of course assuming it's good science), the believer may want to reconsider his/her interpretation of the scriptures. So the integration of science and religion lies in the believer's hands, not the scientists'.) Neither the religiously minded person nor the scientists have tainted the science by trying to prove/disprove anything religious -- everybody wins.

So I guess what I'm saying is that yes, science and religion should be separate from one another when it comes to the research itself, but they can complement each other when it comes to those who will apply the science to their lives.


Eh, just my $0.03.
:-p

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but a prime candidate for instigating one of Slashdot's favorite pasttimes: hating Christians!

Some things about Darwin

[plunge]

Many people don't really know anything about who he was or what he thought or how it applies to modern biology.

The guy was:
1) A careful and thoughtful scientist who spent countless hours studying tihngs most people would find incrediby boring. Darwin spent EIGHT YEARS studying BARNACLES.
2) Fairly shy.
3) A Christian for most of his life, and only an agnostic in later life (which had more to do historically with death in the family than with evolution, just ike Lincoln's rediscovering of Christianity)

The guy is/was NOT:
1) a guy who's ideas are a dogma. What Darwin thought is historically important in the development of evolution, but has no bearing on what and where that theory will lead.
2) 100% right about a LOT of things. He not only got the patterns of heredity completely wrong (he thought it was analog: by trait blending, when it was really digital), but was embarassingly forced to admit it when people with better arguments pointed out that blending was in contradiction with the evidence.
3) Someone that thought fossils had proved his case. To Darwin, fossils showed mainly the fact that past life was very different from present life: hence that most of species that existed in the past no longer existed in his day. This was one of the chief inspirations for his idea. The current creationist obsession with fossils overlooks the fact that Darwin put forward his theory, and was considered to be correct, long before we had anything like the fantastically rich fossil record of today. Darwin predicted that future fossils would all confirm his theory, but he NEVER expected that we'd find anywhere as many as we have, or that an entirely unimaginable field (genetics) would someday come to exist and provide an indepedent second check on the fossil record, allowing us to figure out actual lineages.

Darwin also didn't propose that the origins of life were part of evolution. The most he ever said on the subject was that maybe life had started in some warm little pool somewhere... in a private letter. He didn't publish this idea as scientific work.

There are so many misconceptions about the man that this otherwise fairly reserved guy is just buried under layers of legend. He was neither an exceptional genius and phropet, nor was he arrogant, careless about jumping to conclusions, or an atheist. He was a bright, studious man who worked hard, amassed tons of evidence, and hit upon a stunningly innovative realization about how evolution could have occured (one which was as much due to the new discoveries in geology and biology of his time as to his own thinking: as is obvious from the fact that no one in the history of earth had thought of it before... and then suddenly two guys did indepedently around the same time). He's worth remembering and learning about, not worshiping or demonizing.

Re:Some things about Darwin

[Reality Master 101]

He was neither an exceptional genius and phropet, nor was he arrogant, careless about jumping to conclusions, or an atheist.

I have to disagree abouot the "exceptional genius" part. Genius is as genius does. He didn't just stumble into the whole thing, he created an entire science out of whole cloth nearly by himself. If that's not genius, then I don't know what is.

The guy is/was NOT: 100% right about a LOT of things.

Newton's real passion was Alchemy and hidden messages in the Bible Text ; that doesn't make him less of a genius.

Re:Some things about Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

"[A]s is obvious from the fact that no one in the history of earth had thought of it before... and then suddenly two guys did indepedently around the same time)."

Darwin and Wallace didn't "independently" discover the theory of evolution by means of natural selection (which is what ignorant Creationists actually mean to say when they claim that Darwin "invented evolution" or any such nonsense). Darwin and Wallace actually collaborated on at least one paper prior to Darwin's _Origin_, and Wallace coined the term "natural selection." Darwin himself once wrote (after reading a manuscript of Wallace's), "He could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters!"

Ignoring this one pedantic little detail, nice post. It's far more factual than what I'm used to reading on Slashdot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

Re:Some things about Darwin

[Shimmer]

I was going to say the same thing. He invented the idea of natural selection 50 years before anyone could think of a viable mechanism (genetics) -- and he was right! That's incredible insight.

Re:Some things about Darwin

[plunge]

My point was not that he wasn't a smart guy, but he was a bright but not exceptional guy who did the hard hard work of just sitting down with tons and tons of data and coming up with an idea no one had ever had before: an idea that is really pretty simple. You can read Darwin's journals and how he develops these ideas: it's fascinating. It's not Hawking: it's like you or me teasing through an idea and hitting on something phenomenal.

When I say genius, it's not to denigrate the man, but instead to credit someone of good but not exceptional intelligence for accomplishing something amazing through hard hard work. He wasn't someone born with genius. He wasn't a Mozart. He wasn't an Einstein. He was someone who had this feeling that there was something there he couldn't quite put his finger on... and he stuck with all the evidence he could find until he woked out what it was.

Two people in the same period of history came up with this same idea at roughly the same time. That suggests that the environment and the emerging evidence had a lot to do with it. Darwin was just one of the only people who were really paying attention.

Re:Some things about Darwin

[davidbofinger]

Darwin spent EIGHT YEARS studying BARNACLES.

That's not surprising: plenty of people make careers out of fields that size. What's amazing is that he did that with the theory of evolution worked out and sitting in his top drawer.

In fact, he seems to have wanted to do some good, if not earth-shattering, biology that nobody could argue with before he published evolution. He actually did show what barnacles were (until then, IIRC, nobody had even realised they were animals) which is important work though obviously not in the theory of evolution class. He thought if he had no reputation in biology then evolution would get dismissed out of hand.

Which is not to say he wasn't already well-known. He was well-known as a geologist, though, having shown where coral reefs came from. Which would be an achievement justifying respect even if it was all he ever did, though again overshadowed. He was afraid biologists would look at his theory as a geologist muscling in on their territory.

He was neither an exceptional genius

I disagree. One great achievement might be luck. One great achievement, one good, and one very good, all by the same person, sounds more like genius.

nor was he arrogant, careless about jumping to conclusions, or an atheist

I've never encountered these attributes as part of the Darwin myth.

I never knew, until recently, that the Darwin family of scientists continued after Charles. Erasumus (Charles' grandfather) is well-known, but he also had several sons. George Darwin did important work on understanding the moon, for instance.

Re:Some things about Darwin

[Bazzalisk]

Yes, Newton's invention of the cat-flap will always cement his place as a genius :)

Plus, odd as it may sound he actualy did some pretty good and useful (as much as anything in that field is useful) work in alchemy. Newton's work was part of what led to the gradual transformation of alchemy from a branch of philosophy into the science of chemistry (although that didn't happen for a while).

Re:Some things about Darwin

[gargletheape]

Two people in the same period of history came up with this same idea at roughly the same time. That suggests that the environment and the emerging evidence had a lot to do with it

If anything that's more true of Einstein, not less:

1. Lorentz figured out the (yep) Lorentz transformations, contractions and time dilation five years before Einstein. He didn't realize how these laws encoded the very structure of space and time, but he was pretty radical himself, proposing a universal force acting on everything causing it to transform per the equations. You could probably do a lot of relativty calculations, maybe even field theoretic calculations from that perspective without getting it too wrong.

2. two different guys wrote down E = m (c^2) before Einstein without quite knowing what it meant

3. Poincare is understood to have been only a few months away from figuring it all out when Einstein finally did. As it is he's credited with the Poincare group formalism.

4. Einstein never thought of the spacetime manifold, that was Minkowski, three years later.

5. In figuring out General Relativity, Einstein collaborated extensively with the leading mathematicians of the time. In fact, if a lot of this math had not already existed (guess who thought up Riemannian Geometry) he probably would never have got his results

6. Mach was thinking about the nature of intertia as early as 1890. Einstein himself says Mach affected him profoundly.

7. Hilbert got the field equations for GR wihin a few weeks of Einstein, not independently true, but utilizing a whole new principle. Even today Hilbert's action based derivation is probably more fruitful in trying to extend relativity to incorporate other physics.

Given Maxwell's equations (1860) and the null result of Michelson and Morley (1885) it's pretty clear someone's going to come up with relativity - the miracle is that one person had so much to do with it, and did it so quickly. But I doubt any physicist really thinks no-one would've figured out relativity without Einstein, say by 1930-5. Just accounting for the muon decay data would've been hard enough without.

In fact, in physics lore quantum mechanics is often held up as an example of what might have happened with relativity without Einstein - a collaboration of less brilliant minds figures it out anyway. I mean, most physicists would agree that quantum mechanics and field theory, not relativity, are the crowning achievements of 20th century physics, and while there is no one person of Einstein's brilliance associated with them there are say fifteen or twenty quite brilliant physicists (Schrodinger and Dirac and Heisenberg and Pauli and Fermi and Yukawa and Feynman and Schwinger and Gell Mann and ...) doing their work. The bottleneck is not so much "the brilliant person" as "something to be brilliant about"

Similar things can be said about Newton and Kepler / Galileo / Liebnitz / Hooke / Descartes / Copernicus. That stuff about standing on the shoulders of giants isn't merely faux modesty. It really is true. Very rarely does science proceed via one person singlehandedly doing things no one else is even thinking about, and when this happens that one person is often ignored till everyone else gets the point. Consider Boltzmann or Mendeleev or Mendel.

And comparing Darwin to Hawking is a joke. I'd say Hawking isn't even one of the *twenty* greatest physicists of the 20th century, which isn't to say he isn't great, just not up there, certainly not with Darwin.

Canonize Charles Darwin

[Quirk]

The Catholic Church will likely exercise the extend and embrace strategy it has in the past and canonize Darwin. St. Charles will have spoken the word of God and Darwin's works will find their way into the Bible.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[Bing Tsher E]

That's also the way the Scientific Process works, incidentally. People who propose shockingly new theories are challanged to prove them. Many major new scientific discoveries are made by 'heretics' within the Scientific Community. Only later are said scientists heralded.

But, really, this whole discussion is about trashing religion, so don't let me interfere...

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[penguinoid]

I find your comment about adding to the Bible ignorant and insulting. The Bible is one of the few "stories" that hasn't changed throughout the generations, except for the addition of the New Testament. Unlike science which has to change when pesky new evidence appears ;-), the Bible is revelation straight from God. It won't be changed, and I doubt something as trivial as evolution would cause anything to be added to it. Though I do think the Catholic church might try to "embrace and extend" Darwin, they can just add it to their traditions, like praying to Mary and the canonized saints.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. The Bible has changed over the centuries. If you want proof look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan versions of the Torah. As well, look at the differences between the Catholic version of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible (not just the Torah), the Orthodox Bible (which includes an additional psalm), and the Protestant Bible's version of the Old Testament. There are books that are in certain versions but not others, there are verses that have been changed in order, punctuation which is not consistent (which is important as can be seen in the concept of purgatory), and other inconsistencies. So, like every other story the Old Testament, and the New (or Greek) Testament has changed over time. Sorry to burst your bubble. And another thing, how do fundamentalists deal with the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which contradict themselves in the order of creation? The Bible like everything else is a human creation that does have contradictions.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, i had 2 gentlemen call in on my apt just yesterday who said that the correct version of the bible was the one used by the tribes of central america in 800 AD. They even left me some pretty pictures of the LDS church :)

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[penguinoid]

If you want proof look at the Dead Sea Scrolls

Yea, those were the ones I was referring to when I said it wasn't changed. People expected to see the Bible "evolving", but the stories are unchanged. People did not become more heroic, and miracles did not become more miraculous. Things weren't fancied up, as was expected of any story over several generations.

and the Samaritan versions of the Torah.

I can write my own version of the Bible too, but it won't mean that "the Bible" has changed.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this comment heinously offensive as well, but for different reasons. Primarily, it is because the author shows nothing but his own ignorance. The Catholic church has _nothing_ against evolution. I'm sure there are outliers out there who might, but the official stance of the Church is not, and has not been, against evolution. Please, try doing some reasearch, or at least thinking, before posting ignorant hatred.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[TemporalBeing]

he Bible has changed over the centuries. If you want proof look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan versions of the Torah. As well, look at the differences between the Catholic version of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible (not just the Torah), the Orthodox Bible (which includes an additional psalm), and the Protestant Bible's version of the Old Testament. There are books that are in certain versions but not others, there are verses that have been changed in order, punctuation which is not consistent (which is important as can be seen in the concept of purgatory), and other inconsistencies.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but as was pointed out - the various texts are quite complimentary and show no change. Per punctuation - Greek did not have punctuation as part of their original language - it was all added later by secondary speakers; I believe the same is true of Hebrew, but I haven't had a chance to study it (yet); so arguing punctuation is like aruing a commentators differences. Even so...

The official text of the Torah was strictly monitored by the levitical community in ancient Isreal. If even a stroke was incorrect, the scroll was destroyed and the writer had to start over.

The same is not true (unfortunately) for the New Testament texts - so there is a little more debate there in regard to certain phrases, but there are two prodominent versions that are accepted - and differ very slightly, but not enough to make any kind of real difference in theology - the first is a blue-cover edition, and the second is a red cover edition. They differ only in the texts they enter, but they will also reference what the other says. This is primarily because those who copied the texts would often write commentaries in the margins or spaces between the lines, and if they made a mistake they would cross it out and write the correction in similiarly; so it is a little harder to tell. However, there are enough copies of the texts overall to ensure over 95% accuracy in the text, likely over 99% accuracy, against the originals. The various texts that have been found have only proven this further, especially with the Old Testament.

And another thing, how do fundamentalists deal with the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which contradict themselves in the order of creation?

There really isn't any contraction. Genesis 2 expands upon a small part of Genesis 1.

People think there are contractions because they disagree on how literal or figurative the texts are. Both have values as both; and if you read them both as pure literal, there still remains no contradictions. Why? Figure a 24 hour day. How long does it take for seeds to grow? If God planted a shrub on the 3rd day, it wouldn't have come out of the ground by the 6th day. Genesis 2 talks about part of the events of the 6th day in greater detail, starting at verse 4. (Verses 1-3 finish the story of Genesis 1.)

The Bible like everything else is a human creation that does have contradictions.

Unlike anything humans have created, the Bible shows itself to not have contradictions. The contradictions are, however, in the interpretations of the Bible - predominately when people disagree on whether to read something as literal or figurative. Many passages are quite clearly literal (David & Goliath); others are quite clearly figurative (a parable). However, there are many that people (for whatever reason) want to debate over, Genesis 1 & 2 being one of them.

Per Genesis 1 & 2, a purely figurative reading would allow for Theistic Evolution; while a purely literal reading would not. Strict creationists read it as purely literal in terms of historic accuracy, but also recognize some figurative meanings.

The best intepretations of the contraversial passages tend to have both 100% literal and 100% figurative readings, and tend to make us rely more on God than on being able to define it as humans.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

That's also the way the Scientific Process works, incidentally. People who propose shockingly new theories are challanged to prove them. Many major new scientific discoveries are made by 'heretics' within the Scientific Community. Only later are said scientists heralded.

But, really, this whole discussion is about trashing religion, so don't let me interfere...

The difference is that we acknowledge this is how science works -- by violently challenging new views till they pass repeated tests and are accepted by a majority of peers. In fact, it would be worthless if it worked any other way.

Contrast this with how major religions work, fighting every inch of the way till they are forced to reluctantly admit they were wrong ("oh, evolution happens", "ok, Galileo was right"), reform, and then it's back to infallibility all over again.

Re:Canonize Charles Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike anything humans have created, the Harry Potter series shows itself to not have contradictions. The contradictions are, however, in the interpretations of the Harry Potter series - predominately when people disagree on whether to read something as literal or figurative.

As a christian...

[SisyphusShrugged]

I am a christian and a scientist, one who does not find the belief in a cunctipotent deity incompatible with understanding and accepting scientific discoveries, To tell the truth more I learn about cosmology (singularities, string theory, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, and other crazy ideas) and evolution the more my belief in God is reinforced. To me the individuals who hinder scientific progress in the name of God are reserving a place for themselves in the afterlife (by which I mean, a not very nice one! or maybe they will come back as a worm in the next life!)

Re:As a christian...

[iMaple]

or maybe they will come back as a worm in the next life
This sounds like somthing taken straight out of Dune's Orange catholic (or something similar, I'm not sure)church scriptures :)

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that you have no idea what being a Christian is about, if you feel their views on science can have any impact on where they were headed.

I don't recall seeing it written that Jesus asked the man next to him on the cross "What do you feel about science?" when He said "Today you will join me in Heaven".

Look again at your claim to be a christian.. that's probably all it is.

Going to church on sunday makes you as much of a christian, as standing in a garage makes you an automobile.

Re:As a christian...

[Total Cult]

I am a christian and a scientist... To tell the truth more I learn about cosmology (singularities, string theory, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, and other crazy ideas) and evolution the more my belief in God is reinforced.

What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between a "principle" and a "principal"?

"Hi, I'm the Principal of Heisenberg Uncertainty."

Re:As a christian...

[3770]

OK,

I understand how someone can believe in both God and science.

_But_ can you believe in the bible and science at the same time? As someone said, can a person survive 3 days in a fish? Or Noah's ark?

I seems to me that science and the bible are mutually exclusive.

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

"or maybe they will come back as a worm in the next life!"

If that's the kind of Christian you are I think it's clear that you're the one going to hell. You know what that means? Infinite pain, for an infinite time. You're a scientist, you understand infinity. Think about what it will mean to you personally.

Re:As a christian...

[ClamIAm]

What kind of internet user doesn't understand the idea that nearly nobody proofreads their forum posts, and/or people don't exactly use their whole brain capacity when doing so?

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, modern Catholic theology teaches that most of the bible is parable that has to be understood in the context of the eras. The struggles of pre roman israel in the old testament and the tales intended to be instructive are different than those set in Roman Israel or post Roman suppression.

The biggest danger of the so called 'fundies' are the ones that lack education in the history of the era and read too strictly passages. Nearly all the horror stories are results of lay preachers whose biblical education is their own reading of a certain translation.

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

because the people who first read it would have understood it was a STORY.
The point of Jonah isn't that some guy was in sheol and came back - it was the fact that this guy was a complete MORON who hated his enemies and didn't think God had a right to offer mercy to them. The point is, "Don't be like Jonah, Jonah is an idiot."
Science has nothing to do with it...hence, I can do both...

Re:As a christian...

[MSBob]

If you're interested in say, Quantum Mechanics, I can see why certain belief in spirituality may be justified (consciousness collapses the wavefunction etc). However, if anything this seems to be more related to the beliefs of the far East than to Christianity.

Re:As a christian...

[TACNailed]

I'm a worm, you insensitive clod.

Re:As a christian...

[Lord Ender]

How did this get modded up? It's obviously a troll. No christain would talk about reincarnation. It is unlikely a "scientist" would misspell "principle."

There is NO WAY a person can be both a christian and a scientist without some serious cognitive dissonance. Science is a philosophy and method for finding natural explanations for all things. Christianity is the rejection of natural ideas and the acceptance of supernatural ones.

Re:As a christian...

[Nef]

Reminds me of my favorite quote :

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Re:As a christian...

[Sean Hederman]

This in fact was the reason I first doubted God. I don't believe that any crime justifies eternal torment. I certainly feel that anyone willing to commit a person to eternal damnation, whether God or just a sick and twisted mind, is completely evil.

To relish in the idea of someone being tortured without end adds a certain dimension of nastiness to the whole enterprise. If that's you and your God, you can have him, even if I had proof that such a God existed I would spit in His face, because he would be more monster than anything else.

Before you so readily sneer out your eternal damnations perhaps you'd better read up on what Christ said about forgiveness, mercy and humility, you seem to have missed those parts.

Re:As a christian...

[jazman]

Jonah: for myself I have to be honest with you - I don't know how that worked. Jonah didn't take any photographs or scientific measurements and maybe he even hallucinated the whole thing, perhaps after nearly drowning and suffering oxygen deprivation, then some time later finding himself on a beach, maybe thought "wow man, must have been a big fish or summat"; he was the only witness to whatever happened. What seems more important to me is that God provided for him somehow when he was thrown overboard. If we categorically know that sustenance of human life within all known aquatic lifeforms is impossible, then one of (a) it wasn't a fish, and (b) it was a specially constructed fish for the occasion, must be true.

Equally we don't have full information on how the Ark worked. Science doesn't believe in a Flood anyway, so the Ark is unnecessary; life just survived where the land wasn't under water. Again we have a reference to God's miraculous provision; one way or another, the Ark achieved the desired effect.

Lack of full information doesn't make something unreliable though. Science is full of holes and constantly changing due to new discoveries, theories and so on; any scientist worth anything will freely agree with that. But loads of people still believe in it, some even believing it constitutes proof that God doesn't exist or that nothing in the bible can be taken seriously.

Personally I don't have a problem with people taking parts of the bible allegorically; the main point of the bible is the interaction between man and God. Creation/evolution can be resolved with the first four words in Genesis: "In the beginning God..." Jonah survived due to God's provision. Noah et al survived for the same reason. Nineveh was saved from destruction because the people believed God and repented. The bible is about God, not science.

Re:As a christian...

[Gulthek]

Allegory: Prose or verse in which the objects, events or people are presented symbolically, so that the story conveys a meaning other than and deeper than the actual incident or characters described. Often, the form is used to teach a moral lesson.

The Bible shouldn't be read literally.

For more fun info: http://www.truebiblecode.com/code.html

Re:As a christian...

[jazman]

> Christianity is the rejection of natural ideas and the acceptance of supernatural ones.

Sorry to disagree. Christianity doesn't reject natural ideas. If anything it's Science that rejects supernatural ones. I don't doubt that there are Christians out there who do reject natural ideas, but that doesn't mean that's what the entire faith is about.

A person can be a Christian and a scientist at the same time, there is some dissonance between the two, but that doesn't make them mutually contradictory.

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be perfectly honest, I don't believe you are a scientist for a second. Two reasons:

1. The subjects you mention are all pop-sci topics that pop up in the news, sci-fi and Slashdot all the time
2. Anybody who's actually learnt anything about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would have been exposed to the term often enough to be able to spell it.

Re:As a christian...

[timbck2]

The Bible says God created the earth in 7 days. The Bible also says that to God, "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day". These two statements clearly illustrate the principles of eternity and immortality, and demonstrate that it is indeed possible to believe what the Bible says and what science shows AT THE SAME TIME; you just can't take the King James Version of the Bible so damn word-for-word literally!

While I'm on that topic, the KJV was commissioned at the beginning of the 17th century by King James I of England. Its focus was more on flowery prose & poetry than it was on translational accuracy.

Re:As a christian...

[SisyphusShrugged]

To tell the truth, I had about four pints of wicked strength lager before typing that comment, I am terribly sorry for making the unforgivable mistake of angering the grammar Nazis!

Re:As a christian...

[3770]

You can believe any story if you can disregard the parts that you don't believe.

My point is, that if the Bible wanted to have "stories" and still be correct then it would be very easy to identify the stories as allegories, in words that a peasant from 2000 years ago could understand.

For something to be an allegory, without explicitly identifying the story as an allegory it has to be very easy to identify it as an allegory for anyone that reads it. So to accept that the bible is truthful we have to be able to believe that all the stories we believe to be allegories _always_ was easy to identify as allegories.

If we identify them as an allegory, then the peasant 2000 years ago must also have easily identified it as an allegory. If either you, or the peasant didn't identify a story as an allegory, then the bible had an untruthful story in it at some point in time.

Now, a 1000 years from now more stories in the bible might have been discredited due to science, and a story that you believed is then widely considered an allegory.

So, if I can choose what portions to believe then lets consider the story of Jesus healing a man that couldn't walk. Did that or didn't it happen? If your believe that story, then why did you believe that particular story? Is it or isn't it an allegory.

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

"My point is, that if the Bible wanted to have "stories" and still be correct then it would be very easy to identify the stories as allegories, in words that a peasant from 2000 years ago could understand."

It's called context, look into it.

"For something to be an allegory, without explicitly identifying the story as an allegory it has to be very easy to identify it as an allegory for anyone that reads it."

You ever heard of "Animal Farm"?

Don't re-define the term to suit your own needs. Allegories need not be obvious, that's not part of the definition.

"So, if I can choose what portions to believe then lets consider the story of Jesus healing a man that couldn't walk. Did that or didn't it happen? If your believe that story, then why did you believe that particular story? Is it or isn't it an allegory."

Again, context which you learn from study, which you have not obviously done and won't do because you mind is already made up on the matter.

Re:As a christian...

[3770]

"You ever heard of "Animal Farm"?

Don't re-define the term to suit your own needs. Allegories need not be obvious, that's not part of the definition."

OK, I admit that I didn't use the word allegory correctly. An allegory does not have to be understood to still be an allegory. But if an allegory isn't understood as an allegory then it is fiction, or make-believe, to that person. That is my point.

"Again, context which you learn from study, which you have not obviously done and won't do because you mind is already made up on the matter."

Even if I don't understand the concept of context, do you or don't you believe that the healing of the crippled man happened? And if you do or don't, why is that? Also, why was my question unclear or wrong because of wrong or missing context?

Re:As a christian...

[CardiganKiller]

Look up "Origen of Alexandria" and his thoughts on reincarnation. Reincarnation was only taken out of "Christianity" by popular vote around 500-600 A.D.. It's just religious politics. There are many contemporary resources that integrate the concept of reincarnation into Christianity.

Re:As a christian...

[Anonymous Coward]

"But if an allegory isn't understood as an allegory then it is fiction, or make-believe, to that person. That is my point."

That's not a point at all. It doesn't matter if it is fiction to that person, it matters whether it is fiction at all. For example, there are a whole tribe of people who have no words or meaning attached to numbers higher than 2, does that mean they don't exist? No, it doesn't.

People not understanding the historical underpinings for "Animal Farm", for example, does not make the work inherently false.

Give those people a history book, have them study for themselves and guess what?

"Even if I don't understand the concept of context, do you or don't you believe that the healing of the crippled man happened? And if you do or don't, why is that? Also, why was my question unclear or wrong because of wrong or missing context?"

Again, how many times do I have to say it? Carefull study and reading of the material and supporting historical documents, outside sources and studies by which you form an external and internal context for the work.
Case in point, if a book begins with "This is the historical account of..." and lists a long line of geneology along with going to great length to establish who was where and witnessed what, guess what? It's probably not an allegory.
If something is listed as a "parable" or a "story"? Maybe.
It all has to do with the context in which the story was written (both external and internal) and who authored the work.

Re:As a christian...

[3770]

If a person doesn't understand Animal Farm then that doesn't mean that the story isn't true. But if they interpret it literally then there is a problem. Their understanding doesn't represent the truth.

And with the bible we most certainly have this problem, because people don't agree on what parts that are allegories and which parts are literal. And the bible doesn't really help people determine which parts that are allegories and which parts are supposed to be literal. So then it is open to interpretation, and the general consensus on which parts are and aren't change over time.

Re:As a christian...

[Alsee]

The moral of the story:
Don't drink and deride.

-

Re:As a christian...

[Alsee]

There is NO WAY a person can be both a christian and a scientist without some serious cognitive dissonance.

In that case the entire planet must be abuzz with dissonance. Roughly half of scientists are Christian.

Claiming that science and religion are in conflict only fuels the fundie anti-science cranks and their fantasies that evolution and other fields of science are some atheist conspiracy to exterminate god. "Everyone come help poor little us, we are being persecuted by the big bad atheists".

-

Re:As a christian...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Infinite pain, no. Differing degrees of suffering exist:

Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 11:24, Mark 12:40, 2 Peter 2:20-21

See http://www.bible.ca/su-hell.htm

Smart move...

[Afecks]

I see this as an attempt to prevent religion from becomming irrelevant. Smart christians know they can't force people to pick religion over science because science will always win in the long run. So instead they've twisted their views so that religion can encompass science. Pretty smart move for them but it will only slow the inevitable death of religion.

It would be so nice if we could just be good to each other without fear of reprisal from some imaginary father-figure. Being a good person by your own decision is much more noble than doing it because you were told to.

Re:Smart move...

[Moofie]

Why is it important to you that religion dies?

Re:Smart move...

[Vellmont]

Pretty smart move for them but it will only slow the inevitable death of religion.

Well, I don't think it'll lead to the death of anything, except maybe some really bad view of the facts. Mostly this is because we don't live in a scientific culture, and very likely never will. To most people science is just a collection of facts, not a way of seperating truth from fiction. Even here on slashdot, the den of geekiness, there's a quite poor understanding of science.

But, even if we DID live in a culture of science I don't agree that science and religion are necessarily at odds. Judeo-Christian religions tend to put a lot of emphasis on explaining natural phenomenon. How was the universe created? What are those lights in the sky at night? Is it safe to eat that animal or not? What happens when I die? On those kind of questions they'll lose (and have lost) every single time. Religion clings to the same old ideas, and science actively tries to disprove itself and changes with new evidence. Where religions don't conflict with science (because science can't answer these questions) is the internal world of self. That includes morality, behaviour, etc. Science can't tell you if it's right or wrong to kill a guy for instance.

Re:Smart move...

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart christians know they can't force people to pick religion over science because science will always win in the long run.

No, smart Christians realize that religion and science travel along parallel lines and can't (and should not) meet, but can coexist. Smart Christians know that both evolution and creation take a certain amount of faith to follow, and it is possible for either (or neither) to be true, and the best thing we can do is keep searching for the answer realizing the search itself is what makes us better.

It's the stupid Christians you have to worry about (and I'm not saying all or most Christians are necessarily stupid.) Stupid Christians only see things in black and white, and everything comes down to "I'm right and you're wrong and nothing will change my mind." Stupid Christians want to fight, but they don't want to learn or think. They have no interest in the process of discovery-- whether that means studying science or reading and discussing scripture, as well as man's attempts to interpret exactly what those scriptures mean. At the same time I've met plenty of agnostics and atheists who are just as dogmatic about evolution as the ugliest Christians are about creation, and who are at the same time completely ignorant about what the theory of evolution actually is.

Re:Smart move...

[Afecks]

Science can't tell you if it's right or wrong to kill a guy for instance.

Sure it can. Killing someone goes against their nature, which is to live. Obviously that's "wrong". However, morals are only a personal choice of preference.

There are no absolute right or wrongs, only some things that we widely agree on and some things that we don't.

In a society we make agreements aka laws. I agree not to kill you if you agree not to kill me. Some of us don't agree and that's when problems occur.

Anything that can be accomplished with religion can also be accomplished without religion. Just because science fails at some things doesn't mean it's hopeless. It just means we need more research.

Re:Smart move...

[Vellmont]

Anything that can be accomplished with religion can also be accomplished without religion

I don't disagree with that at all. My only point is that science doesn't destroy religion.

Just because science fails at some things doesn't mean it's hopeless. It just means we need more research.

Well, I'd agree with that if you're trying to answer a scientific question. Not all questions are scientific though.

Re:Smart move...

[JanneM]

Science can't tell you if it's right or wrong to kill a guy for instance.

Of course, you don't need religion for that either. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for a sustainable moral code.

Re:Smart move...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no absolute right or wrongs, only some things that we widely agree on and some things that we don't.

Thank you for that completely banal insight.

In a society we make agreements aka laws. I agree not to kill you if you agree not to kill me. Some of us don't agree and that's when problems occur.

Moralities domain is that of the "problems" as you put it. Science has nothing to say on how we choose to live our lives. If you think you are using science in your day to day judgements on things, you obviously don't have a good grasp of what the process of science is all about.

Re:Smart move...

[ClamIAm]

So next time a new scientific theory is accepted that is different from something widely believed in the past, you sure as hell better be consistent and post the following:

I see this as an attempt to prevent their old views from becomming irrelevant. Smart scientists know they can't force people to pick the old theory over the new one because the new one will always win in the long run. So instead they've twisted their views so that their old views can encompass the new. Pretty smart move for them but it will only slow the inevitable death of science.

I realize the cut-n-paste isn't perfect, but you get the general idea.

It would be so nice if we could just be good to each other without fear of reprisal from some imaginary father-figure. Being a good person by your own decision is much more noble than doing it because you were told to.

I don't remember where it is exactly off the top of my head, but there is at least one instance in the Gospels where Jesus rebukes those who do the "right" thing out of obligation and praises those who do it because they want to.

Re:Smart move...

[professionalfurryele]

While I don't agree that religion has to 'die', one can hardly argue that it has been a positive thing for much other than keeping people from killing themselves as a result of the hopelessness (in my opinion this is the best explanation for the origin of religion). I mean come on, recently we have had people killed over a cartoon of a long dead man with no relevance to modern society. How many wars have we had over which side has the best imaginary friend? Modern man doesn't need dogmatic religion, and we would be better without it (for these purposes I include dogmatic atheism as well). That is not to say that open minded spirituality is a bad thing, we just don't need the controlling structures anymore, we don't need the organisation. Much of our population have evolved beyound them, and they should be left to die out.

Re:Smart move...

[Moofie]

Consider this.

The overwhelming majority of religious persons have never had a news story about them. If you think that most people are religious because otherwise they'd commit suicide, I'd say you have a very limited experience with religious people.

Re:Smart move...

[expressovi]

If the "christians" are right in the long run those who did not absolutely believe will be in hell.

Re:Smart move...

[mrpeebles]

> one can hardly argue that it has been a positive thing for much other than keeping people from killing themselves
> as a result of the hopelessness

Its hard to evaluate this because as long as there has been modern (anthropologically speaking) man, there has been religion. If you want to evaluate, say, Christanity, this is still difficult, because while people did terrible things in the name of Christ, they did equally terrible things before Christ. At the very least, if Christianity ultimately convinces people there is no God, this is a tremendous contribution to mankind, because if there is no God then the Egyptian Pharoah isn't God, Emporer Augustus isn't God, etc.

Re:Smart move...

[professionalfurryele]

Who said anything about thinking people are directly religious because else they would commit suicide. I'm not religious and you don't see me jumping off a bridge. We live in priviledged times in which we have to deal with much less stress than we once did. Perhaps we have socially evolved to deal better with our difficulties.
Ask yourself this. If you assume religion is man made (which as an testable hypothesis is the only one I can think of), and you accept that it is endemic, then you must ask where it came from. It must give someone an edge in terms of survivability. But what edge. I presume that edge is that the suspension of rationality (or perhaps the bypassing it entirely, one should not assume man is inherently rational) enables humans to cope better, and hence more likely to mate.
This does not mean that religious people are, in the modern age, religious because otherwise they would commit suicide, but rather that I feel religion originated as a survival mechanism to cope with life.

Re:Smart move...

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a God and he gave me the mental facilities to use logic and then in the end punish me for using it then FUCK HIM.

If I go to hell it's because God allows me to go to hell and don't give me that shit about free will and making a choice. I am limited to not being able to walk on the surface of the sun so I could also be limited to not going to hell.

"If God is powerless to prevent evil he cannot be God, if God allows evil to exist he cannot be good." -Buddha

Re:Smart move...

[mrpeebles]

I think your cut-and-paste is more or less what happens in science. Old ideas are proved false, new ones replace them. You have entire scientific revolutions where everything we thought we knew turns out to be wrong (or at least limited.)

Re:Smart move...

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you for that completely retarded insight. i think you're confused about the difference between the scientific method and science. 2 different things.

Re:Smart move...

[jc42]

If the "christians" are right in the long run those who did not absolutely believe will be in hell.

Ah, yes; the argument traditionally known as "Pascal's wager". Unfortunately, it has some glaring logical problems, as many people have pointed out since Pascal published his now-canonical version.

The biggest problem can even be presented in a form that both Jews and Christians should understand: The bible states that God created us "in His image". It's pretty obvious that this isn't meant literally, in that we almost certainly aren't physically much like the Judeo-Christian God, or like any other god that might exist.

If this statement means anything, it most likely refers to our intelligence and ability to understand the universe. One common interpretation is that God was lonely, and wanted companions who were capable of talking and acting on his level.

This seems a much more likely interpretation, if you think a bit about what must be the nature of a being who would create a world like ours. So what does it imply that this God's attitude towards believers and nonbelievers would be?

The most reasonable reply is that this God would heartily approve of those of us questioning and investigating His creation. He wouldn't care whether we believe or not, only whether we are working toward being a good intellectual companion.

If you accept this biblical passage, you'd have to conclude that the rational skeptics, including scientists, are the people that God was aiming for. Those who reject such attempts to "play god" and insist on uncritical faith in someone else's words are not acting "in His image" at all. He'll dismiss them as uninteresting, on a level with the dumb animals, and reward those who have made a good attempt to act "in His image". Those who have successfully created new things, especially living things, will be especially rewarded.

Of course, this could be wrong, too. The real God might not be the Judeo-Christian God at all, and could have created this world as a habitat for mosquitos or sharks. If that's what actually happened, then Pascal and the rest of us are truly doomed.

Re:Smart move...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are reading what you want into the statement, but the scientific method is required for an formal definition of science. Even taking a less rigourous definition of "any systematic body of knowledge", the gp's comment about research obviously immplies some level of empiricism.

Re:Smart move...

[Moofie]

The point remains: The overwhelming majority of religious persons have never had a news story about them. The sane people don't get headlines.

Pure Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a way to make it look like "reasonable, main-stream" churches are doing it. Why not your church?

Why in the world would a congregation of ANY religion "celebrate" Darwin's, Einstein's, or any scientist's birthday?

(That's as stupid as the recent "celebrate diversity" crap - appreciate diversity? sure - but celebrate? - a bunch of meaningless rhetoric to stroke your liberal ego with. It even made it into at least the draft of the Iraqi constitution.)

I guarantee that the churches among the 450 "enlightened ones" are all liberal, PC, gays/women/whoever/whatever-ok-for-pastors types that would let Hillary or Bill Clinton as well as Ted Kennedy preach over the pulpit, and wet their pants in excitement. And the article writer is right there with them.

Even so, 450 churches doing something like this is hardly newsworthy. What percentage of churches does this represent?

Re:Pure Propaganda

[NiteShaed]

All of them are flamin' libruls, eh? Going to the Clergy Letter Website lists quite a wide variety of endorsements from all sorts of Christian churches, and the list of participating churches, while smaller, seems still to be quite a variety. Or is this a self-fulfilling thing on your part, where only liberal churches could do this so therefore all the churches listed are liberal churches?

Re:Pure Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Roughly 130-140 of the churches in the list you linked to have female leaders - about 30%.

Seems like you fulfilled your own thing here.

Re:Pure Propaganda

[NiteShaed]

Did I? I didn't realize that saying that they were "all liberal" meant the same thing as 30%. Or are you just changing your position and pretending that's what you meant all along?

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[JanneM]

I'm not a christian, but I'm glad there's some active stance among religious people against the fundamentalists who seem to have taken over any kind of discussion of religion in this country.

I'm not religious, and I find, on the whole, that fundamentalists hijacking a religion can be a good thing in the long run. Probably nothing else could turn as many people away from the whole idea of religion so much as a generation of frothing-at-the-mouth zealots fighting each other and anyone disagreeing with their inflexible, warped view of the world.

It is a choice regardless of what the Churches say

[Anonymous Coward]

"Christians have no need to choose between religion and science."

I beg to differ. The premise of religion is to accept that certain things are mysterious and cannot be investigated, or that certain things are true whether there is evidence for them or not.

The premise of science is that everything should be investigated, and that things are accepted as generally true only after evidence emerges for them, and that new evidence can change our perceptions of what is true.

Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[v_1_r_u_5]

If you believe that computers will eventually be able to run complex simulations of our universe--complex enough to even simulate life--then you cannot simply dismiss the idea that we are ourselves part of a simulation ran by some higher being (namely, God). How the simulation derives life is irrelavant - be it darwinism, the big spaghetti monster, God, whatever. Darwinism does not have to conflict with the philosophy that a God created us in his own computer simulation.

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[slashdotmsiriv]

Who created your simulator-building God?

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't even bother with that. I seriously doubt that any computer in any universe could simulate another one in anything even approaching real-time, even if a significant portion of that universe contained computers and storage to do it.

Well ok, you could simulate a universe, but not the one we have that has sensitivity to initial conditions, quantum effects, fractals (snow, tree leaves, patterns of human land use, coast lines, edges of broken rock) and other non-linearities...not to mention eventually having to simulate neurological systems, and then computer systems (millions of computers even, just on one planet!)..oh, and how would you deal with relativity? Your simulation's time steps would totally fall apart as information is transfered from one frame of reference to another!

If we were a simulation, and "God" was in another universe running us, He'd only render a couple seconds before he died of old age.

Scientist guy: "Neat, so basically after 2 seconds of elapsed in the simulated universe, and 60 in mine, i've determined that quarks are opaque to light at Big-Bang densities."

Maybe you could leave the simulation running for billions of years, but how would you power it? how could you possible address enough ram to provide for all the coordinates of absolute space (which again, does not exist), and all the possible quantum states of every particle, photon and neutrino (etc) in the universe?

Does the parent post even understand how absurd it'd be to simulate a universe? Sure a matrix simulating a world (letting the human brains "render" most of the visuals) would be tough but somewhat imaginable...but simulating a universe to such an extent that fractals/chaos/relativity and sentient thought can exist (in beings that have no physical reality), is uttttttterly absurd.

How many planck intervals have occurred since the beginning of the universe? how many particles/photons are there? how many unique quantum states are there for all configurations of particles?

The only way to simulate the universe real-time is for it to exist and follow its own laws internally...producing complex and chaotic behavior based on simple rules+sensitivity to initial conditions, and utilizing quantum effects on a small scale, with special relativity enforcing causality across space and time...

The universe is its own best and most accurate simulation.

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[v_1_r_u_5]

That would be completely beyond our comprehension. Who knows... maybe there is a huge stack of simulations within simulations. We're talking completely different realms of existence, realms where we would literally have no capability of gathering any emperical knowledge about. For example, if we built a massive computer simulation advanced enough such that life evolved from it, then how would the beings within the simulation know anything beyond their simulation without direct communication from us? They could explore the galaxy as vast as we created it, but they would never "get out" of their own simulation and into our reality. They would be in the computer, completely oblivious to what's going on outside.

But your question is interesting.. surely there must be some point at the utmost highest level of these so-called simulations. But the underlying point here is that we have no knowledge of how things work outside of our own "simualtion" - the very laws of physics could be completely different or even non-existent. For example, maybe matter can be created from nothing outside of our own realm.

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[v_1_r_u_5]

You bring up valid points. The thought of a computer simulation of a universe as complex as our own seems completely ridiculous. However, less than 50 years ago, a concept of vast network of computers who in concert would be computing trillions upon trillions of computations a second was completely laughable. At the exponential rate of progress, I wouldn't count anything out if I were you, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to us now.

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[JohnFluxx]

This idea was first invented (as far as we know) nearly 2500 years ago and is called Solipsism. And the short answer is that path leads to madness. Don't go there :)

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[v_1_r_u_5]

Not quite solipsism. Solipsism is a self-centered mental philosophy which centers existence based on what one individual, (yourself,) can sense (i am the only real thing.. everything else is an illusion). This train of thought could be explained away in a simulation environment; if we were to build our own computer simulation complex enough to support life, each individual in our simulation could exist independently and experience unique and distinct sensations, which flies in the face of solipsism. I'm not saying that our own reality would be an actual model of what we're trying to model in our simulations, but it seems counter-intuitive.

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[JohnFluxx]

I disagree. If lots of brains are also in a vat then you couldn't find that out. You are still down the solipist ideas. You couldn't ever tell if anyone else is real and so on and couldn't tell if everything else is an illusion or not.

If you take the solipist idea and say "well I believe there's just me and my partner. everything else is an illusion" that would still count as solipist IMHO since all the core ideas are there, even if not followed exactly to the letter.

Re:Darwinism, God, and Simulations

[arevos]

Don't even bother with that. I seriously doubt that any computer in any universe could simulate another one in anything even approaching real-time, even if a significant portion of that universe contained computers and storage to do it.

Most of the Universe is unseen, and does not directly affect us. There wouldn't be any need to simulate the Universe as a whole, just to simulate the bits that we interact with. One could even go further, and use approximations when no direction measurement has taken place, as we do in modern computer games.

Besides which, who says it has to be in real time?

I like /. posting articles like these

[JeanBaptiste]

With so much discussion regarding ID, FSM, Kansas, etc.... The 'religious crazies' that believe that crap really are in the vast minority. Most religious people don't have any problem with science, though when ID comes up all religious people get bashed.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[rjshields]

nothing else could turn as many people away from the whole idea of religion so much as a generation of frothing-at-the-mouth zealots fighting each other and anyone disagreeing with their inflexible, warped view of the world.

Agreed, and well put. In the same way, people will be put off Islam by the fundamentalists burning embassies because someone dared mock their religion.

Let me be the first to say...

[nbert]

...boring! I mean it's not a topic at all among the vast majority of Christians around the world. There's just a small minority opposed to Darwin in the US, so people who are basically in the same camp feel the urge to show some sympathy for someone who had a good idea.
I usually don't troll at all and I don't intend this to be a troll, but I'm quite tired of defending an acknowledged idea against a small minority which believes that a book written 2000 years ago (roughly) has to be interpreted word by word. To me (as a believing protestant) that's just like the Pepsi vs. Coke campaign. Sorry for being so direct...

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Bing Tsher E]

The Bible isn't really 'a book written about 2000 years ago.' It is a collection of books, written over a fairly long stretch of time. And, interestingly, nothing about 'the new stuff' in the bible (the story of Christ, etc., that makes up the New Testament) was even written during Christ's time, it was all written considerably later. So the Bible really is a book explicitly NOT written about 2000 years ago. It is all older or newer than that.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[nbert]

Taking the timespan into account the term about is more than correct (at least if you look at the new testament, which was mostly written by certain people between 35 and 70 a.c.)

Interesting sig, btw.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Valdrax]

There's just a small minority opposed to Darwin in the US, so people who are basically in the same camp feel the urge to show some sympathy for someone who had a good idea.

They're actually a majority in America and Britain. It is an extremely important problem because it feeds the culture of anti-intellectualism and distrust of science in other issues where fact-based policy-making and ideological politics are in conflict in both countries. People with a skeptical attitude towards science about evolution are more likely to have a skeptical attitude about global warming and to disregard studies about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education because they disagree with what they want to believe.

We desperately need to do something to rekindle the American love of science before our economy goes to rot thanks to the lack of people entering science and engineering majors and before the lives of millions are ruined by bad economic and social policies.

Don't bother reasoning with fundies.

[CyricZ]

It's pointless to reason with fundies. Laugh at them instead. Nothing infuriates them more than not being taken seriously.

Re:Don't bother reasoning with fundies.

[grogdamighty]

[points] Hahahahahaha!

(The lesson being that everyone dislikes being told they're an idiot.)

Re:Don't bother reasoning with fundies.

[CyricZ]

Are you laughing at my impotent penis? Well, I do have to admit that it is a funny sight! It makes me chuckle at times, too.

Re:Don't bother reasoning with fundies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you laughing at my impotent penis? Well, I do have to admit that it is a funny sight! It makes me chuckle at times, too.
--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.

How are you going to service me if you are impotent?

Re:Don't bother reasoning with fundies.

[Scrameustache]

Nothing infuriates [fundies] more than not being taken seriously.

Well, there's the butt sex... and nipples, man, they HATE nipples!

450 out of....

[Anonymous Coward]

In response, some 450 Christian churches are celebrating Darwin's birth

So that takes covers my little town, now what about the other 200,000 churches?

Re:450 out of....

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be celebrating his death.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Stephan Schulz]

When are we going to put our foot down on this Muslim scourge?

Well, there are roughly one billion Muslims quitely going along and living there lives. Maybe a few thousand are rioting, and no doubt quite a few are real assholes about this issue. But to condem the whole faith for the acts of a few is both stupid and unproductive. Islam is not sigificantly better or worse than "Christianity" (and about as diverse).

I couldn't disagree more.

[Stoutlimb]

Lots of dumb christians completely reject scientific principles in favour of their holy book. I find it pretty hard to take when my "peers" will look me right in the eye and try to discredit my post-secondary astronomy education, saying that the universe is only several thousand years old. If ID people have their way, Geology would not exist. Forget about Biology. You have to realize that there is a large percentage of christians who are unwittingly pushing towards another dark age.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "large percentage", you mean "less than 0.01%" then you might almost be right...
Just 'cause they're loud doesn't mean there's a lot of them.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Stoutlimb]

Where I live they certainly are. Most Christians I meet refute Darwin, astronomy and geology. I'm even forced to work with one. It isn't pleasant I tell you.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Eightyford]

You have to realize that there is a large percentage of christians who are unwittingly pushing towards another dark age.

Those christians (and radical muslims etc) will be in their own dark age. The rest of us will do alright.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[piano-in-a-box]

Those christians (and radical muslims etc) will be in their own dark age. The rest of us will do alright.

Unless they manage to damage science education...

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[linuxfanatic1024]

Define Christian. If you mean "Protestant Radical" (many non-Catholics), you are right. However, if you include Catholics, then I must say you're wrong.

I am a Catholic. My church believes that the Bible is not a historical record. We believe that the Bible teaches lessons; it does not detail history accurately. In fact, the New Testament is just a PR job for Jesus. Unfortunately, those who say Christian and mean Protestants are giving Christianity a bad name. In fact, I believe that God set the rules for the universe and then performed the "Big Bang" (or something like that). The creation story makes no sense to most other Catholics I've met.

Yes, I am a real Catholic, and this is what my religious ed ("Sunday school") teachers and clergy believe. Science does not undermine God.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[BandwidthHog]

Those christians (and radical muslims etc) will be in their own dark age. The rest of us will do alright.

Unless they manage to take the rest of us out with them in their infighting.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[skoaldipper]

You are wrong on so many levels as a Catholic, I wouldn't even know where to start. A good place would be to set aside your Protestant bigotry for one. As a Catholic who attended private Catholic schools all his life (with some 12+ years of Theology), who was just about raised by nuns and priests, who has a cousin who is a priest, who has a father who almost was a priest himself (having attended several years in Seminary), who talks to the Monsignor of our diocese just about every day (as I hold his mail and clean his pool), and who also reads the Catechism and Bible daily, I am no more representative of the next Catholic than the one you purport to be as a whole, although I try to be the best one I can, daily.

However, I will say this, your statement that your church does not believe the Bible is even an historical record, is not only alarming from a purely scientific archaeological one, but even more so on a Christian level. I wish you well on your journey.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Arker]

You find it alarming that his understanding of the bible is consistent with science and archæology? Why?

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[TemporalBeing]

Lots of dumb christians completely reject scientific principles in favour of their holy book. I find it pretty hard to take when my "peers" will look me right in the eye and try to discredit my post-secondary astronomy education, saying that the universe is only several thousand years old.

Truth is, even with the Bible we can't say how old the universe is. Sure, we know it was created in 6 days, and we know there have been approximately 3600 years (Jewish calendar) plus another 2000 (Gregorian calendar) since the fall in Genesis 3. (1 year Jewish calendar equals 360 days - so 3600 Jewish Years = 3652.5 Gregorian years ;totaling roughly 5652.5). Any how...we don't know how many days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, etc. that Adam & Eve were in the Garden of Eden between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. Most people want to do the "it happened the next day" thing; but I find that hard to believe, especially as the "curse on women" uses the terminology of "increase" in relation to birthing pains. (How could Eve know that it had increased if she didn't already know what it was?!!)

So that alone is not reason to discredit you. However, astrological dating is flawed; and the proofs used to validate it are too. We're just getting in data now showing that things aren't like we thought they were out in space, and the model's don't add up to what we thought either.

If ID people have their way, Geology would not exist. Forget about Biology.

Not true. They wouldn't have it the way it is now - being so religiously intent on proving evolution true as to ignore the truth. (That doesn't mean I agree with ID. I may be a creationist, but I don't agree with ID.)

You have to realize that there is a large percentage of christians who are unwittingly pushing towards another dark age.

What's to say that we aren't already in one? A "dark age" only exists because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of accepting knowledge. Either one could be argued from any stand point on this issue today. Evolutionists refuse to accept that a God could have created; while Creationists refuse to accept that God did not create and it all came about by chance. Well...I guess in many respects that fact that we are having the debate shows that we're not in one; but if either party were to win outright without the community showing it by evidence, then yes, we would enter a dark age. Just remember, there are a lot of "scientists" out there that are purporting evolution that would like it to, though they don't exactly realize it.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[masdog]

Evolutionists refuse to accept that a God could have created...

I don't think that is the case. Evolution, as a scientific theory, can't factor God or a creator into the equation since evidence can't be shown for or against that position.

So that alone is not reason to discredit you. However, astrological dating is flawed; and the proofs used to validate it are too. We're just getting in data now showing that things aren't like we thought they were out in space, and the model's don't add up to what we thought either.

And what data would that be?

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Follier]

that fact that we are having the debate shows that we're not in one; but if either party were to win outright without the community showing it by evidence, then yes, we would enter a dark age.

Respectfully, this debate only takes place on internet forums and PTA meetings in backward states (I'm looking at you, Kansas).

It's as if an entire town religiously believed that the British won the Revolutionary War, and they put so much pressure on the local school district that they had to put a disclaimer on the history books to the effect of

The "We Won" theory is only one possible explanation for the formation of the United States following colonization.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[TemporalBeing]

Respectfully, this debate only takes place on internet forums and PTA meetings in backward states (I'm looking at you, Kansas).

Respectfully, you're wrong. Try institutions like Calvin College of Michigan, Messiah College of Pennsylvania, and numerous other colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools - though the usually are K-12. As I referred in another couple posts over the last year, for example see check out the book linked in this discussion. It's not by a creationist, and the author thought they would find the exact opposite of what she did find, and the topic of evolution vs. creation was only one part of what she looked at.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Valdoran]

Should be pretty obvious, I'd think. (Most) Christians (or any other member of the Judeo-Christian community, for that matter) don't give a fuck about what is real and even more important, PROVEN. They simply keep on living in their own little invented world, full of dogmas, naivity and gullibility.

But if they like to close their eyes and mind to these facts, because it might just interfere with what they have accepted as (read: substited for) reality. They have NEVER asked themselves "What the hell am I thinking?" pertaining to their religion, so that now they'd do anything to not disturb their malformed "opinions".

Or if we're rather talking about the Christian Church (capital C), well, they want Christianity to exist as long as possible, of course. Nobody likes to lose their source of income, right?

Ugh, religion. It truly disgusts me.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[theStorminMormon]

That's OK, obnoxious scientific phillistines who so casually think anything can be certain disguest me.

Well, maybe disgust is a strong word. They amuse and occaissionally irritate me.

Certainty is an illusion, even scientific proof is just another notch along a scale of probability. Nothing is ever really 0% or 100% probable except for a few logical and mathematical constructs (eg 2+2=4 in standard addition). Once you start to actually involve the "real world" you can kiss certainty good by.

This doesn't mean it's logical to make any and all claims you want life, the universe, and everything - but it does mean that people who think you can somehow arbitrarily throw up this wall between things "religious" and things "scientific" are sadly mistaken. A good scientist and a good religious thinker will have the same basic methodology of thought - they just apply the methodologies to very different arenas. In science you stick with quantifiable results. In religion you tend to stick with philosophy and belief - but logic still applies.

Similarly the religious bigot and the scientific phillistine have much in common. Both are very sure in the specifics of their little domains without any general comprehension whatsoever of the common root. Each dismisses the other with such ignorance and disdain for logic that neither is really qualified to be called either a scientist or a religious thinker.

Clear thinking, honest questioning, and overall intellectual integrity are the common root of religion and science.

-stormin

And no - a scientific phillistine is not a contradiction in terms. It should, but sadly it is not.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Valdoran]

Certainty is an illusion, even scientific proof is just another notch along a scale of probability. Nothing is ever really 0% or 100% probable except for a few logical and mathematical constructs (eg 2+2=4 in standard addition). Once you start to actually involve the "real world" you can kiss certainty good by.

As opposed to blindly following some sort of book, I suppose?

Similarly the religious bigot and the scientific phillistine have much in common.

Please, enlighten me. What exactly are the similarities between people accepting what some fellow -- supposedly born from an immaculate virgin, and to top it all, the son of a omnipotent being who created the universe -- was preaching some good 2000 years ago, and people researching phenomena and trying to logically and RATIONALLY (take note, Christians) explain them? Exactly, there are NONE. Well, they're both human, but that's it. You shouldn't delude yourself with trying to compare religious and "other" people.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[theStorminMormon]

"You shouldn't delude yourself with trying to compare religious and "other" people."

And you shouldn't delude yourself by living in a world of overly-simplistic black-and-white charicatures. Your comments regarding religion indicate that you have no more concept for what a religious life actually entails than the most radical fundamentalist comprehends the work of a scientist.

The fact is that the biggest similarity between a rational scientist and a rational religious believer is being open to following whatever the evidence dictates. And the biggest similarity between religious and scientific dogmatics is the inability to ask genuine questions. You provide a perfect example. A superficial request for information Please, enlighten me. What exactly are the similarities between [religious] people and people researching phenomena and trying to logically and RATIONALLY explain them? followed without pause by your own answer: Exactly, there are NONE

You can't teach someone who follows dogma blindly anything not because they are stupid or incapable of learning, but because they are unwilling to question their own conclusions.

However, I'll provide an answer anyway. One such similarity is that many religious people ponder phenomena important to many people and try to logically and rationally explain them. Whereas a scientist may study physically observable phenomena - say gravity - a theologian may study a question like "why do bad things happen to good people?", or "is free will an illusion?". Regardless of how important you personally hold these questions to be some of the greatest minds of humanity have pondered these questions. Some - like Aristotle - were perhaps not religious in the conventional sense of the word (although he seemed to have respect for the God he knew). More recently we have thinkers like C.S. Lewis, Kierkegaard, and others (just to hit the Christian denomination since you find that particularly disgusting) who have greatly contributed to human thought concerning these questions.

So you see at the root it's exactly the same. But studying physically observable phenomena calls for a very different methodology than studying non-quantifiable - but just as real - phenomena.

The fact of the matter is that by blindly refusing to question your own dogma regarding what constitutes a religious follower you are impoverishing your own intellectual life. In science the results are not nearly as critical as the method. Scientific findings can be overthrown by subsequent research - but as long as the inquiry is honest the wealth of knowledge will grow. Similarly religious searching is more important for the quest than for the particulary beliefs one may espouse or reject at any given moment along the path. As long as the effort to learn is sincere the wisdom of the seeker will increase.

I reiterate - you are demonstrating that in this particular question your superficial distaste for religious thinkers is revealed to be an intimate kinship with the very worst religious non-thinkers. As long as you happily cling to your charicature of religion no one will convince you otherwise. Like those who mocked Galileo or Socrates the problem is deeper than one of evidence or logic - it's a question of capacity to be open to foreign ideas.

-stormin

-stormin

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Hognoxious]

Like those who mocked Galileo or Socrates the problem is deeper than one of evidence or logic - it's a question of capacity to be open to foreign ideas.

An open mind is a good thing, but in moderation: not so open that someone can fill it with shite, or that your brain falls out.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[theStorminMormon]

Sure - open means receptive. It doesn't mean credulous. An open mind with no skepticism is about as useful as a closed mind.

I'm not sure if I should assume from your post that you believe all religions and all religious tenets are "shite" or not. It's not a very radical view by Slashdot standards to simply write off all religion as being idiotic by definition. But I think before you make a decision on a way of life, a group of people, or a philosophy you should probably let adherents speak for themselves.

Sure, some radical fundamentalists might not make a very good case in terms of rationality, logic, or even coherence - but in my opinion they're the religious equivalent of scientific quacks. Just 'cause some nut with a PhD is running around telling you some weird story that makes no sense doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is a bunch of crap.

-stormin

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Alsee]

Just 'cause some nut with a PhD is running around telling you some weird story that makes no sense doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is a bunch of crap.

Bad example. If some nut with a PhD is running around telling you some weird story about quantum mechanics that makes no sense, it's probably true. Chuckle.

-

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[theStorminMormon]

The metaphor was intentional. Here's a more in-depth exposition.

Some crazy guy is running around telling you about his cold-fusion proof. Upon examination of what he's saying, you realize he's full of it. It contradicts some basic laws of physics accepted by you and practically everyone else. So then along comes a scientist telling you about quantum mechanics. Do you take the time to actually listen to what he's saying or do you say "last PhD that sounded nuts was talking about cold fusion in a can - this guy must be retarded too?"

That's what people are doing when they come across fundamentalist claims (eg the earth is only 7000 years old) and then use those claims to dismiss anything outlandish a religion may have to say (eg - God exists and actually cares what happens to people on earth is plenty outlandish for many).

So you see, I chose quantum mechanics (as opposed to something like say partial differential equations) because not only is it complex but it seems outlandish. Despite seeming outlandish it's actually well-respected by people who care enough to study it. Similarly a lot of religious claims taht seem outlandish are taken very seriously by those who care enough to study them.

Of course the metaphor isn't perfect. You can read up on and theoretically conduct yourself the experiments that lead up to quantum mechanics. You can't similarly replicate research on God. But I'm not trying to convince people that religion (in general or in particular) is true - just that it's irrational to dismiss it without ever understanding it.

-stormin

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Follier]

You're right, the debate is also taking place in churches (even ones that are dressed up as institutions of education). I left that out though, I felt it was rather self-evident.
From your referenced thread:

Colleges such as Calvin and Messiah challenge students to think against the grain

That's cute. So I followed the links to the calander of events.

10 am Chapel.
Worship Service
Chaplain Cooper will introduce the series. His message, based on Song of Songs 1.15-2.7, will be about "The Ways of a Man with a Maiden."

7:30 pm Chapel
Lecture
Chaplain Dale Cooper will be speaking on: "The Top Ten Things I Wish I'd Known About Women Before Marrying One." Free ice cream at Johnny's after lecture.
(etc etc)

Then I checked out the page for the Biology major, and found this synopsis of study:

Studying biology at Calvin equips students to assume their roles and responsibilities as servants and stewards of God's creation.

And from Messiah's page...

Our motto "Christ Preeminent" reiterates this; we believe and teach that Jesus Christ--in his life and teachings, in his death and resurrection--is the incarnation of the way, the truth and the life of God. Members of the College community affirm that God in Christ is reconciling the world to renewed relationship with God, and has called us to be the agents or servants of this reconciling faith, hope, and love.

Messiah's mission, in turn, is to educate men and women who will serve their God through myriad vocations. To this end, the College is both rigorously academic and unapologetically Christian. As a community of Christian scholars, at Messiah we are committed to being transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we "may discern what is the will of God --what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2). To develop such a mature faith, the College pursues a unified Christian world view and lifestyle that joins revelation with rational inquiry and experience, and which integrates believing with being and doing.

Yeah, these are some serious outside-the-box radical thinkers. I might even go as far as to call them insane.
One disturbing thing... the specialty of the Department of Biological Sciences in Messiah seems to be training K-12 teachers. That is frightening. On the bright side, I bet their textbooks are cheap - since they only use the one.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Follier]

Well.. yeah... ok.

You're right that no one should discount a theory because it's bizarre. People do, and it's a shame. But still - the Cold Fusion in a Can guy didn't get his theory accepted because (I'm assuming a lot in your hypothetical example) he couldn't demonstrate it physically, mathematically, or theoretically. The quantum mechanics people, on the other hand, came by their conclusions by accident and with great astonishment. Usually in the form of equations, followed by "Damn.. that can't be right." Followed by no one being able to challenge the equations, and lastly followed by experiments that supported the equations... all the while everyone involved shaking their heads saying "well I'll be damned."

So you see there is a huge difference between the crazy theory of quantum mechanics (evolution's analog in this story, I'm assuming) and cold fusion in a can (ID's).

I'd like to add though, speaking to the religion-basher who's name I didn't care to glance at, that adherence to religion does not equal ignorance or non-inquiry. It was the Muslims (generally the Arabic and Spanish ones) who advanced science further than the Europe had ever done. The Renaissance was basically Christian Europe playing catch-up. Neither group was more or less fervent in their religious doctrine.. they were just coming at it from different theological/cultural world views.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[theStorminMormon]

Thanks for taking the time to look through the thread. I completely agree with what you wrote about quantum mechanics. I only hit the very basics of that in college (at the end of a course on partial differential equations) so I can't really pretend to be more than an amateur on the topic.

I hadn't specifically envisioned the ID vs. evolution aspect - but I'll go with it wholeheartedly. But yeah - there's a huge difference between some crazy theory that's supported by mathematics, research, and experimentation vs. some crazy theory that's just crazy. For someone with no specialized expertise, however, it can be hard to tell the difference. In a way that's what's happening here. Yet another Slashdot religion basher who has (I'm assuming here) very, very little experience in either theology or philosophy is taking a look at religion and can't tell the difference between Jerry Fallwell rhetoric and (as an example) Christian existentialism. One has no acceptance amont serious thinkers anywhere - the other is accepted and regarded highly not just by Christian believers but by atheists, agnostics, and people of other faiths as well.

-stormin

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those christians (and radical muslims etc) will be in their own dark age. The rest of us will do alright.

Unfortunately, I live in America. How did your country's last election go for your side?

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Arker]

(Most) Christians (or any other member of the Judeo-Christian community, for that matter)

I really don't think that's accurate. Biblical literalists are a pretty small (though annoyingly loud) minority of those who call themselves Christian. They're an even tinier minority in Judaïsm. They might well be a majority in Islam, but even that I'm not sure of.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Hognoxious]

Some crazy guy is running around telling you about his cold-fusion proof. Upon examination of what he's saying, you realize he's full of it. It contradicts some basic laws of physics accepted by you and practically everyone else. So then along comes a scientist telling you about quantum mechanics. Do you take the time to actually listen to what he's saying or do you say "last PhD that sounded nuts was talking about cold fusion in a can - this guy must be retarded too?"

Is his theory testable and falsifiable? Hint: if it involves magic sky daddies, then it isn't.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Hognoxious]

I'd like to add though, speaking to the religion-basher who's name I didn't care to glance at

Who is name? That doesn't make any sense at all. Did the voices in your head tell you how to use apostrophes?

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[theStorminMormon]

I'm not sure what you think you are proving. I've distinguished carefully between logical and rational thinking - which is common to both genuine religious thinkers and genuine scientific thinkers - and quantifiable phenomena - which distinguish scientific inquiry from religious or philosophical inquiry in general.

I may as well have mentioned Simone d'Beauvoir's (French existentialist atheist) theory of freedom as the root of human morality to have you respond "is it testable and falsifiable"? Well, no. That's why we call it philosophy and not physics. Does that mean that Simone is an idiot? You seem to imply that. Does it mean other people are idiots for either actually believing or at least taking what she says seriously? Again - you seem to assume that.

I would counter with two points.
1. "Falsifiable" still doesn't get you certainty. The only things that are certain are the mathematical and logical results. The link between those results and the real world is never inherently unbreakable. As a trivial example if you weigh two books and each is 8 ounces then you can conclude together they way 16 ounces. The math (8+8=16) is certain. However the scales could be off - meaning that your conclusion while logically sound is not actually valid to the state of things in the real world. Hence my previous point that science gets us more certainty than philosophy in general, but it's moving a long a spectrum. It's not (in terms of certainty) qualitatively different.

2. We act out our lives according to decisions based on insufficient data to meet scientific criteria. Decisions we make on a day to day basis like "will my wife more enjoy watching 24 or Buffy with me tonight?" yield conclusions "I think she's tired of Buffy" that while on general are probably pretty accurate are neither rigorously tested by us nor really conducive to such testing in the first place. My point is not that we should welcome unscientific methods in all our decisions (not such a great idea of your designing planes) but that there's a place in life for both falsifiable claims and non-falsifiable claims. Your political beliefs - for example - are almost certainly non-falsifiable. That probably doesn't stop you from holding them.

In fact the central point of your (implied) argument above: it's laughable to believe in "a magic sky daddy" is a perfect example of a non-falsifiable claim that you're totally unabashed in propounding.

So we get to a final (I hope) iteration of my main point: religious and scientific dogmatics have a common way of thinking. They ignore logic and simply expound their conclusions. They are uninterested in questioning the conclusions and therefore utterly incapable of realizing the illogical nature of their stance. Not because the conclusion is illogical. But because their rationale for that conclusion is illogical (or perhaps alogical would be a better term). They are parading around in the intellectual buff never capable of realizing that the emperor has no clothes on.

Meanwhile sincere and earnest religious, philosophical, and scientific thinkers all have at the root essentially the same characteristics. They are unwavering in their determination to follow the logic regardless of the conclusions to which it leads them. That's why physicists and mathemeticians end up believing in apparently ridiculous things like quantum mechanics. Because no matter how absurd the conclusion may appear on the face of it - it's born out by the logic (which in the case of science is based on quantifiable phenomena as well as mathematical and logical principles). And maybe, just maybe, that's why religious thinkers (again - think C. S. Lewis or Kirkegaard and not Falwell) embrace what to you is a seemingly ridiculous notion ("a magic sky daddy").

Since your not open to understanding their logic you'll never be in any better a position to judge the truth or even the reasonableness of their claims than some hard-core fundamentalist will be of evaluating geolgical evidenc

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Cold Fusion is real:

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5364/

UCLA got it to work, and then RPI confirmed it.

And all along people were saying it is a crazy idea

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Follier]

Cold Fusion is real
HAHA yeah I read that too last night! Boy, is my face red.

Re:I couldn't disagree more.

[Eightyford]

Unfortunately, I live in America. How did your country's last election go for your side?

Stephen Harper...

They're loud.

[CyricZ]

They may be a minority, but they are a loud minority. And they are a loud minority which can incite the many in the larger majority of Christians to some extent.

When it comes down to boycotts or elections, that small minority can become awfully powerful if they have even a slight influence on the less-extreme majority.

Re:They're loud.

[nbert]

very true, but to me it's just another reason for not paying any attention to the phenomenon. There's a saying "do not feed the trolls"....

Re:They're loud.

[Vellmont]

Well, at a certain point you have to start addressing the problem. I think we're at that point. It's like all the nutjobs who think the moon landing was faked. Sure, you ignore them when they're small in number and sound like schizophrenics. But at the point where there's a special on Fox that's "investigating" the claim, people need to start addressing the issue, else the reasonable people might start believing this crap.

Finally, some sense!

[Aphrika]

As a Christian, and someone who's interested in science, how things work, biology and the like, I've never really had a problem with evolution and religion conflicting with each other. Equally, almost all other Christians I've met - and a lot of them are scientists or engineers, people that deal with fact - have likeminded views. In a lot of cases, many of us are baffled as to how this viewpoint that evolution is just 'wrong' came about.

It's nice to see people giving the issue some thought and prving that we're not all religious crackpots. I certainly don't believe the Bible to be 100% literal in its explanation of things to us. While my faith tells me that my God is a powerful force, I'm pretty sure that using the notion of 7 days of creation was a mechanism to get the idea across to people of that time. Do you really think people thousands of years ago would be able to grasp the notion of evolution? The book of Genesis would certainly be a few chapters longer...

The important point here though is that evolution is not creation. Both can co-exist quite happily.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an interesting viewpoint. If you don't believe the Bible is 100% literally true, then how do you know what parts to believe and not believe? Is the part about Jesus just a story like the 7 days? If you're a Christian, it would seem that the answer for you is 'no,' but why do you accept this part and not the 7 days?

Re:Finally, some sense!

[3770]

Aaah,

You seem to have put some serious thought into this. I have a few comments.

1) You are saying that the bible can't be taken literally. This really means that the bible isn't truthful. Or even more harshly, it would contain lies. The bible could easily have stayed truthful if it had just noted that the descriptions where allegories or "as if" descriptions. And the people of that time would still have been able to understand it.

2) If all the things that contradict science can be explained by the writers of the bible trying to explain things in terms that people could understand. Then what purpose did the story of Jonah have?

3) I know that there are many translation errors in the bible. For instance, English bibles say that God created existence in 8 days. But the word in the original scripture could mean not only "day" but also a more generic "period of time".

Re:Finally, some sense!

[3770]

Doh, 7 days, the 8 was a typo.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[thegnu]

You can, if you believe in God, believe that there is some level of divine communication with the human. I think scientific types would call it personal truth, or something like that.

Really, I just take into account that the Bible a)was written for a different culture, b)was translated and transcribed for hundreds of years, oftentimes by unqualified people, c)was edited hundreds of years ago by the ruling class into what you read today, and d)also has lots of good stuff in it if you ignore the parts that make you want to hate, murder, and destroy.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[Biogenesis]

I think more important is that the creation story really just tells us *why* we came about (basically, God's will for humans to be the pinnacle of creation) as opposed to the mechanisms that were used ("...and God said" is a heavanly mechanism, not a physical one).

Re:Finally, some sense!

[mrpeebles]

> You are saying that the bible can't be taken literally. This really means that the bible isn't truthful. Or even more harshly,
> it would contain lies.

If your child asks you how he came to be, assuming he is old enough, you are probably going to say something like "your mother and I met, we fell in love, we married, we made love (always in that order, always... ;-) ), we conceived you, you were born." But you are leaving so much out. Of course you are leaving out lots of biology involved, and are being terribly inspecific. But it is even more than that. Maybe you met your wife at a bar. Well, then your child is there because you decided to get a drink that night. And maybe you were only living in that town because you went to that particular school because you wanted to be a writer. This says nothing about the requirement that YOUR parents met. (Maybe even you are a woman, and don't have a wife!) But this doesn't mean you are being untruthful. In telling a history, there is some degree of story telling involved. It is inevitable. We read the Bible as trying to give the creation of human beings a moral context. It is inevitable that it leave some stuff out. This doesn't mean it is lying. Now, you may think it leaves so much stuff out it is no longer relevant, but that is another issue.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[3770]

I understand your point, but I don't accept it.

The bible has stories that aren't true. If they were called allegories or identified as a story that will explain something in the simplest possible way, then I could accept it. But they are presented as being true stories.

But as it stands, most people accept that the stories aren't literal, as such they aren't true.

I understand how a writer might end up writing stories like the ones in the bible. But the reasons apply to humans, not to a person that only is translating Gods words.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[mrpeebles]

> But they are presented as being true stories.

Just to be clear, my point was that it is very define whether a story is "true" without defining the context in which it is to be understood. I don't know if I communicated that effectively. So this is why I don't understand what people mean when they talk about reading the Bible "literally". What do you mean by literally? When I read, say, a scientific theory, I know that theory is true only because I know its limitations. So I would say in a very real way, Newton's gravity is "true", even though Einstein's in a sense superseeds it, because inherent to saying that Newton's gravity is "true" is the understanding that it is an approximation. It is such a powerful theory because of what it chooses to ignore. So if by saying you should read the Bible "literally", you mean to read it as a scientific theory (which I think is more or less what most evangelicals mean), NASA uses Newton, not Einstein, to plot the paths of its space ships. This is because Newton's simplicity is power. Now, there is still a large difference between that example, and trying to connect somethign like Genesis and Darwin, but the phrase "literal" is problematic one.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

If your child asks you how he came to be, assuming he is old enough, you are probably going to say something like "your mother and I met, we fell in love, we married, we made love (always in that order, always... ;-) ), we conceived you, you were born." But you are leaving so much out.

That may leave details out, but it isn't an outright lie. Claiming that he came to be from a cabbage patch would be a lie, and it would be the equivalent of the bible claiming the Universe was created in seven days. I surely hope you can see the difference.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[mrpeebles]

I see the difference to be sure. And I can certainly pick things in the Bible that, if different, would constitute a lie. For example, if we assume original sin, then if the Bible read that God kicked Adam and Eve from the garden for no reason, this would constitute a lie, and be truly analogous to your "cabbage patch kid" example. As for the universe being created in 7 days- I'm not sure this is analogous. On my 16th birthday, I quite clearly remember my parents saying "You were born 16 years ago", when of course I wasn't. By then, at dinner, I had been born, I don't know, 16 years and 4 hours ago. I don't think they were lying though.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[Bazzalisk]

Um, I think the fact that they were a part of the oral tradition of the Hebrew people was enough to indicate that they were supposed to be allegorical - at least as far as the people passing on teh stories were concerned.

For the new testament we have to remember that the writers came from the classical literary culture - the same culture that included "historical epics" rather than literal histories. Take a look at Livy's histroy of rome - in a modern sense it's closer to being a historical novel than a history - and the greek authors like heroditus are even worse. The gospels were written at a time when it was generalyy understood by all literary people that the purpose of history was to provide an entertaining version of the gist of historical events which would get across the philosophical and moral ideas that the author wanted to convey.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[gad_zuki!]

>Do you really think people thousands of years ago would be able to grasp the notion of evolution?

Of course they could. Its not that complex. Not to mentiona a god, by definition, can impose this knowledge directly to people. But instead we have stories of floods, angels wrestling men, sinners turned to salt, etc. The typical stuff superstitious man would have imagined.

Not to mention "people thousands of years ago" were still people. In Jesus's time Rome was high civilization with incredibly complex culture, politics, etc. The Greeks were doing science on a level that would make most laymen blush in their ignorance. I really hate this little straw-man of people 2,000 years ago being these ignorant brutes who lived in caves until Jesus came along and told them some parables. Its ignorant of world history and assumes Christianity is the only path to knowledge, which is obviously wrong.

Also, if gods wanted to give us concrete information they could have at least given us basics on germ theory, surgery, etc. Questions that were only answered through some kind of rational inquiry, mind you with the church fighting progress tooth and nail by not allowing dissection of corpses and limiting what could be printed.

So, I'd be careful with the "7 days is a metaphor for science" argument as it just doesnt hold water. Floodwater or otherwise.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[dannywalk]

There's a vast difference between a question of precision leading to a four hour discrepancy, and the 7 days to 5 billion year lie.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[corngrower]

Doh! 6 days, the seventh he rested.

Re:Finally, some sense!

[mrpeebles]

I don't know my math history well enough to know for sure, but my guess is that people 3000 years ago could not even conceive or write the number 1 billion. So to me, a better comparison is to compare the Bible's 7 day accuracy to, say, Newton and Leibniz's use of infinitesimals in their calculus. Roughly speaking, "infinitesimals" are zero all the time, except that you can divide by them (you can never divide anything by zero; 1/0 = ? has no answer.) As a mathematical foundation, this was wrong. Calculus wasn't actually "done right" until the 19th century. But we don't say that Newton and Leibniz's calculus was wrong, because in a very real sense it was completely right. It gave the right answer. But in another sense, it was very wrong. Similarly, I would answer that Genesis uses its account of 7 days to get the right answer. It is very different from 1 billion years, but it is sufficient.

It just doesn't work...

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, let me say that science and religion can indeed coexist. The Bible, thus far, has proven completely compatible with all modern science as we know it. However, I would not call Darwin's Theory of Evolution "science". Is it scientifically testable? To an extent. Has it been scientifically proven? Not by a long shot. So to regard the Theory of Evolution as scientific fact is the first error that many make.

Where I have the biggest problem is when people think evolution is compatible with the Bible. It just doesn't work. You can try to throw in whatever crap that you want in between the verses, but you still can't deny two little verses in Genesis, Chapter 2:

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

I don't think Darwin's theory really says much about a guy getting cut open and having a bone removed, and a girl being made from that bone. Say what you want, but the fact of the matter is that those two verses absolutely CANNOT work alongside a theory of natural evolution. To call yourself a Christian and to support Darwin's theory is to compromise the system of beliefs and values that you base your life upon.

Re:It just doesn't work...

[DeBeuk]

[i]The Bible, thus far, has proven completely compatible with all modern science as we know it.[/i]

I bet they told you that in church, right?

Re:It just doesn't work...

[Chemicalscum]

I don't think Darwin's theory really says much about a guy getting cut open and having a bone removed, and a girl being made from that bone. Say what you want, but the fact of the matter is that those two verses absolutely CANNOT work alongside a theory of natural evolution. To call yourself a Christian and to support Darwin's theory is to compromise the system of beliefs and values that you base your life upon

You really believe that - hell you must be a real nutjob. Most real Christians interpret Genesis as a spiritual metaphor not a literal truth. But then I guess you are not a real Christian but just some sort of cultist.

By the way the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact it is a scientific theory just like the theory of relativity and quantum theory. These are the three best theories in modern science. Theory is as good as it gets in science. Scientific facts are what you build scientific theories on. No theory is ever scientifically proven. Current scientific theories are just the best theories in the light of all evidence that best describes the world we observe. Modern evolutionary theory describes it very well and is consistent with all the scientific evidence and is accepted by a large majority of Christians in the world today.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Expert Determination]

This whole "it's only a few thousand rioting" business doesn't hold much water. Hamas, ie. a bunch of terrorists, have just been voted in democratically in Palestine. Ahmadinejad was voted in democratically in Iran. Extremist Islamic view represent popular opinion across the Middle East and are not solely the beliefs of a minority.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Teeja]

Oh please. Are you calling fundamentist Christians the "American Taliban" simply because they have an opinion contrary to yours? You state that they "have taken over any kind of discussion of religion in this country". If your side is correct, don't you trust the rational average American to judge for themselves? Exactly how have they "taken over the discussion" in America? Certainly not at the point of a gun, as did the actual Taliban.

You sound like the crowd that equates G.W. Bush with Hitler.

Sounds like you are scared of people having alternative ideas, other than your own. People are won over with words, not force, and definitely not with name-calling. That's why Creationism is gaining ground and your side is losing ground in public opinion.

both sides are working on it

[icepick72]

People from both sides have to get it into their heads that the two sides (Darwinism vs. Creationism) are not necessarily diametrically opposed. As time progresses, the theories either get solidified, modified, or trashed. There's still a lot of time to figure out these things, and definitely no need to throw one side or the other out of the picture anytime soon.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Teeja]

Nice... label my post as "flamebait", and label the obviously biased parent as "interesting"... oh yeah, we have a really un-biased moderation going on here. Slashdot liberalism stikes again. Congrats!

Better questions for biblical literalists...

[copponex]

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days? Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

If you say something to yourself similar to, "Obviously that part was allegory," then you have no leg to stand on. Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted. Once everything must be interpreted, you cannot claim any sort of non-relativism.

Now, ask yourself these questions: Which bible do you read, and why? Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics? Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday? Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell? What if you aren't baptised? Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[countach]

>Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything
>must be interpreted.

That's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one. Nobody at all denies that some things in the bible are allegories. And I would hope you would acknowledge that some things in the bible are meant to be literal. However, anybody who says that Genesis 1 and 2 are allegories have some tricky questions to answer. Firstly, where does the allegory end, and literal history begin? Secondly, if it is allegorical, what message is it REALLY conveying?

>Now, ask yourself these questions: Which bible do you read, and why?

What does it matter what bible people read?

>Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313)
>were answering the call of God or politics?

Nothing happened in 313 about the canon.

>Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?

Why should anybody go to church on the Sabbath?

>Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are
>centuries older?

I don't know. Who cares?

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Thorsten Timberlake]

Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

For the same reason that there are so many other religions; "The others are wrong, they were mislead by the devil" etc.
Once you are willing to hold a fundamentalist belief in something you read in a book, several millenia old, which can not be proved nor dismissed, there are no boundaries to what you might be forced to believe to defend your position, logic or not.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Christianfreak]

If you say something to yourself similar to, "Obviously that part was allegory," then you have no leg to stand on. Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted. Once everything must be interpreted, you cannot claim any sort of non-relativism.

That's ridiculous! The Bible comes from a large number authors all who were in different time periods and different cultural contexts. And often we don't have the full context available to us.

For instance the story of Jonah is believed by biblical scholors to be a story that was told as an allegory. One of the reasons is because there's no other evidence that such a man even existed. The creation story is similar, there were no witnesses to the event, a primative culture with no modern scientific background drew upon existing stories to create their own. Notice that the creation stories of several civilizations at the time are very similar.

The Bible is first and foremost a guide on how to have a relationship with God and those parts are pretty clear IMHO. That's where the absolutes lie.

Which bible do you read, and why?

Any Bible that was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew which, believe it or not (for the "the Bible's been redone dozens of times!" camp) is most translations.

Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics?

I'm sure it was probably both.

Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday? Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

Same answer for both, they were Pagan traditions originally and used by the Catholic church. I've never really understood why in this day and time it even matters.

If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell? What if you aren't baptised?

Well I've read the Bible several times and I've never seen where it says non-trinitarians or people who aren't baptised are going to hell.

Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

I think there are lots of reasons, the rebellion against corruption, the twisting of scripture to gain power, just the ability to nit-pick. Ultimately religions are made up of people and people are far from perfect.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Ambrose]

"That's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one. Nobody at all denies that some things in the bible are allegories. And I would hope you would acknowledge that some things in the bible are meant to be literal."

No, that is not a false dichotomy. In this case there are only two options. Either every single word in the bible is to be taken as 100% literal, or the bible is open to interpretation. That does not mean that there aren't parts of the bible that are, in fact, literal. But it means that it is open to interpretation which ones are and which ones aren't.

"However, anybody who says that Genesis 1 and 2 are allegories have some tricky questions to answer. Firstly, where does the allegory end, and literal history begin? Secondly, if it is allegorical, what message is it REALLY conveying?"

Exactly. One must either believe that the evidence against a literal interpretion of Genesis is somehow fake (God planting dinosaur bones to fool the unbelievers?), or that Genesis has a deeper meaning than just a bland historical account of Creation. For those who believe in logic and reason, and who don't believe that God is a deceitful God, it is up to them to discover the true meaning of the allegory of Creation and the relevance it has for their faith.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Christianfreak]

However, anybody who says that Genesis 1 and 2 are allegories have some tricky questions to answer. Firstly, where does the allegory end, and literal history begin?

I don't think there is a defenitive point. Just looking at the Torah, I think more and more of it is literal as the time periods talked about get closer to the time period it was written.

Secondly, if it is allegorical, what message is it REALLY conveying?.

I think the creation story answers the questions of "Who?" and "Why?" rather than "How?" .. in other words the important truth of the story is firstly that God did it and secondly that he did it to have companions. It also discusses man's imperfection (the fall) as why we don't have direct communion with God now.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one.

No, it is not.

Nobody at all denies that some things in the bible are allegories.

Of course there are some that do deny anything but a literal interpretation.

And I would hope you would acknowledge that some things in the bible are meant to be literal.

The trick then is deciding on which is which. As soon as you allow some things to be allegorical, you have to question what is allegorical and what is literal. Anything that you feel is literal might actually be allegorical, as you aren't the author and you really don't know. The best you can do is make an honest attempt to decide, but you have to accept that your honest attempt might reach a different conclusion than that of another interpreter.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[labreuer]

Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

What better way to convert people than offer them alternative holidays so that instead of studying both the pagan version and the Christian version, they have to either merge them or choose one over the other? This page offers some details. Be careful of criticizing something that you haven't researched (I found the site I just linked to by clicking on the first link of Google results with criteria "pagan christian holiday").

If you say something to yourself similar to, "Obviously that part was allegory," then you have no leg to stand on. Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted. Once everything must be interpreted, you cannot claim any sort of non-relativism.

Have you ever heard of the literary device hyperbole? In any given literary work, not every word is to be taken "literally"; one must understand the word in context. Moreover, when reading interpreted works like the Bible, one must understand not only textual context, but cultural context. You make things out to be a lot simpler than they are, which leads me to believe that you're acting like stereotypical Creationists in spewing out the same thing over and over again.

I'm not even sure what you mean by relativism; I would call it the search for truth and claim that absolute truth exists (you cannot deny that absolute truth exists for everyone, only that it does not exist for you given your worldview). If you speak of "what's true for me isn't necessarily true for you," then great, are you going to violate the law set down by your country because it isn't true for you? I would try questioning more important things, like whether Christ died or just swooned; here is where you get into theologically imporant material. However, do your homework before you start making ignorant comments about it.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[javert]

I want to challenge the claim that a non-literal reading of a piece of text precludes any sort of non-relativism.

Suppose you were told by a friend,

"It's raining cats and dogs outside."

You could intepret this to mean that numerous felines and canines are falling from the sky, which would be literal but incorrect.

This, however, does not mean that the sentence is meaningless or that you are free to interpret it to mean whatever you wish it to mean, because of the existence of a correct intepretation.

The correct interpretation would be that it is raining heavily outside. This is the meaning the original speaker wished to convey. And I suggest that this is also the approach we should take when reading, whether you are reading a newspaper or a bible-- to understand the original meaning (which may be absolute or relative, but that is up to the writer, not the reader.)

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[NitsujTPU]

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days?

Just to stoke the fire a bit, I'll point out that whales aren't fish.

Also, I'm not sure that either question is interesting. If one is to interpret the Bible literally, and accept that they are subject to the intentions of an omnipotent God, then one can explain the responses to the first two questions as "miracles." Miracles aren't interesting unless they're impossible. If Jesus gave antibiotics to the sick, and resurrected people with the flu, nobody would care 2000 years later.

There are more interesting questions. One could ask about conflicts in the creation stories (since there are more than one), for instance.

Even then, you're only talking to a small, but very vocal, minority of Christianity.

Honestly, though, the issue is interesting neither from a religious nor a scientific viewpoint. It's only interesting in politics, and, really, it's an interesting microcosm to view special interests from, since neither interest is one that the public and politicians seem to have many qualms in attacking, those interests being Science and Christianity.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[TemporalBeing]

Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

The answer here is exactly the answer to the rest of what you were asking. The fact is that there is a whole methodology behind interpretation that involves historic, parable, literal, and figurative interpretation. (I can't remember all the names off hand - literal and figurative are of the four primary.) Based on context, some are obviously one or the other; however, a great number (such as Genesis 1 & 2) are highly debated as to how much of each should be used. Some argue that Genesis 1 & 2 are purely figurative, while others are that they are purely literal; yet others argue they are somewhere in between. Who knows? God knows; and it comes down to simply - who do you trust? God or man/science? Creationists trust God; Theistic-Evolutions are somewhere in between, but generally lean towards man/science; and Evolutionists trust man/science.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?

Simple, Christ was crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday. The mass is the celebration of the resurrection every week.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[sudorm]

"Just to stoke the fire a bit, I'll point out that whales aren't fish."

The Bible does not say that a whale swallowed Jonah. It says a fish did. Most children's picture books show it as a whale though.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[NitsujTPU]

Ahh. I was unaware.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[NitsujTPU]

I've never really understood why in this day and time it even matters.

It's a point brought out in conversation by Neo-Pagans, but is otherwise non-relevant.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[CRCulver]

If you say something to yourself similar to, "Obviously that part was allegory," then you have no leg to stand on. Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted. Once everything must be interpreted, you cannot claim any sort of non-relativism.

This is a problem only with the Protestant churches because of their doctrine of sola scriptura. The Orthodox Church, for example, believes while some parts of the Bible are allegory and others literal, the Holy Spirit remains with the assembly of bishops allowing the correct interpretation to be maintained throughout history.

Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?

Already in the first Christian writings, Christians were calling Sunday the first day of the new creation, seeing the Sabbath as the end of the old creation. Most catechisms have an entire chapter dedicated to this.

Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics?

The books that ultimately ended up in the canon were in fact already preferred as early as the early second century. The synod simply made official what was already for two centuries an unofficial situation. There were no politics involved.

Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

They don't. For example, recent scholarship suggests that December 25 was celebrated by Christians first, since it is a sensible 9 months after the feast of the Annuciation, and that the Roman Empire instituted the holiday of Sol Invictus to sap the growing popularity of Christianity.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can a man live inside of a fish for three days?"
Since the distinction between fish/whale wasn't in the Hebrew language, we can assume that a man can live inside a fish for three days.

"Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?"
According to the account of Genesis, yes, but still, that was a supernatural act, so trying to disprove/prove it would be futile.

"If you say something to yourself similar to, "Obviously that part was allegory," then you have no leg to stand on. Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted."

Or how about this, we don't take the Bible out of context, when there is a metaphor/simile/poetic excerpt in the Bible we don't beat the people who believe in an inerrant Bible by saying "Haha, you think there are four corners of the earth, your retarted, I guess your faith is out-dated." Just keep the Bible in context, and you'll be fine.

"Once everything must be interpreted, you cannot claim any sort of non-relativism."
Or, how about the Bible being relative to where the people were on earth, for example, the Bible mentions sunrises/sunsets, and we use that term even to this day, we know that the sun doesn't orbit around the earth, but from our perpsective the sun rises, and sets, thus the Bible doesn't contain some false error, but a perspective from which it is written from.

"Now, ask yourself these questions: Which bible do you read, and why?"
The Amplified Bible, it's the one that stays true to the original language the Bible was written in, expounding upon the nuances and original meanings of the Greek and Hebrew.

"Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics?"
The books of the Bible were compiled before that, within ~40 years of the actual events of Christ, and the rest of the New Testament written at the latest of 98 AD (the book of Revelation.)

"Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?"
I go to church on Sunday because of John 20:19, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:2, and for the fact that the resurrection of Jesus was on Sunday.

"Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?"
Syncretism became apart of the church, they wanted to appeal to the culture. But those aren't mentioned in the Bible (and yes we know, we can go on a long diatribe about how Jesus wasn't born December 25 but in the spring.)

"If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell?"
Depends on whether they accept the deity of Christ.

"What if you aren't baptised?" You can still go to heaven, baptism is a symbolic practice, and is not necessary for salvation.

"Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?"
People emphasize different parts of the Bible, sometimes people put doctrine above the basic tenets of faith (fall, Christ's sacrifice, His ressurection, redemption, etc.)

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[artemis67]

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days?

Are you asking if the story is possible?

Here's an interesting fish story...

Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

What's written is what's written. How it actually transpired, we can only imagine.

I think the point of the story is that Eve came from the same genetic material as Adam, as opposed to fixing Adam up with the local orangutan.

Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted.

Not quite sure what you're going after here... However, the Bible is neatly packaged as one book, but it is actually 66 separate books, with numerous authors with numerous styles.

Which bible do you read, and why?

I personally prefer either the NIV or the NKJV, but I have other translations. The biggest reason for so many translations is that languages don't neatly translate into other languages, one word for one word. So, every translation has to strike a balance somewhere between one of two extremes; either it's very literal (and loses the nuances of the language) or it's very descriptive (and loses the pacing of the stories, possibly embellishing too much).

Most conservative Christian scholars will tell you that the only inerrant version of the scriptures are the original autographs, which we don't have. The closest thing that we have are copies of copies.

Do you think the Romans (who cannonized the Bible with their selected bishops in 313) were answering the call of God or politics?

As in every other walk of life, rules are written down when a person or group violates what are the commonly accepted and understood beliefs and practices.

The church councils convened to deal with various attacks on the belief system, internal and external. Part of what they had to deal with was extra material being passed around as authentic scriptures, so they presented arguments on why each book did or did not have a place in the canon and took a vote on it.

The Christian view would be that God guided the process, and that the correct books were included in the canon.

Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?

The apostles intentionally switched worship from Saturday to Sunday, because the resurrection occured on Sunday. It was also a way of differentiating themselves from Judaism. The Ten Commandments were under the old covenant; the New Testament reaffirms nine of the Ten Commandments, but it does not specify that the sabbath has to be on Saturday.

If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell?

This trinitarian doesn't think so. However, I'm not God, so I don't go around making proclamations on who's going to heaven and who is not.

All I know is that Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father. He doesn't say anything about having a theology degree and being able to pontificate on the triune nature of God.

What if you aren't baptised?

Baptism is an outward symbol of a changed life. Christians don't believe in salvation through baptism, they believe in salvation through faith in Christ.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptised when Jesus said "Today you'll be with me in paradise."

Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

There are as many answers to that as there are denominations.

A lot of denominations have strong ties to the teachings and ministry of their founders.

A lot of denominations have extra-biblical teachings and traditions that are not recognized by other denominations.

Plus, consider that, given the sheer number of adherents to Christianity, it would be impossible for one denomination to meet the needs of everyone. Different denominations have different emphases on

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[maxume]

Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

What better way to convert people than offer them alternative holidays so that instead of studying both the pagan version and the Christian version, they have to either merge them or choose one over the other? This page offers some details. Be careful of criticizing something that you haven't researched (I found the site I just linked to by clicking on the first link of Google results with criteria "pagan christian holiday").

So the son-of-god-savior-of-mankind was born on a Tuesday in May but since the dirty non-believers have a swank party in mid December we are going to too, and we'll call it his Birthday? What a great way to convert people-that-are-easily-fooled.

I am continually impressed at the ongoing refusal of people to acknowledge that the foundation of most religions amounts to a bunch of people stopping doing what one asshole was telling them to do and starting doing what some other asshole was telling them to do, only this asshole is wearing a robe.

Since you don't seem to understand what's wrong with it, I'll tell you; it's shady as hell.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[jamesmrankinjr]

Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

Because Christians are great at marketing.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[young-earth]

Good questions. Here are some answers:

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days?

Who said he was alive for 3 days? He could have died and God could have resurrected him, that would make Jesus Christ's note that the "sign of Jonah" would be as His resurrection more clear anyway.

Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

The rib God used is the one rib that grows back (others don't), and from Adam's DNA just duplicating the X chromosome could create a woman. As to whether God could do it, well, He created the universe, so making one person is not a stretch at all.

the earth has four corners

You are apparently attempting to claim the Bible teaches a flat earth. On the contrary the Bible teaches a spherical earth; just because the pagan-derived Catholic Church didn't like that does not make the Bible incorrect, it makes the RCC incorrect.

Which Bible

You claim the canon was settled in 313, it was settled long before that. Again, you seem to be subscribing to the RCC version of history, which is not the Biblical Christian view of history.

Why do you go to church on Sunday

The name of the day is not Christian, as the names of the months are not Christian. So what? As for why Sunday, that is the day the Lord arose from the dead. It's a new dispensation, we are freed from the law and not subject to the rules of the Israelites.

Why do most of the Christian[sic] holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older

The long answer can be found here. The short answer is: the RCC took pagan ideas, symbols, practices, and theology and put Christian names on it. The mother-and-child motif is from Ishtar and Tammuz, that was turned into Mary-and-the-infant-Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible is there anything about worshipping Mary; in fact Jesus says that His mother, brothers and sisters are those who believe. Nowhere in the Bible is there a birth-of-Jesus celebration; that is a Catholic invention. Nowhere is there a "lent" or a "meatless friday" or an "ash wednesday" or auricular confession or sprinkling infant baptism or the eucharist or purgatory or celibate priests. All of these items are pagan imports via the RCC that are not Christian. True Biblical Christianity shuns all of them. Although we are a pretty tiny minority.

The point though is not in these details - the point is simply that all other religions are about man trying to reach God. Biblical Christianity is about God reaching out to man, dying for us to pay the price for our sins. Other religions are about DOING something to EARN one's way to a great afterlife; true Biblical Christianity is about accepting a GIFT of GRACE, not about works.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[williamhb]

Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?

Church services traditionally occur on Sunday mornings not because of the sabbath, but to celebrate Christ's resurrection which is the centre of Christian faith. In this way, every Sunday morning church service reminds us of Easter Sunday.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Zombie3810]

Christians are supposed to be (by definition) followers of Christ.
Christ believed in a literal creation (Matthew 13:34-35, 25:34, Mark 10:6, 13:19, 16:15, John 17:24).
How can these individuals keep calling themselves "Christians" when they don't believe either Christ or the first book of the Bible?? Why can't they just admit to belonging to a tax-free club for purely social reasons, instead of giving genuine Christians a bad name?

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[labreuer]

So the son-of-god-savior-of-mankind was born on a Tuesday in May but since the dirty non-believers have a swank party in mid December we are going to too, and we'll call it his Birthday? What a great way to convert people-that-are-easily-fooled. I am continually impressed at the ongoing refusal of people to acknowledge that the foundation of most religions amounts to a bunch of people stopping doing what one asshole was telling them to do and starting doing what some other asshole was telling them to do, only this asshole is wearing a robe.

How much do you know about culture in the time periods you are describing? Methinks you're evaluating it based on Society today; this would be a grave error and the source of what you perceive to be "shady".

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Ohreally_factor]

I don't think it matters which century it occurred in, it's still marketing.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted.

This is what logic likes to call a false dilemma, the same reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work. The Bible was written by many authors over a large period of time. And even authors themselves can write different works. Following your logic, if 1984 is an allegory, so is Homage to Catalonia. The Bible (or any other work, for that matter) doesn't have to be all literal, or all unliteral.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Gandalf_007]

The long answer can be found here. The short answer is: the RCC took pagan ideas, symbols, practices, and theology and put Christian names on it. The mother-and-child motif is from Ishtar and Tammuz, that was turned into Mary-and-the-infant-Jesus.

This is straight out of Jack Chick tracts (many of which are decidedly unbiblical/extrabiblical), although I suspect you already know that, since you recommend a book by Hislop, published by Chick publications. (And BTW, he claims Semiramis, rather than Ishtar). I would recommend this book instead—Woodrow was originally one of Hislop's biggest proponents, writing his own book in support of Hislop, but later wrote this book, after discovering through much prayer and research that many of Hislop's claims are incorrect. Disclaimer: I have not read any of these books in question, but I think one should get both sides of a story before making their own judgment, and I would be interested in finding out why Woodrow did a 180 on the matter. Perhaps on my next trip to the library...

I am not a Catholic and never have been, and indeed disagree with many of their teachings, but one should apply Occam's razor here—these massive conspiracy theories don't make any sense—especially the ones Chick espoused about the Catholic church being behind everything from the US Civil War to Hitler to Communism.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[jc42]

Just to stoke the fire a bit, I'll point out that whales aren't fish.

We can extend the fun a bit by also mentioning that actually whales are fish, if you are speaking strict biological terminology.

This topic reappeared as a biological debate in the 1960s and 70s, in the form of "cladistics". Eventually the cladists won, and most biologists now pretty much agree with that "doctrine". So now, strictly speaking, whales are fish - as are we humans. More precisely, whales and humans are mammals, which are a branch of the lobe-finned fish. Our branch was heavily modified for land life, and then the whales were further modified for aquatic life. Google for "Crossopterygii" for further information.

Of course, biologists tend to be not very doctrinaire about it, and are quite accepting of using terms like "fish" in their common sense. Strictly speaking, "fish" isn't a scientific term. So if you use it, you aren't speaking strict biological technical terminology, and it's socially acceptable to use such words in their common sense. Just as long as you understand that technically the term "fish" properly refers to the entire clade, which includes all land vertebrates, and their non-land offshoots like whales and bats.

Of course, this isn't as much fun as when people talk about the extinction of the dinosaurs, and biologists reply "What are you talking about? Dinosaurs aren't extinct. There are around 8000 species in the world today." We have four small dinosaurs living in our house: a parakeet, two cockatiels, and a blue-crowned conure. Cute little devils. They're not nearly as impressive as their close relatives, the tyrannosaurs. But they make much better pets. (And they're all technnically "fish", too. ;-)

Not that I'd expect the religious fundies to follow any of this ...

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Slime-dogg]

Same answer for both, they were Pagan traditions originally and used by the Catholic church. I've never really understood why in this day and time it even matters.

I think that a number of Pagan ideals were incorporated into the faith, so that the transition from Paganism to Christianity would be easier. The Catholic Church, at the time, was in the business of mass evangelism, and made allowances to make things easier. Take the promotion of Mary to a prominent role, for instance, it reflects the typical Pagan mother/son god figure. Another is the choice of when Christmas falls, as well as Easter. A lot of these were Pagan holidays that were converted.

There are many denominations in the Church, as a result of these adopted days and rituals, corruption of the Church, and the Church's departure from the teaching of unconditional forgiveness by the death and resurrection of Christ.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[maxume]

How much do you know about culture in the time periods you are describing? Methinks you're evaluating it based on Society today; this would be a grave error and the source of what you perceive to be "shady".

Methinks I can evaluate however I want. As the other reply to this comment says, marketing is marketing. I'll happily agree to disagree on the whole moral relativism thing, but it gives me pause when someone thinks they can evaluate the past seperately from the standards they live in. To clarify, I don't think it is possible to seperate yourself from your own culture well enough to pretend that a particular valuation isn't biased.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[barawn]

Either every single thing in it is literal (and the earth has four corners) or everything must be interpreted.

All language must be interpreted. Period.

The fact that allegory, metaphor, and simile exist at all is testament to that. To claim anything else is just silly. If I say "it rained today", you can take that literally. If I say "it rained cats and dogs today" you can't.

The Bible is full of allegory, metaphor, and simile. It must be interpreted. But claiming that you have to abandon all non-relativism (that is, that there's something fundamental there) is ludicrous. Just as with physics, just because relativity exists doesn't mean you can't construct invariant truths. You just have to know how to interpret the data you're given. That is, in fact, what theologians do - is try to understand the point of view of the people at the time to understand what they meant.

If ten thousand years from now, someone unearths this comment and sees "It rained cats and dogs," it's not like you can say "either you read it literally, or everything must be interpreted! Either it literally rained cats and dogs from the sky, or he could've been talking about the latest American Idol, and you'll never know!" To claim something like that completely trivializes the work that cultural anthropologists and theologians do. It's insulting.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to catholic.com (which I am guessing should be somewhat of an authority on the matter) Christians were using Sunday as the Sabbath as early as 60 CE and the New Testament never calls Sunday the day of the Resurrection. Easter, complete with its very pagan-esque lunar cycle was not set as a holiday till the first Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

The most likely reasons for Sabbath being changed to the Sunday is outside influence by other faiths and/or the desire to move away from Judaism.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, evaluating it with your head squarely up your ass doesn't really give you a leg to stand on, does it? You deflate your own argument when you assume your own valuation isn't biased.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[labreuer]

I don't think it is possible to seperate yourself from your own culture well enough to pretend that a particular valuation isn't biased.

What isn't biased, besides math and nature?

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[MoneyT]

Because every holiday and celebation of an event alway occurs on the exact day and time that the original event occured on right? Must suck to be born feb 29 you're only allowed to celebrate your birthday every 4 years.

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell doesn't exist or atleast hasn't been proven scientifically to exist, so what you are saying is that it is not shady at all. :-)

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[maxume]

What about my comment implies that I don't assume that I am biased?

Re:Better questions for biblical literalists...

[young-earth]

Ignore Hislop vs. Keating - just answer this: what's the origin of auricular confession - the Bible or paganism? What's the origin of infant baptism - Bible or pagan? The origin of celibate priests? Of mother-and-child worship? Of purgatory? Of indulgences? Of the "queen of heaven"?

All of those are pagan ideas, not Biblical ideas. All are unique to the Catholic church, and are not found in true Biblical Christianity. Whether Hislop traced the path correctly or not, the facts remain that the RCC put Christian labels on pagan practices, and continues it today.

As to whether Chick is right about the conspiracies, consider what the wealthiest organization in the world could accomplish. Note the RCC position on immigration: they want countries with a population that is a minority of RCC members to have open borders to countries that can up the ratio; but they are strongly against open borders where it would dilute the RCC membership. So the RCC is for an open US-Mexico border, but against islamic immigration into France for example. Add unlimited power to unlimited wealth, and the conspiracies can be seen to be more believable.

Research the history of Beziers some day - see what the popes and the RCC do to their enemies when they have no opposition.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Namronorman]

Or join the religion out of fear. Such as those who join religion out of fear for damnation.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Laser Lou]

I find that a so-called choice between religion and science to be moot. If something in particular is known to be true through science, then a religious statement contradicting it is pretty definitely invalid, or wrongly interpreted; choose one of the two. On the other hand, theological things that science really has no legitimate interest in is fair ground for religion. Religious claims of specific, non-repeatable acts, i.e. miracles, are fair too, but there's always to prospect that a deeper inspection may invalidate,or possibly support, a miraculous claim.

one answer, please

[mbaudis]

why is this in the "science", and not in the "politics" section? at least with the toxoplasma story http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/1 2/0738233 , there was a double mark that made sense (sci-fi) ... though it was more for the funnies ... Darwin "theory" articles are not funny; they just make the U.S. look odd.

Re:one answer, please

[kthejoker]

I debated about putting it in politics vs. science, but the science section had an "Enlightenment" subsection, which I found particularly appropriate. Unfortunately, it seems that the subsection doesn't get any play when the actual story is published.

Anyway, I figured since it was a discussion about science's place in the world, and the topic discusses the theories and philosophies of Darwinism vs. religion, rather than ID or some actual government policy, that makes it about "science" and not about "politics". YMMV.

Christians=Taliban - OH PLEASE!

[Teeja]

Oh please. Are you calling fundamentist Christians the "American Taliban" simply because they have an opinion contrary to yours? You state that they "have taken over any kind of discussion of religion in this country". If your side is correct, don't you trust the rational average American to judge for themselves? Exactly how have they "taken over the discussion" in America? Certainly not at the point of a gun, as did the actual Taliban.

You sound like the crowd that equates G.W. Bush with Hitler.

Sounds like you are scared of people having alternative ideas, other than your own. People are won over with words, not force, and definitely not with name-calling. That's why Creationism is gaining ground and your side is losing ground in public opinion.

Re:Christians=Taliban - OH PLEASE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Liberals are tolerant of anyone... except conservatives. They would ban us from all public discussion if they could get away with it.

Re:Christians=Taliban - OH PLEASE!

[plunge]

"Exactly how have they "taken over the discussion" in America? Certainly not at the point of a gun, as did the actual Taliban."

Well, in our country, you can dominate the public discussion by spending a lot of time trying to get in the news. The result is that the worst, most fanatical of people get tapped as the spokespeople for the religious point of view, while the disinterested majority just doesn't spend that time and effort. They aren't as angry or as motivated or as desperate for publicity.

The same effect happens with regular politics. But I have to say that I'm a little more upset that "religion" get represented by the shrill and nutty than that Democrats or Republicans do. Religion is more important to good folks than party.

Re:Christians=Taliban - OH PLEASE!

[ScrewMaster]

No, he's calling them the American Taliban because they have an opinion contrary to his and are trying to force theirs down everyone else's throats whether they want it or not. Guns aren't required for that purpose: a much more efficient and long-lasting method is to influence the minds of children, which they are attempting to do (and generally losing, in both courts of law and the court of public opinion.) Furthermore, when those people have also happen to have ideas that are in direct opposition to orthodox science, are in direct contravention of (and exhibit a remarkable ignorance of) scientific method at every level, he has a right to be concerned. I know I am. Certainly "your" side (if in indeed it is yours, I don't mean to presume) has lowered itself far below name calling into outright lies and deceit. Too bad more people haven't figured that out: Creationism might lose a little more ground if they did.

Wow... One hip grandpa

[technoextreme]

You speak of discussing events one did not witness. Just like that man and his children may not have witnessed macroevolution, I take it you did not witness World War II. While I was young at the time, I did. I remember leaving London during the Blitz. It is hypocritical and ignorant for you to suggest that those who experienced it firsthand are incorrect when they correctly point out history repeating itself.

Wow that would make you about seventy. And your posting on Slashdot. You must be one hip grandpa judging from your posting history. You know about wikipedia to Civilization.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Vellmont]

Probably nothing else could turn as many people away from the whole idea of religion so much as a generation of frothing-at-the-mouth zealots fighting each other and anyone disagreeing with their inflexible, warped view of the world.

If only that were the case. You don't need to go much further than Saudi Arabia to find a country full of religious nuts all frothing-at-the-mouth. No, I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent extremists, but there's a lot of reasons to believe that the ones in Saudi Arabia are. Western countries weren't much different 1000 years ago during the crusades. I guess what I'm saying is that nut-job extremist religions don't automatically self destruct from being crazy. You give humanity far to much credit for that.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[hogghogg]

I believe that the fraction of churches that are opposed to Darwinian evolution (and, eg, the big bang, etc) is in fact extremely small. At one point, Max Tegmark was going to do the statistics; he told me that he was finding that the number of believers represented by anti-Darwin churches is small.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[LordLucless]

Do you have a source for the premise of religion? Because I've been religious all my life, and never heard that one.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Bing Tsher E]

Agreed, but it's important to shine a good bright light on the 'few thousand who are rioting' for several reasons:

1. They are the equivalent of the Jim Swaggart nutcase christians in this country.
2. The most 'explosive' cartoons in the collection they are distributing all over the Muslim world to inflame people are the most blasphemous, but were never distributed and probably not even produced by any European cartoonists.

So if a bright enough light is shined on these creeps, the mainstream followers of Islam should see them as blasphemers who actually were the originators and distributors of the worse cartoons and put them to death. Or turn away from them in distaste, which is a form of hell the nutcases REALLY won't be able to deal with.

There's nothing that will drive a bunch of zealots to fury more than a majority populace who doesn't take them seriously. That's true all over the world.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Fished]

As a minister formally of the Southern Baptist convention, I can tell you that there are a lot of Christians standing up to fundamentalism. The problem is that they don't tend to get the press. Instead, the press latches on to controversy (e.g. Pat Robertson's all-too-regular hoof-in-mouth disease) and, due to their largely secular bias, have created a caricature of American religion in the form of the religious right.

What about the other guy? Wallace?

[Tablizer]

A contemporary of Darwin, Something Wallace IIRC, independently came to the same conclusion. Doesn't he get a birthday party also?

Re:What about the other guy? Wallace?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. He did not get the publicity of Darwin, how could you think he should?

Re:What about the other guy? Wallace?

[trime]

Of course he does!

Happy Birthday to you
Happy Birthday to you
Happy Birthday dear Something (is that him? yeah, that guy over there. No, behind the bald guy)
Happy Birthday to you!

Surely if you cannot remember that Alfred Wallace's first name is Alfred, and you're the one one supporting him, what exactly are you expecting? :-)

Re:What about the other guy? Wallace?

[mrpeebles]

Yes, "Something Wallace IIRC." Can't forget ol' Something. He was a dapper fellow, he was! Ol' Something. Or was it "Someone?" Anyway, can't forget him...

RED ALERT

[Fished]

Most ID advocates DON'T believe that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. Once again, ID and creationism are not the same thing.

Re:RED ALERT

[plunge]

Not all creationists believe that the earth is 6000 years old. That's what OEC is all about.

The proponents of ID deliberately took this into account as a tactical decision. Here's the basic reasoning:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010508032051/http://w ww.au.org/churchstate/cs4995.htm

""You must unify your own side and divide the other side," Johnson said. He added that he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient. This debate, he said, can be resumed once Darwinism is overthrown. (Johnson, himself an old-Earth creationist, did not explain how the two camps would reconcile this tremendous gap.)"

ID people are notoriously shifty on exactly what it is they actually believe about anything at all. They are known for saying one thing in public, and a very different thing to friendly audiences. ID doesn't require any particular beliefs about creationism, but historically, it's plain that the current movement is by and large its a movement creationists formed as they got more savvy about how they needed to act in order to hopefully overcome court rulings and the court of public opinion.

Re:RED ALERT

[Pxtl]

Old earth creationism is perfectly compatible with Darwinean (or otherwise guided) evolution. The old-Earth creationists are in the position to argue that God created the Earth and the primordial soup, and then guided the evolution of all life. That would be consistent with the fossil record and would not require redesigning the biology curriculum.

Re:RED ALERT

[plunge]

OEC is generally not the term for what you are talking about: theistic evolutionists. OECs generally include people that believe that the earth is old, but that God specially created all the different species, or some other belief that basically evolution doesn't really happen and that humans, for instance, are not related to apes.

My eye!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a few thousand are rioting

Indeed, tens/hundreds of thousands are rioting and where are the remaining billion Muslims that are "not represented by these few"? Do you hear their voices shouting down the "extremist few"? I don;t hear them anywhere. No outrage! No indignation! No resistance! No defiance! No counter protests! Nothing! That's tantamount to complicity. That's as good as support or encouragement.

Spare me your pacifist blather. If the billion strong were against all of this terrorism on the part of these "few extremists" they would crush the extremist few and force them to tow the line of "Islamic righteousness". But, it isn't happening that way. What is happening is that the billion strong sheep are quietly biding their time, watching and hoping that the extremists are successful. In which case they will dance in the streets and shoot guns in the air (why do they all do this?). If the extremists fail they will say we didn't support them, they don't represent us. Our blood thirsty religion is all about peace.

Yea right. My eye!

Re:My eye!

[EtherealStrife]

Oh please. The real indignation is that The Prophet CANNOT BE DEPICTED. PERIOD. Whereas in Christian society, images of God and Jesus are plastered everywhere. This is akin to me going out, digging up your dead parents, and hanging them up on a crucifix. You're saying if members of your church saw this and were agitated by it, you'd go out and "crush" them?

I think not.

Re:My eye!

[pnewhook]

Spare me your pacifist blather. If the billion strong were against all of this terrorism on the part of these "few extremists" they would crush the extremist few and force them to tow the line of "Islamic righteousness". But, it isn't happening that way. What is happening is that the billion strong sheep are quietly biding their time, watching and hoping that the extremists are successful. In which case they will dance in the streets and shoot guns in the air

Get a grip.

In the conflict of Northern Ireland it was basically two christian groups fighting, Catholic and Protestant. To follow your logic, why didn't the American christians crush these extremists? Was it because they were secretly biding their time too?

Obviously since there was no outrage or protests against the violence, then the American christians were supporting and encouraging that violence too.

What a bloodthirsty religion!

Re:My eye!

[professionalfurryele]

Erm, you do know that a sizable portion of funding for Sinn Fein/IRA came from Irish Americans right? Bottom line is religions are only peaceful when they are the ones with the tanks, nukes and chemical warheads. Otherwise they launch things like the Crusades, plunge humanity into the Dark Ages or crashing planes into buildings, all with the tacit support of thier population. Bottom line, either you are free thinking and independent of organised religion, or on the whole you are three missed meals away from murdering your infidel neighbours and stealing his grain, with some exceptions.

Re:My eye!

[Anonymous Coward]

The real indignation is that The Prophet CANNOT BE DEPICTED. PERIOD

How true, and the reason is so that people will not idolize the Prophet. In vain, though. The intense reaction of the believers shows that they already idolize the Prophet, so denying depictions was in vain.

Re:My eye!

[masdog]

Obviously since there was no outrage or protests against the violence, then the American christians were supporting and encouraging that violence too.

Yes, Americans supported the violence in Ireland. Some Americans, mainly Irish, I should say.

But there was a lot of outrage over the violence as well. I recall the Irish band U2 using their music to protest the violence, and there was a huge effort in the 1990's to bring peace to that region.

Holy fuck! Call in the Mythbusters!

[CyricZ]

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days? Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

Those sound like the kinds of questions that Adam and Jamie, the Mythbusters, need to be called in to answer!

Re:Holy fuck! Call in the Mythbusters!

[TubeSteak]

The immaculate conception.

A: What is a Holy fuck?

Alex Trebek appreciates that I put it in the form of a question.

Re:Holy fuck! Call in the Mythbusters!

[FidelCatsro]

The Jewish Version of the Immaculate conception is called , The inaccurate misconception ;)

Re:Holy fuck! Call in the Mythbusters!

[jc42]

Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

Obviously, what God^Wthe Intellient Designer did as to remove a stem cell from the rib's marrow, delete the Y chromasome, duplicate the X chromosome, and implant the resulting cell into an appropriate womb (any large ape's would do).

Though somehow, I suspect that not all Christian fundamentalists would agree with this scenario.

Re:Holy fuck! Call in the Mythbusters!

[ArsonSmith]

I thought god came to Adam and told him, "I have created a being that is beautiful, loving, caring, intelligent and will charish you for eternity, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg."

Adam asked, "What can I get for a rib?"

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[jxs2151]

No prob, the denominations mentioned in the article are the same churches that support abortion, which means that in a generation or two these churches will no longer exist due to non-replacement of members.

How Darwinian, huh?

Mod however your anger moves you to...

Darwinism, Science and Faith

[endoplasmicMessenger]

I absolutely agree that Darwinism is completely compatible with Catholicism, which is the version of Christianity that I subscribe to.

I just think it is very bad science.

Re:Darwinism, Science and Faith

[professionalfurryele]

And you have a degree in Biology..?

Re:Darwinism, Science and Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, catholicism is some of the worst science there is

Book: The Science of God

[FU_Fish]

I'm glad to see in these comments that a large number of ./ readers believe that science and faith do not have to be at odds. There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist by trade, which argues this point. The author uses the writings of promenent scientists, theologians, and the Bible to show why he believes that science and religion form a duality. It's a good read, no matter which "camp" you're from.

Something that this book has led me to look into is the writings of Darwin, specifically "The Origin of the Species." The following two excerpts come from Darwin's closing remarks in "The Origin of the Species."

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

In both cases, notice that Darwin himself noted the possibility of a Creator, some higher force that set the world in motion. Evolution as it is often thought of today is macro-evolution, something that Darwin never spoke of and something that, judging by his own writings, Darwin did not seem to believe. If anything, evidence points to Darwin being the first observer of what we now call "intelligent design." That is my just opinion on the matter based on my observations from the writing.

Re:Book: The Science of God

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" as a separate category of evolution. There just isn't. It's a distinction that doesn't exist. There is only evolution, the effects of which accumulate over time. Darwin understood this perfectly well, and so does everybody who makes even the slightest effort to understand biology; that you don't speaks of nothing so much as willful blindness on your part. The claims of "intelligent design" are those of divine intervention at specific, multiple points during the evolutionary process, and are simply unnecessary to explain any observed features of life on earth today.

Re:Book: The Science of God

[plunge]

I hate to have to correct people on this, but "macroevolution" IS a meaningful term in biology. It certainly isn't what creationists think it means (i.e. a boundary between observable evolution and not, or between complex changes and simple trait selection), but it does refer to useful concepts about how large scale patterns of speciation work over time. For instance, extinction events that kill thousands of species at once are considered macroevolutionary. So are long term patterns of genetic drift. So is the question of whether evolutionary change is steady or punctuated (to be fair, many think that this was a bit of a straw man debate, with Gould attacking a position almost no one actually held). So is the discussion over whether complexity is a trend or not.

Here's talk origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l
You're right that the basic underlying churning of processes isn't any different. But don't get goaded into thinking that there is no useful distinction. Genetic change within a breeding population tends to combine, mix, and spread, while once speciation has occured, there is no longer any necessary mechanism for convergence.

Re:Book: The Science of God

[Anonymous Coward]

> Evolution as it is often thought of today is macro-evolution, something that Darwin never spoke of and something that, judging by his own writings, Darwin did not seem to believe. If anything, evidence points to Darwin being the first observer of what we now call "intelligent design." That is my just opinion on the matter based on my observations from the writing.

How much of his writings did you read? You misrepresent Darwin.

Here's another Darwin quote from the conclusion.

"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

He is talking about all organic beings descending from some primordial ancestor. This is most emphatically not simple micro-evolution with the mystical species-barrier required by creationists.

Re:Book: The Science of God

[FU_Fish]

Thank you for chiming in and explaining the correct use of "macroevolution." I did use the term in a poor way to distinguish Darwin's studies from the extreme view of some. Darwin's studies dealt more with the evolution of a species like what is observed from a selective-breeding or "natural selection" standpoint, for which there is (now) fossil record, rather than the evolution of one species into an entirely different species, for which there is no fossil record. I had hoped that by hyphonating the term I could get away with using artistic liberties with a legitimate scientific term. Perhaps doing so was a poor choice of words.

Re:Book: The Science of God

[plunge]

Uh, no. I chimed in on Dvorkin's usage.

"Darwin's studies dealt more with the evolution of a species like what is observed from a selective-breeding or "natural selection" standpoint, for which there is (now) fossil record, rather than the evolution of one species into an entirely different species, for which there is no fossil record."

I don't know what you mean by "entirely different" species. The whole problem with species is that there is no good dividing line: they blend too easily into one another. That's why there are such things as hybrids (of all sorts of different levels from perfectly viable and capable of reproducing to completely viable but sterile to only partially viable, and so on) and ring species, and the like.

There's more than enough of a fossil record to substantiate all the claims about repeated speciation over time: that men came from the same ancestor as apes, that tetrapods are descendents of ancient lobed fish, and so on. Common descent is commonly known as "the fact" of evolution, with various mechanisms, like natural selection, explaining that fact.

Re:Book: The Science of God

[FU_Fish]

He is talking about all organic beings descending from some primordial ancestor. This is most emphatically not simple micro-evolution with the mystical species-barrier required by creationists.

I am not trying to claim that I believe that Creationists, Evolutionists, or those that believe in ID are wholly right or wholly wrong. There are both extremists and moderates in all of these and the many other beliefs. I felt it important, however, to point out a part of Darwin's writing that many "Darwinists" choose to ignore, just as you pointed out a part that many evolution-acknowledging "Creationists" ignore. Since the original topic was churches celebrating Darwin's birthday, I thought I'd share an interesting book related on the topic. Perhaps I should have split my original post into two separate posts.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is not sigificantly better or worse than "Christianity" (and about as diverse).

Except Islam was founded by a murderous thief named Muhammad. He ravaged the peaceful countryside and brought war upon the people if they didn't accept his false religion. Islam is falsly referred to as the "Religion of Peace" and yet its followers are some of the most brutal and aggressive monsters in the history of the world.

Christianity on the other hand was founded based upon the teachings of the son of God, Jesus Christ and is the true religion of peace. Muhammad was incapable of performing miracles like Jesus, thus, Muhammad was a false prophet.

Party Time for Bonzo

[Tablizer]

Is Bonzo the Chimp going to be the guest of honor? Somehow I cannot imagine too many Chapplins digging Bonzo buzzing around on roller skates.

Religion is also about knowing

[Reality Master 201]

It's just about a different kind of knowing. There's no need for scientific evidence to know, for example, that you're in love or feeling depressed.

Knowledge has different modalities. It's possible to have knowledge about the world from different perspectives. The difference, though, is that some modes of knowledge have greater success in explaining and predicting given sets of phenomena. Science has done quite well in explaining the nature of the natural world, mostly through a reliance on method.

Another, perhaps more significant characteristic of scientifc knowledge is that it is more open to explicit change over time. Religions change over time as well, but a person that practices a religion (this doesn't go equally for all persons or religions, but is more a general trend) is apt to consider changes to the orthodox tennets of their religion as blasphemy. That's more a facet of human nature than a property of religious thinking, but it does tend to be more prevalent in that area.

Re:Religion is also about knowing

[plunge]

"There's no need for scientific evidence to know, for example, that you're in love or feeling depressed."

But these are feelings. "Feeling" that you are in love is automatically true, becaues feeling is just an expression of an experience. But "feeling" that a truth claim is accurate is not the same thing as it being true.

Re:Religion is also about knowing

[JohnFluxx]

You can determine if someone is depressed usually by chemical imbalances and brain activity.

Vice President attempts murder and we talk this???

[Anonymous Coward]

How come when Vice President Cheney attempts to kill someone with a shotgun today, the newspapers are calling it an "accident", when anybody else it would be attempted murder?

This is like Govenor Schwartzenegger wrecking while driving without a licence... anyone of us would go straight to jail or in front of a judge... but um... oh sorry... yeah I forgot about that, I'll go get one....

Yeah, I'm off topic by a mile... someone make this a Slashdot header story....

Re:Meanwhile...

[amliebsch]

While agree that there are many, many moderate and nonviolent Muslims, I just can't see how anyone could think this statement:

Islam is not sigificantly better or worse than "Christianity" (and about as diverse).

could possibly be true. I'm sorry, but facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that there are no statistically significant numbers of Christian suicide bombers, Christian embassy burnings, Christian honor killings, or Christian riots. For whatever reason, some Muslims are more violent than their Christian counterparts.

Evolution vs. Christianity

[LordLucless]

When evolutionary theory was first published, it caused an immense reaction in religious circles. The reason for this was that evolution was the first explanation of a way life may have come about without resorting to a divine being. It gave all those people who didn't want to believe in God a logical alternative.

Since then, people have come to say that evolution has "killed" God, or "disproved" Christianity. These comments fail to understand exactly why science tends not to like religion. One of the basic tenets of science is that for something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. Because religion's basic premise is the existence of an omnipotent force not governed by physical laws, it is by definition unfalsifiable. That does not mean it is scientifically false, or scientifically true, it means that science cannot be applied to religion. Religion cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. Every objection a scientist raises to religion could be countered by "But God could temporarily suspend that natural law, and act in violation of it".

Creationism is logical, in that it is internally consistent. If you accept the basic premise of a divine being, then it follows on logically that that being could then create life. Evolution was radical, not because it contradicted this, but because it created a logical alternative that did not involve God. It's not a replacement for creationism, it's a scientific explanation, much as creationism is a religious explanation.

Saying that, the very notion of evolution changes over time. Darwin originally didn't comment on abiogensis - his theory was about environmental conditions causing changes in organisms in such a way that diversity was created. His theory took as a premise the existance of life before the evolutionary process begins.

Even now, there are various components to evolution that some people believe and some don't. Some believe in the "punctuated equilibrium" model. Some don't. Some believe in "macro" evolution, some don't. Some believe in abiogenesis. Some don't. Some theists argue for "directed" evolution. Some argue that animal diversity evolved from a few common ancestors, as per Darwin, but that man was created directly by God, outside of evolutionary forces.

Saying "I believe in evolution" is almost as meaningless these days as saying "I believe in Christianity". There are so many different theories, sub-theories, movements, interpretations and denominations that just saying "evolution" doesn't actually describe much.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[Expert Determination]

Because religion's basic premise is the existence of an omnipotent force not governed by physical laws, it is by definition unfalsifiable

Sorry? What part of "omnipotent force not governed by physical laws" specifies "unfalsifiable" by definition. Many religions frequently make claims that are falsifiable. A simple example: faith healing, for which tangible results are claimed. This completely fits standard notions of falsifiability. You have a claim: the creator of the universe can do anything and he'll do what you want if you pray. Deduction: if you pray for healing you will be healed. Falsifiable claim: Test a bunch of people who pray agains a control group to see who's healed better. Where's the "unfalsifiable by definition"?

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[LordLucless]

You have a claim: the creator of the universe can do anything and he'll do what you want if you pray. Deduction: if you pray for healing you will be healed. Falsifiable claim: Test a bunch of people who pray agains a control group to see who's healed better. Where's the "unfalsifiable by definition"?

Most faith healers wouldn't guarantee results. They'd add a little extra about the process depending on the repentance of the recipient, or something like that. When the faith healing fails, they can say the patient wasn't holy/faithful/repentant enough.

But I wasn't talking about individual claims of religion. I was talking about the basis of religion - the existance of a God. You can never prove God does not exist - because if he is omnipotent, he's better at hiding than you are at finding :P

You can disprove aspects of God - e.g. You can disprove an omnipotent God whose overriding desire is that all life should be purple elephants, simply because all life isn't purple elephants. As you outlined above, you can disprove specific claims of religion. But you can't disprove religion, the existance of a force that does not follow physical laws, simply because science is entirely dependant on physical laws. Anything that posits interference in these natural laws in a way that cannot be scientifically determined cannot be disproved.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a claim: the creator of the universe can do anything and he'll do what you want if you pray. Deduction: if you pray for healing you will be healed.

Now take down your straw man and put up this claim instead: "There is a creator of the universe who can do anything."

I'm waiting for your experiment that will falsify that.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[Expert Determination]

Most faith healers wouldn't guarantee results

So you are saying that it is by definition part of religion that faith healers won't guarantee results. This is a very weird claim.

you can't disprove religion, the existance of a force that does not follow physical laws

Pick up a Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, Tao Te Ching, Diamond Sutra, or Rig Veda. Start at the beginning and work your way through to the end. Tell me how many times you see "physical law" mentioned in them. You have a very bizarre 'definition' of religion.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[LordLucless]

So you are saying that it is by definition part of religion that faith healers won't guarantee results. This is a very weird claim.

Not at all; the conditions you set up for your claim were that "God can do anything, and he'll do anything I ask him". Most faith healers don't claim this. They claim that they can heal someone God/mother earth/the spirits/whatever willing. That was an aside to discuss your specific claim about faith healing, it wasn't a general statement about religion.

Pick up a Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, Tao Te Ching, Diamond Sutra, or Rig Veda. Start at the beginning and work your way through to the end. Tell me how many times you see "physical law" mentioned in them. You have a very bizarre 'definition' of religion.

I can tell you already; none. But I can tell you most definately I'll find stuff along the lines of "God is great; no deed is too hard for him", "The impossible is made possible by God", "Through God all things are possible". I'll find miracles, and claims of supernatural intervention. I'm using modern technical terminology, but the concepts are there in the books, even if the jargon is not. All religions have something supernatural in them - something that is "outside" the physical universe, whether that's God, karma, the essence of mother earth, whatever, and that intervenes in the physical world through supernatural means - that is, they can interfere in the world supernaturally, disregarding physical laws.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[jcr]

You can never prove God does not exist - because if he is omnipotent, he's better at hiding than you are at finding :P

I describe the question of a god's existence as an essentially insignificant one, because if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise. It does not follow that any particular scripture is properly attributed to it, nor does it follow that one should behave in any particular way, since if it is omnipotent, then everything's happening the way it wants, anyway.

-jcr

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[LordLucless]

if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise.

Yes, something does. What follows is that all scientific knowledge is uncertain. Science is based on the asumption that the laws it has discovered are incontrovertible. All our machines, computers etc are built from this premise. If, for example, the resultant energy from the combustion of a fixed amount of fuel was not predictable, there would be no guarantees that an internal combustion engine worked. If there was no guarantee that gravity would always remain relatively constant, most of our pens would stop working.

Science is based on the assumption that it's laws are unchangable, and religion is based on the assumption that there is something that can change those laws. If there is a God, then science can never prove anything to work for all cases, it can only prove something to work for those cases where God cannot be bothered to intervene.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[jcr]

What follows is that all scientific knowledge is uncertain.

Not until the proposed deity makes an observed change in the laws of physics, it doesn't. Simply proposing that something could do so has no consequences: it's just another unsupported conjecture.

-jcr

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[LordLucless]

If you accept the possibility of a god, you accept the possibility that all scientific knowledge is uncertain.

Of course, the Bible claims that the deity has made observed changes in the laws of physics. Maybe the deity should make at least one change per generation so it can be independantly verified by everyone who doesn't believe the third-party accounts.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[Anonymous Coward]

Falsifiable claim: Test a bunch of people who pray agains a control group to see who's healed better.

Actually, such a study has been done several times, in the form of a double-blind study where some people undergoing treatment were being prayed for by complete strangers, while others weren't. The patients weren't even aware of the study, and in every instance of the study, those who were prayed for did significantly better as far as their recovery went.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[scowling]

and in every instance of the study, those who were prayed for did significantly better as far as their recovery went.

Lie. A common lie, but a lie nonetheless.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[CRCulver]

I describe the question of a god's existence as an essentially insignificant one, because if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise.

Do you have no training in the philosophy of religion? Scholars have shown that a lot follows from the assumption of God's existence. For example, Swinburne argues in Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) that the existence of God leads to a belief in the saving death of Christ on the cross. In The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994) he argues that the existence of a Creator would also demand three Persons in one God as in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Plantinga has written extensively on this as well, just look at the literature.

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[jazman]

> for something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable.

So evolution must be falsifiable then. How exactly can evolution be falsified?

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[jcr]

Scholars have shown that a lot follows from the assumption of God's existence.

They have shown nothing of the kind. They have claimed various consequences, none of which follow logically from the simple postulation of a god's existence.

-jcr

Re:Evolution vs. Christianity

[CRCulver]

They have shown nothing of the kind. They have claimed various consequences, none of which follow logically from the simple postulation of a god's existence.

If you would bother looking at what they wrote, you would see that they do argue that these consequences follow logically.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Pantero Blanco]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

1. It has a kernel (belief in Jesus and God) and you can put different forms on top of that (barring a few that go against the license), leading to different branches and forks.

2. Most of its followers are friendly, though there are a few loud zealots who give the rest a bad name.

3. It sprouted from an older, less "open", religion, many of the followers of which are still around today.

good for them

[memnon]

Nice to see that all of them ain't idiots, just hope that doesn't mean we have to start celebrating their stupid holidays.

Re:good for them

[Spleenl3oy]

Most people already do celebrate Christian holidays, look at Christmas, and Easter. I think the real problem is Christians being forced to secularize their holidays. Cities are no longer able to have Christmas parades, they have to have holiday parades. Easter break has now become spring break. So please stop celebrating Christian holidays so that they can go back to being Christian.

Heh...

[TheNoxx]

"Hairy" as in "Ape-like"?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

WTF?

[WheelDweller]

Churches...churches where a Bible is actually *used* will not take this position. Suspect any church, claiming to be Christian, taking this stances; it's not compatible.

No, not because I think being descended from apes is embarrasing- God could have squirted us into being as "hyperintelligent shades of the color blue"; it's because the science doesn't match up.

I'll be first to admit that The Big Bang is described in Genesis 1, but the origins of man can't be plainer. Even today, Darwin's attempt to explain the origins of man aren't very accurate with his book, Origins_of_Species.

I'm also very quick to agree that while the animals may have been created by a long, *seemingly* random process of natural selection, it's clear to modern science that mankind just didn't happen that way:

1. Everywhere in nature, the double helix DNA works the same way. To mate, animals must have the same number of 'rungs'. But man has 46, and ape has 48; humans have #2 & #3 bonded together. Nowhere else in nature are rungs "bonded" like this. We're just not the same, but we appear similar, visually.

2. Muscle tissue, not to mention details of the (physical) heart vary greatly between man an primates.

        The whole Intelligent Design concepts is based on these differences...but because it merely comes to the conclusion that "we don't know how we came to be, but it must have been something bigger than ourselves" the people so quick to accept Darwin are not supporting ID, at all.

        I'll betcha that when it's all over, Darwin will explain animals, and ID as a general concept will be proven correct for man. But that's my hunch.

        Any church taking this position is not trying to get you into heaven. Satan works by offering you many, many distractions: some so completely different (UFO, ghosts, etc) that you won't hear the word and investigate it for yourself, and the other so close that it appears to be the same thing (mormons, etc). I had been a skeptic for decades, looking for answers to Big Foot, ghosts, you-name-it. But the Christian explanation of the big picture makes the most sense, with the least anomalies. Yeah, even with the flood, and other miracles. If you get curious, drop me a line.

        AND JUST SO I CAN BE ONCE AGAIN MODDED "OFF TOPIC"....

        Have you heard, as I have, that the pyramids, as explained by the eqyptoligists, would have meant dropping a 100+ ton block in place every 8 seconds, continuously, for 100 years?

        I've also heard that "No dead body has ever been found in the pyramids". Can anyone verify this for me?

        (The point being, scientists don't always get it right, from looking at ruins....) :)

Re:WTF?

[Spy der Mann]

Churches...churches where a Bible is actually *used* will not take this position.

I think you misspelled "abused". :)

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Big Bang is described in Genesis 1"

I'd love to hear the scripture for that.

"Even today, Darwin's attempt to explain the origins of man aren't very accurate with his book, Origins_of_Species."

No, modern science has known for a while that Darwin didn't get it all right the first time - small wonder when he was basically creating a new field of biology from his research. (God didn't get it right the first time either, if you read about the great flood, no?)

"1. Everywhere in nature, the double helix DNA works the same way. To mate, animals must have the same number of 'rungs'. But man has 46, and ape has 48; humans have #2 & #3 bonded together. Nowhere else in nature are rungs "bonded" like this. We're just not the same, but we appear similar, visually."

Not seeing much proof of anything there, other then that there was a mutation in the line.

"2. Muscle tissue, not to mention details of the (physical) heart vary greatly between man an primates."

Again, your point? Evolution doesn't say we just walked out of the trees a few generations ago. It's been a while. Things change.

"but because it merely comes to the conclusion that "we don't know how we came to be, but it must have been something bigger than ourselves" the people so quick to accept Darwin are not supporting ID, at all."

This isn't proof of ID - it's not proof of anything other then "we don't know"!

"Darwin will explain animals, and ID as a general concept will be proven correct for man"

I do believe you just stopped making sence.

"Any church taking this position is not trying to get you into heaven."

And how do you know that?

Re:WTF?

[CrankyOldBastard]

Even today, Darwin's attempt to explain the origins of man aren't very accurate with his book, Origins_of_Species. I assume you've never actually read the book, because Darwin doesnt address the origins of Man in The Origin of Species. He does point out the morphological similarities between Man and the higher apes.

If you want to read Darwin's ideas about Human Evolution then you should read "The Descent of Man" where he demonstrates that sexual selectiona nd the competition that entials are sufficient to account for Human diversity as observed 2 centuries ago.

I have to stress that at no pont in Darwin's writings did he address the question of the Origin of Life. 1. Everywhere in nature, the double helix DNA works the same way. To mate, animals must have the same number of 'rungs'. But man has 46, and ape has 48; humans have #2 & #3 bonded together. Nowhere else in nature are rungs "bonded" like this. We're just not the same, but we appear similar, visually.

No, there is no such requirement in order to mate. There are any number of websites that demonstrate mating between different species. To mate and have functional and fertile progeny, that's another thing however. I'd like to point out that as you said, Humans have 2 chromosomes from apes bonded together, which is simply a transcription modification.... I assume that God can allow the telomeres to unfold differently if He wishes?

And regarding your points about ID, well, in the opinion of myself, and many of the memebrs of our Church, ID is one of the greatest threats to Christianity in many many years. ID requires that God be an imperfect being, that creation be imperfect and that he makes mistakes. My God does not make mistakes, therefore ID did not happen.

Finally I'd like to refer you to St Augustine, who made the point that when experience and scripture seem to be in conflict, it's always that we have mis-interpreted scripture.

Re:WTF?

[Dachannien]

Nowhere else in nature are rungs [chromosomes] "bonded" like this.

I'd like to see a reference for this assertion, if you don't mind.

Re:WTF?

[slashdotmsiriv]

What are you doing in /. ?

Re:WTF?

[tpjunkie]

From your comments, it's clear that you have little to no formal background in biology. For your first point, I expect you were referring to chromosomes when you said "rungs." I'm not sure what you mean when you say no other creature is like us, while I can't think of any offhand, I'm sure there is probably an animal out there that also has 46 chromosomes, although it's quite likely the genes on those chromosomes are ordered completely differently. The number of chromosomes an organism contains has nothing, repeat nothing to do with the level of complexity of the organism. For example a guinea pig has 64, a dog has 78, and there's a type of fern with 1260. Considering that your DNA only spends a relatively small portion of its time condensed as chromosomes anyway (it's a convenient way to manage and store the doubled DNA right before the cell divides), I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

As for your second point about the physiological structure of the heart...you're completely wrong. ALL mammals share a very similar heart structure, four chambers, two atria, two ventricles. The left ventricle pumps deoxygenated blood to the lungs, the right ventricle pumps oxygenated blood to the body. The valves are very similar, the shape is nearly identical, and even the innervation of the cardiac muscle is similar. Guess what the first heart transplant was? It was a human receiving a chimpanzee heart (due to a lack of rejection treatment and tissue typing knowledge the recipient soon died but thats not the point). You're just totally off base with that.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that God can allow the telomeres to unfold differently if He wishes?

You seriously believe this?

Holy shit we are in big trouble.

-ac.

Re:WTF?

[BlackTyranny]

No, there is no such requirement in order to mate. There are any number of websites that demonstrate mating between different species. To mate and have functional and fertile progeny, that's another thing however. I'd like to point out that as you said, Humans have 2 chromosomes from apes bonded together, which is simply a transcription modification.... I assume that God can allow the telomeres to unfold differently if He wishes?

I can accept that "telomeres can unfold differently" as a theory, and then expect scientists to be able to research and find "proof" that it has happened. I might even expect them to find an understanding of how they unfold differently, and be able to replicate that as an experiment.

On the other hand, I also take on Faith that the laws of physics we study today might not have held exactly the same 20 billion years ago. I don't pretend to understand it at an explainable level, but I know there is some scientific searching going on regarding the basis of physics at all times. Things like "mass at the speed of light", or that time in a stationary frame of reference is measured, or so many other scientific foundations, are nothing more than beliefs. Nothing new here, anyone who doubts them must be "freaks" (scientific word for unbelievers), or so many would say. It's remarkably similar treatment found in religious statements about people who "don't believe in God or show it in a certain way" must be cast out.

Frankly, the two things I hold as given are: #1: There is a God (yes, I'm Christian), and #2: The Laws of Physics apply quite nicely today, in this particular frame of reference we live in now. I always qualify the second one as I did there, because Science has taught me to carry doubt and questions to further my own understanding. The first, however, I don't qualify. And I don't see any conundrum with the two... other than the conflict of Ego's telling the more vocal in each group that only one can be right.

Re:WTF?

[CrankyOldBastard]

I have to wonder how what I believe can possibly result in us being in deep shit. I find your comment very very odd.

As to whether I personally believe that God took chromosomes 2 and 3 from the pongoid apes and caused a "transcription error" to give rise to the human karotype is completely beside the point. The real question is whether an omnipotent God could do such a thing if he wished.

As an example of such an event actually occuring, in the early 1970's there was a sheep farm run by Richard and Beryl Lanyon about 12 miles north of the town of Boort in Central Victoria Australia. They had poll dorset sheep and a few goats, including one very smelly billy goat. This goat was quite odd, as he used to chase the ewes when they were in heat.

One morning Richard was feeling a bit crook, so Beryl went out to the fields to check on the lambing. She found a few very odd looking "lambs". Back at the house she discovered that Richard had been killing these every season for the last 2 or 3 years. Beryl however insisted that these creatures be allowed to survive.

Once they grew it was pretty obvious that they were some kind of goat/sheep hybrid. The very very unusual thing was that they bred true - they were fertile, and had baby fertile geeps for progeny, and not goats and sheep or mules.

Many geneticists declared this was of course impossible and was all some kind of wierd publicity stunt, as goats and sheep have different numbers of chromosomes. In 1973 or 1974 (It was a while back...) a New Zealand researcher found that the Billy goat was a mutant and had less than the usual 60 chromosomes, and one half of its' sperm had the right number of chromosomes to combine with the ewes.

Note that there's a terribly incorrect mention of this in the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep#Hybrids_with_go ats . The fact is that for many years these creatures were kept in the local nature reserve which was a region between Lake Boort and Little Lake Boort, and contained by an irrigation channel from the Loddon Valley Irrigation Scheme. The animals were also shown at the Royal Melbourne Show in 1973 or 1974, along with the billy goat. The goat became somewhat famous as he had to be shampooed several times a day to try to contain his musk, which overpowered the already quite smelly goat shed.

I heard that Dick and Beryl eventually killed the goat and all the geeps when it was pointed out to them that they demonstrated the possibility for new species to arise via mutations. They were terribly devout and conservative baptists, although lovely people. I spent quite a lot of time living on their farm with them whilst my Mum was in hospital in 1973.

Re:WTF?

[WheelDweller]

Well, obviously there's been some genefiddling and learning since my feeble public school education- nope, not a doctor. Don't even play one on TV.

But my take on the development of man is not "either-or" like most folks; it's my feeling that a signifgant change was made to the DNA from ape to man...an editing, if you will, in the past. I just can't buy that two animals can be bridged by so much time, yet the "old" creatures are still running about today, long after the presumed evolution processed us into the current beings. After this much time, wouldn't it mean the apes were decendant from another form, too?

But we do share a number of instincts, I think- like the way menstrating women in small groups tend to synchronize; I can see where moving a troop of people, thousands of years ago, would be much easier without a female producing attractive hormones every couple of days along the route; I don't think that's a safe travelling strategy.

Most people seem to think it's one or the other, not a combination. But the scriptures read that Adam was taken from the dust...because there would be no point explaining to men thousands of years about about RNA/DNA and the details...these people would continue to pee in the streets for centuries. Frenchmen still do. (The funny black-board looking things.) :)

As to the nature of muscle tissue and such; it appears I've been told wrong. But my point was this: we're very different now, even if we could have started the same. Issues of Koko aside, we're made of the same carbon-based goo the rest of the animals are, but merely similar.

But I *would* love to get something confirmed, if possible: are human females the only ones to have a hymen? I don't know any zoologists or for that matter, any biologists that can tell me.

Any idea?

Re:WTF?

[WheelDweller]

Maybe you read that too fast; "Origin of species" doesn't detail the development of man really, just the animals. And as a process, is there any doubt Evolution exists? By that I mean more specifically, natural selection.

As to Evolution, as a random process creating all life, it seems far fetched to me. The reality we're in now isn't keen on making new and interesting things from simple inanimate matter without intervention of some kind. See also: VCR truck hits computer truck: robots seen leaving the scene....

As I read scripture, we're in God's terrarium; as the smaller animals were created, the angels sing. Until Adam was made, and Lucifer Morningstar was unimpressed. A fight broke out...at some point Lucifer made a statement that man was unworthy, and that he'd make a better God.

Well notice that a being that has *all* powers, let him and 1/3 of the angels drop to earth....not oblivion. Or Pluto. It's not like Earth was the only place available. It was meant for us to start neutral, under his influence, to seek God. Now, if God knows whether we'll be worthy, why the 6,000 years of drama? Why the whole charade? It's not to prove it to us...nor God...but Satan; he's the one non-omnicient here, and for a long time perhaps the closest thing to a 'friend' or 'peer' God had. We're meant to act out this little Peyton Place to show to him the truth of us, before he permanently sends Satan away.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

I see ID as at long last a recognition that a God exists; with that, skeptics like me would be drawn to the truth in larger numbers. I don't see anything about ID asserting an imperfection in God; their works, and much of Darwins were an attempt for mankind to understand how God went about making what's here.

Yeah, I'm no specific fan of Augustine; there's not much God-like power in dead mortals. :) But he was right when he wrote that: I can't tell you how many times I thought I understood a situation, when I got served a certificate of stupidity from God. But there are minor, tiny, almost unobservable problems with the text.

Chief among them is the assertion the Jesus would be from the family of David; at the time, the wrong parent was. It's part of why the Jews had such a hard time recognizing Him. That, and endless stories about how the whole tribe was kept alive in the desert for 40 years with mana, a flame at night, and a cloud in the day. I don't blame'em one bit. But I do welcome them.

I'll bet "problems" like this are matters of transcriptions or something...it reminds me of what Mark Twain said about history: "History doesn't repeat itself...but it does rhyme."

If you're interested in following this further, feel free to drop me a line- we're gonna get this thread marked SO off-topic...

Re:WTF?

[BetaJim]

I just can't buy that two animals can be bridged by so much time, yet the "old" creatures are still running about today, long after the presumed evolution processed us into the current beings. After this much time, wouldn't it mean the apes were decendant from another form, too?

I may be reading this wrong, but you seem to say that humans evolved from apes and that the "old" apes are still around. This is something that I have seen evolution deniers refer to often, and again I'm sorry if I've read too much onto what you wrote, it's not terribly clear.

Humans didn't evolve from apes. Chimps and humans though do share a common ancestor which is now extinct. To learn more about biology and evolution the talkorigins website is a good reference and springboard to other sites.

Re:WTF?

[cecom]

This is really interesting and your post should me moded up. Can you tell us more about the hybrids ? What did they look like, how did the behave, etc ?

Re:WTF?

[tpjunkie]

you know, with the hymen question I truly don't know what the answer is. However, if another creature does share that particular anatomical feature (and I'd imagine some might, as males have an analogous chunk of tissue (of course, it atrophies during fetal development but leaves a faint remnant near the bladder that serves no discernible purpose), that creature might be the Bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee as we are, it also shares some similar traits as humans; they enjoy sex for pleasure rather than just procreation, engage in intercourse face to face, which i believe only appears in the animal kingdom with them and us, and females have a menstrual cycle like humans, unlike the other apes which undergo an estrus cycle (basically coming into heat, as opposed to being fertile much of the time). On top of these similarities, the bonobo is a much more social animal than the chimp, with much less fighting and violence exhibited to other bonobos compared to chimp on chimp fighting.

and... *GULP*

[xant]

They probably have never seen *god* either; a rational response to this argument would be to disbelieve both evolution and creationism and all religion, to go live in a cave and eat berries and reject the notion of all civilization, including its mythology.

The logical outcome of his argument doesn't matter though. This stuff works on children only because children haven't been taught critical thinking; they've been taught to listen to authority. (Then it continues to work because adults haven't been taught critical thinking either.) And that's exactly what this guy wants. The specific argument doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that someone in a position of authority said it, and the people who believe it don't have the tools to defend themselves from authoritative statements.

Thank you

[drgould]

That was unusually informative and insightful for Slashdot, as befits your low UID.

Re:Thank you

[plunge]

Heck, you should see the sorts of insights you get when #2234 posts! 1-2233 don't post anymore because when they do, readers minds litterally get slashdotted, sometimes leading to hemorrage and irreperable server crash.

Re:Thank you

[drgould]

1-2233 don't post anymore because when they do, readers minds litterally get slashdotted, sometimes leading to hemorrage and irreperable server crash.

And the problem is... ?

Re:Thank you

[Evangelion]

COCKTHIRSTY!

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhh ^ç27jaerj53146///\\\`~~~~ NO CARRIER

"I'm not really good at this game..."

[Scrameustache]

1) If God knows all causality, then he could have brought about everything into being originally AND have it, from science's view BE random and undetermined. The two are not mutally exclusive when God is the best pool player of all time, setting up the most elaborate shot of all time.

God as a conman. Good one.

Re:"I'm not really good at this game..."

[plunge]

The real question is: who is God hustling?

Re:"I'm not really good at this game..."

[Scrameustache]

I'm more worried about who owns the pool hall...

Huh?

[brainburger]

Did anyone understand what the writer meant when she said we would all be living in caves were it not for Darwinism? It was an annoyance to see that tired old irrelevance about eyeballs dragged back from the grave yet again too.

Sorry, try again.

[TheNoxx]

Philosophy, religion, and epistemology have no problems with logic, only fools who cannot comprehend the meaning behind scripture do.

I swear, your brand of neuroscience has to be the most disgusting thing I've ever encountered. Only an incredibly banal and useless person could look upon the wondrous beauty of the human mind and body and see nothing but chemicals; it is as entrusting the whole of the majesty of the Louvre to someone who looks upon the works of Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and Van Gogh only to see pigment smeared on cloth.

I do pity you, though.

Re:Sorry, try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, Sam Harris isn't a materialist. So your little rant is off topic.

Re:Sorry, try again.

[JohnFluxx]

An artist once said a similar thing to Richard Feynman, I'll just quote him exactly, since he says it far better than I ever can:

'' I have a friend who's an artist, and he somtimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree.But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he is kind of nutty.
  First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people - and to me, too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I see much more that he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, which also have a beauty. There's beauty not just at the dimention of one centimeter; there's also beauty at a smaller dimention.
  There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes. The fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; that means insects can see colors. That adds a question: does this aethetic sense we have have also exist in lower forms of life? There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't know how it subtracts.''
  -- Richard Feynman, Physicist.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...suicide bombing was a tactic developed by the CHRISTIAN Tamils in Sri Lanka to use against the Buddhist majority there.

Muslims adopted it later and took it to another level but it was actually first developed by Christians!

I'm not saying this fact makes a big difference but it's always good to know the history of this kind of stuff.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[JanneM]

Agreed, and well put. In the same way, people will be put off Islam by the fundamentalists burning embassies because someone dared mock their religion.

Religion is religion. I don't care what particular brand makes you realize the whole concept is fraudulent.

And to the other poster here (don't want to spam with lots of replies), "joining a religion" is not the same thing as believing in it. Joining out of fear, or out of pain, or because the local place of worship is a social hub and everybody else in their neighbourhood are members, doesn't make them believers, just adaptible.

If enough members are not actually _believers_, when people think, more or less, that "well all this resurrection, heaven and so on is some pretty farfetched metaphor - but hey, the yearly interchurch soccer match and beerfest sure makes up for the boring bits!", to what degree can you any longer call it a religious congregation? Rather than, say, a social club with some offbeat rites - like an inclusive Freemason chapter or open-for-all college fraternity?

simply mechanical,

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics is the lubracant between science and religion. These three powers produce a safe speed for human evolution.Not to fast ,not to slow.Always changing to cope with a changing enviornment.

Re:simply mechanical,

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe his racism distorted his view?He rode on the shoulders of others,with the same views.

The FSM would be proud

[martinultima]

...They have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Vellmont]

That's why Creationism is gaining ground and your side is losing ground in public opinion.

Hahaha.. Right. I'll bet the geo-centrists said the same thing about 500 years ago, and look where they are now. In another 100 years you'll all look just as foolish as they do now (more so even since geo-centrism actually works, it just relies on unobserved and imaginary forces).

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Bacon Bits]

True enough, but it is obvious that science has limitations.

1. Science can only be reasonably applied the things that can be observed.
2. Science can only be meaningfully applied to things that can be measured and repeated.
3. Science can only be absolutely applied to things that can be understood by humans.

To presume that all knowledge and all truth must necessarily be confined by the above set of restrictions is ludicrous. And, of course, completely unprovable. If you honestly believe that science and humanity are capable of understanding and knowing everything, then you have trapped yourself by faith in science. That is, welcome to your pseudoreligion.

Ultimately, science is all about answers. Religion is all about questions.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Spy der Mann]

The premise of science is that everything should be investigated

And therefore, we have the science called Theology, whose subject of study is God.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[plunge]

Well, and moderates tend, by their very nature, not to SEEK press! The thing is, to actually want press, you have to be pretty angry and dedicated to getting it,and often you have to spend a lot of money on PR to keep its attention on you. (Heck, I work in politics, and you can believe me when I say that you have to pay lots and lots of good money to get press and create stories and so forth). Most normal Christians have better things to do, and better things to spend their money on (like charity, for one).

I still hold out hope that there will be backlash of thoughtful moderates before things have to get too bad to have to inspire it.

This is Idolatry

[Eli Gottlieb]

I would just like to remind those out there who still believe in an Abrahamic faith that having your church/synagogue/mosque celebrate the birthday of a human being not associated in any way with God is idolatry. Darwin is not a religious figure, he is a scientific one. You can believe in evolution and be religious, however.

I would also like to remind the people who wrote my Biology textbook, a Miller and Levine of Prentice Hall, that their treatment of Darwin and evolution is rather idolotrous. Details of earlier theories (inheritance of learned traits, geological theories that led to "Earth is billions of years old" in the first place, Darwin's actual evidence) are left out, and the authors practically declare Undying Love for Charles Darwin. Declaring Undying Love for anything is unscientific.

This has been a public service announcement because idolizing people causes problems, such as reading the National Enquirer, stupidity and electing the stupid "National Enquirer" readers you idolize to high political office.

Re:This is Idolatry

[DreamerFi]

having your church/synagogue/mosque celebrate the birthday of a human being not associated in any way with God is idolatry.

So I guess for your next birthday party you won't be inviting people from your church?

Re:This is Idolatry

[Laser Lou]

Hey, this "Birthday celebration" is obviously not about bringing out the cake and ice cream and singing a song. Its an attempt to deal with the controversy by making a statement supporting evolution.

Re:This is Idolatry

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'll be inviting people from synagogue to my next birthday (if I celebrate that much at all), but it won't be a temple event. That's the difference.

Re:This is Idolatry

[jazman]

Not sure what the Jewish position is on what you do in a temple - whether or not it all has to be related to worship. Many Christians view the church building as just a building and the church itself as being the people; Jesus said where two or three are gathered in my name I will be there. So from a Christian POV it isn't necessarily sacrilege to do non-worshippy stuff in a church building. If celebration of X is idolatry then it doesn't matter if you do it in a church or not; equally if it isn't it also doesn't matter whether or not you're in a church. It's your attitude towards God that matters, not where you are at the time. The church/temple/etc is a good place to focus on God, but it certainly isn't the only place you can find him; check out Psalm 139.

Re:This is Idolatry

[Eli Gottlieb]

The Jewish point of view is somewhat similar. If temple members want to use the synagogue Social Hall (the non-religious part of the building where we meet, talk, gnosh before and after services) for something they can, but it wouldn't count as a synagogue function. These people celebrating Darwin's birthday are doing so AS A CHURCH, rather than as a few parishioners using the church building.

Re:This is Idolatry

[jazman]

Yeah I got that. But my point was: if it's idolatry then it's still idolatry wherever you are, and if it isn't, then it still isn't wherever you are. Something doesn't become idolatry just because of your location. I don't see a problem with a church marking someone's birthday; we often have birthday announcements at our place and I'm sure mentioning that it's the vicar's birthday, singing happy birthday and sharing a cake as part of a service doesn't constitute calling him God.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because you only value white lives. A christian nation just finished invading and illegally murdering over 100 000 civilians. Where was your outrage over that.

Oh no, not again...

[Saggi]

Every time now and then the subject pops up... I wrote an article (due to a debate on K5) on the subject some time ago about God and the creation of man.

I feel for those who still hang on to the belief that the universe was made in 7 days, and who belief Darwin was in error. In my opinion there is absolutely no problem between science and God.

Science shows us that the universe is a brilliant creation. In my opinion God therefore is brilliant. I will settle for nothing less.

Find the article here: http://www.rednebula.com/articles/god_and_science. php

No problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution theorizes that humans came ultimately from mud via a random process. It's a miracle.

Re:Yep.

[Moofie]

Well, gee! Thanks for sharing your inability to manage your own time! We're so glad to hear about it.

Twit.

To make sense of this post...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/the theory of evolution/intelligent design/g

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

While agree that there are many, many moderate and nonviolent Muslims, I just can't see how anyone could think this statement...could possibly be true.

Well, someone who thought the world existed before 1900 might. Religions stick around for a long time, and they change through the ages. Christians were THE terrorist menace to the planet from the 11th to the 13th century. Fast forward a few hundred years, and Islam might be the moderate, mainstream religion, with 20th/21st century Islam terrorism just a blip in the history records, much like the crusades were.

Overall, I'd so it's the social environment that's more important in leading people to do really stupid things. Religion's just the tool to get them to do it, and I don't see that Islam is much different as a tool than Christianity.

Re:Meanwhile...

[EtherealStrife]

And over half the voting population of the United States voted an extremist into office "democratically". I doubt *that* many people are true extremists. Just indifferent to who they want leading their country. As is the case in the Middle East.

Hamas got the votes because they're willing to take action to protect their people, regardless of the human loss of life. Just like the current Bush Administration. The only major difference is that Palestinians are directly in the line of fire, and putting their lives on the line every day. Not so with Americans. That, and Hamas has a significantly smaller wartime budget to spread around and as such, has to improvise.

The difference between terrorist and soldier/freedom fighter is whether or not they're on your side. Only a couple decades ago bin Laden was a member of the latter (in the eyes of the Democratic world), despite his extremist views.

a good reason to be an Episcopalian

[dhuff]

'Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science.'

Of course. And, may I add, that's one of the many, good reasons to be an Episcopalian - you get to believe in dinosaurs (and Darwin :)

goes to the larger issue - how we debate in the US

[Infonaut]

Well, at a certain point you have to start addressing the problem. I think we're at that point.

Well put.

The notion that you can just ignore these nutjobs can lead to even bigger problems down the road. It is when average, everyday people fail allow spurious debates to take hold that the majority becomes hostage to a dimwitted but aggressive minority. Hostility to intellectualism has been with America since its founding, but when it becomes so pervasive that the nonsensical hurling of insults becomes a substitute for debate, the reasonable majority loses its ability to influence politics. I think we've already entered a very dangerous era, where style (angry rhetoric, appeals to symbology, character assassination) has far outstripped substance in the arena of public debate.

When is the last time you saw two people on television actually debate an idea for a full 40 minutes? I'm talking about locking intellectual horns and attempting to prove the merits of an idea to an audience through skillfully argued logic. No dodging the question, no shoehorning a question into a pre-generated answer. I think such debates are non-existent now because we have allowed them to become extinct. We allow the issues to be turned into lowest common denominator mudwrestling that shows how little we respect ourselves as citizens. We have not demanded a better process, one that pushes better ideas to the fore. So we wind up with a process that is driven by one liners and photos of politicians going duck hunting.

Ofcourse they are celebrating

[imsirovic5]

Ofcourse they should celebeate Darvin if they want to survive continue to have followers. With each new discovery and with each new advance, the whole idea of religion and a god becomes sillier and siller. The only way to keep themselves from becoming extinct is to embrace new discoveries and spin or "incorporate" it into whatever religious beliefs they embrace. Sure, sometimes it takes em a hundred or more years to do it, but they eventually have to give up the old and accept the new or go under..

Re:Ofcourse they are celebrating

[Anonymous Coward]

Your view is so ignorantly myopic it is laughable.
To prove that religion will one day become useless you must prove that knowlegde is finite; go ahead, try to do that, I dare you. Build an accurate model of how human personalities and emotions exist, not just the how, but the why. You can't.
Belief in God has much more to do with things than associations of scientific facts; limiting it to that is ignorance.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways

[HeavensBlade23]

You can't accept the science that says the earth is billions of years old and reject the science that says people don't rise from the dead after 3 days.

Re:Sorry, but you can't have it both ways

[Kuukai]

You can't accept the science that says the earth is billions of years old and reject the science that says people don't rise from the dead after 3 days.

Uh, what science? Last time I checked there was a non-zero probability of that happening... God might roll dice, but that doesn't keep Him from occasionally 'fixing' them... If you ask me, believing that God set up the universe to look older than it is brings up a whole lot more theological conflicts than assuming an error in bookkeeping somewhere...

Re:Sorry, but you can't have it both ways

[AngryNick]

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways

Why not?

Believing in the infallibility of the Bible and literal interpretations of it are total different subjects than the concepts of God's forgiveness and sacrificial love. I choose not to believe in a literal 6-day creation, yet I don't throw out every book in the Bible as a result.

I don't mean to be preachy, but everyone could benefit from hearing some of what the other side has to say. We're all quick to shout "RTFA!" on /. and, for me, this subject is no exception. Hardly any of the Creationists I know have any knowledge of biology or astronomy and very few of my friends in science have a solid understanding of the concepts taught in the Old and New Testaments. I'd like to see more Bible-thumpers interested in learning about science and more scientists interested in learning about the Bible.

--
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Re:Vice President attempts and we talk this

[wherrera]

Yeah, off topic :(

But anyway, have you ever hunted birds with a shotgun? What happened was a stupid mistake, but a common one. Not too different from a car crash at NASCAR.

OTOH, do we want a vice president who makes stupid, common mistakes that hurt people?

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Eli Gottlieb]

3. It sprouted from an older, less "open", religion, many of the followers of which are still around today.

Less open? How is Judaism less open? We allow people to look at our books and even convert; we just don't force it on anyone like Christians have time and time again.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[typical]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

4. After Linux achieves World Domination, Linus intends to start several Crusades and an Inquisition against enemies of Linux.

5. Richard Stallman does not recognize his own fallibility.

Of course, there are some differences:

1. Linux fans have never burned books in the name of Linux.

2. Linux is heavily used to conduct research rather than to oppose research.

3. Linux incorporates new ideas, instead of demanding that everyone conform to the scribblings of some long-dead types (Linux even ignores POSIX on points that LKML thinks POSIX is crack-smoking).

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Anonymous Coward]

The things that religious people accept as incapable of being investigated are things that non-religious people also must accept as incapable of being investigated. You'll never be able to prove there is no God, just as they'll never be able to prove there is one.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[FhnuZoag]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

So when will it be ready for the desktop?

Re:Meanwhile...

[thrillseeker]

And over half the voting population of the United States voted an extremist into office "democratically".

I don't have any recollection of Bush calling for the death of others based on any cartoons.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Pantero Blanco]

From what I understand, the majority of the forms of Judaism are mandatory and can't be added to or altered without making a faction "non-Jewish". I wasn't talking about open-ness in relation to people, but in related to standards; remember what the post was joking about.

Wrong again....

[YuppieScum]

And that's just another example of Americans getting things wrong...

'comPARable' derives from the word 'comPARE'. The emphasis on the second syllable in both cases.

'COMparable' derives from the word 'COMpare', and is used when likening someone to a game-show host.

Thank you, I'll be here all week - try the veal...

Re:Wrong again....

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite smug in our self-righteous wrongness, aren't we.

197?

[blackraven14250]

197th? They waited till now, why not another 3 years to get themselves off of a really odd birthday to celebrate?

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Eli Gottlieb]

That is true. The idea is that we make sure to only take things derived from the original Torah as real religious texts, thereby nipping many of the people who want to "extend" Torah with their own teachings in the bud *cough!*.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

No he merely called for the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians in an illegal invasion. (Oh you mean you believe bombing a civilian
population from the security of another country is less cowardly and more moral then suicide bombing?)

More like...

[Anonymous Coward]

they've touched His Noodly Appendage so FSM is happy now.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Western countries weren't much different 1000 years ago during the crusades"

Finally someone else who sees that!

confirm on Wikipedia of doubtful:

"Christianity" appeared and showed early signs of organisation in the end of the 1st century.
"Islam" appeared and showed early signs of organisation in the second half / end of the 7th century.

Hence, Islam as a religion is between 600 and 700 years younger than Christianity.

Today = early 21st century... let's consider that the nasty troubled and fanatical views present amongst some muslims became more pronounced in the second half of the 20th century.

About 600-700 years ago, hence when Christianity had the age Islam has today: last of the crusades, the Inquisitions, early european witch hunts, black death (unrelated).

Maybe the current state of affairs is simply a phase in the development and maturation of large-scale religious organisations. Only difference is ease of communication and available weapons.

:Darwinsim = Science!

[rumblin'rabbit]

You seem to confuse testability with repeatability. Testability here is the ability for observation to support or refute a theory, not the ability to reproduce experiments in a laboratory. That is to say, a proper scientific hypothesis must be answerable to the facts. Repeatability is not, however, a requirement of all the sciences.

By your argument, astronomy and the rest of biology are not science either. And yet patently they are.

Darwin did not therorize about the origins of life, only the origin of species. The origins of life is not normally considered part of evolutionary theory.

Regarding the other two examples, evolutionly theory does not claim to be able to explain how every evolutionary occurence throughout time took place in minute detail. You state that it is nonscientific because we have an incomplete understanding of what happened two billion years ago? Ridiculous.

Re::Darwinsim = Science!

[freddie]

By your argument, astronomy and the rest of biology are not science either. And yet patently they are.

You seem to have forgotten the scientific method. First, you make a hypothesis, then you make experiments to test it. Once it has been teseted, it can become a theory. This is regardless of whether you are scientist investigating biology, astronomy or anything else. If you can test it you can only talk about a hypothesis.

Darwin did not therorize about the origins of life, only the origin of species. The origins of life is not normally considered part of evolutionary theory.


Interesting. To explain the origins of life you revert to creationism?

 
You state that it is nonscientific because we have an incomplete understanding of what happened two billion years ago?

No. I'm only saying that if theory involves one-time events, then it is not testable.

Fundamentalism is Incompatible with Science

[Swift2001]

Not religion itself. Sadly, that's the intellectual and moral idiocy which has pervaded our times, and worst of all, our politics. And not just in America, but also in the Middle East. I'm sure Osama thinks evolution is a crock, too. If science can be defeated, though, my little brethren, there goes democracy. Where did the clergy ever establish anything like it? They are opposed to democracy. Clergy goes towards, at best, an Enlightened Despotism. It's really repellant to see how many have been educated in the way of Jesus living in the time of the dinosaurs, or whatever, have infiltrated Slashdot. Prove there are electrons, twits. Show me a picture of them.

Re:Fundamentalism is Incompatible with Science

[mrpeebles]

To be fair, certain branches of Christianity have been long associated with democracy, Presbyterianism for example. I agree with you, though, that if you can't think critically, you can't effectively elect your government.

Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe they will come back as a worm in the next life!

When did Christianity import the karma belief from Hinduism? Isn't Christianity about heaven and hell?

Re:Karma

[jazman]

> Isn't Christianity about heaven and hell?

Not directly, no. Christianity is about mankind's biggest problem - sin; what it is and where it came from, and God's solution to that problem, which is freely available for anyone who wants it thanks to what Jesus Christ did about 1977 years ago (hence the term Christ-ianity). Heaven is where God wants everyone to go and where everyone who believes in him will end up. Those who choose eternal separation from God will not have their free will overruled.

You realise, of course, what will happen...

[Stephen Samuel]

Bush will take these churches to court for violating the separation of church and state.

Or God as parent...

[aethera]

I mean, isn't that what as a parent you do, provide explanatations and answers to your children's questions that meet their ability to reason and understand. If my toddler asks me why giraffes have long necks, I tell him it is so they can eat the leaves from tall trees. I don't go into savannah ecology, evolution, and biology unless and until he is ready and presses me for mor details. Wouldn't God, as parent do the same. It doesn't make you a con man just to give a simplified answer, even if it is one that can be misinterpreted.

Scientific reasoning is just one more rung, and hopefully not the last one on the ladder of human understanding of our world.

Evolutionary Christianity

[LionKimbro]

Just a link: Evolutionary Christianity.

It's basically a whole view on God, life's purpose, yadda yadda yadda, that is both religious and scientific.

Any religion actually supports Intelligent Design?

[MSBob]

Because as far as I can tell it's only some American Christian fundamenalist sects that believe in Intelligent Design. I believe Catholicism, Islam and Buddhism (ie. the big three) are all OK with evolution.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Dachannien]

Even a website called "Iraq Body Count" isn't as, er, optimistic as you are about civilian casualties.

option C - goethe & john davidson

[johnrpenner]

so true! -- why is this debate always discussed so polarically??
it is tiring to always hear of this framed as a false dichotomy.

either you're with darwin/evolution/science
OR you're with faith/belief/creationism/religion.

so often the phenomenon are mixed willy-nilly with
the theory of interpretation -- everything is seen
through the lens of one idea or another.

given the same phenomenon, is there an alternate
explanation?? -- where is option C ?

some years back, found a great book written by a scientist, JOHN DAVIDSON.
called: NATURAL CREATION OR NATURAL SELECTION? -- and he gives just such
an option --

    http://www.johndavidson.org/NaturalSelectionReview s.html

his basic premise being: 'Whatever changes or degrees of evolution
may appear are not just the result of outward causal influences,
but are caused from within... and this is because we are part of
the 'universal formative force'.

a couple years later, i found a similar idea
in goethe's 'organic and inorganic science'.

originally, kant thought that biology could not be subject to
the 'knowing' activity we have for physics. but today, many scientists
simply assume that biology must be studied from the standpointt of physics.

goethe sees another possibity -- he PRESUMES darwin's evolution,
but it requires a revision in our understanding of TIME.

goethe shares this idea of evolutionary development as
being not just a process of causal natural selection,
but rather as an INNER development -- and what leads this
development IN TIME is the TYPUS -- here's probably the
best single chapter on the subject:

    GOETHE'S ORGANIC SCIENCE:
    http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA002/English/GA002_ c16.html

regards,
j

as Stephen Jay Gould commented ...

[mbaudis]

thanks for taking my comment seriously. it is a pity to have this topic at all. Stephen Jay Gould once attended a conference in rome, and was in the same hotel/conference center as a group of Catholic scientists attending a Vatican's conference. One of the scientists=priest approached him to ask about details about this "creationist" movement in the U.S., he had heard about. SJG answered: "don't worry; that is a purely American thing." (my quote etc. from memory)

Unfortunately, there are too many "news" about it nowadays, apparently more than at the time of this incident ('80s?).

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the bogus concept of "Faith". If you haven't heard that one you're a liar and not religious at all.

But then in my experience, anyone calling themselves religious is a liar from the start, so I'm hardly surprised.

Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Richard_J_N]

It seems to me that Religious people need not disagree with science (since they are by virtue of faith, capable of the "doublethink" needed to maintain two incompatible world views simultaneously).

However, scientists must, if they are competent and sincere in their convictions, be opposed to any form of Faith. Faith cannot be experimentally tested/falsified, and therefore has no place in rational thought.

The only exception to this would be the "Gnostic" religions (often thought of as "Eastern" or "Mystical", although the original Christians eg St Paul were Gnostics too). These do not literally believe in a Personal Saviour God, but in that, by finding Enlightenment, one actually *becomes* a god. [Please excuse the simplification of Gnosticism here!]

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

Pure mathematics also cannot be be tested/falsified, and I think we both agree that it has a place in rational thought, so simply because something isn't testable/falsifiable in the same sense as, say, Newton's physics is not enough to exclude it from rational (a vague term of course) thought.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Richard_J_N]

I see the subtlety of this argument - but I think it's a little spurious. Pure maths *is* testable within its axioms (Russell paradox notwithstanding), and it's also pretty well established via applied maths.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[alecf]

However, scientists must, if they are competent and sincere in their convictions, be opposed to any form of Faith. Faith cannot be experimentally tested/falsified, and therefore has no place in rational thought.

But science is itself mostly faith! Think about it: If I am, for example, a biologist who specializes in the endocrine system, then there is a massive layer of physics and chemistry that underlies everything that I study and analyze. Further, as the endocrine system is inexorably linked with about a million other complex systems in mammals, then my work also depends on the validity of all the work done in those areas as well.

And so as an expert in a field like this, I would have to take on faith that most of these systems work as they are described to me so that I can have valid expectations and conduct reasonable experiments. They may have been described to me in a high school or college classroom, or from a book I read, or whatever, but at some level I am not going to derive my work in my science from fundamental principles in physics (which are, in themselves a sort of fundamenalism) - it would take more than my own lifetime and I wouldn't have time to do my work in the first place.

I have no problem with rational thought, but the idea that science doesn't include faith confounds me. Sure it doesn't have to include faith in a God, but it requires faith in some ideas about how the universe works.

And on a side note, I'm a software developer, not a biologist - don't make any assumptions :)

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Richard_J_N]

I disagree - your are talking about "trust". Sure, you can't personally verify everything - it would be impractical to do so.
But the fundamental science has been verified by others, and importantly, you could verify it yourself if you needed to.

Religious faith is different in that the claims which are made are extraordinary (thereby needing strong justification), and yet nobody has ever verified them! Furthermore, you can't test them yourself.

For example, I've never done the experiment of putting lithium into water. But I trust the science teacher who told me about it because the claim is reasonable, and because, if I wanted to, I could test it for myself.

Lastly, not all physics is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But it never claims otherwise! Physics doesn't say "Accept this on faith"; it says "Here is the best theory we have - and so far, it fits all the experimental data perfectly. This explanation may not be the absolute truth, but it is pretty close - and we're still trying to get closer".

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

True, but for that matter, I'm not sure that religion isn't testable within ITS axioms as well. Also, whenever we talk about testing pure mathematics, we have to acknowledge Godel as well, although I'm not sure we want to actually discuss him, because I don't really understand him, and a priori I'm guessing you don't either. :-) And I'm sure that if we asked pure mathematicians whether they needed the empirical success of applied math to justify the validity of their work, they would laugh at us, and then, well, do something horrible, or at least prove the COULD. Anyway, not to say that mathematics is religion (although it started out that way), but my point is that there is room for rational thought outside the empirically testable.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure mathematics not testable?! Criminy! Then why did I waste all that time in grad school doing proofs?

I'm a string-theorist, so I have a foot in both worlds. Pure mathematics is the platonic ideal of "testable" - you CAN arrive at absolutes. Not only can you prove things, in certain conditions you can prove that there can exist no other solutions and there can be nothing else to know about your problem. QED. Unlike the physical and life sciences which are defined by their continual refinements of theories (the word "theory" presupposes you can never prove it true, only falseat which point you work to explain the new phenomena); in math you can reach Answers with a capital A. That's why we use terms like theorems, lemmas, conjectures, and postulates - to distinguish between what is beyond debate or discussion and that which has not yet been proved. A single counter-example is all it takes to kill off even centuries old conjectures.

This all hit home very hard in my first real analysis course. We started by assuming the number 1 and some operation, nothing else. From there we developed algebras, calculus and geometries in a provably self-consistent constructs. It was breathtaking.

Physics can "only" test the predictions of its theories, not whether they actually describe nature laid bare (what does that mean anyway?), that's why they are continually refined. Newton was demonstrably wrong, and Einstein offered a correction. It will happen again. It's the process that's important.

Creationists and IDer offer no avenue for refinement or even identifying a need for such refinements. "Knowledge By Edict" only - and then what? I am always suspicious of things that functions to "save" people from critical thinking.

ID should be taught and discussed - in religious studies and philosophy classes. Claiming it needs to be taght in science classes is like insisting kids hear about vector calculus in a literature course. They have nothing to do with each other. Apples and oranges.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Richard_J_N]

I see what you mean. But still, no one is expected to believe in Pure maths except because it is beautiful and useful.

Religions requires you to believe them because they are each "The Absolute Truth". [They are also sufficiently inconsistent that this is not possible!]

Lastly, would any religious person be willing to consider God as an "axiom"? Sure..."assume God, and the rest follows..." - but that's not a very helpful theological position!

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

Yes, but philosophically, a mathematical proof is of course completely different than a scientific one. After the 19th century, mathematical proofs have generally been considered as devoid of Truth content, except by mathematicians, on weekends, when nobody is looking, and they indulge their true Platonic selves :-).

You should calm down though. I wasn't suggesting ID should be taught in school. However, I think that to say that Christian theology, which has 2000 years of the some of the greatest Wester minds as its authors, shouldn't be considered "irrational" simply because its not empirically testable.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

> Lastly, would any religious person be willing to consider God as an "axiom"? Sure..."assume God, and the rest follows..." - > but that's not a very helpful theological position! This is not too far from what Descartes did, I suppose :-). I'm not sure how helpful he was theologically, though.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Further, I think the problem comes down to linguistics and semantics. When you talk about a "ring", "field", or "group" I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. Why? Because we defined it or "built" it. There can be nothing we don't know about it by definition. The exactness of mathematical language is refreshing.

In theoretical physics, math's close cousin, uncertainty (pun intended) begins to creep in. What the hell is a wave-function, I mean REALLY? What is an electric field, physically? (My favorite sentence from my EM undergrad book was "I can't tell you what the electric filed IS, I can only tell you how to calculate it." - Griffiths 2nd Ed.) What is an electron? Well, it's negatively charged, point-like (maybe) particle but sometimes a wave too, and it can be created or annihilated, and.... Most of the time we all just "agree" on what it is, and go on about our business. But it's a problem at the end of day.

Then move on to biology and you get much more problematic questions like "What do we mean by 'alive'? What defines a species? What's that smell in the lab next door?

Religion and philosophy have the toughest jobs of all: What is truth, love, consciousness? You well never arrive at any answers because you can't even properly define what you're talking about. The best you can ever do is a vague feeling that it's better to be nice to each other as we go through life, because life is too short and too uncertain to waste time arguing about something that can never have an answer that will fit everyone. Creationists, go hug a scientist. Biologists, go have a pint with bible beater. There, isn't that better?

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I've NEVER heard anyone say mathematics is devoid of truth. Historically, philosophers and mathematicians were the same people. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Goedel, Green, Gauss, Newton, Euler, and pretty much anyone else you care to name.

What do you mean by truth? Something that is invariant and can never change? I'd call that truth in the most philosophical sense.

Applicability? Say hello to the world of technology around you. 1+1=2 every single time I need it to.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

mrpeebles, I guess you are not a scientist. There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Never has been, never will be. There is only "very, very strong evidence in support of..." History is littered with "overwhelming evidence" pointing to incorrect conclusions. (Does that make the evidence "whelming"? Hmm...) You can never prove anything to be true (in any sense) in the non-mathematical sciences because something new and unknown may be just around the corner, you can only falsify theories. But in math, you can now and for all time say how something will be. That's why math rules! :-)

This is great example of some of the disconnect in this debate. Non-scientist don't realize that certain phrases have very, very precise meaning in a scientific context and assume that they carry only the normal, nebulous socially agreed upon usage, or even a different meaning in their academic ballywick (i.e. "proof" to a philosopher, "uncertainty" or "energy" to a physicist.) Scientists assume that others are attempting to use these words properly (in context) and then the misunderstandings begin.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

Well, I haven't studied this stuff since I was an undergrad, but prior to, well Gauss, yes, nobody would have agreed that mathematical proofs have no truth value. However, after the late 19th century, when it was shown that consistent non-euclidean geometries existed, and after Hilbert (as I recall) and the like failed to derive mathematics from logic, and Goedel proved this was impossible, mathematics is generally regarded as a logic game, philosophically speaking. So you make certain assumptions, and see what results you can get. (Goedel was a platonist, of course, and didn't agree with this.)

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

Yes, actually, I am a scientist. Of course scientific theories are only falsified. I was using sloppy language. And yes, this is a terrible disconnect in the conversation on intelligen design, and I was contributing to it. However, this just supports my assertion that mathematics proofs (which are proofs in, as far as I am aware, the only truly correct uses of the word) and scientific "proofs" (sloppy language, yes.) Also, I am beginning to see how the ID'ers feel, a little. Sheesh. Did you even bother to try to understand my post?

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

"mathematics is generally regarded as a logic game, philosophically speaking. So you make certain assumptions, and see what results you can get."

-- Gotta call BS on this one. If you follow this line of logic you always end up with "we can't REALLY know anything anyway so there's really no point - all is just a game" which might be true, but even you don't believe it or you wouldn't be taking the time to reply and further the discussion.

"failed to derive mathematics from logic"

I urge you to study any of the topological and differential geometic techniques developed by Einstein due directly to his Thought-Experiments. "What would it be like to ride a light beam?"
It only changed the world.

Also new statistical methods from the implications of quantum mechanics.

And combinatorics and discrete mathematical structures inspired by real problems in computer science.

And Feynman calculus and Feynman diagrams as well as his path-integral formulations invented by RPFeynman as a concrete expression of his mental view of quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics. Like Einstein, he could just picture reality, but the math didn't exist yet to describe it. So they invented it or extended it. As for how logical it is, it's consistent enough that no modern technology could work if it weren't "true."

My everyday professional world is filled with pure mathematics (not just numerical solutions to "fit" problems, I mean real, new, never before see branches of math) that owe their existence to people pondering (often without any math at first) the nature of reality. Not just new equations, new symbolic tools with new rules for manipulating new ideas.

I don't want to sound snobbish, but I really think it's just that the lay person cannot understand the logic arguments being discussed, so the math appears to stand on its own as a "logic game." Math is the medium in which these idease propagate. The philosophers you mention can have their works read and more or less understood by the college educated crowd. Yes, it's tough reading, but if you can read the language it's written in, have a good dictionary, and a lot of time you are all set. You can articulate the main points to somebody down at the local pub. Peopke did this because it was stimulating and rewarding.

When this crowd could no longer keep up with these thoughts they labeled it "just a mathematical game/diversion" with no basis in common experience. The trouble is that our common sense did not evolve at relativistic speeds or on distances the order of the Planck lenght - of course General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't make sense! Our "senses" need not apply, only our logic and intellect. Since our senses and experience proved inadequate to deal with where our intellect and logic had taken us - VOILA! - new mathematics was invented to be a placeholder.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

Well, I'm only an experimental physicist, so I'm sure that I don't understand math to the extent that you do, but I have studied higher math, and I think it is basically impossible for anyone who really appreciates the beauty of mathematics to believe, deep down in their soul, that it is all simply a logic game. I know I don't. And yes, it is nothing short of a miracle that mathematics is able to somehow allow us to birth physics. However, it is interesting to me that you bring up physics, since most physicists I know, myself included, have a strong bent towards instrumentalism, namely the idea that mathematics is simply a tool or language to describe the world. To me, this is much more consistent with the idea that mathematics is a logic game, rather than Plato's or Kan't mathematics.

"failed to derive mathematics from logic"
I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what I am referring to here? There was an effort in the early 20th century to derive the real numbers from logic alone. I don't remember much about it, but I assume it was an attempt to return to Kant. Kant of course believed that mathematics could be derived from our intuition, which essentially operated on euclidian geometry, and since this intuition was needed for any kind of knowledge we might have, it could essentially be regarded as True. However, the differential geometry you referred me to (and which I have studied) kind of shattered this belief, and so a new attempt was made to derive a theory of numbers from the postulates of logic, which were themselves regarded as necessary for thought. Set theory was born as part of all this. However, Goedel proved it was doomed to failure.

> I don't want to sound snobbish, but I really think it's just that the lay person cannot understand the logic
> arguments being discussed
I do think this was a little snobby. I think that you are fundamentally missing what the argument is about. Nobody is trying to reduce mathematics to a parlor game. However, for the Greeks at least, philosophy, religion, and mathematics were all once the same. They have been split apart forever. I think THIS is what I meant by "Truth value."

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

I remember now that the effort to derive mathematics from logic was to prove it consistent. This is Goedel proved it was doomed to fail. In any case, mathematics is no longer considered the standard for philosophical Truth as it once was.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

Yes, in religion we speak of the "Word" of God. You fundamentally must hear it from others. Science is more like mathematics, in that in principle you can always (if you have the time and expertise) verify the truth for yourself. Science does involve certain assumptions, but it is supposed to be rigorous in that your assumptions are clearly stated.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand by what I said. People began to dismiss modern mathematics when it ceased to be used to describe a reality that they could understand, when even the basic ideas and statements of modern physics had to be posed in math-ese. But new math still has as much to do with describing reality as any math ever did, and hopefully more since we are making progress.

To be perfectly blunt, the philosophers' side of the house has no business making any judgement on the utility of modern mathematics as it applies to theoretical physics. They stopped being involved in the issue and ceased being able to understand what was going on in our field long ago. There is amazing work being done by creative, gifted people that are giving us better glimpses into the nature of reality than ever before. Wouldn't it be nice if philosophers could incorporate an understanding of curved spacetime and quantum mechanics into their -ologies like they used to in the days when they could understand physics. But since they can't they ignore progress and what were symbiotic fields now continue to diverge. Physics is finally beginning to tackle questions like the origin of mass, the nature of time and ultimate fate of the universe but where are the philosophers? This is as much their business, but they can't speak the language. Heck, I just read a paper that suggests that the existence of photons (light) might just be due to lorentz asymmetry. Holy Crap! We may know how light comes to be, and where are the natural philosophers?

Philosopher: "Group theory applied to subatomic physics phenomenolgy is just a intellectual exercise. Advances in algebra and topology inspired by physics problems is cute, but what does it do for us as far as descibing reality." To this I would reply that next year we are going to be able to create a freakin' black hole in the LHC at CERN! After that maybe even sharks with frickin' laser beams....

If it's snobbish to suggest that maybe Joe Schmoe doesn't grasp the meaning and significance of, say, modern field theory as well as professional physicist, then I'm snob. But I don't really see how you can argue that most people are conversent in , say, QCD. Just 'cause Joe doesn't understand it doesn't mean it's not important, even vital to science. Just because GR is further from Joe's everyday experiences than Newtonian gravity and seemingly unimportant to him doesn't make it less real (we now know, that it is MORE real). Most people don't understand mathematical physics and question why we spend billions on things like the LHC or SSC. But you and I both know that their lack of knowledge in no way negates the reality (truth) of the things we study.

Yes, I understood your post and quite clearly agree in the utility of mathematics. I think its fair to say we are in violent agreement. I took issue with one of your points. What of it? Isn't that why we're here? I mean Slashdot, not Earth (there's a ball of wax, er, dirt....)

I was quite enjoying a lively back-and-forth with an articulate and obviously intelligent person, and yes I think all these Cowards except 1 were me. There was no need to assume hostility on my part. Can I buy you a virtual beer?

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

I should point out that I went on wikipedia, and found out that my memory of this stuff was, well, quite wrong. I should have stuck with philosophy of physics, which I am a little better grounded in :-). Sorry if I came off a bit strong in my post. I have had people ask me why I don't study something useful, so I understand your frustration as well. It seems like if its not going to make money in the next 10 years, a lot of people think it is useless. I don't know if you have studies philosophy of math, but you might find it interesting. Major figures included, eg, Goedel and Hilbert, so these are certainly people who understand math. I'm not sure, though, that the philosophers couldn't understand enough of Feynman if they tried. I think part of the problem is that they are still stuck trying to figure out the meaning of Heisenberg.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries. It's late and this is fun :-) As for Heisenberg, I'm still suspicious of anyone who claims to really understand QM. It's a great tool, that works very well, but it still kinda gives me the willies when I think about it even after all these years. I still try to find holes in Bell's Theorem....

The problem with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is that it uses the same axiomatic logic arguments it claims are inadequate to "prove" that you can't creat proofs based on the same. This is a widely discussed "loophole" in his otherwise interesting proposition.

If "mathematics is no longer considered the standard for philosophical Truth as it once was" I'm about as worried about their stamp of approval as I am Pat Robertson's. Math that was Pure and unapplied for many, many years has found perfect wholesale transplantation into all kinds of modern physics that extend the standard model: string theory, m-theory, brane theory, quatum gravity, and other unification schemes. This math was done completely separately and just happens to fit perfectly with the latest efforts to find a GUT/TOE? Pure math "ain't what it used to be," but happens to be at the heart of the best attempts in (recorded) human history to describe ultimate physical reality. Sounds like math's doing okay to me.

You probably know the unwritten law in physics: "Everything that isn't expressly forbidden is mandatory" and so far it looks that way. We found elements on the periodic table where they "should be" and subatomic particles where they "should be" and so on. The animals in the particle zoo look like they had reservations even before they showed up. In my field, the actual pure theorems can tell us what is physically forbidden and what isn't. I don't understand more "real" than that. For instance all electrons may be nothing but geometry, their charge the reflection of a single self-referential primordial electron that may not have to really exist in real time. That could explain why they seem point-like, identical, can spontaneously pair create/annihilate, have wave properties, etc. Craziness, but fun. I use a lot of algebraic topology to pare down what the actual possibilities may be and then work with phenomenologists to figure out what signatures if any could be picked up in experiments. We are having some succuesses by treating the most basic "particles" as nothing but math/geometry, not just described by such things.

I got into physics a little late (went to grad-school in my late 20s) as a second career. I'll never make as much money as I did those first few years after undergrads, but I could not imagine a more interesting way to spend my days. Since going back to grad-school, I haven't "worked" a day in my life. That makes me very rich.

All the best - I have to get some sleep.

Re:Personal Gods and Science seem incompatible

[mrpeebles]

> If "mathematics is no longer considered the standard for philosophical Truth as it once was"...

I don't think many mathematicians do. I think its the philosophers who always sort of looked towards mathematics as the model of how to come up with necessarily true statements.

Re:Meanwhile...

[pnewhook]

I'm sorry, but facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that there are no statistically significant numbers of Christian suicide bombers, Christian embassy burnings, Christian honor killings, or Christian riots.

Where do you get this blather from?

Without even thinking about it, I can come up with the Crusades, the Christian repression (read execution) of scientists during the dark ages, Salem witch trials, the Nazis in WW2 (Hitler was very religious (and christian) and got the Catholic Pope to regularly bless his troops before war).

There is no way you can accurately claim that the Christians were innocent. They've been killing people in the name of God since the religion was created.

Kin-Selection

[Mark_MF-WN]

I was just reading about how Darwin himself first postulated the idea of kin-selection -- which is an extraordinarily sublte bit of evolutarionary theory. Quite remarkable, when many people even now, despite knowing quite a bit about evolution, can't grasp the concept.

Humpty Dumpty

[rumblin'rabbit]

You seem to have forgotten the scientific method. First, you make a hypothesis, then you make experiments to test it. Once it has been teseted, it can become a theory. This is regardless of whether you are scientist investigating biology, astronomy or anything else. If you can test it you can only talk about a hypothesis.

That's a phoney baloney definition of the scientific method which excludes, as I said before, astronomy or any science which studies what has happened in the past.

Interesting. To explain the origins of life you revert to creationism?

No, it's a simple statement of fact. Evolutionary theory does not normally include the origins of life. That you seem unaware of this fact does not speak well for your knowledge of the science.

But since you bring it up, hypothesizing (and even experimenting in the laboratory) about the origins of life can be perfectly scientific, provided that it is grounded in observation (e.g., studying fossils, DNA, meteorites, etc). It's probably doomed, alas, to being a highly speculative branch of science.

I'm only saying that if theory involves one-time events, then it is not testable.

Nonsense. A comet crashing into Jupitor is, at least in our life time, a one-time event. You're saying that the study of this is not scientific?

You're like Humpty Dumpty, redefining words to suit your arguments.

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[freddie]

That's a phoney baloney definition of the scientific method which excludes, as I said before, astronomy or any science which studies what has happened in the past.

    If something can be scientific without the scientific method what criteria do you use to establish that it is scientific?

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[rumblin'rabbit]

The definition of the scientific method has alway been problematic. Certainly your definition is far too narrow. No one has insisted that all observations be repeatable.

Because of the problems with defining a "scientific method", the most common definition of a hypothesis being scientific is whether it is falsifiable. That is, if it's false, then there must be a way, in principle, of showing that it is so through observation.

But even this definition of "scientific", due to Karl Popper, has come under much criticism. The definition of "scientific" has never been satisfactorily settled, but your definition is totally bogus, and seems driven by the conclusion you wish to arrive at.

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

you use actual scientific techniques and apply critical thinking as opposed to a basic 4-step procedure told to little children to make things easier for them.

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[freddie]

The definition of the scientific method has alway been problematic.

Problematic? In what ways?

I do not see anything problematic about it. The scientific method (see my previous postings) is a straightforward way of establishing the truth.

The reason the hypothesis must be testable is that it is very easy to formulate a theory that can explain all data up until now. For example, many people have managed to formulate a theory to explain all stock market data that was available at the time, but soon they found out it couldn't predict future data.

Therefore the requirement that the hypothesis is testable is important to avoid delusion.

I note that you are attacking the scientific method with the claim that it has never been properly defined. You have also not answered my question about what your alternative is for determining what is scientific and what is not. To say that something is 'patently' science is equivalent to say that something is scientific because 'I told you so'.

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[rumblin'rabbit]

Astronomy and geology are not patently scientific? You're saying they are not?

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[freddie]

Are you saying that your criteria to determine whether something is scientific or not is word usage?

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[gardyloo]

This conversation is, perhaps, one of the most insightful and civilised (I won't define those terms) I've ever seen on sladhdot. Thanks to both of you for not taking offense at the other, and discussing things in a controlled manner. Plus, you both make very good points.

Re:Humpty Dumpty

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you too, you offspring of a shit-for-cunting-brains and a polydactylic fucksplat's night soil.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also see crusades.

Irreducible Complexity

[Anonymous Coward]

Irreducible complexity is easily explained.

A structure is built up in a reducibly complex way. One of the parts of this structure starts to be used differently. The selection pressures that produced the original support structure are removed. The structure withers away, except for the parts of it which are now being used differently.

These parts appear to have come from nowhere, in precisely the shape that was necessary for some subtle process. Irreducible complexity! No. Just an incomplete picture.

The complexity under consideration is only irreducible if you assert that the parts of the system which are in place now are the only parts there ever were. It's sleight of hand.

Re:Irreducible Complexity

[Crazyscottie]

Agreed, and thank you for your answer. Now, let me ask you this... From where did the instructions for building this system come?

Re:Irreducible Complexity

[Sean Hederman]

A while back you said you were a proponent of evolution, yet now you seem to have no idea of how evolution works? I think it's a bit sad that you go around boosting a theory that you don't understand.

1. Take 1 organism with a mutable hereditary genetic structure.
1a. You can substitute with more organisms if desired. 2 would be the minimum required if the organisms require mates for breeding.
2. Place said organism(s) into an environment containing food and competition for said food.
3. Wait a few million years.

Re:Irreducible Complexity

[Crazyscottie]

We were talking about irreducible complexity, not evolution in general. Those links described how an "irreducibly complex" system could be formed piece-by-piece if all the pieces were already in place in other systems (that's one point the articles make). Assuming all the pieces are indeed present, there are two ways the system could form:

1) Randomly.
2) Using instructions.

I'm not sure which of those you're implying is true, but I was assuming #2 (as #1 is highly unlikely, but who knows, maybe you enjoy dealing with randomness). I was simply asking the question of where those instructions might have come from, and how they might have formed. Did the instructions evolve before, after, or along with the components of the system?

Re:Irreducible Complexity

[Sean Hederman]

Neither. It would have been a gradual set of changes in response to evolutionary pressures. There are no "instructions" for this going in, and neither is it random.

The original purpose of the adaptation becomes less important due to a change in environment. At the same time new evolutionary pressures build up, where the adaptation is useful in a different way. Now, the adaptation is selected for it's new function, and gradually becomes better at it. If you read the Kitzmiller transcripts there's a fascinating discussion of the bacterial flagellum that goes through exactly this. Can't remember the name of the witness offhand, but he was rebutting Behe.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Triv]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

So when will it be ready for the desktop?

Will THIS do?

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[LordLucless]

Faith is believing without proof, not demanding that what you believe be unproven.

But then in my experience, anyone posting as an anonymous coward is a moronic troll from the start, so I'm hardly surprised.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[damiam]

Theology is science by any reasonable definition of the word.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Trogre]

That is just simply not true. Islam is not a peaceful faith by any definition of the term. Well it is, in that peace is promised once your foot is on your brothers' neck.

With the arrival of Christ on earth, Love Thy Neighbour took precidence over any past enmity between people. In fact pre-Christ writings (latter books of the Old Testament) are already heading in this direction. One example from the OT: "Do you think I enjoy seeing people suffer? No, I'd rather they repented, and obeyed me".

Islam, however is just about the other way around. Muhummad came along and preached all sorts of lovely peaceful messages, then picked up a sword and said "Right enough talk, let's go cut up some infidel".

That's why we see what's hapenning right now in the Philippines:

(knock knock)
"who's there?"
"Are you Christian or Muslim?"
"Christian"
*BLAM* *BLAM* "Allah Ackbar!"

The billion or so Muslims who you claim are peacefully living their lives are either taking a very narrow distorted view of the Koran or (more likely) quietly desire to see the black flag of Islam over the worlds capitals, and silently support the actions of the extremists.

They're trying to establish every country as Muslim states, of course. All the beef you eat is already halal, right? Don't be surprised if pork and skanty clothes are outlawed in a few years if the current population trends continue.

Chromosomes

[Mark_MF-WN]

Just to be clear, the number of chromosomes that an organism has is quite variable. Lots of people have extra chromosomes or missing chromosomes. Some of these abberations don't even have noticeable side effects.

There is even a genetic abnormality that is being tested these days that gives people an extra pair of empty chromosomes -- they have no actual genes in them (although they're probably only a few mutations away from having genes from another chromosome transferred onto them, or having some viral DNA permanently written into them). My uncle and one of his children have it, so it even appears to run in my own family. So it's pretty easy for the number of chromosomes to change from species to species.

Re:Chromosomes

[WheelDweller]

Fascinating; thanks- this helps explain to me how mutations can remain hidden before manifesting. I'm no doctor, and no expert on the subject...but Christians embracing Darwinism seems backwards to me. Kinda like extolling the virtue of Freud, these days...or Doctor Spock.

How on earth did we procreate and survive without paperback experts? :)

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Pneuma ROCKS]

In 7 years, brother.

450, is that all?

[Jsutton1027w]

450 out of the literally thousands of protestant churches in the USA? How is this significant? I'm sure there are that many that support abortion too, but there are far more Christian churches that oppose both abortion and evolution.

I am a Christian. I believe that the world was created in 6 days. I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, and he lived a sinless life. He died on the cross at Calvary to save us from our sins. Part of the reason I believe as I do is that I can see the complexity and the order in the world around me, and I cannot force myself to accept that it was all by mere chance, as the evolutionary theory would have me believe.

I also have absolutely no problem with people that want to say what they believe. Voltaire once said: "I may disagree with everything you say, but I would fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

The problem that I see most often here on Slashdot is the people that simply say things like 'you're an idiot if you don't believe ______' every time a controversial subject arises (and yes, to those of you that would argue otherwise, this is a controversial subject, or it wouldn't have made it to the front page of Slashdot, and we wouldn't be sitting here on our duffs typing responses back and forth).

Another problem that I see is that people refuse to believe that scientific data is interpretative (i.e., it's not easy [if it's possible at all] to prove what caused _____). The Christian scientist first accepts what he believes about the Bible, and then interprets the scientific data in one way. This is not unusual, however, as the evolutionary scientist accepts what he believes from the teachings of Darwin first, and then interprets the scientific data in another way.

Finally, it irritates me that people see and hear the ramblings of Pat Robertson, and claim that he is the representative of the entire Fundamentalist movement. This fact can also be seen in other sects of Christianity. Take the Catholic church for example: the vadican has made it clear in recent years that it does not see evolution and Catholicism to be mutually exclusive. However, many of the Catholics that I have spoken to disagree whole-heartedly.

Re:450, is that all?

[be-fan]

Another problem that I see is that people refuse to believe that scientific data is interpretative (i.e., it's not easy [if it's possible at all] to prove what caused _____). The Christian scientist first accepts what he believes about the Bible, and then interprets the scientific data in one way. This is not unusual, however, as the evolutionary scientist accepts what he believes from the teachings of Darwin first, and then interprets the scientific data in another way.

Science and Christianity are both predicated on belief. Christianity is predicated on a belief that the tenents of the Bible are true. Science is predicated on a belief that the scientific method is valid. From that first assumption, both Christians and scientists derive their understanding of the world.

Here is the rub: the scientists' beliefs are better. I can't really put it any other way, and I'm not willing to succumb to the popular weakness of accepting all beliefs as being equally valid. I'm an engineer --- and I see a world around me that exists because of the power of science. Science has elevated man from being little better than particularly clever animals to being something that can justifiably be said to have been made in God's image. What has "Christian science" brought humanity? Christianity as a religion can be said to have bettered the lives of many people, but "Christian science" is a mere intellectual exercise that is useful neither to the secular world nor to the religious world.

Re:450, is that all?

[gameboyhippo]

Good thing this post is near the end. Otherwise you'd get (-1 religion). I know I've gotten many -1 religions. It surprises me how many computer scientists believe that we are the products of well aimed atoms. I mean, if one stops and thinks about it, the following is true. I go to work five days a week. I turn on Visual Studio 2005. I look at my application I'm writing for my employer. I write more of it. Eventually I have an application my employer can bill the client on. I'd love to work for the company everybody else seems to work for. They run a program that randomly inserts lines of programming. It then tries to run it. If it works, great. If it kinda works, well then the computer inserts more random code and eventually it's survival of the fittest. Golly, I could sit back and play Nintendo DS all day while my program evolves. The structure of living organisms is too structured to be natural. I'm made of cells. Different kinds of cells. Each one is made kinda the same, but they have different functions. Heck, each cell is made of different components with specialized functions. These cells make up neat little structures called tissues. Tissues make organs. Organs make organisms. How can any of that be trial and error. How many trials and errors must we go through to make a human. Ah, but I'm an idiot. If only I was enlightened and had faith could I believe that trial and error made this creature we called human.

Re:450, is that all?

[mrpeebles]

> Science has elevated man from being little better than particularly clever animals to being something that
> can justifiably be said to have been made in God's image.

I would argue that it is our capability for moral action that shows we are made in God's image. For example, the invention of the atomic bomb shows that science, no matter however powerful, does not equal freedom. Instead, for fifty years we lived in fear annihilation by our own creation and by each other.

What you refer to as "Christian science" is, of course, well, wrong, I think by its own standard, and definitely by the scientist's. But science is not all powerful. It is only a tool that reflects the nature of those who use it, divine or otherwise.

Re:450, is that all?

[Jsutton1027w]

Here is the rub: the scientists' beliefs are better. I can't really put it any other way, and I'm not willing to succumb to the popular weakness of accepting all beliefs as being equally valid. I'm an engineer --- and I see a world around me that exists because of the power of science.

First off, did you read my fourth paragraph at all? Sure, you're not as abrasive as the person that says 'you're an idiot if you don't believe _____,' but what you're saying is essentially the same thing.

Secondly, I was not intending to use the term 'Chritian scientist' to refer to the 'Christian Science' movement, but rather to a Scientist who is a Christian.

Lastly, when you say "Science is predicated on a belief that the scientific method is valid," are you saying that science assumes that all things can be proven using the scientific meathod? If so, then how can science be seen as any more valid than the Fundamentalists viewpoint of Biblical infalibility?

I'm trying to be as in-abrasive as possible, but your statements seem to contradict each other from my point of view.

Re:450, is that all?

[mrpeebles]

> Part of the reason I believe as I do is that I can see the complexity and the order in the world around me, and I
> cannot force myself to accept that it was all by mere chance, as the evolutionary theory would have me believe.

I don't think that evolution says things happened by "mere chance" in the way that you mean. As far as I know, the only "chance" in Darwin's natural selection is that the changes in an individual animals phenotype (in other words, its genes) with respect to its parents are more or less uncorrelated (in essence, unrelated) to whether or not those changes make the animal more likely to survive. In this sense, then, the changes in the genes are "random." I don't think this corresponds to your "mere chance." Now, many philosophers and scientists-turned-amateur-philosophers argue Darwin's natural selection increases the plausibility that we are indeed here by your "mere chance", but you can't blame this on Darwin or science.

> Finally, it irritates me that people see and hear the ramblings of Pat Robertson...
Yes, I can imagine... :-)

Re:450, is that all?

[Jsutton1027w]

I really was referring to the 'Big Bang' idea that pervades evolution: that everything exploded into existance. This doesn't seem plausible to me. The amount of organization that exists in just a cell of human tissue is incomprehendable. Just trying to clarify my statement :)

Re:450, is that all?

[be-fan]

I would argue that it is our capability for moral action that shows we are made in God's image.

Morality is merely a check against the darker nature of man. It is simply an expression of the innate tendency of creatures to avoid behavior that is destructive to their species. Apes display the same tendencies as humans in this regard. They generally do not go about killing their own kind (no more so than humans, anyway), they will take in orphaned children, they act to preserve their group. Are apes moral, or is what passes for morality merely instinct?

For example, the invention of the atomic bomb shows that science, no matter however powerful, does not equal freedom. Instead, for fifty years we lived in fear annihilation by our own creation and by each other.

For every person killed by the atom bomb, thousands more were saved by the green revolution.

You are right that both science and religion are tools wielded by man, and man is capable of both good and evil. But my contention is not with religion in general, but "religious science" specifically. "Christian science" has no power to do good --- it is just empty ideology.

Re:450, is that all?

[be-fan]

First off, did you read my fourth paragraph at all? Sure, you're not as abrasive as the person that says 'you're an idiot if you don't believe _____,' but what you're saying is essentially the same thing.

The goal is not to be abrasive, but sometimes a bit of abrasion is unavoidable. Yes, I think its idiotic if you think the earth was literally created in six days, just as I think it is idiotic if you think the earth is flat or if you think that Zambia will win the World Cup. I'm sorry I have to say it, but there is nothing wrong in calling a spade a spade.

Secondly, I was not intending to use the term 'Chritian scientist' to refer to the 'Christian Science' movement, but rather to a Scientist who is a Christian.

A scientist who is Christian cannot believe in the literal truth of the Bible and still claim to be thinking rationally. Believing in God is one thing --- we cannot prove nor disprove his existance so one guess is as good as the other. Believing that the earth was created in six days, despite the fact that it flies in the face of all of our knowledge, that is just silly.

Lastly, when you say "Science is predicated on a belief that the scientific method is valid," are you saying that science assumes that all things can be proven using the scientific method?

Science assumes that following the scientific method will lead to valid conclusions. This is not to say that all things are provable using the scientific method, but rather that which is provable is provable using the scientific method.

In a way, science is really no different than religious fundamentalism. It relies on the acceptance of a premise, and bases its structure on that premise. If that premise is not accepted, is not believed, the rest of it has no meaning. What differentiates the two is not one of fundemental nature, but the fact that science has time and time again validated the plausability of its premise, while the plausability of the fundamentalist position grows ever weaker.

It is simply the fact that some beliefs are more likely to be true than other beliefs. Yes, anything is possible, but certain things are more plausible. The conclusions of science are simply more plausible than the conclusions of a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that plausibility makes it a "better" belief.

That aside, let's get to the heart of the situation here. Abstract ideology is pointless to a temporal creature such as man. What makes both science and religion good is its power for bettering mankind. Science has saved countless millions of lives, and religion has made countless millions of lives better. Religious fundamentalism can do nothing to make humanity better, because it is simply ideology --- belief for the sake of belief. If tomorrow it was proved that the Bible is literally true, what does that give humanity? What use is it to know that the world was created in six days? Does that knowledge change the nature of Christ's teachings? Or is it just a fictional "fact" that would be useless even if it were true?

Re:450, is that all?

[XSpud]

I really was referring to the 'Big Bang' idea that pervades evolution: that everything exploded into existance. This doesn't seem plausible to me.

This is exactly what the theory of evolution is not - Evolution is a gradual process that takes place over many generations.

If you're interested in learning more about how evolutionary biologists really think evolution happens I would recommend the book "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins - after reading this it becomes clear how something as complex as the human eye can evolve, step-by-step. And you don't need to be a biologist to follow most of what is said :-)

Re:450, is that all?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Get rid of the sarcasm parts and you have an excellent start. Now multiply your computer by several trillion and leave them all alone to run for millions of years. I guarantee you'll get some frigging amazing programs. I'd be shocked if you didn't get one that wondered where it came from, in some form or another.

Re:450, is that all?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Christian. I believe that the world was created in 6 days. I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, and he lived a sinless life. He died on the cross at Calvary to save us from our sins. Part of the reason I believe as I do is that I can see the complexity and the order in the world around me, and I cannot force myself to accept that it was all by mere chance, as the evolutionary theory would have me believe

Taht's because it's NOT "mere" chance ! Why do you religious nutjobs always lie, distort and deceive??...why can't you just tell the damn truth once in a while? There are no whirlwinds through junkyards, there are no falling piles of bricks making themselves into houses ! Evolution is not 100% random... NATURAL SELECTION holds the key, the process is not 100% mere chance !

                            Another problem that I see is that people refuse to believe that scientific data is interpretative (i.e., it's not easy [if it's possible at all] to prove what caused _____). The Christian scientist first accepts what he believes about the Bible, and then interprets the scientific data in one way. This is not unusual, however, as the evolutionary scientist accepts what he believes from the teachings of Darwin first, and then interprets the scientific data in another way

Rubbish! The whacko religious dim-wits bend, twist, mangle and destroy the truth by any objective measure to get it to fit their pre-ordained dogma. Science holds something up, then tries to knock holes in it. The "Theory" is usefull until something else comes along, some new learning, then it is adapted or rejected....that's how science works! If it wasn't that way we'd still all believe the world was flat. Science is reproducable, explains the way thigns are, and , most importanly, predictive! Religion is none of these things...just fairy tales from a simpler age that unfortunately don't seem to go away as the recent rise in Fundamentalism of all faiths will attest to.

Oh man, what would the Enlightenment guys say if they could see you now?

                            The problem that I see most often here on Slashdot is the people that simply say things like 'you're an idiot if you don't believe ______' every time a controversial subject arises (and yes, to those of you that would argue otherwise, this is a controversial subject, or it wouldn't have made it to the front page of Slashdot, and we wouldn't be sitting here on our duffs typing responses back and forth)

It's really only controversial in the US where you have gazallions of slack-jawed, Red State yokels with an ancestry of religious lunatics (the riff-raff ejected from Europe once the got on with the job of moving their societies forward). The rest of the world, by and large, rejects whacko Fundamentalism and sees the Pat Robertsons, and Billy Grahams at el just as crazy flim-flam conmen.

enjoy!

Re:450, is that all?

[Jsutton1027w]

Well, thanks for the tip on the book. I'll keep that in mind.

If you're interested in learning more about how fundamentalist Christians really think creation took place, may I recommend the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" by Henry Morris. It very clearly explains why many Christians consider the theory of evolution to be absurd. :)

Re:450, is that all?

[Jsutton1027w]

Well, thank you for that interesting, however unreadable and offensive, reply. I want to summarize your post by listing some of the names that you used to describe Christians (which makes up a majority of the population in the world, by the way):

• nutjobs
• whackos
• dim-wits

Also, let's see what you have to say about Americans as a whole:

• slack-jawed yokels
• religious lunatics
• riff-raff

Thanks again for your idiotic and completely uncontrolled point-of-view! By the way, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to work on your typing/grammar skills a little (oh, and posting as AC doesn't help you any :) ).

Re:450, is that all?

[mrpeebles]

> I really was referring to the 'Big Bang' idea that pervades evolution: that everything exploded into existance.

I think that this is what I understood you meant by "simple chance", in other words that the world is devoid of God's rhyme and reason, that we are simply combinations of mechanical molecules, devoid of the divine breath. I want to say again this is NOT what Darwin's evolution says. You may decide that the assertion that your great-great-great... incomrehensible amount of greats...-great grandfather was not human DOES imply this (and I admit, this view does have some appeal), but that is your or someone else's philosophical or theological conclusion, not a scientific one.

Re:450, is that all?

[gameboyhippo]

And this is what blows me away. Why would an engineer think that one was created by trial and error? I'm not sure what you engineer, but could you imagion engineering something as complex as a cell through trial and error? Forget trillions of years, you'd have to go on forever until you found something like a cell on the perfect planet that could reproduce. Then after that, how do you convince those cells to form tissues? Assuming that everything went well and we now have an organism, how do we explain all of the other similar organisms. Why do most of us have eyes, ears, nostrils, a mouth, etc... Why if it was all trial and error, we'd have all sorts of cool features that other creatures don't have. Perhaps our mouths would be at our feet. Weirdest part of all, we are all programmed with the same programming language (DNA or RNA).

I'm an IT professional. I design and implement code. My code looks similar from one program to another since I'm the same designer. Heck, I even reuse objects or create new objects that use other objects. None of my code is trial and error. There is a reason I use each object in my code.

I don't even see the point of these "christianity is teh suxors111!!!1one!" articles on slashdot. Is Zonk so unsure of himself that he has to make these posts so that all of slashdot could go, "Yeah... um... There's no god." or "Let's combine every idea into one!" I thought this was a site for nerds. I can just imagion judgement day for a slashdotter:

"Uh... You're not real..." And if you think that's an exaggeration, let's look at 2000 years ago: "I'm God! Here I am! You wanted to see me to believe in me? Well take a look. Watch me prove I'm God. Look I raise people from the dead! I walk on water! Yet, you still don't believe in me?"

What did we do? We nail 'em to a couple of sticks.

Re:450, is that all?

[Colm Buckley]

Here is the rub: the scientists' beliefs are better.

Hear, hear! It should be mentioned more often in reply to those who holler that "Science is just another religion" that, if it's a religion, it's a religion where the miracles actually work. No religion has ever produced a real, testable, bona fide miracle, but Science (and its handmaiden Engineering) produces millions of them on a daily basis.

Re:450, is that all?

[Anonymous Coward]

All life is derivative of the same 'code.' The genetic drift between any two lifeforms is significant but minute. Science as the foundation of engineering works somewhat similarly in how it obtains knowledge of the universe: incremental trial and error. That doesn't mean truly random trial and error, it means proposing and experimenting refinements of given models to improve accuracy. Similarly genetic code that differs considerably in a 'random' way often results in miscarriage, stillbirth, disadvantageous birth defects, and inability to procreate. If you want to see this technique in terms of software, look at genetic algorithms. These can be quite good at finding local extrema for otherwise intractable problems.

Re:450, is that all?

[spitzak]

You think you are being funny, but you accurately described a real, viable method of creating computer programs, called genetic programming, or neural nets, or a number of other names. These programs have created better algorithims in a shorter time than human "intelligent designers". The problem is that they can only work if a test for fitness can be written easily, ie if the fitness test is more complicated than the algorithim itself, which is true of something like word processor, it is not possible to use this. Evolution works because "not dying before reproducing" is a rather simple test.

not true

[tjw]

Science is based on consensus of opinion and may change over time. The two *are* mutually exclusive as religion implies faith over consensus of opinion.

In religion, consense of opinion certainly changes over time, it's just that it takes a lot longer since it involves a generation of leaders dying off.

Fundies

[Mark_MF-WN]

Right, so that's why the "reasonable" people just elect the fundies into the government instead. Nice. Remember when Bush claimed that he spoke God's will? Yeah, that's a fundie. The fact is, fundamentalists just breed more fundamentalists. They need to be incarcerated -- they're a danger to themselves and others. After all, what could be more dangerous than stupidity? Only an infectious form of stupidity.

This is NOT Idolatry

[Anonymous Coward]

Celebration is not the same as worship. They are not worshipping Darwin, therefore it is not idolatry.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[linuxfanatic1024]

I'd say this:

Catholicism is like Linux because:

1. It has a kernel (belief in Jesus and God) and you can put different forms on top of that (barring a few that go against the license).

2. Jesus started the religion and lets others run it and the Pope (Jesus' successor on Earth) steps in to handle disputes among clergy memebers. (like Linus' governing policy)

2. Most of its followers are friendly, but some bad leaders gave the church a bad name (like a developer committing malicious code). However, the problem gets cleaned up in most cases.

3. It sprouted from an older, less "open", religion, many of the followers of which are still around today (Judaism).

4. Protestants, like Micro$oft, spread FUD about how Catholicism is "evil", instead of examining their own "code" (religion). They don't even allow people to explore their own faith and instead ban anyone from questioning it. Catholics, on the other hand, encourage exploration into faith. They also try to lead people to give up their happiness and go into deception (by making it look easier).

5. Being a Catholic requires an understanding of how it works, like Linux does.

Liberal

[Mark_MF-WN]

Is there anything more sad than seeing someone disparaging the idea of being liberal? As if there was something wrong with liking freedom? I mean, I guess it's fine if you really hate freedom that much, that's your perogative. But think about it -- would you really prefer to live in a society with no liberalism? No freedom of any kind? No one trying to preserve your freedoms? Maybe you should try living in Iran for a while -- I guaranee it will give you an ardent passion for the ideals of freedom. Liberalism is a Good thing.

Re:Liberal

[Billly Gates]

Funny neocons love to use this argument agaisnt liberals. They are american so therefore the republican party represents freedom and the democrats are aligned with the socialists who therefore oppose freedom and favor big government instead.

Re:Liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberal" as used by the poster is not in the "classical" sense of the word - just like "gay" in modern use doesn't mean happy & bright.

And you know what was meant but seek to shroud yourself in "intellectualism".

Of course, your fellow "non-classical liberals" modded you +2, so you must be right.

More of the "non-classical liberal" ego-stroking.

I cannot contend with such incredible mental power - to make things correct/right just by denial of reality and force of will.

Re:Liberal

[Mark_MF-WN]

Maybe you need to look up the word "liberal" and "conservative" in a dictionary some time...

Occam's razor

[pbhj]

Just because an answer has an appearance of perfect simplicity doesn't make it true.

I've always found Occam's razor to be stupid. In life it seems to me that the simplest solution is rarely the real answer. As a methodology, of course, restricting yourself to altering the fewest variables (or assuming the least degrees of freedom, etc.) is probably good because it makes things easier ... but I don't see how easy => truth.

Re:Occam's razor

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've always found Occam's razor to be stupid. "

Your feelings have nothing to do with how the universe works. If the razor has proven a valuable and effective scientific method for half a millenium, it's not stupid, only inconvenient to theists.

Re:Occam's razor

[Hatta]

As a methodology, of course, restricting yourself to altering the fewest variables (or assuming the least degrees of freedom, etc.) is probably good because it makes things easier ... but I don't see how easy => truth.

Not quite. The more degrees of freedom you have the easier it is to fit your data to your model. With enough degrees of freedom any data can be made to fit a curve. But that doesn't really tell us anything useful. What you're trying to do is find the least number of entities needed to make your model useful. You then hypothesize that the entities are something real, because otherwise you'd be able to get rid of them in your analysis. Then you try to figure out what they are.

Bullshit

[Mark_MF-WN]

What bullshit. If rabid fundamentalists aren't the American majority, then how have rabid fundamentalists managed to control all three branches of the US government for so long? Are you really suggesting the non-christians and liberal christians are so enormously stupid that they would elect representatives that see them as evil heathens? Wait, no, I agree with you. Hypotheses based on the idea that people are stupid are almost always correct...

darwin had great ideas

[digitallysick]

The bible is a book, and really no way to prove that any of it happened at all, or was true. At least with science we can try to prove things, now as far as evolution, i dont think animals turned into humans, but , who knows

Science has always been persecuted

[digitalgimpus]

Since very early on, science has always been persecuated.

It's not just science... most brilliant minds are "ahead of their times".

In 200-300 years, people will look back at the stupidity of today.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[blamanj]

This is somewhat misleading. A lot of "mainstream" Protestant denominations have no problem with evolution, and as you suggest, there are a relatively small number of fundamentalist denominations who explicitly teach Biblical literalism.

However, if you ask individuals, you get numbers like 42% of the population believe that species exist in their present form, i.e., they have not evolved over time.

Liberation theology?

[mike_n2em]

3) Evolution itself has plenty of room for a valid new theology based on the idea that God would WANT life to be free of God's direct design. This is known as "liberation theology" and though many Catholics disdain it, it's perfectly plausible.

This has nothing to do with liberation theology. Liberation theology is a mixture of Christian doctrine with Marxist doctrine, implying that Christians should get involved in Marxist revolutions, particularly in Latin America. Since Marxism includes atheism, the Catholic Church sees an inherent contradiction in liberation theology.

Re:Liberation theology?

[plunge]

As I noted in the other response that caught this error, I should have written "Libertarian" theology. Duh on me.

Darwinism

[blamanj]

You're falling into a trap set by the fundamentalist right if you use terms like "Darwinism". It's an attempt to frame the debate as evolution being the product of a single man's thoughts, and, as such, easier to discredit.

No one refers to gravitational theory as "Newtonism". Stick with "evolution".

Re:Darwinism

[mrpeebles]

Yes, but at least then it is clear what we are referring to. What the heck does "Intelligent design" refer to? As far as I can tell, nobody can really give an answer. I suppose its like God Himself- nobody really knows what it is, only what its NOT. And its NOT Darwin's natural selection ( see, you know exactly what I'm referring to ;-) .)

Arguments

[esconsult1]

The strongest argument against intelligent design, is the existence of its proponents.

where to begin... when everyone knows already?

[Anonymous Coward]

my pov is that religion and macro-evolution are both faiths. i don't mean to quibble with definitions to mislead, either. i mean it.

a point about me before everyone stuffs me in their mental box... yes, i do believe in god, and i disbelieve some things, most often almost everything, that every single religious person i've ever heard had taught.

aren't i lucky, i get to argue with rightwingers and the evolutioninsts! such a life god gave to me, right? ;-)

macroevolution was a paradigm that originated on the foundation THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. it assumes this, as well it should, since science doesn't rely, nor should it, on the supernatural.

my problems with macro-evolution are as follows:

1. i'm unaware of a single fossil series that is absolutely proven to be transitional. this is odd, b/c there should be many. sure, some *might* be transitional, but then again, they might not be. we need a serious of fossils that makes it unreasonable that the series could be anything but an example of evolution. it doesn't exist. i'm willin gto believe in evolution, however, i will need evidence of evolution. chants of "it's been proven" won't' suffice.

a fossil was touted as nebraska man... but it was a pigs tooth. you see, its lineage wasn't *proven* beyond all reasonable doubt, it was just *accepted* b/c, well, evolution has to be right if there is no god. unless you want to get all alien.

2. explain to my why the alledgely transitional animals *must* die off. not every animal is equally able to adapt - yet they survive. where are the transitional animals still alive today? why have 100% of them gone extinct? "convenience" isn't an acceptable answer, even if shrouded in cool scientific jargon.
3. what advantage does a land animal have by transitioning its ear into a water dwelling structure? think about it. the hybrid ear is DETRIMENTAL ON BOTH LAND AND IN THE WATER... the transition from land to water is discreet - one is either on land or in the sea, but not both.

so the idea that natural selction always selects the most adaptable characteristics is INCONSISTENT with what *must have* occurred for the ancestor of a cow to become a whale (i think that's the current storyline). in fact, anything that went from land to sae. a DETRIMENTAL ear must've "evolved" in the land animal before, AT SOME FUTURE POINT, that ear became advantageous again.

evolution is hella smart to "take one for the team" knowing there would be future reward, right? right? think about it before calling me a name and blowing the information off.

4. macro-evolution apart from a deity infers life comes from death. you want to talk about rock solid theories? life doesn't come from death - that's more rock solid than macro-evolution. it is more battle tested than macro-evolution.

5. why can't we force wholesale macro-evolution in our experiements where we can reproduce bacteria tens of millions of times? and they still come out bacteria.

"well, that's different." nope, it is *inconvenient* to the macro-evolutionists, so they want to spin it out of the discussion. i care about the logical necessities... and so should any ethical, honest seeker of the truth.

conjuring up some "primordial soup" doesn't make this problem go away.

these are some of the bigger issues i have with macro-evolution.

the issue i have with many of its proponents is that, just like so many christians, they label others with some kind of perceived slur in order to not have to spend any intellectual capital addressing the points that are made.

think of it like this... if an attorney has the evidence on his side, he pounds the evidence. if an attorney has the law onhis side he pounds the law, when an attorney has nothing on his side, he pounds his opponent.

step back, take a deep breath and then visual how this applies to both sides of this argument.

as for me, i'm cool with evolution *if* it can be shown nothing else is re

I define "Christian" as...

[Stoutlimb]

I define Christian as someone who identifies themselves as a christian to me. Just about everyone who does so, also identifies themselves as an ID'er. I'm glad for you that you're a bit smarter than that, but your kind are definately in the minority in my parts (Edmonton, Canada.)

Re:I define "Christian" as...

[TIMxPx]

Believing in intelligent design (small i. small d.) is a given for Christians, because we believe in an Intelligent Designer (capital I. capital D.), which is just a fancy way of saying Creator God. The Creator God is essential Christian doctrine; someone who doesn't believe in a Creator God but calls himself a Christian is giving himself a title without knowing its meaning. In fact, believing in a Creator God is a given for all people as far as Judaism/Christianity is concerned - even non-Christians are presumed to believe in a Creator God. "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1) -- "You believe there is one God... even the demons believe that" (James 2:19) -- "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse..." (Romans 1:20)

I don't believe that i am quoting anything out of context, and i'm not saying that non-Christians will accept these things as true, only that the Creator God is believed by Christians to be universally evident.

I don't hitch my star to a bunch of scientists trying to prove Intelligent Design (as in, i do not identify myself as an IDer). However, i (and Christians in general) believe that there is blatant overwhelming evidence for a Creator, whether the Creator used mainly natural or supernatural processes in creation. So all Christians believe in intelligent design, even if they aren't hung up on teaching theories and such, because without the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator God, it makes no sense whatsoever to be a Christian. Christianity presumes this Creator God.

It is not enough for people to call themselves Christian. Calling myself a Christian doesn't make me one, because that is meaningless if i don't believe essential Christian doctrine (faith in Jesus Christ as the propitiation for my sin). If i call myself a Muslim but don't believe in Mohammed's prophetic revelation, am i a Muslim? Calling myself a Christian and believing in ID doesn't make me a Christian. The thing that makes me a Christian is belief that Jesus Christ died on a cross to bear the sins of the world, and nothing i do, only what Christ has done, can ever gain me acceptance before God. It's not about trying to be a good person, or believing in scientific theories; non-Christians do those things as well as Christians.

So I would suggest that you ask a person claiming to be a Christian what it means to be a Christian. I would also ask a Christian who doesn't believe in intelligent design whether that person believes in a Creator God. If you get confusing or uncertain answers, then you're not talking to a Christian, but rather a fake or an ignoramus.

Not at all

[thegnu]

You can CELEBRATE a person's birthday, and not WORSHIP them. Do you think that having a reunion for a priest's birthday is idolatry? Why or why not? Your argument is relatively logical, but it's certainly not sound, considering the fact that you base it on the assumption that celebrating = worshiping. It DOES NOT.

The rest of your post is nice and sweet, though.

The argument is too simplistic

[fastduke]

Creation or Evolution? Truly I don't understand how anyone that believes in God can argue between the two. The problem is that the two ways argued over are far to simplistic for God.

Another three things to read/view

[femto]

People may be interested in the following opinion piece:

How design supporters insult God's intelligence

and the following documentary about some priests who are also hard core scientists:

Galileo's Sons

A few days ago the Pope came out and reinforced the Catholic Church's view that Science and religion are compatible. In other words even the Pope thinks evolution is valid. Here is the original speech in Italian.

All in all the proponents of intelligent design are looking more and more like the snake oil salesmen they are.

Re:Another three things to read/view

[Anonymous Coward]

The Intelligent Design people are Protestants, not Catholics. They don't accept what the Pope says. In fact, most Protestants are likely to look at the Pope saying science and religion are compatible as more proof that they are not.

Christianity covers a large group - not all Christians are Catholic. Generically, the wackos you read about in the news are Protestants, not Catholic. When you hear about the "Religious Right" in the United States, you're hearing about Protestants, not Catholics.

It's Protestants who believe that the entire Bible is the literal word of God, not Catholics.

Re:Another three things to read/view

[Bazzalisk]

It's Protestants who believe that the entire Bible is the literal word of God, not Catholics.

It's some Protestants who believe that the entire Bible is the literal word of God, not Catholics.

Re:Another three things to read/view

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's pretty much all Protestants. The whole "Protestant Reformation" was about reinterrpretting the Bible literally instead of following the Catholic dogma.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[professionalfurryele]

Yes, yes, I'm sure you are all very peaceful and lovely and want to hold hands with science and dance around the may pole. Thats why all three branches of the American government are controlled by a party pandering to religious extremism. Here is an idea, turn things around so that your leader is in the same position as the UK Prime Minister, refusing to answer questions about when and where he prays because they are irrelevant to a person holding the premiership of a secular state, then I will believe you. Make religion a taboo in government, something you don't talk. Then maybe, just maybe I might start seeing you and your ilk as being reasonable and not antiscientific. Come on, the United States is being out done by a country that is technically a Christian Constitutional Monarch on the secular front. A majority of Americans are creationists. You live in your fantasy world where your religion isn't a force for bad in the world if that makes you feel better, but remember that by doing so you are not simply harming yourself but others as well.

Uhmmm that is a TRUE statement

[SauroNlord]

Darwinism = Science is TRUE Much like: if(a = b) { //always executed } I think you meant Darwinism == Science thankyouverymuch

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[hogghogg]

Agreed. Perhaps the institutions tend to be more sensible than their constituents.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Anonymous Coward]

"Less open? How is Judaism less open?"

We can eat pork.

The other white meat.

I have a few questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not trying to discredit evolution, I just want an honest answer to an honest question(s).

Is chocolate toxic to monkeys (I include apes and whatnot in that category)?

If yes, if we evolved from monkeys, for what reason should monkeys have evolved to eat chocolate? I highly doubt that it is a major source of food for any monkey (remember that I include any primeape in that monkey category), and thus, what reason would a species of monkey have to evolve to be able to eat chocolate?

*Puts up flame shield*
The above question is not meant to insult anyone or to encourage any religious zealots from supporting the above question or darwinian zealots from flaming the above question. I've just had that question for awhile now, and I want it answered.

Re:I have a few questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and another question.

If humans evolved from apes (no I'm not going to make the why are there still apes point), from my understanding, during the evolution's phase, shouldn't various species of apes have branched off?

I mean, for instance, why is it that there are humans, and there are apes. Why aren't there more species of apes that are a lot more like humans? I mean, generally, don't things evolve because they adapt? Shouldn't a half-ape half-human be more adapted than a full ape, and thus the half-ape half-humans would slowly overtake the full ape population? I mean, according to that moth example that I've heard many times, there were light moths then some dark moths. The light moths were easier to spot on trees, and so they were easier to eat, and thus the dark moths became dominant. Wouldn't something like that apply to apes as well, where the more adapted ape would slowly replace the less-adapted ape?

Again, no flaming, I just want some answers. :-/

Re:I have a few questions...

[nicc777]

Good question :)

I don't think evolution has a real answer. I have also posted a piece on an earlier story (Scientists Finally Figure Out How Bees Fly) on my blog, just to illustrate the vast amount of problems in all their theories.

We do not even know how to stop the common cold which we have under our microscopes daily - but we are eager to explain things like how a star formed even though we have never observed this event from start to finish.

What religious folks are really worried about.

[snoitpo]

Last week's Washington Post had a very interesting aticle about this Eden and Evolution . It didn't try to verify or dispute the fact of evolution, but instead showed why fundamentlist religious folks have a big problem with evolution. And like many debates in society, it takes more than 10 seconds to get the point, so we end up just yelling past each other.

The religious right's big beef is that the theory of evolution really takes away man's special place in the universe. Evolution opens up the possibility that sentient life is something that just happened here on earth with no divine intervention. Evolution demonstrates that life could pop up in many places in the universe; given a stew of the right elements and physical conditions and enough time, life is inevitable.

Most non-religious or religious liberals (I'm a Unitarian Universalist, a denomination as theologically liberal as you could possibly imagine) think the fundamentalist's big problem is that evolution contradicts the first myth in the Bible (or whatever creation myth your religion professes). But religious folks have been very quick to switch from a literal translation to a more metaphorical one when the science demonstrates the facts. "The Earth does not move" (repeated a dozen times in the Bible) may have put Galileo under house arrest, but I doubt any Christian would fight the teaching of the heliocentric model of the solar system. What made that shift possible was the telescope; it not only easily showed other small systems at work that showed how the earth and the sun dance, but more recently (the last 50 years) has served as a time machine in astrophysics. Even most religious do not really believe all creation popped up ex nihilo in 144 hours (well, that's the first creation story; the one starting at Gen 2:4 isn't as time specific). In biology, there are dozens of well-documented recent observations that show speciation and other long-duration actions that are predicted by evolutionary theory--this is why "micro-eveolution" has been given as a reasonable possibility by some fundamentalists.

The key is to realize that people who truely believe in revealed knowledge aren't swayed by arguments from fact; they've been told that the scientific establishment is another source of revealed knowledge and the scientists really have no greater basis to really explain what's going on. At times scientific experts haven't been helpful to the novice public (too much cable news, which pits one crazed extreme opinion yeller with another extreme yeller, doesn't help). And some things, like string theory, really are mostly conjecture, and perhaps using a term like "string framework" may clear the air a bit. (And no, I'm not ready to debate string theory! It does explain many things, but one can fiddle the math to make it explain things way out of it's scope also.)

Re:What religious folks are really worried about.

[will_die]

What put Galileo under house arrest were two fold.
1) He was going against all the mainstream scientist of the day and saying that Aristotle was wrong. Aristotle even had people killed or exiled for saying the earth moved around the Sun.
2) He could not prove what he was saying. He had opportunity to prove what we was saying was the truth but could not. The evidence and math existed to prove it but that was done by a different person, and Galileo had problems accepting work not done by himself. It was not until Newton that it finally all came together and a proof could be shown.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Fished]

No, the reason that all three branches are controlled by Republicans is that the Democrats decided 20-30 years ago to be the party of Abortion-on-demand. While I am a pacifist and am quite uncomfortable with Bush's foreign and economic policies, every 4 years I have to make a choice between a guaranteed continuation of the absurd notion of abortion as a "right" and Republicans.

The bottom line is that the Christian church has forbade abortion and infanticide (traditionally regarding them as equivalent) since at least the 1st century (see the Didache), and large numbers of Christians are going to have a hard time voting for a candidate who favors continued legalized infanticide. Don't like it? Then get the democratic party to stop the lock-step support for Roe v. Wade and send abortion back to the states, where it belongs.

Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[DavidPesta]

What are the conditions that would falsify natural evolution?

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[shawb]

Natural evolution would be falsified if you changed the environment of an ecosystem and the individual oranisms as well as the composite of the entire ecosystem stayed the same. We have many many examples of changing some factor of the local environment leading to changes in the organisms.

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[AvitarX]

That is when the creationists say they believe in adaptation and not speciation.

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[DavidPesta]

What if you change the environment of an ecosystem and found that there is no new genetic information in the gene pool of the organisms? (Merely a shift in the frequency of genetic traits that already existed in the gene pool at the beginning of the observation.) Isn't new genetic information what natural selection uses to drive natural evolution's development of new life forms?

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[DavidPesta]

Everyone has a right to ask these kinds of questions, not just creationists. Science demands that the questions get asked so that there can be answers. I'm not jumping on you, just making sure that is clear. :)

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[dickko]

Isn't new genetic information what natural selection uses to drive natural evolution's development of new life forms?

In short, no. Natural selection merely alters the gene frequencies within a population. Indeed, if a new mutation is beneficial to an organism, natural selection will tend to favour that mutation and increase its presence within the population. Natural selection also works to alter the frequencies of existing genes, as seen during the industrial revolution in England with moths (explaination here)

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[DavidPesta]

dickko: '...if a new mutation is beneficial to an organism...'

Isn't that the same thing as new genetic information?

I agree with your explanation, this is basically what I was saying. I said that natural selection uses new genetic information (beneficial mutations) to drive the origin of new life forms.

So, to put my response another way, is it enough for life to merely change gene frequencies, or must the lack of beneficial mutations in our ecosystem be what falsifies natural evolution? (Making it a falsifiable scientific theory valid for study.)

(I believe I needed to originally define 'natural evolution' as the mechanism that created all of life. I don't usually refer to natural evolution as something that merely brings about change. Afterall, a flesh wound to my arm brings about change (a scar) and could be thought of as natural evolution if you gave it such a broad definition. ;) )

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[csrster]

Wasn't it Haldane who replied to that question with a muttered "a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian" ?

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[ultranova]

Natural evolution would be falsified if you changed the environment of an ecosystem and the individual oranisms as well as the composite of the entire ecosystem stayed the same.

Actually, no. If you take an existing ecosystem and add some substance that's poisonous to some of the beings in it but not to all, then that ecosystems composition changes as some of the beings die off and the rest survive. This, however, happens whether the theory of evolution is true or or not.

In order to falsify evolution you'd need to examine that changed ecosystem with empty niches and see if new species will rise to fill them.

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[dickko]

Isn't that the same thing as new genetic information?

You're ignoring/missing part of what I said... The second part to that paragraph mentioned English Pepper Moths. During the industrial revolution in England, you could find two variations of moth, dark and light. The light coloured moths were predominant in country areas and the dark moths were more often found in the major cities, where carbon was deposited onto the trees the moths inhabited. The light moths in the cities died off quickly (easily spotted by predators) and hence did not breed.

In the case of these moths, no mutation of genes was necessary, the genes for both colours of moths was already present. Hence natural selection worked on existing genetic information.

So, to put my response another way, is it enough for life to merely change gene frequencies, or must the lack of beneficial mutations in our ecosystem be what falsifies natural evolution?

Evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time, that's all. Natural selection is one component of evolution as we know it. There are other forces acting on populations of individuals, but natural selection tends to be the most talked about by the general public. Speciation is a by-product of evolution, not the driving force.

As to lack of beneficial mutations, tell that to people with sickle-cell anaemia. Sure, they might find it difficult to breathe, but they have an immunity to maleria. In places where maleria is prominent (eg. parts of Africa), that could be of benefit.

Also, according to the theory of random genetic drift, evolution works on all mutations, whether they are "beneficial" or selectively neutral.

Finally, you have encompassed too much into your definition of evolution. I don't know any evolutionary biologists that would equate evolution to "the mechanism that created all of life". Evolution explains observable diversity in life as we see it, but does not explain the trigger that created life itself.

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[KDR_11k]

Which would introduce the difference between adaption and speciation. Where is that difference?

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[Decaff]

That is when the creationists say they believe in adaptation and not speciation.

What is speciation but an accumulation of adaptations?

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[AvitarX]

This seems the easiest way to answer all 3 replies.

Everyone has a right to ask these kinds of questions, not just creationists. Science demands that the questions get asked so that there can be answers. I'm not jumping on you, just making sure that is clear. :)

It is a fair to ask, and I just wanted to point out that there is no end to little nits and picks the creationists will add to bolster their therory, working from the premise it is true. The fact that we see change but no speciation in our observations of the moths for example (most obvious adaptation I know of as a laymen) is actually evidence that proves creationism. It is that thinking I disapprove of.

Which would introduce the difference between adaption and speciation. Where is that difference?

The difference is that an entire population all changing is adaptation. It must fork into 2 groups that cannot have sex to be speciation.

what is speciation but an accumulation of adaptations?

If an entire population changes leaving none unchanged, then it is not speciation in the sense it was meant.

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[shawb]

I wasn't saying that the converse would PROVE evolution, I was saying that no change would DISprove evolution. There are tenets of evolution that could potentially be falsified in laboratory or field study conditions, thus disproving evolution. I do not know of any such experiments that falsified evolution, but I have heard of many situations in which evolution was not disproved. These experiments and studies bolster the likelihood that evolution is a sound theory, and sometimes will refine the understand mechanics behind evolution, but they do not outright prove evolution.

The experiment you suggest would indeed be a subset of the concept I was talking about, where removal of some organism suited for a particular niche would be the environmental change. Some animal changing to fill the niche (and changing genetically, not simply behaviorally) would indeed support the theory of evolution, and no animal changing to fill the niche would indeed falsify the theory of evolution. However the question would be how long does it take for an organism to change enough to fit this niche? This would probably take a long enough time to not be feasible as a scientific study. Although an experiment could possibly be designed in such a fashion using very rapidly reproducing organisms (I.E. bacteria, possibly insects or rodents.)

However, other scenarious could disprove evolution as well. Bacteria never gaining resistance to antibiotics would be an example. And again, bacterial resistance as we know it does not in and of itself PROVE evolution, as there could be other explanations (Lamarkian heredity, the hand of god... err... the noodly appendage of the FSM... etc.) But organisms changing in such a manner as predicted by the theory of evolution does strengthen the theory. Especially if you are able to quantize how long it will take for the changes to take place, but I don't know if evolutionary theory is that precise yet.

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[DavidPesta]

Cool. It looks like you are treating the issue in a way that I can accept.

And again, bacterial resistance as we know it does not in and of itself PROVE evolution, as there could be other explanations

True. For example, the resistance could be present in the bacteria at the very beginning of the experiment, but temporarily masked by a single mutation that blocks the resistance ability. As soon as another mutation knocks the resistance gene back into a working state of operation, the new strain begins to survive better and takes over--exhibiting the brand new resistance ability! In this case it would appear that the resistance evolved into existance, but actually the resistance merely bounced back.

To confirm what actually happens with bacterial resistance, you may actually have to sequence these genes at every stage and watch what happened. Yikes! Verifying evolution at a genetic level is a lot of hard work.

Anyway, my original question wasn't very clear. I was wondering if natural evolution as a theory in general was falsifiable given the fact that science operates under the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Does the common practice of science allow natural evolution to be falsifiable?

In the end it may not matter because unfalsifiable theories can still be verified by observation. It just takes so long to verify evolution!

Re:Is natural evolution falsifiable?

[ultranova]

I wasn't saying that the converse would PROVE evolution, I was saying that no change would DISprove evolution.

And I'm saying that change will occur whether there is evolution or not. Simply killing off a species will of course mean that there is a difference in the ecosystem before and after that extinction; at the very least that particular species is missing from it afterwards.

You are trying to claim that testing one of the prerequisites of evolution (natural selection) which is obviously true in all conceivable worlds where creatures can die at all tests evolution itself. You are saying that if the ecosystem doesn't change when you try to change it, there can be no evolution. True. Guess what ? If you can prove that universe doesn't exist, then obviously it can't have been created either, so creationism/ID is falsifiable by this standard of falsifiability as well.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[HeroreV]

Microsoft embraces standards because it fears anything it can't control, but Christians only embrace evolution because they're too lazy to disbelive it. Back in the old days Christians could believe the sky was green and the grass was pink, but kids these days just don't have the same passion and faith anymore. It's so sad.

"It's getting hard to disbelieve all this evolution stuff. Maybe I'll just sorta mix it in. Evolution happened through the power of the Lord, and the tale of the creation of Adam and Eve is just a metaphor. Yeah, that's it!"

This is a good thing

[localman]

The false dilemma between science (or more specifically, evolution) and belief in a creator (or more specifically Christianity) is old, tired, and ready to go. I actually wrote a related article on this over at Kuro5hin just this morning.

I'm not sure where this idea came from that if we understand the physical mechanisms that are working in our universe, that we have somehow moved away from God. If you believe in God, you must believe he created all these mechanisms. God could very well have created evolution itself as the best means to give rise to complex life. Isn't it flattering and respectful to learn about the world God created?

Cheers.

Re:Meanwhile...

[amliebsch]

It is not by accident that I used the present tense, and excluding the Nazis, who explicitly did not kill "in the name of God," your examples are hundreds of years old. My argument is that the Christianity, with the rest of the world has changed in the past few centuries, but that an abnormally large number of Muslim extremists have not also changed. As you consider the state of the world right now and going forward, I believe my statement is accurate.

I do not argue that Christians are pure and have not committed horrors in the past. But that is not relevant to my parent's statement.

Hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method. That is --- the validity of science implies the validity of evolution.
If you deny the validity of evolution, then, by modus tollens, you are denying the validity of science. It's logic :-)

There have been many theories that have been the product of the scientific method which didn't pan out. Doubting them is no more doubting the validity of the scientific method itself, than denying evolution is.

Why is it people on both sides of this debate are such total morons? Why doesn't everyone who thinks this is worth arguing about, belittling each other, and all the other stupid nasty shit associated with it, just gather in a field and fight out? Once and for all, winner takes all.

My dumb ass made the mistake of clicking on this stupid topic. Serves me right. No more reading this crap for me.

Inconsistencies

[thegnu]

You admit in 3) that there could be problems arising from mistranslation, but say that calling the Bible non-literal makes it false. I'm 100% bilingual in English and Spanish, and words DO NOT translate perfectly, EVER. There is always a mapping performed, always an imperfect fit. I imagine Aramaic is a pretty different language from English.

You know how everybody laughs when they translate all the African tribes' descriptions of guns and cars? Ha! "FIRE stick!" How cute...

Re:Inconsistencies

[3770]

I'm 98% bi-lingual and I agree that translation sometimes is hard, but if they can translate J.R.R. Tolkiens trilogy better than the Bible then the situation isn't ideal. I can't really back that statement up with facts, other than having read the trilogy in both English and Swedish without uncovering any really blatant mis-translations that change the meaning of something.

I'm no expert on mis-translations of the Bible but I always find the examples I hear very interesting. And the most interesting situation is when I hear some person explain something in the bible, as well as motivating why the bible says what it says, when I know that that particular passage may be mis-translated.

And so Einstein wins again...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium." - Albert Einstein

Can I get an amen to that? ;-)

Re:And so Einstein wins again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad weak minds misunderstand Einstein when he talks about God and religion as being an endorsement of creationism.

Re:And so Einstein wins again...

[cruachan]

I think you'll find that there's no reliable citation for the first of those quotes.

Re:And so Einstein wins again...

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Wikiquotes seems to disagree.


"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

* Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York (1941)"

Idolatry?

[freeweed]

Don't worry. We'll be along shortly to burn down those churches' embassies. Hopefully their government will apologize soon.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[professionalfurryele]

So what you are saying is you are a one issue fundamentalist who wants his religion to have the right to bypass the constitution of the United States, and wishes he lived in a theocracy. Hey you may just be in luck, as I understand it that is the plan...

Unfalsifiable religion is a modern concept

[Animats]

Because religion's basic premise is the existence of an omnipotent force not governed by physical laws, it is by definition unfalsifiable.

The concept that religion is unfalsifiable is relatively modern. The Christian bible makes many falsifiable claims and predictions. Centuries of heavy spin control have worked around most of the problems with that. But there's major hand-waving involved.

The embarassingly obvious thing about the Christian bible, once you think about it, is that it doesn't contain anything that people back then didn't know. The Bible has many remarks about cosmology and geography, but they show no knowledge beyond what was generally known back then. No mention that the world is round, or that the lights in the night sky are distant suns, or that the earth moves around the sun. No notes on parts of the earth the Egyptians and Romans didn't know about. Or even that the Earth is much bigger than people thought at the time.

That doesn't sound like something written by an omniscient being. That sounds like some guys writing about what they knew.

Re:Unfalsifiable religion is a modern concept

[LordLucless]

The concept that religion is unfalsifiable is relatively modern. The Christian bible makes many falsifiable claims and predictions. Centuries of heavy spin control have worked around most of the problems with that. But there's major hand-waving involved.

You may be able to disprove various claims of the Bible. But if you do, most believers are probably going to ignore you, or find a way around that (it was allegorical, you need to interpret the Bible through the filter of the time it was written in, etc). But the claim that "There is an omnipotent being who is in control of all things" - that claim is the unfalsifiable bit I was talking about, and that is common to most religions, whereas picking apart holy texts is not (not all religions are based on a book, or even on factual knowledge).

You can falsify some claims of religion, but you cannot falsify the concept of God. Which was what some of the more enthusiastic proponents of evolution claimed it did - prove that God did not exist.

Re:Unfalsifiable religion is a modern concept

[Animats]

"There is an omnipotent being who is in control of all things" implies that that there are occasional macroscopic state changes to the universe being made from the outside. That is potentially testable.

If you really believe that stuff, you'd expect Old Testament type events, and we're not seeing those.

Re:Unfalsifiable religion is a modern concept

[LordLucless]

It is only testable if you know every law of the universe, which science doesn't claim. Any anomoly in the state of the universe could simply be explained away as a factor science has not explained yet.

We're not seeing them now, no. But the fact that something does not happen isn't proof that it can not happen. Even if you take every story in the Old Testament as true, miracles weren't every day occurances - people were always astounded at the miracles, not yawning and saying yesterday's was better. Then again, miracles may be happening today and are just ignored. I know at least one person who's skin cancer suddenly and inexplicably began to shrink and dissappear, and the doctor in charge of the case did not know why. Is that miraculous on the order of Jesus healing lepers? Or is it simply a case of an as-yet unknown biological factor? And again, the fact that he hasn't done any eye-popping miracles in the last millenia or so may be a just a statistical anomoly when taken over an eternity.

Re:Unfalsifiable religion is a modern concept

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is only testable if you know every law of the universe, which science doesn't claim. Any anomoly in the state of the universe could simply be explained away as a factor science has not explained yet."

Thank you for bringing that point. To know the explanation of every anomoly in the universe would mean that one posesses infinite knowledge, which by definition would make you a god.

Re:Unfalsifiable religion is a modern concept

[LordLucless]

Well, it depends on your definition of a god. I wouldn't call infinite knowledge being a god, unless it came as a package deal with omnipotence.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[NitsujTPU]

3. It sprouted from an older, less "open", religion, many of the followers of which are still around today.

Actually, Judaism is constantly under reinterpretation by its practitioners.

Re:Darwinsim = Racism?

[dantheman82]

Only one month after celebrating Martin Luther King Day, perhaps this is worth mentioning. Did you know that this Darwin happened to write "Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Wow, betcha didn't read the full title before... doesn't the title perhaps sound just a tad racist? This is the same Darwin, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser-evolved "savage" ones. Maybe one distinct species, but these separate sub-species/races apparently were in a clear hierarchy for him.

How about an exposition of his evolutionary theory that Ernst Haeckel, whose book The History of Creation was a major textbook in universities at the end of the 19th-20th centuries? Here's a little excerpt:

"In order to be convinced of this important result, it is above all things necessary to study and compare the mental life of wild savages and of children. At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes."
"In many of these languages there are numerals only for one, two, and three: no Australian language counts beyond four. Very many wild tribes can count no further than ten or twenty, whereas some very clever dogs have been made to count up to forty and even beyond sixty."
Ernst Haeckel, "The History of Creation", pp. 362, 363

"Now, if instituting comparisons in both directions, we place the lowest and most ape-like men (the Austral Negroes, Bushmen, and Andamans, etc.), on the one hand, together with the most highly developed animals, for instance, with apes, dogs, and the elephants, and on the other hand, with the most highly developed men--Aristotle, Newton, Spinoza, Kant, Lamarck, or Goethe--we can then no longer consider the assertion, that the mental life of the higher mammals has gradually developed up to that of man, as in any way exaggerated."

Ernst Haeckel, "The History of Creation", pp. 364, 365

Perhaps Haeckel, whose evolutionary textbook was the standard for years (and coincidentally used for reference during the Scopes Trial) and faked embryo drawings which are used in a shocking number of public school and college textbooks, would have paid tribute to those who caged up the Congolese man Ota Benga next to apes in the Bronx Zoo as an attempt to prove he was the "Missing Link" between an ape and a human.

I would definitely not call them heroes or celebrate their birthdays.

Doubt

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Is that what he really wants to be teaching the kids? To doubt what they can't see for themselves? :D

"Doubt is the chastity of the mind" -Yama, _Lord of Light_, Roger Zelazny

Re:Any religion actually supports Intelligent Desi

[jcr]

I believe Catholicism, Islam and Buddhism (ie. the big three) are all OK with evolution.

Catholicism doesn't dispute the facts of evolution, but they do maintain that the emergence of Man from the process was intentional.

-jcr

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is all about questions. .. and no answers.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Kohath]

The premise of religion is to accept that certain things are mysterious and cannot be investigated, or that certain things are true whether there is evidence for them or not.

Nope. Seriously. I read the whole Bible and it doesn't say anything like that in there.

There's lots of evidence in it though. Most of it is eyewitness testimony because forensics was less developed 1000s of years ago. There are forensic-like events -- Thomas the doubting Apostle comes to mind. Those events were witnessed and recorded using the recording methods available at the time. No high-definition video, unfortunately (damn Blu-Ray working-group delays!).

The premise of science is that everything should be investigated, and that things are accepted as generally true only after evidence emerges for them, and that new evidence can change our perceptions of what is true.

Religion and science are a nice fit then. They should be friends. If it weren't for the minority of hostile fools on each of the sides, they would be -- more than they already are anyway.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Billly Gates]

And the orthodox and catholic church split maybe be reminiscent of teh kernel api and abi and gnuv3 split that may occur. RMS can be teh pope and be the catholic branch and the rebels who want a stable abi and api will be the eastern orthodox churches. The orthodox churches had financial influence on many leaders. Obviously corporations prefer the api and abi to be open so there is a parrallel.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CHARLIE!

[aqk]

In spite of all the above ranting (sigh ... only in America!), I still wish you well!

You're a good man, Charlie Darwin!

Truth is the quarry of science.

[benite]

To respond to you comment about faith healing. The greatest by far is a small town in the south of France called Lourdes. Many, many people have been cured there. These cures have been verified by countless doctors and specialists in their respective fields.

The point is for science this should be falsifiable. Whether it can be proved true or false by scientific examination. The thousands of cures are real. There is no doubt about them now. The cures can be scientifically proven. However the *reason* the cures happened outside the sphere of science.

The cures happened because of faith and prayer.

Now science or some people *into* science don't believe in God or prayer so think praying for a cure will not work without even looking into whether it would or not. I think that some scientists think that if it cannot be proved by science then it cannot be proved at all. That's a very arrogant line to take. They want to stick to Darwins slow evolution at all costs rather than honestly look into the instant that could happen with God.

Perhaps there are things in the universe that are outside the field of science or not measurable by any scientific method known to science *right* now. However because science cannot measure the value of a prayer for instance does not mean that it does not work! Quite the opposite in fact as the thousands of Lourdes cures prove.

So here is the problem for the scientist.
Thousands of people pray for a cure. The cure happens and is outside of current known science or technology. A cure such as happened already at Lourdes like, 4-6 inches of leg bone grown back in a day, a blind woman with severed optic nerves is able to see again and read quite well even with the optic nerves still cut, a WW1 wounded soldier in a wheelchair and on a pension because half his body is paralyzed and a 4 inch hole in his head gets up out of bed at Lourdes and starts running with the paralysis gone and the hole in his head virtually closed up overnight.

How does the *honest* scientist deal with the unknown but that which is provably true?
How does the scientist deal with miracles?

Re:Truth is the quarry of science.

[Expert Determination]

Thousands of people pray for a cure. The cure happens and is outside of current known science or technology.

I don't believe a word of what you're saying. But that doesn't matter. You're making claims that are falsifiable. So while I disagee with you about the facts, I'm fully on your side against people who claim that religion is "by definition" unfalsifiable.

How does the *honest* scientist deal with the unknown but that which is provably true?

And while I'm at it I might as well deal with this. I think people who have been blinded by faith are a bunch of liars. Note that cynical as this seems it's still more 'respectful' than dismissing such claims as unfalsifiable and hence nether true nor false.

Re:Truth is the quarry of science.

[benite]

Hi Expert Determination, thanks for the reply.

you may disbelieve that prayer caused the cures of these thousands of people and the cures that happen every day. However you cannot say that you disbelieve that the cures happen at all. I've been to Lourdes and so have many many doctors and specialists. They've looked into all the cures. Even some have witnessed them with their own eyes. The cures are real. If prayer does not cure them then what does?

you need not reply, but if you ever go overseas one day to France, go to the south of France to Lourdes and see for yourself. You won't be dissappointed.

If you would like some more reading on Lourdes then here are some links.
http://www.pamphlets.org.au/cts/england/b405.html
http://www.pamphlets.org.au/cts/australia/acts1518 .html
http://www.pamphlets.org.au/cts/australia/acts1268 .html

[Hey, and to the moderators who only give points to people they agree with, rather than to someone who might make a valid arguement... I like being modded to zero!]

Re:Truth is the quarry of science.

[Expert Determination]

There's a great epsidode of "This American Life" (if you don't listen to this radio program I recommend it) where the subject of the episode goes to visit a South American faith healer. When they are there, there's this amazing buzz of people expectant about being cured. Hundreds of people are hanging out in this remote village and everyone has a story to recount about how someone else has just been cured of this or that ailment. And yet the reporter can't actually find anyone who's actually been cured of anything. And none of the people who have failed to be cured have anything negative to say. "Oh, maybe I feel a bit better, maybe I'll feel better as time goes on." These people are deluded. They are willing partners in the deception by the healer because all they have left is hope and that's what the healer gives them.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[JohnFluxx]

Wasn't Thomas told off by Jesus for wanting proof? That would seem to count..

Out of everything in the bible, I hate that story the most. Hearing that your friend came back to life seems to me an extraordinary claim which thus requires extraordinary proof. And yet Jesus told him off for questioning.

Am I the only one?

[corychristison]

Am I the only one who immediately thought of Apple's Darwin?

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if you see "Christians" and "Darwin" in the same sentence and DON'T think of Charles Darwin, you've been reading Slashdot for too long.

Darwinism IS IDEOLOGY, NOT SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians who think that Darwinism and Christianity are reconciliable are completely fooling themselves. In the Biblical record, death doesn't even occur until after Adam and Eve sin. That alone rules out previous evolution.

However, Christians think they have to compromise such things because they cannot figure out how to reconcile the dinosaurs and cavemen. Well, there are in fact good answers. The dinosaurs were created along with the other animals and died out mostly due to the great flood. The cavemen were the people who lived before the flood, the so called antediluvians, who had a lifespan of roughly 900 years. Because of this long life span their skeletons are distorted compared to ours, making them look at first glance ape-like, but a deeper analysis shows the truth. There are many things about the 'cavemen' skeletons that do not jive with the idea that they were young skeletons. I suggest the book 'Buried Alive' by Jack Cuozzo, who is one of the few people who was granted actual access to the cavemen skulls held throughout Europe and America, and used a new tool, a precision radiograph to make precise measurements on them. He takes a neanderthal juvenile skull, and a neanderthal adult skull and proves conclusively that there is a minimum age difference between them of some 130 years, and a max age diff of 200! That is a huge deal. He was able to determine this because your bones keep growing no matter how old you get, including the ridge of the brow, and the brain-case. Each of which make you look more apelike. But why is it then that they had such larger brains than we do now? Or why their teeth show wear far beyond what should be. As for the dinosaurs, they went on the arc, as babies.

There's a lot more to it, but, again, refer to the book.

Re:Darwinism IS IDEOLOGY, NOT SCIENCE

[arevos]

I think your trolling technique needs work. Try to be more subtle, rather than pretending to be such an obviously over-the-top nutcase.

You assume wrongly, then.

[leonbrooks]

For larger bridges, at least, the engineers go out and measure gravity at several points along the length of the proposed bridge, so that it isn't weakened by overlooking a gravity anomaly. They will also do stuff like put up weather stations, looking for anomalies and microweather patterns that ordinary weather reporting misses.

This is the difference between engineers and scientists. If an engineer screws up, people die (and often on the spot). You can go out and knock on most of the stuff an engineer does. Engineers believe in working with error bars and well-defined uncertainties. Scientists often have no such assurance, and surprisingly few scientific disciplines treat uncertainties as rigorously as engineers routinely do.

The canonical scientific reaction to uncertainty is either rejection of the whole concept ("burn the heretics!"), or to ride roughshod over the uncertainty because certain key items look to be in about the right places ("only an heretic would question that!", in this case evolution). Neither approach is particularly rational.

The creation scientists might well be totally wrong (although it's likely that even if the majority of their ideas are wrong, a few will be pure gold), but so far they have typically been more rational in their approach than elephant-hurlers like the parent poster.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[DavidPesta]

I have noticed some bias and corruption in mainstream science in my own academic experience as well. I'm not referring to evolution neccessarily, and I'm not saying it is all deliberate. Humans have a tendency to fudge and wiggle to gain the acceptance and approval of the majority. Which brings me to another good point...

History shows us in every epoch of humanity, wrong ideas existed among majorities of people. Commonly held ideas become wedged in a society and enter into a self-perpetuating cycle where the minority view isn't given much attention. This is true in every epoch of humanity that I am familiar with before our present time. If this is true in the past, it could be true now about any number of ideas commonly held by the majority/mainstream--not just evolution.

It would be fascinating if we ever found out what some of these wrongly held mainstream ideas are. It would be even more amazing if there aren't any--the majority is correct about ALL ideas.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't say evolution doesn't exist as it can be proved by simply looking into a microscope. How did evolution get all mixed up with creationism? Could God not have created everything, including evolution, in order to ensure the survival of his creatures? Plenty of scientists believe this if they are religious. It's only the uneducated extermist christina morons that think you can't have creationism AND evolution (which some of the people here appear to be).

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[dancpsu]

Creation scientists do not deny evolution exists. They simply call it "microevolution" and claim that there are boundaries that cannot be crossed between different "kinds" of creature populations. You can show a creature evolving like fruitflies and bacteria and they say it remains within the same "kind", and that there is no common ancestry outside a creature's "kind" (other than God zapping it to life). That is where the debate lies.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[PenguiN42]

1) There's a big difference between not assuming gravity exists as a general principle and going out and measuring the slight variance in gravity being produced at certain points on the earth.

2) You really aught to provide some evidence of mainstream scientific researchers doing their work with the attitudes you describe, or your post can be safely discarded.

3) Creationists more rational than the parent poster? arguable but irrelevant. More rational than actual scientists? Not even close. It's easy to be skeptical of everything and claim you're being "rational" -- it's much harder to actually understand the theories and evidence at hand in a deep and thorough manner.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[KDR_11k]

God could have created everything the way it is five minutes ago (being omnipotent and all). But because of that it doesn't make sense to add in God because unless you see effects that cannot be explained without God you are better off not having to define an omnipotent, intelligent being (and finding theories on how that being functions). Occam's Razor. God is possibly the most complicated theory you could find.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[MichaelSmith]

Engineers get paid for the work they do.

Scientists untimately get paid if they (a) get the answers more than one day before the competition and (b) guess right about their chosen line of research long before they have any basis for choice.

So its no wonder that science is screwey.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

engineers go out and measure gravity

Measure what? These engineers are clearly biased; Gravity is mearly a theory for explaining how things fall.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[jandersen]

Where did you learn about science? Oh, you didn't?

Your description of science has nothing to do with what science is about, and one can only hope it is ignorance of the subject that makes you come with such a blatant falsehood.

Yes, there are disciplines in science where you don't work with uncertainty - but that is because it isn't relevant. Some areas of mathematics, like group theory or topology don't consider uncertainty at all, because they don't deal with statistics or anything in the physical world. And if you have ever read and understood an article about just about any subject in physics, you would know that uncertainty calculations are a fundamental part of all discussions. I doubt if you could even get an article about experimental physics published if it didn't discuss the uncertainty of the measurements. The same goes for any other science that deals with measurements in any form.

And no, scientists don't reject concepts wholesale just because they are controversial (what could be more controversial than eg. quantum mechanics or general relativity?), or because they have to deal with uncertainty - that last one is particularly ironic, since the uncertainty principle is such a fundamental part of physics.

I think you're just trying to muddy the waters, so people get confused. Unless this is actually the way you 'think'?

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[SeattleGameboy]

I call shenanigans!

That is absurd. Any variance in gravity (even for a HUGE bridge) is so small compared to the minimum safety margin they build into the structure that actually going out and measuring gravity is waste of time.

They certainly measure the stress points of major joints to make sure that the computer simulations and calculations are indeed verified in real life. But measuring gravity is not necessary.

Seems like you are using your BS to bolster your false anti-scientific bias.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[mbrother]

Engineering isn't science, and the OP is dead on. I have degrees in engineering and physics, and the differences are crystal clear. One isn't better than the other, but engineers certainly do take all the physics on faith. They just want answers that work, and while they care about uncertaintities, they care about them LESS than scientists. Engineers grossly overdesign on the assumption that the uncertainties are uncertain and they want margins of safety. But engineering isn't about understanding why or how anything happens -- it's just about using accepted scientific knowledge to solve a well-bounded problem.

And to make the claim that scientists ignore or underplay uncertainty is insulting and shows your ignorance. We usually spend more time estimating the uncertainties than we do getting the answer in the first place. I've seen many a student ripped to pieces over missing or incorrect error bars. And just because an answer has an associated uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean the answer is very uncertain. That's a common tactic of the anti-intellectual, along the lines of how something is "just a theory."

To the extent its true, it's a damn good thing for scientists to not dwell on the anomaly. Most of the times it's bad data, or secondary or tertiary effects to be ignored, if the primary effect is to be characterized and understood. Outliers can be important to study on their own, and are often useful for identifying what the secondary or tertiary effects are, but to pretend that every aberation must be understood to see the underlying pattern is ridiculous and clearly wrong in many, many examples.

Journalists covering science, now, there's a good place to attack. They often misunderstand and regurgitate crap, and less-informed readers blame the scientists. Jounralists need to be better trained to cover their specific topics. It's sad that fewer and fewer news outlets can afford to retain specialized journalists. There are a handful (e.g., New York Times, Science News) that know their science well enough to characterize it fairly.

Re:You assume wrongly, then.

[superflyguy]

Consider the following assertion:
Everything is in the state it is in because God arbitrarily decided it should be that way.

That's one entity. Why did He decide to do something? It was arbitrary. Why is everything arbitrary? Because God arbitrarily decided to do everything arbitrarily. How do we know God exists and did everything arbitrarily? Because it's the simplest explaination and occam's razor says the simplest explaination is best.

What does science give? A multitude of theories consisting of several entities that still don't explain very much. Which does occam's razor favor? And even then, you're assuming occam's razor is true. The simplest explaination of any discrepancy is "Occam's razor is false". This refutes Occam's razor while satisfying occam's razor.

Darwinsim vs. Programming

[alpha713]

However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer.

It may well be one of the most established theories, but it is also one of the most controversial. It is far from proved, and yes basing your beliefs on just a religious text is stupid, but basing your beliefs on an unproved theory (yes i'm aware that the very definition of theory is that it hasn't been proven), is also quite foolish.

And it's a simple fact that people who publicly oppose evolution tend to be quite vocal in not only bashing scientists as a group, but bashing science in general

That's not true, we only bash pro-evolution scientists. Quite simply there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with the theory of evolution, in just about every field of science.

If you are against Darwin, you are probably against science.

Crock. There are plenty of examples where evolution can't explain how things got to where they are now. This is not to say that I don't agree with science just that I don't agree science knows everything. Evidence that is presented by scientists can be interpreted in more than one way, and thats the crux of it. You can choose to believe whatever you like and then go about dredging up evidence to support your position. SCIENCE however is supposed to be about careful and objective analysis of the facts (evidence).

Moving on. I would think most Computer Professionals, more specifically Programmers would be supporters of intelligent design. Here is my reasoning:

1. I have never had a program write itself - which is a pity. Yes there are research projects into genetic algorithms, but even here we find that, it still requires the designer to start the process.
2. Even if you write a program that can mutate, it never goes beyond its original programming (it only mutates within its programming). Accounting programs don't change into Computer Games.
3. Evolution supports 'no writing' - you don't get a programming language, and you certainly don't get an operating system for your evolution to exist inside. Technically you don't even get the computer (but i'm being nice). You start with nothing but a bios, the CPU running at whatever speed and from that it must evolve into a complex 'program'

Darwins reasoning is this:

1. Everything came from nothing - Not only do we have complex organisms running around, that mutated over (millions of years) into more complex organisms. But the basic building blocks of everything (atoms - protons, electrons, neutrons) also just created themselves.
2. The Missing Link - Is 'missing' but it existed (we just can't find it). Regardless of the fact that survival of the fittest on the scale suggested would leave a bigger footprint (i.e. that many failures would leave a greater fossil record).

So yes, I'm pro intelligent design (in some form or another). As a programmer I have to be. I would say that the arguments are far from conclusive on either side; but both intelligent design and evolution are worth investigating, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that science should be neutral, and just like we enjoy religious freedoms, we also need to be sure that we enjoy scientific freedoms (that its not shoved down out throats).

Re:Darwinsim vs. Programming

[Sean Hederman]

Quite simply there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with the theory of evolution, in just about every field of science.

Well, I'm most interested in biologists here. Besides Behe, I don't know of any.

Everything came from nothing

Actually he said nothing of the sort. This claim just goes to show that you're talking out of your hat. Evolution makes no claims about matter, or about the origin of life, merely about how life proceeded once it existed.

The Missing Link

Again he never mentioned any "missing link". In fact his theory was proposed, and accepted at a time when the view of the fossil record was much more incomplete than it is today. Despite that, not one fossil has been found that casts doubt on evolutionary theory.

Re:Darwinsim vs. Programming

[ClickOnThis]

[Evolution] may well be one of the most established theories, but it is also one of the most controversial.

The supposed "controversy" is from the anti-scientific community.

It is far from proved,

Rubbish. It is "proved" as well as anything can be proved in science: that is, shown again and again to be consistent with observational evidence. Overwhelming observational evidence.

i'm aware that the very definition of theory is that it hasn't been proven

Then you're "aware" of the definition that anti-scientists would have the public perceive whenever they see it mentioned in connection with science. A scientific hypothesis must earn the status of a "theory" by surviving rigorous tests. Scientific theories are supported with observational evidence. They are not unproven hunches.

Quite simply there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with the theory of evolution, in just about every field of science.

"Plenty"? I hardly think so. Scientists, like any other group, can have individuals who hold dissenting views, but those who reject evolution are as small a minority as those who think the earth is flat.

This is not to say that I don't agree with science just that I don't agree science knows everything.

Whoever said science knew everything?

You can choose to believe whatever you like and then go about dredging up evidence to support your position. SCIENCE however is supposed to be about careful and objective analysis of the facts (evidence).

The great thing about science is that it is an open, self-correcting discipline. If a scientist claims that another scientist has been careless or non-objective, s/he simply has to present facts/evidence that support such a claim.

Moving on. I would think most Computer Professionals, more specifically Programmers would be supporters of intelligent design. Here is my reasoning:

1. I have never had a program write itself - which is a pity. Yes there are research projects into genetic algorithms, but even here we find that, it still requires the designer to start the process.


The manipulation of a few billion (or even trillion) bits in a computer memory can hardly compare with the staggering amount of diversity that is available in natural phenomena.


2. Even if you write a program that can mutate, it never goes beyond its original programming (it only mutates within its programming). Accounting programs don't change into Computer Games.


That's a matter of perception. A computer program that mutates by following a strictly deterministic algorithm might be said to stay "within its programming", but that doesn't mean that it can't produce surprising and unexpected results. As for one kind of program (e.g., accounting) changing into another (e.g., game), this not likely to happen because computer programs don't compare (yet) with nature in their scope of diversity and their dependence on environmental factors. See above.


3. Evolution supports 'no writing' - you don't get a programming language, and you certainly don't get an operating system for your evolution to exist inside. Technically you don't even get the computer (but i'm being nice). You start with nothing but a bios, the CPU running at whatever speed and from that it must evolve into a complex 'program'


The computer metaphor is a little strained here, but to respond: In fact, you do get the things you mention in evolution. You get a programming language [genetics], an operating system [the environment] and a computer [organic chemistry]. But again, computer programs don't evolve like living systems for the same reasons I gave above.


Darwins reasoning is this:

1. Everything came from nothing - Not only do we have complex organisms running around, that mutated over (millions of years) into more com

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[LordLucless]

He didn't tell him off. He let him touch the hole in his side, and the scars on his hands and feet. He did tell the disciples "You have believed because you have seen. Blessed are those that believe but have not seen". I'm not sure if that counts as a telling off or not. I imagine Jesus was a bit disappointed with Thomas - I mean, Thomas had spent years following Jesus around, watching Jesus' mircales. Jesus even told his disciples that he would die and rise again. If anyone had had faith in Jesus it should have been his disciples. But the story in scripture doesn't really show much of that, if there was any. All it shows is Jesus walking into a locked room (scaring the hell out of people in the process) and giving Thomas the proof he wanted. Granted, Thomas is generally remembered as "Doubting Thomas", and probably is less respected than the other disciples, but that is generally due more to human retellings and moralising than the scriptural story.

Re:Sigh

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

This matters? Talking about religion is like talking about Star Wars vs. Star Trek - it's completely detached from reality, and only done by pedantic nerds.

You're conflating many concepts here.

[leonbrooks]

Evolution does not depend upon the Big Bang, or even a one- or two-ended universe. It could just as well happen in a steady-state or cyclic universe.

In point of fact, the Big Bang has been in trouble all along, and still is. While one bunch of scientists are crowing about measuring the viscosity of dark matter, another bunch (in somewhat better contact with reality, IMESHO) produce explanations with far fewer fudge factors and no dark matter. The two bunches are not alone. A different crew somewhere, you can be sure, will be producing a different viscosity value while others are producing different reduced-fudge-factor no-dark-matter explanations of the observations. Big Bang devotees are happy about WMAP's CMB maps, while other scientists are busily pointing out where the celebrated bumps happen to frequently coincide with local stellar and galactic clusters. And so on, ad infinitum (or possibly just ad astra).

The one clear lesson which you can draw from this is that it is basically still all speculation. Be very, very wary when dealing with someone who regards the Big Bang as an unassailable fact.

This is not Christianity...

[nicc777]

http://4j.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-this-christianit y.html

Flat out wrong. It even has a name.

[leonbrooks]

"Chemical Evolution".

It's mutation and natural selection for chemicals instead of organisms, but it's still the same process, still evolution.

Oh, and still impossible. (-:

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Israel had consistently voted in fundamentalists who want to push for the Jewish Manifest Destiny, all while terrorising the Palestine people further and further.

Muslims aren't the only ones who are voting in crazy religious wackos. America and Israel have done their bit, and corrupt regimes in China and across ex-Soviet states show that religion isn't even necessary.

Stop demonising Muslims for sins committed by many other peoples around the world, while refusing to criticise them as well.

Meh! Many Atheists celebrate Chrsitmas...

[leonbrooks]

...I think it's only polite to return the favour. What's the big deal? (-:

Re:Sigh

[Eightyford]

This matters? Talking about religion is like talking about Star Wars vs. Star Trek - it's completely detached from reality, and only done by pedantic nerds.

Then it is news for nerds.

He created it

[wooferhound]

God Created Evolution . . .

Re:He created it

[jilles]

That's just a difficult way of reasoning away the need for a god (a vision I agree with).

Historically, god (or gods) have been used to explain stuff that was not understood. In some levels of the world with very poor understanding of just about anything this includes almost every aspect of life. In the parts of the world where people have accomplished such things as e.g. figuring out that the earth is in fact not flat or putting people on that yellow disc in the sky, people tend to take a more sophisticated view. But even there most people tend to have a very blurred understanding of the things around them relying on a scientific and religious elite (or sometimes both!) to help them explain everyday life.

Darwin did an interesting thing. He developed a theory that helped explain a lot of biological phenomena that up until then had been the domain of wildly speculative stories involving apples, clay etc. This article is about some of the supporters of these silly fairy tales grudgingly but not whole hartedly admitting that Darwin might have been right about a thing or two (which given all accomplishments dependent on Darwin's theory is getting kind of hard) and trying to argue the compatibility of that particular theory with their own theory involving apples and clay. Silly of course but the confused masses are easy to convince.

Sadly intelligence is no longer driving our own evolution. The stupid are reproducing like rabbits.

Relegion finaly peer-preasured for a change :))

[zenst]

Given religion has held the World back in many area's only to eventuly realise they cannot keep the sheeps eye's covered in the end.

I personaly find teligion distastful as a whole given it is for all intence legalised cults.

On a plus side people who are weak minded do need some form of moral guidance and indeed religion in its various forms does offer this and as a whole isn;t that bad. Though personaly this whole area is akin to the stone age were we didn't understand night and day and how it came about; religion being the remanants of that initial aspect.

Evolution is about moving forward as well as genetic evolvement, religion is about as opposite to that as you can get. But nice to see religion peer-preassured into something for a change instead of the otherway around - now thats evolution.

Re:Relegion finaly peer-preasured for a change :))

[CRCulver]

Given religion has held the World back in many area's....

Yeah, 'cause under Mao's China and Hoxha's Albania, mankind really made a big leap forward through official atheism. :rolleyes:

Re:Relegion finaly peer-preasured for a change :))

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Given religion has held the World back in many area's.... >Yeah, 'cause under Mao's China and Hoxha's Albania, mankind really >made a big leap forward through official atheism. :rolleyes: China and Albania do not constitute the World. China and Albania have religion. You need to see an eye doctor.

Re:Relegion finaly peer-preasured for a change :))

[CRCulver]

China and Albania do not constitute the World.

China and Albania are case studies that disprove the assertion made above that the world is better off without religion.

China and Albania have religion.

Under Hoxha's Albania, there was no visible religion. Churches, mosques, synagogues were all torn down or converted to other uses. In fact, Albania was the world's first officially atheist state in that it had no freedom of religion whatsoever. During the Cultural Revolution, religion was wiped out pretty well in China.

Answers from a Fundie literalist....

[BillEGoat]

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days? Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

Sure - so long as God made it happen. We Fundies still believe that God can do things outside the norm - miracles. Water/wine. Healing blindness with spit. Weird things, to be sure - I wouldn't expect anyone to think otherwise. If God wants to break the laws of physics, biology, chemistry - that's his prerogative. Certainly many non-believers don't like the "miracle" escape clause - but it is what it is and it would be dishonest to explain it away as anything else.

Which bible do you read, and why?

NIV, typically. Because it's in modern English, and with the aid of other tools like inter-linears, paraphrases, commentaries and other modern language translations, one can get a really great context of what the author wrote without being a biblical translator.

Do you think the Romans (who canonized the Bible...

Sure they canonized it, but they didn't modify the text that was chosen. They also failed, if they tried at all, to scrub the world clean of the texts that didn't make the cut, so we can all read what wasn't picked if we're in doubt. Study of these non-canonized texts can often times be enlightening, but there are typically obvious bits that show they're in direct conflict with the canonized set. Jesus killing kids because they inconvenienced him and such - not exactly in line with the rest of scripture.

Why do you go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath, or Saturday?

Don't know offhand, I'd have to look up a history of that. Probably because Jesus resurrected on a Sunday. I doubt it relates much to the authority of scripture.

Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

There aren't many modern Christian holidays (excepting the Catholics - they've got a bunch). Christmas - not accounted for in scripture all - purely tradition. If it happens to intentionally coincide with a pagan holiday or anything else, it only impugns the observers, not scripture. Easter - directly related to Passover, which is part of the Hebrew calendar of events. Christ died on Passover, and resurrected the following Sunday.

...are non-trinitarians going to hell?

Yes. Sadly. The only requirements for salvation are to believe Jesus for who he is, what he did, and accept it. There is no obligation to do anything but accept a gift given freely. Jesus and Jehovah are the same (this is the trinity thing). To believe Jesus was anything but God, is to disagree with who Jesus himself claimed to be. Anything else is a false Gospel - the book of Galatians deals directly with this topic.

What if you aren't baptized?

Not a requirement for salvation. Required, yes - in the same manner that I require my son to obey me, but not as a condition that I love him. Baptism is a requirement of believers, but for reasons other than salvation.

Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

I've never heard anyone claim it's crystal clear - some parts are, but others are quite complex and involved. As to the sectarianism of Christianity - because the world is sinful and Christians are not immune. We disagree often on matters of truth (trinity, baptism, roles of women, deity of Christ, and so on). To be intellectually honest, one has to agree that the fact that Christians disagree does not change the truthfulness or untruthfulness of any given claim. This is true in science as well.

To elaborate further on the last question, we Fundies actually believe that Satan exists and has been given privi

"genetic"

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to point out that just because somebody coined your technique as "genetic" does not mean it closely emulates biological genetics per se. That is like calling "artificial intelligence," such as the techniques used today, the same as human intelligence.

There are countless factors in reality that are all interrelated and reflecting on each other's properties. Your simplistic computer simulation exists in an artificial abstract environment with rules that are infintesimally incomplete if not outright incorrect.

So I would point out you shouldn't put much faith in those numbers to correlate with meat space evolution. Real evolution probably does not even behave exactly like your simulated evolution.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg to differ. The premise of religion is to accept that certain things are mysterious and cannot be investigated, or that certain things are true whether there is evidence for them or not.

------------------

yet you accept that life came from death without any evidence. well, it is actually worse than that. much worse. not only do you not have any evidence to support the idea, but all the evidence ever collected theroughout human history indicates the idea is 100% false. ...yet you still believe it and then have the unmitigated gall to call out others for doing EXACTLY the same thing you do, and you are so blind that you don't even realize you do it... likely even after reading this post...

think about it... or don't.

i hope you aren't a scientist with this kind of bias.

Best arguments

[nhavar]

Sometimes lately it seems that non-believers give the best arguments for Christianity, while true Christians fall well short of providing any enlightenment. I've seen three aetheists give compelling arguments about why it's okay for science and faith to coexist and even compliment one another.

In my mind science and faith follow a similar path. The truths in science require observation and testing. Over time we learn that the truths we believed are no longer quite accurate and we must change our understanding to believe new truths. Science is always being tested and retested and refined.

Faith follows the same course. We must observe ourselves and our world and through tests become stronger in our faith or fall away from it. Faith must be continually refined. A faith untested is not faith, it is complacency.

Religion and science, much as religion and faith, often come into conflict. To me, religion has always been about embracing a series of set beliefs and practices. These practices are enforced and inflexible. They are not allowed to change or grow with a persons faith. This is why we see so many factions in the Christian faith (Quakers, Baptists (north and south), Catholics, etc.) At some point in the religious practice someone decided that this set of beliefs didn't match his faith and since the current set couldn't change then a new set needed to be created. Not a very fluid process but I'm sure there are some parallels in science to, when scientists spin off into different camps around interpretation of a particular event or theory.

Re:Best arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen three aetheists give compelling arguments about why it's okay for science and faith to coexist and even compliment one another.

Thanks for sharing those arguments with us.

doubt evolution != anti-science

[Jay9333]

No one is hindering or "undermining" scientific progress in the name of God or faith. Pundits ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'. They are using the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.

Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).

Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.

Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.

Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.

WIshful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

History shows us in every epoch of humanity, wrong ideas existed among majorities of people. Commonly held ideas become wedged in a society and enter into a self-perpetuating cycle where the minority view isn't given much attention. This is true in every epoch of humanity that I am familiar with before our present time. If this is true in the past, it could be true now about any number of ideas commonly held by the majority/mainstream--not just evolution.

Your argument is typical of the sort of fuzzy thinking that attempts to devalue decades of strong evidence with one cleverly worded "what if?". The strong scientific basis that supports well established scientific facts, not just evolution, will not just fall out. What theory of the caliber of evolution has proven to be wrong?

On the other hand, ideas supported only by a few old documents, some oral traditions, and a bunch of "true beleivers" will very likely fall into the dustbin of history.

Re:WIshful thinking

[DavidPesta]

It wasn't an argument. It was a historical observation. It is interesting to see how quickly someone will try to find an agenda behind simple musings.

Re:WIshful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me. If you look around, you'll find very few simple musings and many, many agendas. I went with the decision with the maximum prior probability. Sincere apologies to the simple muser.

Re:WIshful thinking

[DavidPesta]

Apology accepted. You are a respectable Anonymous Coward. ;D

This all brings up a good question though:
Why can't people explore ideas peacefully without worrying about controversial agendas popping up all over the place or have someone come along and accuse you of being out of bounds with an agenda?

I wonder if there is such a forum. Has the process of exchanging thoughts always been like this? Or have we entered a more cynical period of history?

Re:WIshful thinking

[wtansill]

This all brings up a good question though: Why can't people explore ideas peacefully without worrying about controversial agendas popping up all over the place or have someone come along and accuse you of being out of bounds with an agenda?

Because we, as a society, value order over chaos (believe it or not). We also believe that our view promotes order, and that your view promotes chaos. Since chaos is bad, not only are you clearly in error, but you are also a danger to an orderly society, and must be eliminated.

Even beyond that, if I have established myself as an arbiter of order vs. chaos, any challenge you make, however seemingly benign, is a threat to my authority. In order to maintain my status then, you and your mistaken ways of thinking must be eliminated.

Any questions?

Re:WIshful thinking

[DavidPesta]

You sound something like a mechanized terminator. Thanks for the cold input. *shivers*

Re:WIshful thinking

[wtansill]

You sound something like a mechanized terminator. Thanks for the cold input. *shivers*

You misunderstand -- I did not say that I espoused these ideas. I simply attempted to provide the rationale (as I understand it) for why there seems to be so little peaceful debate, as the GP poster asked. I personally think that if we could lay aside our egos, sit down at a table, have a meal with our enemies and attempt to reach a real understanding, we'd be better off. At the least, if we could not reach a "meeting of the minds", we'd have a better understanding of how our enemies think and what we're up against. It seems though, that we (humanity in general) act according my first description of how the world works.

Re:WIshful thinking

[DavidPesta]

Okay, I thought at first that is what you were saying. But I read it over and didn't see any clues. Thanks for clarifying! *sigh of relief*

Re:WIshful thinking

[wtansill]

Okay, I thought at first that is what you were saying. But I read it over and didn't see any clues. Thanks for clarifying! *sigh of relief*

I get that a lot. <g>

Monkey See Monkey Do

[tfcdesign]

hose who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief.

But some how you Evolution nuts discard human observation of God by billions of people over 1000s of years.

Not to mention the core concepts* of evolutionary creation can neither be observed nor recreated in the lab.

*
- life spontaneously coming to be from previously nonliving material
- a single cell evolving into a complex creature like a human
- species change from one form to another (ie reptile to mammel)

And, fossils considered early humans have been proved to be not directly related to modern man.

Re:Monkey See Monkey Do

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a funny guy, you don't realize nut and observation of God are practically synonymous.

Re:Monkey See Monkey Do

[Anonymous Coward]

life spontaneously coming to be from previously nonliving material

That's not evolution. Abiogeneis is a covered by a seperate set of theories, none of which are very good.

a single cell evolving into a complex creature like a human

Where did you get that stupid idea? No one has ever claimed such a thing other than creationists who don't understand evolution.

species change from one form to another (ie reptile to mammel)

Again, where did you get such a stupid idea? No one has ever claimed such a thing other than creatioists who don't understand evolution.

This is a prime example of why trying to argue Creationism v's Evolution is pointless. 90% of creationists do not even understand the most basic issues they're arguing against. Why bother?

Re:Monkey See Monkey Do

[hunterx11]

I discard thousands of years of observation of the Sun revolving the Earth, too.

Re:Monkey See Monkey Do

[tfcdesign]

Wow! You are uninformed. Christians dont disagree with that.

In case you missed this:
"Pope Benedict says science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth, according to the Vatican's doctrinal department."

You might not be aware but the Catholic church uses science to prove/disprove its miracles, and has been the major proponent of scientific discovery in the renasiance period, hundreds of years ago. Catholics were the first to institutionalize science.

Dont be a hater.

Re:Monkey See Monkey Do

[hunterx11]

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution, so it isn't them on whom I'm hating. It's also a bit dubious to give them credit for the Renaissance, when it was largely a resurgence of ideas which they had suppressed in the first place (and which practitioners of a certain other religion had to preserve).

Clarification

[rinkjustice]

Christians are not allowed to question the divinity of Jesus.

Being a Christian requires you are a disciple of Christ. You believe His doctrine, believe in His divinity and in the redemption of mankind through His Atoning sacrifice. The number one fundamental principle of Christianity is FAITH in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You're simply not a Christian if you question that Jesus Christ is the literal and living Son of God, just like your not a NetFlix member if you don't pay the monthy fees.

Faith in God the Son is the currency to membership in Christianity. Without it, you are not a member!

Re:Clarification

[iangoldby]

You're simply not a Christian if you question that Jesus Christ is the literal and living Son of God

I guess that makes me not a Christian then. Despite the fact that every time I question whether Jesus is the Son of God, I come the conclusion that it is true, and despite the fact that I try to faithfully follow him (even if I regularly make a poor job of it).

Sadly so many people have perverted the meaning of the word 'faith' to make it mean some kind of unquestioning belief in something that can't be proved or for which there is no evidence. Funny how it only has this meaning in the realm of religion.

Outside religion, most people regard faith in someone as something that is built up over a time, based on experience. The idea that to be faithful to someone or some cause, you have to have some major gap in your knowledge about them (or it) so that you cannot rationally justify your stance is pure lunacy.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Achromatic1978]

Christians seem much more content attacking and assassinating abortion clinic employees, firebombing said clinics, using the word of God on TV to fleece people out of their wealth with promises of fire and brimstone so they can finance their new private jet, and the like ...

Or, as you said, some Christians.

In other news: Athiests celebrate Christmas

[nognsoutie]

Encouraged by the sight of Christians celebrating the birth of Darwin, a group of ardent athiests have decided to ditch Santa Claus to celebrate celebrate the birth of Christ this Christmas. A spokesman for the group of 440 concilliatory athiests said, "We really should celebrate the man we love to hate." There are currently no plans to drop the Easter Bunny.

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Christmas

[Reality Master 101]

Maybe I'm missing the joke here, but I'd be surprised if most atheists didn't celebrate Christmas. I'm an atheist (with agnostic tendencies), and I celebrate it as a traditional holiday. That it celebrates some dead guy's birth who was actually born in the spring doesn't really worry me that much. :)

Also, true atheists don't "hate" Jesus, they simply don't think he's divine, since there is no God.

Though, I'll admit too many atheists are nut cases who go around hating everything to do with religion. But that's their own personality quirks, it has nothing to do with atheism.

Re:standing up (Jurassic Park)...

[neurocutie]

I would think it is pretty difficult for the common American to think that that species haven't changed with time after seeing Spielberg's Jurassic Park. There is no way fundie parents are going to succeed in explaining to their little Johnny that dinosaurs 1) didn't exist, 2) exist now, 3) existed only a few thousand years ago. I'd say that imagery is pretty powerful and slams right into the notion that the species didn't evolve and the Earth is only 5,000 years old...

You're right

[Gary Destruction]

You can't compare Bush to Hitler because Hitler at least knew what the hell he was doing.

here's a book that'll help you understand

[HelloKitty]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316823/sr=8-8 /qid=1139811019/ref=pd_bbs_8/104-2445523-0884742?_ encoding=UTF8

The coolest part is how he describes the evolution of the eye, in terms of real living creatures we can observe today, in very small increments of functionality.

Richard Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable"

Amazon review...
"While an enzyme molecule or an eye might seem supremely improbable in their complexity, they are not accidental, nor need we assume that they are the designed handiwork of a Creator, asserts Oxford biologist Dawkins (The Selfish Gene). This foremost neo-Darwinian exponent explains the dazzling array of living things as the result of natural selection?the slow, cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of chance variants. Both a frontal assault on creationism and an enthralling tour of the natural world, this beautifully illustrated study is based on a set of BBC lectures, imparting a tone at once conversational and magisterial. Dawkins explores how ordered complexity arose by discussing spiders' web-building techniques, the gradual evolution of elephant trunks and of wings (birds, he concludes, evolved from two-legged dinosaurs, not from tree gliders) and the symbiotic relationship between the 900 species of figs and their sole genetic companions, the miniature wasps that pollinate specific fig species. Using "computer biomorphs" (simulated creatures "bred" from a common ancestor), Dawkins demonstrates how varieties of the same plant or animal species can vary in shape because of differences in just a few genes."

on probablistic epistomology

[j1m 5n0w]

If you don't believe the Bible is 100% literally true, then how do you know what parts to believe and not believe?

It is sometimes useful to consider how the text got from its original form to us today. For instance, consider Genesis. Its authorship is usually attributed to Moses, and it may have been direct revelation from God, but more likely was a story passed down orally from generation to generation from earlier times that we know little about. We have no way of knowing where the story of creation originated, but it couldn't have been from a direct human witness, as it records events that predate humans.

The Gospels, on the other hand, were written much more recently, and record events that could have been witnessed by many people, and were written not long after the events they describe, and the gospels were written from multiple points of view (John being a first-hand accont, and the other three were probably based off of some intermediate account that is now lost, or perhaps never written down). We also know a lot about the state of the world at the time of Christ, and the time between then and now (at least, a lot more than we know about the early history of Isreal).

In other words, we can better account for the origins of the Gospels, so I consider them to have a higher probability of being true than the events in Genesis. This is perhaps not a very satisfactory answer to either a skeptic or some devout Christians, but is one way of looking at the problem. Another way is to consider that the events in Genesis, while important, are not as critical to core Christian theology as the Gospels, and so it really doesn't matter as much if it is right or wrong.

Flesh Wounds

[turkeyfish]

"Afterall, a flesh wound to my arm brings about change (a scar) and could be thought of as natural evolution if you gave it such a broad definition. ;) )"

No, because the cells of your body would not be changing the fequencies of their genes (alternative genese) as your wound heals. They would maintain the same genetic makeup (string of base pairs) before and after the trauma that induced the wound. Unless your wound is perhaps to due radiation, which by its nature destroys the nucleic acids and hence alters the genotype.

Evolution is different in that the gene frequencies change and likewise so does the genetic composition (string of base pairs) from one generation to the next (albeit more so in some circumstances than others, ie punctuated versus gradual evolution; note that both occur). Which is the more important contributor to evolutionary change (ie genes that evolve gradually or genes that evolve rapidly) is typically an important point of contention in most debates among scientists. There is abundant evidence for both rapid and slow evolution. More importantly, there is NO EVIDENCE that evolution is not in fact occuring regardless of what interspecific biological phenomenon one is looking at (or at least if one is engaged in reasoned debate as opposed to attempting to impose belief systems).

Re:Flesh Wounds

[DavidPesta]

I understand all that, you misunderstood me.

Here's what I said: "if you gave it such a broad definition"

"IF" you defined evolution that broadly. The word 'evolution' is often used to mean 'change' and doesn't even have to apply to biology at all.

It was just a far out example of how important it is to define the word--not meant to be used as an argument of the central point being made.

Science and Religion: Nonoverlapping Magisteria

[tm2b]

Nobody should be allowed to comment on religion and science without first reading and understanding the late Stephen Jay Gould's essay, Nonoverlapping Magisteria (aka, NOMA).

It's very clear that when religion goes head to head with science, religion loses - because science is defined by what works . NOMA articulates the boundaries that intelligent, thoughtful people can use, between the realms where science is valid and where religion is valid.

Re:Science and Religion: Nonoverlapping Magisteria

[mrpeebles]

The problem with this from religion's perspective is that God seems to lose all imminence. Also, its not clear to me that when science and religion go head to head, science wins. Rather, I think its the scientists who win. Lately, all the head-to-head-ness has been instigated by a particular wing of religion that I think doesn't have a particularly well thought out position. Social darwinism, for example, didn't work out all that well for science, if you want to look at it that way

Re:Science and Religion: Nonoverlapping Magisteria

[tm2b]

This is a very good example of a good part of the problem with public debates on this level - a large number of the participants don't have the slightest idea of what is actually science and what isn't. See my original comment about people who don't understand NOMA.

Hint: In what world is social darwinism science? What testable hypotheses have been made under it, how have they been tested, and how did those hypotheses fare?

Social and political philosophies that pick and choose their bigotries from real science are no more science than Voodoo is.

Re:Science and Religion: Nonoverlapping Magisteria

[Anonymous Coward]

No, social darwinism isn't good science. It is most definitely pseudo-science. However, it is also pseudo-ethics, which is why I mentioned it as an example of science impeding on religion. Maybe it wasn't a good example though. Mostly, I wanted to bring up the point that there may be better ways than ID for religion to be integrated with science.

Two words: Learned Behaviors

[Deathbane27]

Remember, according to evolutionary theory, the life events of an individual are irrelevent.All that matters is whether it produces offspring (also some evolutionary advantage to protecting close relatives, but even that can be simulated quite easily), and supposedly the mechanism is crossover and mutation, ie in a GA, life experience is equivalent to the evaluation function.

Two words: learned behaviors.

You mentioned evolutionary advantage to protecting close relatives, but learned/taught/imitated behaviors go far beyond that. Food-gathering and nest-building techniques can be learned. And in more advanced species, tool making.

Even things which would eventually evolve in the form of instinct (cats burying their feces) can come about more quickly through learned behavior.

Where would H. Sapien be without this simple form of communication?

Genetics are not the only factor which contributes to evolution.

Theories of abiogenesis

[phlipped]

There is plenty of stuff on the web, but to get you started, here are some things to get you thinking about how abiogenesis may have occurred, or at least suggest the workings of some steps along the way.

1) In 1953, Stanley Miller, working under Harold Urey, showed that amino acids are able to form spontaneously in the conditions which may have existed in earth's primordial atmosphere. In three months, his experiment produced at least 7 amino acids, which included 3 of the 20 found in modern (and probably ancient) organisms. (Amino acids are the 'building blocks' of all proteins).

2) Certain lipid molecules, including phospholipids (the main type of molecule that makes up cell membranes), will spontaneously form a number of structures when placed in water, eg "micelles" and "bi-layers".

Micelles are tiny spherical structures made of relatively few molecules, and can 'carry' other molecules inside them, although I'm am not aware of the significance of this.

Bi-layers are often much larger structures capable of forming large sheets, or "membranes" which can be quite bendy and stretchy. They can even bend around on themselves to form massive. spherical "containers" which separate their contents from the outside world and thus allows the contents to become significantly chemically different. This is exactly the structure used by all living cells to contain the vast array of chemical reactions that need to be carried out under special chemical conditions.

The significance of spontaneous organisation of certain lipids is that it is thermodynamically favourable for these structures to occur and therefore plausible that they played an important part in containing the first biochemical interactions that occurred during abiogenesis.

3) It has also been suggested that certain clay substrates may have formed a biochemical "staging ground" for collecting and organising biologically significant molecules. I remember reading (possibly in a Richard Dawkins book) about one theory which suggested the idea that the clay substrates themselves could have been self-reproducing. The premise of this particular theory is that imperfections in some crystal structures are often repeated throughout the crystal as it grows. Therefore crystal structures with certain imperfections may have encouraged more of themselves to exist. Furthermore, the theory says, if particular "self-replicating" crystal structures gave rise to large scale properties that further encouraged the production of these crystals, then they would become even more prolific. For example, if a certain "self-replicating" crystal was usually generated in still water, but also had the property that, when washed into slow-moving water, sediments of the crystal caused that slow-moving water to "dam up", then the water would become still again, thus creating an environment suitable for creating more of the crystal.

Far-fetched? Perhaps, But I am always wary of criticising a theory simply because of my own incredulity.

Anyway. The upshot is that we are a number of theories of abiogenesis out there, none of them at all complete. I guess that any theories will remain speculative until we are able to satisfactorily string together a series of observeda and reproducible reactions and interactions that would be able to explain abiogenesis.

It is the written...

[peeon]

Thou shall not worship idols!

Biologist also deal carefully with life and death

[MichaelPenne]

from testing surgical procedures or drugs on monkeys to designing new antibiotics, there is quite a bit of care taken, and the testing and design of course relies on the central organizing principle of biology, much as engineering depends a good deal on gravity being reliable.

If creation 'science' contains any 'pure gold' ideas, they will be the result of entirely random processes; by defintition the ideas of creation science cannot be challenged and refined by natural evidence.

Which is really quite ironic if you think about it.

Re:Meanwhile...

[masdog]

Before Hamas came to power, there was the Palestinian Authority led by Arafat. You may not know this, but they were terrorists as well. They had an armed wing that carried out terrorist attacks as well.

One thing that isn't widely known about Hamas is that they provide a lot of humanitarian aid to the people of Palestine. That is why people voted for them.

SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

[iamwm]

SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

Natural evelution is basically one kind of animal giving birth to another. Natural selection is basically weaker animals dieing off.

Natural selection is only part of an equation (figurative, not mathmatical). Other factors weigh in more heavily than natural selection. Survival of the fittest is the catch phrase for natural selection. But does the fittest bird in a flock survive the huricane, or the one that wasn't strong enough to be that far south? Does one strength save it from all dangers? No, it's far more complex. You need to be strong in a way that helps when you need to "survive".

Natural evolution is most notably not proven true. It just takes one repeatable event to prove it true. Monkeys can't give birth to cats, or the other way around. And Religious Evolutionist will tell you we all came from the same primortial soup. They say animals of one kind gave birth to animals of another kind. You rarely if ever hear them say "a lot of animals of one kind gave birth to a lot of animals of another kind at the same time" so they could actually propogate, even though it doesn't even happen when it's one in a generation either.

They preach that it rained on the rocks for thousands of years, and the wet rocks came to life. That life gave birth to other kinds of life, and so on until monkeys gave birth to humans. Only problem is, monkeys can't give birth to humans. Not to be disgusting, but there are enough freaks practicing beastiality to prove that several kinds of animals can't give birth to humans. And I'm sure no other kind of animal can give birth to a kind that isn't the same as itself. KIND is broader than SPECIES and differs, so don't try to think of them as the same. A dog could possibly successfully mate with any other dog(opposite sex), but not a cat. The factors that seperate one SPECIES from another are theoretical as evidenced by the constant redefining of the theory of evolution since it's inception. The theory predates Darwin, but he's credited with gathering many of the ideas and formalizing them into one "super theroy" for lack of a better term.

Read the book:

Talk about a long title! Darwin's book was a bullet from the smoking gun of RACISM!
-
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
-

Read it for yourself here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/

If you don't understand how this title speaks of RACISM then read the book and it won't take you long to see why evelution is favored by RACISTS world wide.

Funny thing about the title is that the book never actually covers where "Species" origionally "Origionated" from.

THE LIE: Religious Evolutionist will tell you that animals change because of their environment and they call that "Micro Evolution". Which they say proves animals change into other animals.

Before wide spread Evolutionary Evangelism that kind of change was called "Adapting" and it was commonly knows that animals would not give birth to animals that were so adapted that they were a different kind of animal.

SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE. Evelotionary conculsions are not Scientific conclutions. At best they are Scientific theories, and many Evolutionary theoryies are far from Scientific in so much as they directly contradict the evidence.

DARWIN OF CREATIONISM: http://www.drdino.com/

I'm not affiliated with this group of scientist/preachers, but I've listened to a lot of their materials and I find them to be far more Scientific in their aproach.

Wm

P. S. I'm a White Male Bible Believing Christian in my early 30s, just so you know where I stand. And so you know where I'm coming from, I was an Athiest raised by a single mother with 2 brothers who are both agnosti

Re:SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

[cyclop]

Best Troll Ever?

Re:SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

[dickko]

Don't know what I did to deserve this, but I'll bite

Evolutionist will tell you we all came from the same primortial soup. They say animals of one kind gave birth to animals of another kind.

Anyone with an elementary understanding of evolution would never make such an absurd statement. Care to back that statement up with examples where this was said?

I do agree with you that a monkey will never give birth to a cat, but what the hell does that have to do with evolution? Evolution is the changing of gene frequencies over time, not some mysterious process whereby new species appear literally overnight...

Talk about a long title! Darwin's book was a bullet from the smoking gun of RACISM!...If you don't understand how this title speaks of RACISM then read the book and it won't take you long to see why evelution(sic) is favored by RACISTS world wide

A lot of Klu Klux Klan members are devout christians, who refute evolution. Does that mean you equate all christianity with racism (you seem to be implying the same for proponents of natural selection)

My personal belief is that theories like natural selection go a long way towards making racist sentiments idiotic. How can one state that one "race" is superior to another when each is equally well adapted to its environment?

Re:SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

[Follier]

Only problem is, monkeys can't give birth to humans.

HAHAHAHA I want you to know I printed this and taped it to my desk. It's the funnies thing I've read in ages. I hope, for your sake and that of your children, that you didn't mean that wierd stuff you typed & are actually a clever satirist.

Re:SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm seeing some kind of pattern. People raised atheists become religious fools, and people raised religious become atheist fools.

Ape to human? NO!

[pingveno]

"Apes evolved into modern humans"

No, humans and the rest of the Homininae subfamily share a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from modern apes anymore than we evolved from a sitka spruce. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on apes for more information. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a person who does not seem to understand this basic fact has expertise in the area of evolutionary theory.

Please don't take this as a personal attack; misunderstanding of the concept of common ancestors is just a pet pieve of mine.

Re:Ape to human? NO!

[joss]

I know, I know.. sorry, but the ape is 3 letters and ape-like hominid is kinda long winded.

Re:Ape to human? NO!

[Drachemorder]

Really, that's a trivial point. Wouldn't anyone who saw one of these hypothetical common ancestors naturally call it an "ape"?

Re:Ape to human? NO!

[pingveno]

Sorry if I was a little harsh. It's scary how many people think we evolved from orangutans. Hence, the pissed off Pingveno.

Re:Meanwhile...

[masdog]

Well, its not that easy. There are still Christian terrorists in the world who kill in the name of God, you just don't hear about them that much.

The whole Northern Ireland fiasco of the last half of the 20th Century was as much about religion as it was about a united Ireland. The Tamil Tigers are Christians. And last, but not least, are the abortion clinic bombers and the Klan in the United States.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Stephan Schulz]

My argument is that the Christianity, with the rest of the world has changed in the past few centuries, but that an abnormally large number of Muslim extremists have not also changed. As you consider the state of the world right now and going forward, I believe my statement is accurate.

Ermmm..last few decades would be more of an argument. If you go back centuries, we get nice things like the Opium wars ("Christian" powers forcing the Chinese to open their markets to a dangerous drug), the Amritsar Massacre, nice little World War I (fought for secular reasons, but eagerly blessed by priests on all sides)...

Even in the last decades we have nice things like the Irish civil war (or struggle for freedom or terrorism) and the Basque civil war (or struggle for freedom or terrorism). It the very recent past we do have:

• Hutu vs. Tutsi (Same language, same religion for both sides)
• Serbs vs. Croats (Christians between each other, mostly)
• Serbs vs. Bosnians (aggressors are Christian)

That seems to be clear evidence that it is not religion, but situation and circumstance that make people behave like idiots to each other.

Re:Meanwhile...

[TIMxPx]

Does this have anything to do with people celebrating Darwin's birthday? Maybe this is about favored races or something. I don't know, and i also don't remember the prez calling for the "death of thousands upon thousands of innocents." I think that the premises for fighting were

1. incapacitating terrorists and the nations that harbor them
2.the belief, backed by intelligence and prior experience, that Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq posed a gathering threat to other nations because of their intent and capacity to develop and use WMDs, and
3. iraq's breaking of a cease-fire agreement

I don't remember any prewar discussion about whether the US military should intentionally kill a bunch of innocent people. Of course, the hardcore Darwinist might view it as a part of natural selection - that Americans and Europeans are smarter or stronger, and should just commit genocide for the good of humanity because we can. I don't agree with that view, but i'm not really a big Darwin fan either. Another possible Darwinist rationale for killing a bunch of innocent people are that they don't agree with us, and we're better off just killing all of them to prevent future fighting and perpetuate our race. Again, i don't remember those rationales being presented before the war. If they had been, i suspect that US Congress would not have authorized force, and other nations would not have joined the US in taking action, but maybe there are enough hardcore Darwinists out there to prove me wrong. I'm not saying that Darwinists are genocidal maniacs. I just don't see how else this pertains to churches celebrating Darwin's birthday.

You data is good, your conclusion incorrect

[arevos]

Now, I'll grant you that I didnt have several hundred million years to work on the problem. However, I did experiment with population sizes in the 100'000s and I did evolve them for 10,000s of generations. Those are small numbers when considering evolution of bacteria, but they're pretty realistic numbers when considering evolution from an Ape to a human (or some equally fit alternative).

Your data is interesting, but your conclusion is incorrect. With genetic algorithms, we start off with pseudorandomly chosen 'genes'. In evolution, we start off with genes that have already been through billions of years of natural selection. You see the difference?

Your results are interesting, but not because they somehow show that sexual/natural selection is invalid. They're interesting because they suggest that an animal is 'fittest' not only due to their physical characteristics, but also due to how malable their genes are - how fast they can adapt to changes in the environment. Those animals that have genes that change slowly will be overtaken by those that have genes optimised for fast evolution.

Hence, humans evolved through a relatively short period, whilst your algoritms couldn't match that, because your algoritms had an inferior starting point.

Re:You data is good, your conclusion incorrect

[joss]

Yes, I do see the difference, and you're correct to a large extent. However, at some stage a bunch of very difficult design problems were solved.. and the theory is that this occured via natural selection. Now, it's certainly plausible that this happened, but its not the slam dunk the likes of Dawkins would have us believe. My own experience in this matter suggests to me that we are so far missing something fundamental in our understanding.

Re:You data is good, your conclusion incorrect

[arevos]

Now, it's certainly plausible that this happened, but its not the slam dunk the likes of Dawkins would have us believe. My own experience in this matter suggests to me that we are so far missing something fundamental in our understanding.

Oh, I certainly agree that we have gaps in our knowledge, and that there is still a lot to learn about the mechanisms of evolution. We're far from a complete understanding of DNA, and that is the cornerstone of modern evolutionary biology. But this said, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect; the gist of the theory, that creatures adapt to their environment over successive generations, is in my opinion indisputable. So too the theory that life evolved over billions of years from simple beginnings. But the exact processes involved are certainly very much open to debate; a billion years of spaghetti code is hard to unravel.

evolution is a demotion for god

[thisoneguy]

The reason some christians oppose evolution is that it relegates god's role in the development of life and in the development of man to the further reaches of biochemistry, to the presumed primordial soup in which the first self-replicating molecule complexes arose.

They are rightly concerned that this is the thin edge of the wedge: already god's role in cosmology is very distant, so much so that his involvement in it appears as implausible as humankind's presence in the cosmos is insignificant.

If they were to grant the truth of evolution, god is displaced of most his role in Life too, and suffers another large demotion in the scope of things he can reasonably be seen to be in charge of.

Furthermore, the ascent of science is a problem for all religions that require one to go on faith (which is nothing be belief in the incredible, in the absence of any substantiating evidence). This is because the advancing armies of science, with its seemingly pig-headed insistence on evidence, have beat the cr*p out of other belief systems that don't rest on evidence (astrology, faith healing, soothsaying etc. etc.), and they fear that religion, the granddaddy of unsubstantiated belief systems, will suffer the same fate.

The sad (from their perspective) truth is that they are right. The best they can do at the moment, as many on slashdot seem to do, is to tacitly concede the demotion in god's role that Darwin ushered in, issuing platitudes like "religion and science can learn from each other, and indeed, support each other." Which, of course, is rubbish -- science, in the main, has nothing to learn from religion.

For those of us who do believe in evolution, we know that we have a far stronger force than an imagined and imaginary god on our side: evidence. The only way we can win this one is if we keep insisting that only way to resolve conflicting belief systems is by evidence, and by educating the other side on the evidence well enough that they come to the same conclusions the rest of us have.

And as for the implication that this has on god's role in the scheme of thing, well, god help them.

Re:evolution is a demotion for god

[aeoneal]

While I understand your points, I don't know that they're the whole story. Recently I attended the Brown Symposium at Southwestern Univ., where the subject was Gross National Product vs. Gross National Well-being. Two psychologists, a neuroscientist, and a Harvard economist all reported findings from research in their respective fields that showed while religion is not necessary for happiness, happiness is more frequently correlated with religious faith. (This religious aspect was *not* a major focus of the symposium, it just happened to show up along with a ton of other research they presented.) This has resulted in increased scientific study of religion, to see what aspects of it are bringing about this result. So science is actually finding the investigation of religion more useful than they previously did. Interestingly, they also found that happiness was positively correlated with self-aware, self-reflective people; happiness does not come to the blind, un-examined life.

Your description of god is what theologians refer to as the "god of the gaps" - the god who shows up in places we can't explain or don't understand yet. Theologians would laugh anyone out of the room, religious or not, who proposed such a conception of god. But there are plenty of intelligent, science-friendly and even science-educated people who believe in a much more active god. These people don't find evolution a demotion. Those who, from their scientific background, understand an observer to be necessary for the universe to exist, are seeing a very present, interactive "god" who may or may not be the God of Abraham and the prophets, but is certainly present and essentially involved. Those religious people who think of god as having a dimensional perspective beyond our time (C.S. Lewis, for example), and therefore able to see where evolution might go, don't see evolution as a demuotion but as a vivid expression of creativity and power. And what about the significant minority who are not only unafraid of science, but actually came to their faith *because* of science (C.S. Lewis, again)? God is not an explanatory hypothesis, and religious people do not cling to god because they want an explanatory hypothesis. Their reasons are many and varied, some good and some appalling, but the god of the gaps is not the focus of their faith.

Re:evolution is a demotion for god

[foniksonik]

Science does still have something to learn from religion. Scientists who are only capable of believing in what has been proven will never ever discover anything new. You may find an interesting way of looking at something already known or discover a new insight into data that has been previously collected but without a belief in something greater and the possibility that what you can observe with state of the art techniques is not the all there is... well, you'll end up in a very stagnant role as mere caretaker of the past glory of those who were or are capable of such things.

Darwin had a theory long before he went on his journey of discovery. It was based on some observations he'd made but for the most part it was a "leap of faith" for him to go out looking for evidence when the problem itself had already been solved for most of his peers.

Many other great discoveries have been made in a similar way... you can rename it something safe and areligious if you want but the mindset, the openness to possibilities outside the currently understood scientific body of knowledge, that comes from religion and spirituality and even superstition... all 'irrational' and unsupported by evidence at the time.

The scientific community also has a long tradition of branding such frontier scientists as fanatics as well.... until they prove their theory that is, then they like to welcome them back into the fold and proceed to take credit for the new discovery as if it was obvious from the beginning. They call this 'healthy scepticism'.

As a science enthusiast and a Christian I like to think of the existence of God and the mystery of Jesus as God/Man as the ultimate hypothesis. We have postulated that God exists and that Jesus was his corporeal embodiment. We have evidence in many varied forms. There hasn't been any breakthroughs recently, then again it took centuries for the whole earth is round thing to work itself out as well -Magellan wasn't the first, Ptolemy and Aristotle and many others knew it - it was a well known fact much earlier, just the actual circumference was in question... so we will bide our time faithfully until there is.

Think of it like the existence of extra dimensions. The scientific community seems to take it on faith that they exist, yet have never been able to provide anything close to hard evidence... just some theoretical math that looks like it explains some things we still can't figure out... yet I am certain that 99.99999% of scientists in the world (regardless of their field) believe in extra dimensions.

Just because something theoretically can exist doesn't mean it does. The same is true of God, and Christians take the same viewpoint as those who believe in extra dimensions... for us it just makes too much sense to discount as unprovable and therefore of no use and no further acknowledgement.

So we continue to believe knowing that in the end we will be proven correct and that the 'healthy sceptics' among us will rush to embrace this newly proven discovery and luckily for all of you out there, we will welcome you as lost brothers.

That's way to convoluted.

[Stoutlimb]

I have no idea even of what you are trying to inform me of. My conversations go something like this...

Christian: I'm a christian.
Me: Okay.

I would be fine if we just left it at that, but...

Christian: I believe that God created everything as-is, there was no evolution. Darwin was a quack. You must convert to my religion or you will burn in my religion's hell. Science must revise all it's findings to conform with our holy book.
Me: You're nuts.
Christian: (My brain filters the worst of it.) bla bla bla bla burn in hell bla bla bla genesis bla bla bla just believe bla bla bla bible is infallible bla bla bla god created us all so we must serve him bla bla bla bible says I must push this on you bla bla bla accept jesus into your heart whatever that means bla bla bla science is evil bla bla bla....

STOP!

At that point I just cut them off, insist we should agree to disagree, and then I make a point to avoid that person from then on. Your christian rantings have also taken me to this point, so let's just agree to disagree.

Re:That's way to convoluted.

[TIMxPx]

There was nothing "convoluted", as far as i see, about my post. Although you replied to your own post, i assume that you were referring to mine. It is part of Christianity to bring the gospel to non-Christians. If you don't want to hear it, there's nothing any human can do about it. I was simply responding to your definition of Christianity and the association between Christianity and ID.

The point is that intelligent design is not a companion to Christianity. God the Creator (and hence, the Designer) is an underlying assumption. Since you find it convoluted, i will restate it in simpler terms:

1. "Christian" means one who believes in Christ as the propitiation for sin.
2. There are many underlying beliefs of Christianity, including the Creator God, without which it makes absolutely no sense to put faith in Christ.
3. Calling yourself a Christian without the set of accompanying beliefs is meaningless.

Now you said that you are willing to accept that a person claiming to be a Christian is one. Do you accept other claims without verifying them?

Maybe you don't really care, and i can understand that, but i am refuting your definition of "Christian". You defined a Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian when talking to you. That is not accurate. The thing i have informed you of is the definition of "Christian". Please don't accept what i say though (if you've read this far); verify it for yourself.

Re:That's way to convoluted.

[TIMxPx]

Sorry, you replied to my post and i didn't notice it in the context of the thread. My most sincere apologies.

Re:That's way to convoluted.

[Stoutlimb]

"Now you said that you are willing to accept that a person claiming to be a Christian is one. Do you accept other claims without verifying them?"

Normally I don't accept claims without verifying them, but seeing as Christianity is mostly a matter of opinion and personal belief, I don't think it's my place as a non-christian to say "No you're not" to someone who says they are.

And really, I don't care enough to call a Christian on any non-Christian opinions. Most Christians don't believe in polygamy anymore, that's non-christian. Most Christians don't believe in slavery, and I don't call them on that. (Keep in mind, both Jesus and Paul encourage slaves to be obiedient, so it's hardly an old testament thing.) I don't call Christians who refuse to proslytize(sp). (I happen to like those Christians who refuse to follow that belief.) Considering how many sects your religion has, I've given up trying to keep the interpretations straight. If someone says they are a Christian, chances are there's bound to be a sect that will agree with them.

So please, don't try to explain what is and is not a Christian to someone who DOES NOT CARE.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[scowling]

yet you accept that life came from death without any evidence.

Moron. That's abiogenesis. We have no scientific theories to explain the origin of life. Evolution is not about the origin of life, no matter how much you fundie idiots want to conflate the two.

Ask an atheist scientist how life originated, and he'll tell you "We don't know." Ask a fundie moron and he'll say "Goddidit." You're the one drawing a conclusion without evidence, not th scientist.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

[cappadocius]

Grandparent's statement that recycling paper takes more rescources than making new paper from trees is too broad to be accurate in all cases.

Recycling certain types of paper discarded in certain settings makes a lot of sense. For instance, it makes financial sense for office paper to be recycled because it is inexpensive to collect and sort, and usually contains fewer dyes. Other forms of paper may be less likely to be productively recycled.

If you have Times Select, I suggest reading some of New York Times columnist John Tierney's journalistic pieces, including "Recycling is Garbage." He shows that it is a myth to regard all recycling as beneficial, but also explains when and why certain recycling makes sense even without regard to the environment or governmental regulations.

Fundamental difference and incompatibility.

[I am Jack's username]

I think Carl Sagan's "The dragon in my garage" from his book The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark shows the fundamental difference and incompatibility between what religious people think is real, vs that of skeptical people who value the scientific method:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose [...] I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me." you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here." I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

Re:Fundamental difference and incompatibility.

[CRCulver]

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

Re:Fundamental difference and incompatibility.

[Winlin]

"So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence."

      The problem is, so can the existence of Odin or Vishnu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's all very good that Swinburne can show that things like the Trinity follow naturally; but I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Bible had instead had a Holy Sextet, then Swinburne would have deduced just that from natural evidence . In other words, when you start with what you are proving, it's easy to work your way back.

Re:Fundamental difference and incompatibility.

[owlstead]

"but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support."

"treating the evidence with probability calculus"??? You either have to be smoking, or you have to be looking for a smoking gun even to *start* on that journey. Looking for something that you assume is already there is *not* science.

Certainly right about bridges

[Flying pig]

No-one will ever read this post, but I couldn't help observing that the Tay Bridge disaster in Scotland in the 19th century occurred precisely because an engineer put his faith in the wind estimates of a scientist (Airey.) It was the engineer who lost his knighthood, but it was Airey who was the real villain because his carelessness drastically understated wind pressures on the bridge.

However, you are quite wrong about the theory of evolution. The amount of data that underpins it is colossal. I think it has been estimated (by Gould?) that the quantity of evidence gathered for evolutionary processes and palaeontology exceeds the evidence for the Roman Empire and the historicity of Christianity.

However, that you use the term "creation scientists" shows your obvious bias. Perhaps in future I'm going to start referring to Darwin as "Evangelist Charles 1st".

Re:Certainly right about bridges

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one will ever read this post

I read it and it wasn't bad :-) I would mod it up if I had mod points

Agreed

[phorm]

The universe is a pretty f***ing big place, for us to claim we understand even the most miniscule fraction of how it works is sheer arrogance.

That's not to say that we shouldn't try to understand more, but rather that to make any such "scientific" assumption that there could not be a God is simply for lack of facts either way. Science doesn't disprove God, it just doesn't prove either way.

By the same token, religious zealots who attack perfect good science or even somewhat grounded scientific theories are just as arrogant. True science does not exist to prove or disprove any religious theory, but rather to enhance overall knowledge. Since the workings of the universe at large is the ultimate question, and by religion God is the ultimate power, one could state that in a form God is the ultimate knowledge, and by knowing more we're simply learning more about the grand design of things.

Personally, I'm not big on the whole omniscient+omnipotent thing. If I could know everything, always, then I think I might just do a poke here, a poke there... set certain tracks in certain directions, make certain events a sure-thing, but otherwise let life occur as it may. By religious standards, we're talking about a being to whom time is not even a consideration, and the universe is pretty damn old already, so trying to state that within a period of X lifetimes we have most of the answers is less useful than a 5-year-old who things he knows everything.

In short, Scientists should try to make any certain claim about deific existance because they don't have any true evidence either way. Maybe about particular relgious items, but not the overall concept. Religions shouldn't make any assumptions about scientific theories clashing with divine plan either, for the same damn reason (what man could know the mind of God).

Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin was full of shit. He was just a pansy liberal sinner that all the other pansy liberals have taken on as their lord .which is a sin!

Accept Jesus into your life and all will be good!

It's the other way around.

[VON-MAN]

You are mixing up your arguments here (or the anti-evolution fud is really getting of the scale). Because creationism holds up God as reason for it all, it is creationism that cannot be proved, and thus is not a theory. How would you prove God did it all when you can't even proof a god exists.

Evolution theory is tested every frigging day when a evolution scientist evaluates his data.

The Evolution of Intelligent Design

[cbailster]

One of the most interesting bits to come out of the Dover trial, was a demonstration of how 'inteligent design' evolved from creation science, which in turn evolved from creationism.

Take a look at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missin g_link_cd.html

In summary, earlier drafts of the key intelligent design textbook 'of pandas and people' contain no instances of the phrase 'intelligent design', but lots of instances of the phrase 'creationists', then in 1987 (around the time the US supreme court ruled against teaching of creation science, i believe) a mass search and replace job was done on the book replacing creation with intelligent design. There is even an example of a transitional fossil(!), in one draft the phrase 'cdesign proponentsists' (emphasis my own) where someone didn't do a proper cut and pase job

No need to worry.

[VON-MAN]

I'll tell you. There's no such thing as a "god". It's just a silly notion we humans inherit from our "dark" pre-science days. The reason so many people fuss over it is because the cognitive dissonance between the "believes" and the "knowledge" is enormous. And most people will simply never be even able to see the conflicting believe-sets they own. You are a bit smarter than that, you can see there is a problem. Hold on to that and think about what i said. There's no god, we have no soul, and when you die, you do not go to heaven. Sorry.

Re:No need to worry.

[gavri]

The whole idea of a god or a spiritual world is ridiculous. Wishful thinking is what it is. I don't see why you are telling _me_ this. You should be replying to As_I_Please's comments

Words and Deeds

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Bible, the 'original sin' was eating from the Tree of Knowledge, against a direct commandment from God.

According to history, Galileo was kept under house arrest by the church from the time he was 68 until his death ten years later, because he supported a (now known to be correct) scientific view with which the church disagreed. 360 years later, the church apologised.

According to the article, "Christians have no need to choose between religion and science."

Discuss amongst yourselves. :)

Hey, wow! You found one!

[leonbrooks]

Responsible ACs do exist. Some of them evidently have multiple PhDs in various fields. They're just vanishingly rare.

Re:Hey, wow! You found one!

[jedidiah]

Yes. Unfortunately, those PhD's tend to not be in biology or anything even slighly related to it.

Re:goes to the larger issue - how we debate in the

[Bazzalisk]

When is the last time you saw two people on television actually debate an idea for a full 40 minutes? I'm talking about locking intellectual horns and attempting to prove the merits of an idea to an audience through skillfully argued logic.

I think this is a problem brought about by your commercial television industry more than anything. We get this kind of debate on television in the UK (on the BBC, which as slashdot keeps feeling the need to point out is funded through taxation) - but it never gets very good ratings, luckily since the BBC doesn't have advertising they have no need to chase ratings in every program.

Genetic algorithms don't match current evo. theory

[grimJester]

The major problem here is that you seem to overestimate how much "improved' humans are over apes. Our genomes are incredibly similar. When you look at the biological structures involved, humans are really just slight adjustments to what an ape already has DNA to encode -- Larger brains, less hair, different bone alignment.

This was my first thought as well. To correct for differences caused by technology, better nutrition etc, compare early stone age humans to modern day chimpanzees. The differences are not that great.

The GP does make the point that genetic algorithms contain all the normally listed mechanisma for evolution, with one omisson; change in environment. That could be an explanation for punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradual change. Using genetic algorithms we see gradual change; in nature we have equilibrium states that change comparatively quickly.

The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma could be a good candidate for changing environment in a genetic algorithm; change the payoff matrix every hundred generations or so. I've been meaning to play around with that for some time anyway.

Why not?

[leonbrooks]

If Fundamentalist Creation Science is correct (there are other breeds featuring more in common with Intelligent Design), there will not be conflict between scripture and observation. This core idea can indeed be challenged and refined by natural evidence, where natural is carefully defined to not have a leading capital letter.

By definition, Creationism cannot be challenged by Naturalistic evidence.

Both can (and inevitably have, and are) challenged by little-n natural evidence. This challenging and the rational responses to it are what make each Science. If Creationists answered everything with "goddunnit" (as I've seen several highly-educated ignoramuses assert), it would not be Science. Think about that carefully, because reciprocal is also true: the instant you claim that "godcanthavedunnit", you also eschew Science.

Even if you don't accept that last point, an observation remains for you that Creation Science can (and should) be challenged by observations.

The central organising principle of biology is not evolution, by the way. The bloke who first organised biology was Linnaeus, and he organised it because he expected it to be systematic. He expected it to be systematic because he was, essentially, a Creationist. Evolution cannot be expected to be naturally systematic. The fact that biology as we observe it is largely systematic, I count as a point in favour of the Creationists.

When I first ran across the concept, I counted the disorder we also see against Creationists, until one carefully pointed out that said disorder was an expected consequence of their theology. None of the Creationist models are really mature enough to compete head-on with the well-established Evolutionist models, but the fact that they give Evolutionists such enormous trouble for a relatively recent and trifling investment of effort should terrify anyone with a vested interest in Evolutionism. Can you imagine the depth of the pooh Evolutionism would be in if they had a research budget like NASA's to play with?

Re:Why not?

[Guuge]

the instant you claim that "godcanthavedunnit", you also eschew Science.

Yes, everyone must admit the possibility that invisible unicorns are at work here. In actual science, notions like that are treated as false until someone provides real evidence. If you want serious respect for your particular unicorns, go out and find some evidence. Until then, we can't disprove creationism any more than it already has been disproved.

The fact that biology as we observe it is largely systematic, I count as a point in favour of the Creationists.

This is nonsense and you should be ashamed for propagating it. The field of Complex Systems is getting considerable attention these days, and every educated churchgoer ought to be aware of its implications. Processes of natural selection are extremely systematic, and have been shown to be effective optimizers in extremely complex problems with gigantic search spaces. The development of species is such a problem.

None of the Creationist models are really mature enough to compete head-on with the well-established Evolutionist models, but the fact that they give Evolutionists such enormous trouble for a relatively recent and trifling investment of effort should terrify anyone with a vested interest in Evolutionism.

Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it. With all this time and effort, you guys haven't come up with a single scrap of evidence suggesting a creator. No crashed spaceships, no magical holy grails, not even an encoded message or signature or user's manual. In the relatively little time evolution has been around there have been numerous discoveries in fossil evidence that support the framework. I'm sorry, but your faith should be just that: faith. Leave the science to those who can practice it objectively.

Re:Why not?

[DavidPesta]

Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it.

Actually, groups with Ph.D.'s who try to criticize evolution with evidence generally don't have a lot of money or support. Religious people who put tremendous resources into delivering a dogma is really besides the point he was trying to make--those resources aren't spent on criticizing evolution on a scientific level.

Re:Why not?

[MoneyT]

Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it. With all this time and effort, you guys haven't come up with a single scrap of evidence suggesting a creator. No crashed spaceships, no magical holy grails, not even an encoded message or signature or user's manual. In the relatively little time evolution has been around there have been numerous discoveries in fossil evidence that support the framework. I'm sorry, but your faith should be just that: faith. Leave the science to those who can practice it objectively.


Well there is that whole life thing. I mean, we know what makes up most organisms, and we know what makes up the cells of that organism. What we don't know and can't figure out so far is what exactly makes life. We can take all the compenents of a cell and put them together but that doesn't mean we have a living cell. And we certainly haven't been able to build a mouse yet. Evolution does not preclude the existance of a god or creator.

Furthermore, something like and encoded message for signature or user's manual would be mostly out of the question as language has and does change over time and even if such a thing were found, people would continue to ignore or deny it on the basis that the particular message just became that way through natural processes. In order for such a signature to exist, it would need to exist somewhere where the eart has not changed since it's creation.

Re:Why not?

[Guuge]

Throughout history there have been learned people - philosophers, theologians, scientists - who have expressed belief in creationism and have sought to prove it. These weren't just a pack of zealots repeating the same dogma ad infinitum; these were serious intellectuals who passionately believed in their religion but also recognized the importance of valid logic and scientific rigor. Even so, no alternative to evolution has emerged.

Besides, if creationists want to refine their belief then they are perfectly free to do so with the abundance of fossil evidence already available. If they'd like to propose an experiment to test creationism, or make a prediction based on creationism, then I'm sure people would listen. If they want to do nothing but throw mud at evolution then they have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of prestige.

Re:Why not?

[DavidPesta]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I respectfully maintain that you missed his point.

If knew me, you will find that I seek to be painstakingly honest about everything. Please, try to understand what I am trying to say.

Modern day science using modern day tools do not exist in great abundance in the hands of those who allegedly find holes in perfectly natural evolution.

Historical thinkers are not relevant to this point because they did not have the tools either--or the knowledge of biochemistry that we have today. They could not explore the issue properly in ways that are most relevant to the point--the nitty gritty details of biological systems.

People who make films like the following do not have a lot of resources:
"Unlocking The Mystery Of Life" - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007KLDW
(Though the film is very well done: 4.5 / 5 stars.)

I encourage you to watch the video and think about what these people are trying to say. I do not believe all of them have a religious agenda, but are genuinely learned people--philosophers and scientsts like you talked about at the beginning of your last post. They just don't have enough research support to dig deep enough fast to keep up with the growing tide of misunderstandings of them. I'm not saying they are correct, I'm just saying that they aren't given the attention and resources they need to explore this issue to the very depths of a conclusion that would be satisfying to them and a number of others.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: Some people may use their material to advance a religious agenda, but that is besides the point--ignore those people and focus on the material itself. It is my contention that responsible thinkers who watch the film above will have to agree that the makers of the film should be given the opportunity to go to ultimate depths of research to study the objections that they have. Science demands that every area of criticism be fully explored and satisfied.

I still have to agree with the original poster, these people don't have the resources they need to investigate this fully to the point where they can finally see if they are right or wrong. Watch the film and I believe you may see my point better.

Again, make sure you don't just assume things about their character just because others are able to use the material to advance a religious aganda! This is the 'growing tide of misunderstandings' that I talked about earlier.

Re:Why not?

[Follier]

these people don't have the resources they need to investigate this fully to the point where they can finally see if they are right or wrong.

Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of? Have you seen the budget of your typical research biologist's budget? Exactly what resources are required to test these hypotheses? The cost of testtubes? A plane ticket to the Galapagos Islands? A thermonuclear partical-accelerating atom-smashing ID detector?
Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere. (I doubt they would get anywhere, but I'd respect the effort).

make sure you don't just assume things about their character just because others are able to use the material to advance a religious aganda!

Others? Wait, what? Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator? That'd be like an astronomer who doesn't believe in stars. And what material? The primary problem with ID is that there is no supporting material. Maybe if they had the paved-with-gold rich life like an actual biologist has (apparently), they could come up with some? ^_^

It's not as if someone came up with some amazing evidence that can only be explained with ID, and the religious people are exploiting it. The people who came up with ID are the religious folks, and the amazing evidence doesn't exist yet. Don't mean to jump all over my favorite slashdotter, but dang man... call a spade a spade.

Re:Why not?

[DavidPesta]

Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?

Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator? I don't believe you gave an honest answer. Theism as a generic philosophical paradigm is not more religious than atheism as a generic philosophical paradigm. Besides, have you not realized that agnosticism is also consistent with someone who might be interested in studying certain aspects of ID? As you know, agnostics generally consider themselves undecided about religious matters. I honestly believe there is a group of people that you aren't being fair with.


The people who came up with ID are the religious folks

You didn't seem to give any attention to my original point. It's a bit more complicated than that, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the origin of ID was completely based upon advancing a religious agenda. Even so, the origin of ID is irrelevant and religious disposition of those who support it is irrelevant. It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit rather than looking at the followers. This is why: What if you are overlooking something important just because you have been turned off by people who support it? Having said that, I contend that there are agnostics who find the study of ID fascinating and important.


Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of?

Are there ANY cache of grants available to pro-ID scientists that you are aware of? Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition, funding those who would study ID is considered by mainstream to be 'religious' and 'unscientific'. In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance evolution.


Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere.

Without PR movies, as you put it, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'? I don't think you are being unfair on purpose, but you certainly aren't applying the same objective way of thinking toward this group that you normally would any other group. Then again, I don't know you very well. Perhaps you are unfair with everyone. ;D

I challenge you to watch the film that I mentioned in my penultimate post in this thread.

Your task, then, is quite simple

[leonbrooks]

Demonstrate a plausible combination of natural forces (even if artificially accelerated, the demonstration itself should be quite telling; however, the forces must be natural, that is, no genetic surgery or whatever) causing one species to extend itself beyond anything which could reasonably be called "its kind".

Taking a bird and causing it to revert from feathers to fur would bve a good one. Try an emu, we have a significant excess of them and they're already part of the way there. Besides, the state government would be delighted to start an emu-fur industry.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[akadruid]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

1. It has a kernel (belief in Jesus and God) and you can put different forms on top of that (barring a few that go against the license), leading to different branches and forks.

And, like GNU/Linux, there are few mad people who attempt to replace a proven, solid kernel with something new...

(relying on the sense of humour of the Hurd folk, and the general atheisism of /. for flame protection)

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[JohnFluxx]

Ah thanks. It just seemed to me that humans seemed to emphasise that we shouldn't be like doubting thomas and so we shouldn't question anything the bible says. (I can't specifically remember the words of any hymns about it, but I do remember singing some hymns about it)

Religious Darwinism?

[danratherfoe]

I find this story interesting on so many different levels -- religion is being forced to evolve lest it go extinct!

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[200_success]

I don't think it wil ever be ready for the desktop -- it seems to be vaporware!

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus was incapable of performing miracles like Santa Claus, thus, Jesus was a false prophet.

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that 2006 is the year of Christianity on the desktop. My belief is based not only on faith, but on plenty of compelling anecdotal evidence I heard after the service at the local Christianity user group.

For example, take this new Darwin compatibility module we are discussing. It allows easy interoperability with non-Christian desktops, which used to be a subject of many flamewars. Also, Darwin compatibility is good for interoperating with gay Apple users.

Second, with the release of the new version of Pope, the complaints about the slow performance and difficult configuration of the previous version are now moot. On my system the excellent engineering of the new German Pope shines in prayer performance with only a modest increase in resource usage - clearly a sign of intelligent system design seldom seen on Microsoft platforms.

In conclusion, the groundswell is now swelling, and it looks now inevitable that 2006 will be the year of Christianity on the desktop. Preach the word!

Evolution theory is still scientifically flaky

[Anonymous Coward]

Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, a leading researcher says. Darwin's warm pond theory tested. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336. stm

Have to agree with you on that one

[leonbrooks]

The Starship Troopers observations, that is.

I think the concept of a military who're happy about letting a juvenile delinquent loose with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of expensive (and later we discover that they're fragile, too) starship docked to millions of tonnes of expensive space station was probably the first thing that trashed any sense of plausibility for me.

I was really looking forward to the thirty-second bomb, too. )-:

Re:Have to agree with you on that one

[jedidiah]

That is a rather clueless interpretation of allowing a junior officer and pilot actually do the task for which they trained.

Letting juvenille delinquents loose with large amounts of expensive military munitions and equipment is what armies are all about.

Fun too...

Amen, brother, amen!

[leonbrooks]

No, seriously, you're bang on the money. (-:

Ironically enough...

[leonbrooks]

...termites are one of the organisms that have changed the least in their entire history.

Perhaps that's so on _your_ planet

[leonbrooks]

Here, nobody fills out surveys that badly. At least, nobody does so accidentally.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Fished]

No, I'm not a one issue voter. In fact, I voted for Kerry in 2004, if you must know. But, like many Christians, I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush except for the issue of abortion. Thinking that abortion should be illegal is not the same thing as "theocracy," and you'd have to be a flaming, ignorant jackass to think it was. Ultimately, the abortion debate comes down to whether one thinks of an unborn fetus as person or property. The Christian church has a tradition of thinking of fetuses as person, but we are by no means alone in that. In fact, many faith traditions, and even secular ethics, have found the same thing.

Eve - First Human Clone. Ban God!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush Administration has banned human cloning.

Enforcing the law retroactively back to the story of Genesis,
all female Americans (as images of the rib-cloned Eve) will be deported from the USA,
to restore America to the land as God made it - totally male.

'No Fe-Male clones here! We all got our ribs back, and we ain't givin' em up to nobody!'
The Pope, representing his all male priesthood, approved.

Religion and Mythology were pseudo-scientific explanations for how the world came into being,
talking snakes in gardens, the World on the back of a turtle or whatever...
All great fiction writing, very entertaining, even enlightening,
but of course, all of it - total fiction.

If we stop teaching children to believe in lies, perhaps they will become smarter and better off for it?

Re:Sigh

[Valdoran]

Exactly, as shown in the remainder of this comment. And the Darwin Award goes to... Christianity!

Re:Christianity and Microsoft? - Embrace and Exten

[halivar]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

Except Christianity comes with a user guide, and my grandmother understands it.

Sin and Hell

[SeanDuggan]

This in fact was the reason I first doubted God. I don't believe that any crime justifies eternal torment. I certainly feel that anyone willing to commit a person to eternal damnation, whether God or just a sick and twisted mind, is completely evil.
I always resolved that by looking at the message of forgiveness in the Bible. I believe that God is willing to forgive us of any sin if we are truly sorry. (There is only one sin listed as unforgiveable in the Biblie, incidentally, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and I sometimes wonder if the writer wasn't using hyperbole) Therefore, I believe that the only people who will wind up in Hell are those who choose to, those who are too filled with pride to repent, to accept God as God. And before you state that I'm condemning people for ignorance, I firmly believe that God, being a loving and just God, will give everyone a final chance to make their decision after they know the full truth. *shrug* It's not technically incompatible with anything said in the Bible and it helps me to sleep at night, knowing that people will have a chance to be forgiven, no matter what their sins.

Re:Sin and Hell

[Sean Hederman]

But that's the point isn't it? If I die, and meet God face to face, and He tells me that he's sent even a single soul to eternal torment, no matter what the circumstances, then I'll deny Him. A guaranteed chance to escape an immoral punishment does not make the punishment any less immoral.

no one is trying to hinder science in God's name

[Jay9333]

Very few in this debate are "hindering scientific progress in the name of God". Pundits ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'. They are using the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.

Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).

Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.

Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking.

Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.

There are Christians and there are "Christians"

[tbcpp]

The thing they forgot to point out, is that this is not the view of the Christian church at large. There are "Christians" in name, and there are Christians in practice. Just because a bunch of "Christians" claim that Darwin's theories (because they are no more than that) are compatible with Christianity does not mean that they are. I would have to say that most Bible believing Christians totally disagree with Darwin's views. Hey, let's be frank, it takes just as much faith to believe in the fact that evolution exists as it does to believe that God created the world. Now, when Magneto, Wolverine and Jean Gray show up, let me know, 'cause that would put a big monkey wrench in the works. But until then, I challenge you, show me one case where a mutation added any information to a gene pool.

Re:There are Christians and there are "Christians"

[ambrosen]

Well, of course, you have to ask whether bible worshipping Christians are really Christian at all, too.

Re:There are Christians and there are "Christians"

[tbcpp]

Yes, they are. The definition of Christian would be one who follows Christ. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. He did nothing but support the idea that He (as God) was there in the beginning. For as John said, In the beginning was the Word, and the word was God, and the Word was with God.

The problem is that the entire Bible hinges on the fact that God used 6 literal days to create the earth. Any other view than this destroys the foundations of the Bible, and the rest of our belief. And it is because of that that true Christians must reject the idea of evolution.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Expert Determination]

One thing that isn't widely known about Hamas

It's pretty widely known that Muslim 'humanitarian' groups engage in terrorism. The official list of terrorist groups, published by the US government, and involved in the financial freezes a few years back, mostly look like humanitarian groups.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Expert Determination]

Stop demonising Muslims for sins committed by many other peoples around the world, while refusing to criticise them as well.

Bush is an evil lying bastard - whether we're dealing with Katrina or war in Iraq.

Nometheless, unlike the popular Hamas, Bush does not sponsor terrorism against civilians and certainly doesn't call for death threats for something as trivial as some satire.

And your talk of Jewish Manifest Destiny is pure anti-semitism straight out of medieval times.

Your understanding of biology is missing

[MichaelPenne]

a couple of things:

Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology. If you look in a reputable biology textbook, you will find this stated, likewise if you google it, you will find hundreds of prominant biologists and biological organizations stating it.

Linnaeus developed a classification scheme, not an organizing principle, evolution is the theory that explains the classifcations that Linnaeus discovered.

The reason biologists get upset about having creation 'science' taught as a 'competing theory' is that creation science has yet to generate a single testable, falsifiable, hypothesis, which is the first step to becoming a theory. As such creation science has not progressed to the hypothesis stage of the scientific process, it is trying to get over the finish line when it has not even crossed the starting line.

For a good read on why so many folks have a hard time dealing with the implications of evolution, I suggest reading Darwins Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennet, gives a good overview about why creationism rears its head every few decades and why the same old recycled hyperboles have such broad appeal.

Re:Your understanding of biology is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

How is evolution falsifiable?

Re:Your understanding of biology is missing

[DavidPesta]

How is evolution falsifiable?

Good point.

If philosophical naturalism is accepted as an absolute truth and unshakable foundation for how all of science is practiced, then evolution is not falsifiable.

Afterall, there is no natural alternative to evolution. True by default.

Re:Your understanding of biology is missing

[Follier]

Afterall, there is no natural alternative to evolution. True by default.

... That we know of ^_~
But yes, naturalism must be what science is based on. If something is not systematically observable and/or testable in the natural world, it is not a part of science. It's right there in the definition.
But to answer the question How is evolution falsifiable?:

What could be found that could undo the Everest-like heaps of supporting evidence for evolution? In the early days of research, it could have been that populations did not observably change genetic configurations over generations. That would've falsified it. But they did.

I was thinking of another one.. hypothetically any scientific theory is falsifiable.. so how could the theory of gravity be falsifiable. I'm sure there is some conceivable experiment or experience that could put a hole it, but I can't think of one at the moment. I think this should be mandatory excercise in higher-level science classes! Present a scenario that, if it happened, would falsify the foundation theories like evolution (or gravity for physics, or uniformitism for geology).

And btw David! It's so nice to run into you again, how've you been?!

Re:Your understanding of biology is missing

[DavidPesta]

What could be found that could undo the Everest-like heaps of supporting evidence for evolution?

Here's a shot: An entirely different falsifiable paradigm that has completely different and valid interpretations of the same evidence. Would that qualify? For example, Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, the latter having interpreted the evidence quite solidly for hundreds of years.

It would be neat to make that a part of higher-level science to excercise those critical thinking skills! :)

Yeah, I do remember you from someplace. It's good to know that the internet is finite afterall!

Re:Your understanding of biology is missing

[Follier]

Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, the latter having interpreted the evidence quite solidly for hundreds of years.

Well, Relativity didn't really replace Newtonian physics - they dealt with different levels of phenomena. A better example is how Newtonian physics replaced Aristotelian physics (which was around for thousands of years).

Why this happened would be a long post and pointless in this particular topic. I'll go right to the problem: Why is evolution valid, and ID is not. Evolution begins with observations, and goes from there. ID begins with assertians, and tries to wiggle into holes in the evolutionary model. In fact it actually invents holes to wiggle into. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, and no evidence to suggest that there is. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution and no evidence to suggest that there is. But damn, they sound scientific.

The classic tactic, is to present ID in it's unabashed form - which is as arbitrary as it is unprovable (and undisprovable). I think I just made that word up. I just didn't want to say "falsifiable" again I feel like we've already beaten that one to death.

A good (although admittingly rude) analogy would be to state that the dark side of the moon is made of solid gold and is home to an enlightened alien city. The aliens have a cloaking device that makes it undetectable by our "3-dimensional instruments" (I've read this one.. you can find anything on the internet I swear). Unless you build yourself a rocket and go look with some 4th dimensional binoculars, you cannot prove that this isn't true. So, should we teach this in astronomy? It is, by some standards, equally valid to the "it's dark, cold, and be-cratered" concept.

Re:Your understanding of biology is missing

[DavidPesta]

I just want you to know that I do believe you are honest about this issue, you just have a different way of thinking about it.


Evolution begins with observations, and goes from there.

The way I see it, evolution starts with philosophical naturalism and interprets all of the evidence to fit into that metaphysical ideology. Understandably so, since science works well under philosophical naturalism. In the end, there may be something wrong with it.


ID begins with assertians, and tries to wiggle into holes in the evolutionary model.

In my opinion, ID is (or should be) merely the falsifiable theory that philosophical naturalism and the conditions under which we exist in the physical universe cannot explain the origin of life. With that more proper definition, ID can be falsified by demonstrating natural evolution with experiments and providing other absolutely definitive mathematical proofs of our evolutionary history on a biochemical level. So far this hasn't been done to the satisfaction of a number of scientists. (The majority wouldn't agree because they are caught up in the mainstream.) As long as the attempt to falsify ID (demonstrate evolution) hasn't reached a level of success to convince these scientists, ID remains a scientifically valid theory to them.


There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, and no evidence to suggest that there is.

I thought IC is simply defined as the functional interdependency of multiple components. In that case, there's plenty of IC all around us especially within biology. Your contention shouldn't be whether IC exists, your contention should be if IC can be overcome by natural evolution.


There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution and no evidence to suggest that there is.

Did I miss something in my secular education? The fundamental distinction is this: Microevolution involves a shifting in frequency of genetic traits throughtout a population via natural selection, traits that already exist within the gene pool of the organisms. No new genetic information via genetic mutation is required to accomplish microevolution. On the other hand, macroevolution requires the introduction of entirely new genetic traits to produce entirely new forms of life--new genetic traits that did not already exist within the gene pool of the original organisms. New genetic information via genetic mutation is required to accomplish macroevolution.

Because the Don't Qualify for POW Status

[HighOrbit]

This whole thread is offtopic, but I feel compelled to answer the troll.

4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs.

It is quite clear that either you do not understand the Geneva Conventions, or you are merely spouting anti-American/anti-Bush rhetoric, or both, because the people at GITMO clearly do not qualify for POW status. Here is a link to the authoritative text of Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War . I direct your attention to Article 3 and especially Article 4 which I quote for you.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The combatants held at GITMO do not meet these conditions and they are, in fact, war criminals themselves. They do not carry arms openly and they do not respect the laws and customs of war (i.e. they purposely and directly attack civilians and violate every single clause of Article 3 as a matter of deliberate policy). They are quite literally "illegal combatants", that is, they wage war without following the laws and customs of war. In fact, they are lucky because the "customs" of war prior to the Geneva and Hauge Conventions (which they are not protected by), would be to summarily execute anybody who was engaged in a purposeful violation of the laws and customs of wars (i.e. the old custom was to grant no quarter to war criminals on the field and, if they did happen to be captured, they would be tried at the drumhead, at best).

You also do not seem to grasp the concept that a state of War can exist without a neatly signed declaration. Nor do you grasp that war can also be waged by non-stat

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[JetJaguar]

Behe hasn't shown jack. Both Dembski and Behe have admitted that there are major holes in their ideas. Behe even admitted it under oath. The holes in these ideas were pointed out to them shortly after they originally voiced them. And yet, instead of trying to spend time shoring them up as any good scientist should do, they continue to trot out the same flawed ideas over and over.

There are a great many open questions and things we flat out don't know about how life came to be on this planet, but at least the currently accepted theory doesn't have logical flaws in it the size of planets. A lack of knowlege is not an adequate excuse to invoke an almighty influence, to do so is completely arbitrary, and is indicative of someone who is more interested in "knowing" the answers than in actually doing the hard work that's involved in really finding them. It is also indicative of a person who has an agenda that has nothing to do with science at all. The Discovery Institute and the people behind it have made it clear that they have no desire nor inclination to do any science at all.

Finally your conception of evolution is flawed. Evolution doesn't predict that bacteria will magically turn into another lifeform. Evolution predicts that, over time, different groups of the same bacteria that are placed under different pressures will eventually become so disconnected from one another as to be distinguishable. It comes down to the silly argument over micro vs. macro evolution. Just what do you think that macro evolution is? All it is, is a bunch of "microevolutionary" events built up over time. That's it. And we've seen enough of this to detect strong evolutionary patterns in the fossil record, in modern life forms, and in genetics.

The "anomalies" you point at are nothing of the sort. The advent of quantum mechanics came about not because of "anomalies," but because experiments were being done whose results flat out contradicted a classical interpretation. We had definitive knowledge that things did not work as we expected at the atomic level. We have no such evidence against evolution aside from the unproven and questionable conjecture that certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex."

Finally, you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to undirected evolution. You're creating a strawman. Random mutation is a factor for creating variation, but selection pressures direct evolution and which variations survive. You are mischaraterizing the process. Do you not see how you are arbitrarily attaching "Purpose" to the things you think are important while disregarding the rest?

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[AddictedToBeef]

Oddly, some of the outrage against Intelligent Design comes from "Theistic evolutionists." They say evolution is how God chose to order and create life. But the crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design.

This seems to be missing the point somewhat. Pretty much by definition, "theistic evolutionists" believe in the basic tenets of Intelligent Design (that God has influenced creation to fit God's will, in this case acting through evolutionary processes). The opposition comes when ID advocates propose that ID be taught in the public science curriculum. "Theistic evolutionists", as you call them, are opposed to the teaching of ID as science, as it offers no predictive or explanatory power (other than "God did it").
As I see it, it's a disagreement over how to explain stuff that we don't yet understand. Personally, I think that in a public school setting, "We don't know" is preferable to "We don't know, but some people think God did it."

Flamewar data

[TheSwirlingMaelstrom]

The group doing the study on how flamewars get started (posted later than the parent to this) would find some invaluable data here....

My own contributions, probably already stated elsewhere:

• Evolution is an observation. Take all of the fossil collections in all of the Museums of the world, date them according to some accurate method (stratigraphy, mineral deposition, radioactive decay, etc.), then line them all up according to those ages. Now, create sub-groups of everything that looks similar. Start with, for example, whales: what you find is that the features of whales have changed over time and, as you pull older and older specimens into the 'whale' group, they start looking less and less like whales and more and more like big freakin' hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) with sharp teeth. Obviously, this is an over-simplification: as you go back further in the fossil record, data (fossils) become more sparse. However, there are tried and true methods for finding correlations from noisy data (such as gaps in fossil records, or gaps in digital recordings, etc. -- same methods, different dirt). If you could walk along the time-lines in those sub-groups, observing for yourself the changes and similarities, I think that most people would probably get a clue (however, you'd need an awfully big room to store all of those whales...
• Darwin's theory is a theory about how evolution happens, it is not about whether or not evolution happens: as said above, evolution is an observational fact. Darwin's original theory is very different than the modern theororetical understanding of how evolution happens.
• The word 'theory' in scientific parlance means something which is testable and falsifiable. In common terms, it usually means a vague idea or guess: this would be called a hypothesis (at best) in scientific terms. Darwin's theory was testable by comparing it to existing species records, and data collected by Darwin; his theory was also falsifiable, and withstood those tests. ID and creationism are not theories: they are guesses.
• IDers claim (via the watchmaker analogy) that complex things (like watches) require something even more complex (like a watchmaker) to conceive and create them. Ok, that means that god is more complex than we are, indeed more complex than the Universe. Who created god?

Re:goes to the larger issue - how we debate in the

[Secrity]

The Right Wingers will not debate the issues; they always respond in one of three ways:


1. "The Bible says ...."

They refuse to accept the existance of anything that challenges the infallibility of their interpretation of the Bible.

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." Genesis 9:25-27 (justifying the ownership of slaves)

"The Bible clearly and consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). God does not create a person with homosexual desires. A person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27)" http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html


2. "Most people believe ..."

Right wingers fully believe that they are in the majority and that because their "majority" believes one way that they can't possibly be wrong. Also, everything that the GOP says is what the "majority" believes.


3. Some sort of wierd, twisted assertion:

"The world is less than 10,000 years old; carbon dating and fossils are wrong".

"If you allow gay marriages, then you have to allow people to marry their dogs"

"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing. It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply 'live together'." Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family (regarding gay marriage)

"This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children." "God has a plan for marriage and this isn't it." "Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity." Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving (regarding interracial marriage)

a few possible answers

[Anonymous Coward]

Certain Christian denominations would answer this way:

Why do most of the Christian holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older?

They were clearly inaugurated in such a way to ease pagans into the Roman Catholic church more easily. They are wrong in God's eyes and holidays with such pagan connections should be celebrated. So many of the common so-called Christian practices and rituals, etc, are like this.

If you're a Trinitarian, are non-trinitarians going to hell?

There is no such thing as a "firey hell" anyway. :)

Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?

Who said the Bible was crystal clear? The Bible certainly doesn't say that. There is the story of the Ethiopian who had the desire to learn, was reading the scriptures but didn't understand "how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?". He needed Philip's help, with God's backing, to understand. It's up to the individual to determine if the person teaching them is really teaching from God or not. People who are really earnest are given the help they look for. Additionally, Jesus clearly stated that those who find the right path would be few, but those following the wrong one would be many.

It depends on Stephen Jay Gould.

[ambrosen]

I think that the essay that SJG's written is arguing for more than what is known as and has been known as for many centuries, a "God of the gaps", which is the straw man that you are demolishing.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[zx75]

Of course it's entirely possible that science can't prove everything. At some point it may be that human ingenuity may run across problems that simply cannot be further understood, like the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle is part of... it's the science of indeterminacy.

But damn it, there is nothing that is going to stop humanity from following science as far as it is able to take us. There is no 'faith' in that, we know there is something we don't know, and we know that we aren't near the end of all that can be discovered, nor are we likely to ever be... so we keep going. Belief that science can discover everything is as wrong as belief that it cannot.

And in the end, science is not about answers, and faith is not about questions. Faith is about giving easy and unprovable answers to vast questions about the nature of existence.
Science is about knowledge and understanding of the universe (or multiverse if that is what it actually is), the majority of science isn't going to give you hard concrete answers, but simply answers that best fit the evidence that we have today, and understandable models that approximate phenomena.

Re: Observability

[jc42]

Science can only be reasonably applied the things that can be observed.

While true in some sense, the usual way this would be interpreted by most people is distincty wrong.

Thus, we use electrons routinely now, but no human has ever "observed" an electron in any normal sense of the word. We can't observe electrons or an electromagnetic field directly via our own senses; we can only observe their effects.

And this is the basis of much scientific understanding. We routinely hypothesize the existence of things that we can't directly observe, and also hypothesize the ways that they interact with other things. We devise ways of testing these hypotheses. Sometimes we can set up experiments whose outcomes will be different if different hypotheses are valid. Sometimes (or usually, if we're astronomers), we can only observe and make inferences.

And, of course, we have slowly learned to build gadgets that can observe things beyond the reach of our senses. We can make photographic film or CCDs that are sensitive to photons outside our visual range, and translate the results into "false color" images that are in our visual range. Centuries ago, we learned to use optics to make microscopes and telescopes, tools to observe images that our eyes can't resolve. And, most importantly, we learned to reason from our observations to the reality lurking behind those observations.

This wouldn't be important if the religious people didn't insist on misunderstanding phrases like "things that can be observed". We could just say that "observe" includes things that can't be detected by our senses, if we can find ways of translating data into something that our senses can handle. Then things become observable that weren't before.

But the religious people have historically claimed that we can't "observe" things like Jupiter's satellites or the evolutionary process. Of course we can, and we do, but only if you accept a translation via our technology as "observation". The fact that some religious people don't accept things like evolution as observed fact implies that we need a serious discussion of what our words really mean. By their limited definition of "observe", we can't observe most of the stuff that scientists and engineers deal with routinely, so those scientists and engineers must be wrong. Telling them that we do observe such things doesn't work; they call us liars. How often have we read here that we can't observe evolution or climate change?

Part of the fun of this was reading this discussion yesterday while being "snowed in" by the storm that just hit the northeastern US. I kept a window on my screen that showed the false-color IR images from www.goes.noaa.gov. These are images that, even if I were in the satellite, I couldn't observe with my own senses. To human senses, the storm was just a swirl of white. To an IR-sensitive CCD, the storm was full of colors that impart a great deal of information about what's going on. Those colors are just as distinct at night as during the day. And computers can translate them into our visual range.

Science can observe such things. Religions can't, and have to attribute such a storm as an "act of God".

This is especially significant when you consider that, while I was watching the white swirls outside my window, the main part of the storm was out at sea. Back when religion ruled the world, sailors would have died in that storm. Now, anyone with Internet access can follow such a storm, and can route their ships and planes around it. Even if their own eyes could never have "observed" the storm directly.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[jc42]

"Christians have no need to choose between religion and science."

I beg to differ. The premise of religion is to accept that certain things are mysterious and cannot be investigated, or that certain things are true whether there is evidence for them or not.

Actually, this is mostly true for Western religions, mostly Christianity but to a lesser degree some Jewish and Islamic sects. There are a number of religions such a Buddhism that make no claims to special knowledge about the physical world. Those religions have no real dispute with science. Many Christians are faced with a choice. But the rest of the world doesn't have to listen to them.

One could argue that this is a bit of a pathology in Christianity, where there is a widespread insistence on some literal interpretation of a (translation of a translation of a) text written by pre-scientific people.

Many other religions, including a few sects of the Western religions, don't presume to speak knowledgeably about matters of observable fact. They only speak to questions of how we should act toward each other. These aren't questions of "is", but rather of "should", which isn't a matter that science deals with.

Our basic battle now is with the religious factions that claim special knowledge about the world, and insist they are right even when shown wrong. And, of course, when you are wrong as many times as they have been, your judgement is quite properly questioned on other matters, too.

I mean, really, if someone claims that evolution doesn't happen, and we see disease organisms evolving before our very eyes, that should totally discredit the people claiming that evolution doesn't happen. It shouldn't just discredit their biological theories. We should also dismiss their social theories (e.g. on education), on the grounds that those theories are probably wrong too.

Similarly, the growing malaria epidemic is a direct result of the disease organism and its mosquito vector both evolving resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. This in turn is a result of the religious people suppressing the teaching of evolution, so that people overuse antibiotics and pesticides, leading to the evolution of resistance. We shouldn't just ignore the religious people that did this; we should forbid the their interference with our education system because of the damage that they've caused.

Similarly, we hear a lot from religious people on the HIV/AIDS problem. And many of them are not helping much. Thus, the Catholic church is to be commended for finally, after centuries, acknowledging the validity of much science that they formerly suppressed. But in the case of sexually-transmitted diseases, they are still on the side of the disease. They block attempts use sex education and technology (e.g. condoms) to control such diseases. This should throughly discredit them in the eyes of anyone seriously fighting such diseases, not just on medical issues, but also in other "moral" issues.

Instead, we should be listening more to the religious people who specialize in the "should" questions. They have some good ideas about how we should run our world. Much better than the ideas of the religious people who claim that their ideas about the natural world are valid even when we've shown that they are wrong.

After all, if a religious group is wrong on the things that we can test, why should we listen to them on topics that we can't test?

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the americans voted for Bush, so what's your point?

Compatible or Incompatible? Neither!

[geezusfreeek]

Christianity and science are not incompatible, nor are they compatible. Christians have no responsibility to make their views or others' views compatible with science, nor do scientist have any responsibility to make their experiments support Christianity. They are completely orthogonal views of the world and need not clash as so many have attempted to force.

To the atheistic or agnostic scientist, why does it matter so much that we "ignorant" Christians support your theories?

To the unscientific Christian, how are you going to prove such a highly spiritual and intangible thing as the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ in scientific terms with no tangible evidence and repeatable experiments to support it? Do you hope to be as smart as God himself, able to explain how He created everything?

To the Christian scientists, why force these views into the same direction when they so obviously do not clash even without your attempts at making them fit? Christian beliefs are not meant to be fit so a strict scientific model, nor is a scientific model meant to be fit to an untestable idea.

It doesn't matter that there is evidence for macro-evolution or the big bang. Either could be true or false. God doesn't care about that. Why should we?

Re:Meanwhile...

[stanmann]

Except the only contemporary written testimony from the area on that subject says that he could and did. Now, you are welcome to argue bias in the historians, but there is no extant written testimony refuting the claims.

Re:goes to the larger issue - how we debate in the

[Headw1nd]

Find and read Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. The premise is essentially that television, our current medium of information, is simply not capable of supporting reason. I found it to be a compelling and frightning thesis.

Re:Meanwhile...

[stanmann]

Please don't associate the apostate Roman Church with true Christianity. They persecuted Christians along with the Jews, Muslims, Greeks, etc. They didn't really care.

Bertrand Russel

[PurpleWizard]

Bertrand Russel in the History of Western Philosophy puts it very well

To Summarise

Religion is speculation on matters to which definite knowledge has so far been unascertainable whilst science is the definite knowledge with Philosophy fitting in the middle being questions about things to which we have some knowledge. - page 1 of the introduction.

"All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses deinite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a no man's land - .... philosophy".

Re:Bertrand Russel

[zootm]

Nice quotation, thanks for that. :)

ever notice something about the Bible?

[apocalypse76]

Ever notice that God wants us to have "FAITH" as the basis for our belief? Check out Hebrews 11:6. Mix that along with how much it hurt God to sacrafice his own Son and you see why belief and faith are so important.

Soo....

God wants us to believe in faith alone, so that means he has to make it look like he doesn't exist. So he works through natual stuff like atoms, cells, the everyday stuff of life. It's mans pride that tries to act like he knows everything. Darwinism is just ONE of man's attempts to scientifically explain what God created. And not fully proveable.. Doesn't mean it's fully right or wrong. It to each individual person to believe how much of which they believe in.

Main point is God is everything, so since we are living in/with Him it's going to look fully natural from our point of view. Wow.. that's almost impossible to put in words.

For another failed way of man explaining everything look at eugenics. That belief dang near wiped out this planet.

Re:ever notice something about the Bible?

[Follier]

It to each individual person to believe how much of which they believe in.

This is a nice sentiment, that is, until your child comes home from science class in public school with twisted ideas about a magical watchmaker. Or worse yet, twisted ideas about the way science works. I don't care what people teach their kids at home or sunday school, but when it enters the secular public sphere, then it's my problem. That's the basis for the huge debate that gets launched here on slashdot everytime someone mentions the E word.

You wouldn't want your child coming home claiming that the world sits on the back of a turtle, so why should our children be indoctrinated into any particulary creation myth? So yeah, that's why we don't have an "agree to disagree" mentality. It's unfortunate, but that's the situation.

Re:ever notice something about the Bible?

[apocalypse76]

That's not a 'nice sentiment' it's the blatent truth. No matter what is said hardly anyone will change thier mind off a conversation on slashdot.

Now one question I have is are you going to raise your kids to believe in only what you believe in? That's an impressively vain and short-sighted goal. Basically you are saying you don't want them to learn any more than you do.

I would much rather teach my kids to tell the difference between right and wrong. Scientifically and religously. It's funny, in world geography the Bible is the oldest most accurate book. Problem is people don't mention all the other sciences it's extremely accurate in too.

If 'securlar' means short sighted and ignorant I'd much rather teach my kids in other ways. It's amazing to me how arrogant man is to think he can understand everything.

Re:ever notice something about the Bible?

[Follier]

Yes, secular means short sighted. *rollin my eyes*.

It's funny, in world geography the Bible is the oldest most accurate book
Really? The world is flat and has four corners? I'm assuming, then, that you were home-schooled in a broom closet. I'm sorry for that.

It's amazing to me how arrogant man is to think he can understand everything.
It's pointless to make the teaching of bad science in science class some kind of moral issue. If they were eliminating music from the curriculum because it's 'sinful', you'd be singing a different tone. Only difference is, you just happen to agree with this particular absurdity.

I would much rather teach my kids to tell the difference between right and wrong
And teaching bad science is right and teaching actual science is wrong? If you say so.

No matter what is said hardly anyone will change thier mind off a conversation on slashdot.
This, I humbly agree with.

Re:ever notice something about the Bible?

[Follier]

I apologize. I didn't actually answer your question ^.^;;

Now one question I have is are you going to raise your kids to believe in only what you believe in? That's an impressively vain and short-sighted goal.

My children can believe anything they want. But starting them off with 2+2=5 isn't going to help them later in life. So yes, I'd like my children to have a good education, preferably free of the muddying effect that the ID debate brings forth (as opposed to actual scientific skepticism, which I heartily encourage).

Basically you are saying you don't want them to learn any more than you do.
This makes absolutely zero sense.

Re:ever notice something about the Bible?

[apocalypse76]

Yep, secular is a religion unto itself. Very shortsighted and arrogant. Where do you get that the earth is flat and has four corners? That's yet another failed method of man to describe the earth. Also since it took so long to get over that one it proves how arrogant man is.

How about this verse that can be understood as a basis for dark matter? How do you explain that? Is that worth rolling your eyes at?

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what IS SEEN (present tense) was not made out of what WAS VISIBLE. (past tense)

Dang, to me that pretty much explains the big bang! Everything just came into existance.

Don't get bad science confused with differing points of view. The vast majority of people in the US that are scientists believe in the Bible. They realize that what they are doing helps prove it more and more. Thing is they are comfortable in thier beliefs so they don't brow beat other people with them. Ignorance is much louder than intelligence.

It's people like you who desperately hold onto ignorant beliefs that mis-quote (ex. world is flat) what is actually written to prove your point. What so funny about it is your inability to do a little research into the matter (when i say little i mean 6 months) to find out the truth.

Being ignorant and lazy are the reason there are so many problems today. Unfortunately it's propagated by people who mistakingly cover thier ignorance with arrogance.

Re:ever notice something about the Bible?

[Follier]

How about this verse that can be understood as a basis for dark matter? How do you explain that? Is that worth rolling your eyes at? Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what IS SEEN (present tense) was not made out of what WAS VISIBLE. (past tense)

Heh.. wow... I'm sorry, I was only teasing you before - I... didn't realize that you were actually mentally unstable. I'm going to back away slowly, now.
Goodbye, good luck.

Nationalism, not Religion

[ppp]

This whole "it's only a few thousand rioting" business doesn't hold much water. Hamas, ie. a bunch of terrorists, have just been voted in democratically in Palestine. Ahmadinejad was voted in democratically in Iran. Extremist Islamic view represent popular opinion across the Middle East and are not solely the beliefs of a minority.

That's primarily nationalism, not religion. Unfortunately, the two are frequently intertwined, with disasterous results, ie. Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc. And there's always a demogogue or two ready to exploit it for political gain.

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[professionalfurryele]

Who said anything about thinking abortion should be illegal? Your people are trying to bypass the constitution by abusing power to load the supreme court with conservatives who have no interest in interpreting the constitution and every interest in mandating thier religion. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I never said you were not. You are even entitled to have that opinion made law in the US if you like but it will require a constitutional amendment. It is not something as you put it that belongs in the hands of the states, at least according to the supreme court back when it had at least some respect for the foundations of the United States. If you want it to be in the hands of the states, then I advise you to change the constitution, not load the supreme court with fundies who are interested only in plunging us into a second dark age and no interest in upholding it's secular constitution.

Religion is more like Linux

[Redwin]

If anything, Christianity is more like Linux:

So when will it be ready for the desktop?

When it is more compatible with numerous other bits of software out there, allows for easy itergration between them, and the users of it don't try to convert everyone who uses a different operating system because they believe their one is better.

You're still making your own interpretations.

[copponex]

The Bible is first and foremost a guide on how to have a relationship with God and those parts are pretty clear IMHO. That's where the absolutes lie.

Those are where YOU believe the absolutes are. I'm just saying that the entire bible is subject to interpretation, so it is impossible for anyone to claim that the bible is 100% anything.

Same answer for both, they were Pagan traditions originally and used by the Catholic church. I've never really understood why in this day and time it even matters.

People who claim to be Christian like to pretend that they have "the truth" and everyone else has nothing, but it's easy for anyone outside of their psychosis to see that Christianity is just a guess, just as all other cults and religions are. This is perfectly illustrated by the wholesale plagiarism of pagan religions by Roman Christians to keep things a little more orderly.

You sound reasonable. Some of the others who "follow Christ" are far far worse than any terrorist, because they act like animals despite their good education and luxurious living conditions. The kill'em all, let God sort'em out mentality is the most ridiculous and horrifying thought since fascism.

Re:You're still making your own interpretations.

[Christianfreak]

Those are where YOU believe the absolutes are. I'm just saying that the entire bible is subject to interpretation, so it is impossible for anyone to claim that the bible is 100% anything.

I can agree with that, but that doesn't mean I can't say that some parts the Bible are absolute, I understood your original post to say its either/or. I apologize if that was incorrect.

People who claim to be Christian like to pretend that they have "the truth" and everyone else has nothing, but it's easy for anyone outside of their psychosis to see that Christianity is just a guess, just as all other cults and religions are.

While I don't claim to know all the details I certainly do claim to know the truth. As someone "on the outside of my psychosis" you probably don't see some of the small things that make it different (A lot of so called "Christians" don't either). The biggest difference is that Jesus explained that it is impossible to work one's way into heaven, rather people are to believe in Jesus to forgive them of their imperfection and good deeds come as a product of being forgiven/loving God. This is the central idea of Christianity and it comes straight from Jesus. Basically the only argument against that idea would be if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, because if he wasn't then he didn't have the power to forgive anyone.

I don't see how this is "guesswork" rather its faith.

This is perfectly illustrated by the wholesale plagiarism of pagan religions by Roman Christians to keep things a little more orderly.

Plagiarism? I don't think that means what you think it means. Plagiarism has to do with the copying of works (usually printed works) and seeing as the printing press hadn't been invented yet I'm not sure such an idea even existed at the time. The Christians of the time made a brilliant PR move, honestly I don't see any problem with it. Even today other religions/groups are using December 25 for their own holidays and while yes there are some vocal people that have a problem with it I think the vast majority realize that no one can really claim ownership over a particular day. I believe the same was true back then. Really it happened 1500 years ago, it simply doesn't matter now, unless you're just looking for reasons to attack Christians.

You sound reasonable. Some of the others who "follow Christ" are far far worse than any terrorist, because they act like animals despite their good education and luxurious living conditions.

I'm glad you think I'm reasonable, I hope you understand why I think your comments are much less so. "Worse than terrorists"? ... I would lay money on the fact that a fundamentalist Christian isn't going to blow something up today. I despise fake Christians as much as you do but insulting them as people gets either of us no where.

The kill'em all, let God sort'em out mentality is the most ridiculous and horrifying thought since fascism.

I live in Buckle of the Bible Belt, Texas and I've never met anyone that believes that we should kill large groups of people without just cause. Now there are lots of people here who have been dupped by the Bush admin into supporting the war but lets be honest: that's a problem caused by ignorance, not by religion.

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Easter too

[nognsoutie]

You said "Also, true atheists don't "hate" Jesus, they simply don't think he's divine, since there is no God. "
So, before any facts have been considered, the conclusion is reached, requiring only the initial axioms. An elegant solution, and a notable triumph of reason :)

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Easter too

[Reality Master 101]

So, before any facts have been considered, the conclusion is reached, requiring only the initial axioms. An elegant solution, and a notable triumph of reason :)

Who says facts aren't considered? Considering how much religion permeates society, it's difficult to be an atheist without weighing the evidence. At least for me, I had tons of opportunities to be a Christian (having a lot of friends who are), but the complete lack of objective evidence doomed any desire to follow that path for me.

Just the absurdity of God completely hiding his presence at the same time giving us intelligence, while also insisting we believe in him, or suffer eternal damnation is silly enough to kill the whole concept.

Re:goes to the larger issue - how we debate in the

[Infonaut]

Find and read Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

Thanks for the tip. I'll hunt that one down at the bookstore. It sounds like an interesting, if discouraging, read.

I continue to hold out hope that the distributed medium of the Net will provide the impetus for a shift away from the idiocy of our current fast food news environment, but the fact that most Americans still get their news from the idiot box still astounds me. I pulled the plug on TV news about seven or eight years ago, and haven't regretted it for a minute.

And you've never heard of rhetorical questions?

[copponex]

Christianity is a mixing of early pagan religion (Mithras, Osiris, Zoroastrianism, Dionysus, etc) and hebrew theology. Therefore, any Christian cannot claim any absolute truth over any other religion, as all religions are by definition a non-falsifiable guess at the meaning and nature of the universe.

When I say non-relativism, I mean that you cannot claim the bible is 100% true, or false, or anything, because it's simply what the Roman authority in 313 believed should be a part of the bible. That is a very simple and straightforward fact, one of many you can find in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia (which is the most honest work that organization has ever produced). The fact the literature contains hyperbole is quite beside the point. All literature is subject to interpretation, so anyone claims that they have divined the absolute truth from any written document is a liar.

My argument was probably far too lowbrow for your "Googling skills," so please forgive my obvious ignorance. I guess a more learned person would just consider the bible as fact before considering the source of it. Or would that just better suit your argument?

Re:And you've never heard of rhetorical questions?

[labreuer]

I guess a more learned person would just consider the bible as fact before considering the source of it. Or would that just better suit your argument?

I don't just assume the Bible is fact; this is not intellectually satisfying. I simply search for the truth, and the way I do this is to correlate what I hear and read with reality. I find that the Bible describes a reality that is virtually identical to the one that I observe. The faith I have in the Bible is not a leap of faith, but a well-calculated trust: what I've read so far has been good, so the chances that other things I read will be good are high. I do not hold blind faith in anything.

I don't worry about the science in Genesis or the PI = 3. The Bible is not a science textbook.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Hognoxious]

Don't be surprised if pork and skanty clothes are outlawed in a few years if the current population trends continue.

Just as long as they don't ban beer. Nobody would be stupid enough to even try that. Er... wait....

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Bhudda day

[nognsoutie]

Who says facts aren't considered?
You did - your reasoning was:
1. There is no God
Therefore: Jesus is not God. QED
Not a single messy fact involved. Just cool crisp logic.

If you like opportunities, I suggest you harass your friends until they are forced to search out objective evidence, or join you in disbelief. If they don't have evidence, you'll only be doing them a favour.

Re:Theories of abiogenesis -- CLAY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It has also been suggested that certain clay substrates may have formed a biochemical "staging ground" for collecting and organising biologically significant molecules.

Interesting that it should be clay...

I am one of those Christians who has no particular problem with Darwin or evolution and wonder why the creationists/intelligent design proponents are so worried. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

So much of this discussion has the participants shouting past each other. They are actually arguing about two different things. Science concerns itself with the "how" while religion needs to concern itself with the "why." As the two sides encroach further onto the other's domain, each sounds sillier.

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Bhudda day

[Reality Master 101]

If you like opportunities, I suggest you harass your friends until they are forced to search out objective evidence, or join you in disbelief. If they don't have evidence, you'll only be doing them a favour.

Actually, I used to do that a long time ago (not harass, but try and discuss religion with people), before I figured out that it just didn't matter that much. People say they like to discuss deeper subjects, but it's not really true. It always ends with, "well, yeah, I see what you're saying and yes I know it makes no sense, but it's 'just' what I believe."

I found that what people really want is to believe something similar to what the people around them believe, to fit in. And I can actually understand that. Most people around me these days don't even know I'm an atheist, and if pressed about whether I believe in God, I just say "yes". It's easier that way. I simply define God as a naturalistic "that which created the Universe", whatever natural process that was. Of course, that's completely different from their view of the "big father in the sky" view of God, but it makes things easier.

I'm old enough now that I've figured out that it just really doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. If it works for them, then more power to them, as long as they go around trying to legislate the belief or something. It'd be nice if the world could leave our cultural adolescence and use the energy we use on religion for something else, but I think we're a ways away from that. I do think that in 100-200 years from now, religion will be nearly dead. Probably too late for me, but we'll see if medical tech keeps me propped up enough to see it. :)

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[Macdude]

True enough, but it is obvious that science has limitations.

1. Science can only be reasonably applied the things that can be observed.
2. Science can only be meaningfully applied to things that can be measured and repeated.
3. Science can only be absolutely applied to things that can be understood by humans.

While simplistic, sure I won't argue with the above. Of course no scientist is claiming otherwise. It's still a far sight better than religion making up answers to the questions that we can't know the answers to.

To presume that all knowledge and all truth must necessarily be confined by the above set of restrictions is ludicrous.

All human knowledge must be confined by what can be understood by humans. A human cannot understand what a human cannot understand -- by definition. When religion makes up answers they are not adding to the bulk of human knowledge.

If you honestly believe that science and humanity are capable of understanding and knowing everything, then you have trapped yourself by faith in science. That is, welcome to your pseudoreligion.

Please point me to a scientist that says we are capable of understanding and knowing everything. The, very scientific, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle specifically says that we can't know both the position and velocity of a quantum object at the same time. Science has no problem answering a question with "I don't know".

Ultimately, science is all about answers. Religion is all about questions.

Ultimately science is about the search for answers and questioning the answers we already have. Religion is about making up answers and not questioning them.

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Jay9333]

#######
The "anomalies" you point at are nothing of the sort. The advent of quantum mechanics came about not because of "anomalies," but because experiments were being done whose results flat out contradicted a classical interpretation. We had definitive knowledge that things did not work as we expected at the atomic level. We have no such evidence against evolution aside from the unproven and questionable conjecture that certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex."
#######

Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly. I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable", but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt.

#######
Finally, you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to undirected evolution. You're creating a strawman. Random mutation is a factor for creating variation, but selection pressures direct evolution and which variations survive. You are mischaraterizing the process. Do you not see how you are arbitrarily attaching "Purpose" to the things you think are important while disregarding the rest?
#######

Let me say it this way, if one acknowledges a personal God as directing the creation of life and also trys to acknowledge Darwin's evolution he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Granted, there are theistic evolutionists who have a picture of "God" as a completely uninvolved, non personal being who could give a rat's ass about how things are coming along in his test tube that he randomized and is going to check on in a few trillion years to see what happened. Their picture of God is not incompatable with Darwin's evolution. However, those who seek to hold to the Judeo-Christian view of a very personally involved God who has created life with very specific intent, precision, and purpose simply cannot hold to Darwin's theory in its purest form. The random formation of life "by chance" is not consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief system.

Re:Darwinsim = Satanism

[Anonymous Coward]

This is getting ridiculous. Even the scientists can't agree that Darwin is correct. And it seems that more and more scientists are finding Darwin completely wrong.
Genesis was around for over 2000 years before Darwin. So why are people following Darwin like a cult.
Jim Jones showed we cannot blindly follow modern ideals and people. We had much less problems when our society followed the Bible.

Anyways, do you wish to spend your Eternity in hell with Darwin, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, murders and child molestors?
Or heaven with God and all the good people you have ever known?

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Moha.*ed day

[nognsoutie]

To hear you tell it, I would think your peers a little dim. "That's just what I believe," is a very bad place to stop. "I'll find out," is better by far. It doesn't often come to that, because the terms of the discussion are far too frequently, "assume you're wrong, now prove you're right".

But seriously, don't you think the chances are rather slim that atheism will survive the total onslaught from Intelligent Design and friends to remain a respectable religion :) for another 200 years? (Not to mention how it may fare against the vicious east.)

(You can have the last word.)

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Jay9333]

You said: "As I see it, it's a disagreement over how to explain stuff that we don't yet understand. Personally, I think that in a public school setting, 'We don't know' is preferable to 'We don't know, but some people think God did it.'"

The problem is in the public school setting the "we don't know but some people think..." is already being given as the answer. For instance, "We don't know why there is a lack of the transitional forms that Darwin expected would be found in great and mighty abundance in the fossil record... but some people think punctuated equilibrium is likely the reason". So if evolutionary theorist should be able to give attempts at explainations concerning what "we don't know" then it is hypocritical to deny creationists the same right.

Who cares if ID can't be proven consclusively by any means we currently have. PE likely can't be proven either. We are just looking for evidence of how species come to be, not necessarily for absolute proof. Is there evidence that some processes are "irreducible complex" so that they would not be able to evolve as Darwin has described? Then lets at least acknowledge it and be open to examining it. Gould himself said, of punctuated equilibrium, "We might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population...". In other words, proof of PE is going to be rare if we ever find it at all. But that hasn't stopped people from exploring the theory and teaching it in public schools.

Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly. I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable", but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt. The evolutionary pundits and bigots are the one claiming that.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[gardyloo]

Ultimately, science is all about answers. Religion is all about questions.

      Which begs the question: Suppose a question is asked, and can't be answered. It falls into the religious realm? If it's answered at a later time, then it suddenly becomes science?
      My take: perhaps. It seems to be a historical trend.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

having your church/synagogue/mosque celebrate the birthday of a human being not associated in any way with God is idolatry

Are you sure you feel that way?

Re:In other news: Athiests celebrate Moha.*ed day

[Reality Master 101]

I would think your peers a little dim. "That's just what I believe," is a very bad place to stop. "I'll find out," is better by far.

No, they stop there because that's all that's left of their arguments after we go through the process of systematically destroying their evidence.

But seriously, don't you think the chances are rather slim that atheism will survive the total onslaught from Intelligent Design and friends to remain a respectable religion :) for another 200 years?

Nah, Intelligent Design is actually one of the "signs of the apocolypse" for religion. Science is providing so much more rational and satisfying answers that religion is fighting back through intentional misinformation campaigns. If religion has to resort to lying about science (as the article I linked to clearly shows), then it's in serious trouble.

But I don't even have to do that. Look at history. How much atheism did we have 100 years ago? Almost none. Today? Granted, not too many people admit to atheism in surveys (5-10%, depending on the survey), but practically speaking, a LOT of people are "behavioral" atheists, but just don't admit it. Church attendance is very low compared to historical levels (occasional blips and rises during hard times notwithstanding). Very few people bother to read and study the bible.

In countries where religion is still popular, there is still social pressure against being an atheist, particularly from the older generation. The current generation is much more accepting of the idea (heck, look at Slashdot when this topic comes up). A few more generations and being an atheist will be no big deal.

Most people are religious because it came from their family. You have to be indoctrinated really early in life to have the pattern set that Big Daddy in the Sky is watching everything. If you don't grow up with that, then the driving fear that religion uses is much less effective. Once society is used to not needing it, I think it will simply go away. I mean, there isn't much direct practical benefit to religion, other than the fellowship (which isn't trivial, but you can get that from a lot of things), and the peace of mind of knowing "the answer". But I think science is giving so many other answers that eventually people will be OK with the fact that "the answer" is that there really isn't anything special about us. We're simply machines that are wound up at birth, and wind down at death, and that's OK.

Re:Bertrand Russell

[PurpleWizard]

Russell should of course be two l. My mistake.

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[JetJaguar]

Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly.

But noone is being ostracized for questioning evolution. That is what evolutionary biologists do every day. If anyone is being ostracized it is for putting forward an ill considered and poorly founded hypothesis (intelligent design) and trying to fool people who don't know any better that it is on the same footing as evolutionary theory. That is what is raising the ire of scientists, not any questions being raised about evolution. The people that are playing this game are getting what they deserve.

I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable",...

On this we will have to agree to disagree. There are plenty of transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils that quite clearly show the formation of the mamalian ear from parts of the jaw bone. When I see such a progression, I am inclined to fit a line to the progression, and then try to find correlating factors that explain that progression. That is how all science works. Now if you are going to tell me that these fossils aren't transitional then you're going to have to explain why they are not. And why I'm wrong to fit that line to the data in the first place. No ID proponent has answered that question except by saying that there are more gaps. That's a bullshit argument that completely ignores how progress in all the sciences is made.

but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt.

So why isn't the Discovery Institute funding actual research instead of playing games of sophistry with school boards, politicians, and the general public? They have money, and they have scientists working there, why aren't they doing the research? Why aren't they trying to fix the well known flaws in their arguments? Much is being said about scientific progress, but DI isn't doing anything about it. Why?

Let me say it this way, if one acknowledges a personal God as directing the creation of life and also trys to acknowledge Darwin's evolution he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

I disagree. What does it mean to say that God is directing the creation of life? Do you really know? Because I haven't slightest idea what that means. For example, most theories of abiogenesis are a far cry from what I would call "random chance," and in some cases, our theories have come a lot further. It would seem that the laws of the universe make the formation of prebiotic materials inevitable. Doesn't that possibly qualify as directing the creation of life? I don't know if that qualifies, but I don't think you know either. If you don't think it qualifies, then why, and how can you possibly make the judgement that it doesn't? God created the laws of the universe to suit whatever his specific intent was. Life on earth may very well have been one of them according to the bible, but it is not your place to say what it means for God to be involved. This is why I say your requirements are completely arbitrary. You don't know God's purpose, and you don't know that God is not uninvolved regardless of His methods. This is what having faith is all about, and it's also why I think Intelligent Design proponents are off their rocker.

They have forgotten what it means to have faith, and are worried that science has somehow usurped their faith, so in an effort to regain their position, they want to use "scientific" means to justify that faith. Except, that that in doing so what they are dealing is no longer faith anymo

Sure it holds water

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep in mind that the extremist minority is often good at getting what they want. Just look at the people in power in the US - the religious views of Bush and co. (hopefully) don't represent the general public opinion in the US (for example, that we are basically on a holy war, that there will be a second coming, etc.), but they have power. Why? Because they say easy comforting things, portraying the world in black and white. Same thing in the Muslim world...

For good reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason reincarnation was considered heretical. Read Hebrews 9:27:

And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;

Link

As well as other verses mentioning the ressurection, etc., none of which indicate people reincarnating as someone else. As for it being "taken out," that incorrectly indicates that it was believed prior to that, rather than being rejected as a novelty.

As for the other post in reply to this that claimed that one cannot be a scientist and a Christian: you are incorrect and base that inaccurate claim on a misunderstanding of theology. There are plenty of scientists who are both.

Moreover, it is you who misunderstands science: the empirical process is something one DOES which produces results which are then reconciled with the results. While one uses methodological naturalism to interpret the results, metaphysical naturalism is neither necessary nor scientific. After all, by being metaphysical, it is beyond even the possibility of scientific proof and appealing to methodological naturalism to "prove" it begs the question[1], assuming aspects of naturalism while trying to prove naturalism.

[1] The word "beg" in "begs the question" is used in an old sense of the word beg, which once meant "assumes." It is, in fact, correctly used here howevermuch and however vociferously certain people may argue against this characterization :P

You can eliminate the pink unicorns if you like

[leonbrooks]

However, if someone has a proposal for the development of life as we see it which includes pink unicorns, the scientific approach is to discount it based on the effects, or lack of effects, claimed for the pink unicorns, rather than simply writing them off "because they're impossible" or "because we have no need for them".

By the way, if someone discovers a pointy horse-analogue hidden away in darkest Africa somewhere which is anything like pink, I'm just about gunna die laughing.

Back on topic: if you dismiss a claim out of hand, you have eschewed science and slipped into the arena of politics. Good luck there, it's like trying to dance on ball-bearings.

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[spitzak]

You all-so-clever attempt to reverse the Galileo debate is so wrong it is laughable. Both of the models of the planets assummed (by that time) that they are earth-sized bodies moving in circles at constant speeds, and that the bodies are lit by the sun, and the idea that anything other than the sun and moon orbited the earth was abandoned hundreds of years earlier. The difference in the models is a more of a simplification by changing the coordinate system, actual tests to see if the earth was moving involving parallex of nearby stars was not possible until the 19th century. Epicycles were not used to fix the earth-centered model, they were in fact used in *both* models, due to the assumption that all things moved in circles and not ellipses. If ellipses are allowed the earth-centered model can be made to work perfectly, since it just rotates the heliocentric model about the earth.

Anti-evolution is more like saying "there are anomolies in the helio-centric idea, which proves that the planets don't move at all!". Of course you are so blinded by illogic that you don't see this at all. But trust me, it is true. I know you are also going to accuse me of being close-minded, which is pretty funny.

No, not _any_ reputable biology text

[leonbrooks]

Only a few.

You also have to ask yourself: what would you expect an evolution-dominated textbook to say? "We're presenting six hundred pages on evolution here, but we don't think it's important?"

Repeated assertion is not proof.

Evolution is a theory (perhaps I should say Theory) which attempts to explain Linnaeus' organisation. That it succeeds is what's in question here. The Creationists explain the same things which evolutionary principle has had kingship of claimed for it, many of them far more plausibly. They claim, with this as justification, that creation is the central organising principle of biology.

You assert that "creation science has yet to generate a single testable, falsifiable, hypothesis, which is the first step to becoming a theory", but you do so speciously. Creation science sites are awash in hypotheses and you simply haven't noticed. Fixed speciation is one such hypothesis, and it matches reality exactly. The absence of interspecies fossils is another prediction of Creartion, and so far they've won the day on that one pretty convincingly (the closest to a refutation we've come is that glorified hoatzin called archaeopteryx).

Early Creationists (at least in Europe) got too carried away with this and insisted that not just species but individual subspecies of animal were immutable. This in the face of cross-breeding programs. Mind you, this was back in the day when Spontaneous Generation was accepted as the scientifically valid opposition to this concept, so I'm inclined to cut both sides some slack here.

Go and actually read some Creationist sites -- know thy enemy and all that. They've got reasonable-sounding hypotheses on geology, astronomy, all manner of stuff. If you're going into a battle of wits, do remember to go in armed! Read some of the refutations of DDI (and DCD's errata) as well. Have an argument, not a shouting match! (-:

Meanwhile, there are many evolutionary biologists who would cheerfully donate a limb to the cause if they thought they'd get a naturalistic self-organising principle out of it. That alone should be a big hint that there's something major still missing from the panacea called evolution.

Trashing their safety margins for no reason...

[leonbrooks]

...is a long way from "the task for which they were trained".

Go read some more scientific journals, then

[leonbrooks]

They have whole (usually very polite, sometimes not) flamewars in the uncertainty bands, often without reference to what they're actually doing.

Read up on Periannan Senapathy before making...

[leonbrooks]

...sweeping claims like that. (-:

Re:Meanwhile...

[pnewhook]

That seems to be clear evidence that it is not religion, but situation and circumstance that make people behave like idiots to each other.

Exactly. To make a blanket statement and blame any religion is extremely naive. Religion is merely used as an excuse to justify an otherwise unjustifiable action.

Re:Meanwhile...

[pnewhook]

Hundreds of years old? You do realize that the northern Ireland conflict happened in the 20th century, and real peace has only occurred in the past couple of years ?

Go learn to write coherent sentences, then

[mbrother]

That comment doesn't even make sense?! "having flamewars in the uncertainty bands?" Eh?

I read plenty of scientific journals, and I usually referee 3-5 papers a year. I need to get back to writing that many. Be specific about your complaints, or just stop with the useless generalizations criticizing things you don't understand.

If your point is that scientists argue about uncertainties, yeah, sure. That just undermines your original point that they ignore them, doesn't it? Which is it? Ignore them, or care about them and have an intellectual exchange to determine how to best estimate them? You act like it's impossible to make any measurements worth anything at all, and, if you do, reach any conclusions from them. Science isn't guessing.

Re:It is a choice regardless of what the Churches

[GWBasic]

Actually, I disagree. Religion answers the questions that science either can not answer, or is not yet able to answer. To say that religion is an alternative to fact is to be ignorant to what religion is trying to accomplish; or to be a victim of fundamentalist zealots who have figured out how to control the thoughts of weak-minded people.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hamas, ie. a bunch of terrorists, have just been voted in democratically in Palestine."

What has this got to do with islamic extremists? They want their land and status back, religion is not their motivation, we will also overlook the fact that Israeli terrorists the US and UK are the reason Hamas even exists, and that israel elected a 'terrorist' party into power in it's first election.

"Ahmadinejad was voted in democratically in Iran"

You have a warped sense of 'democratically' given the farce of their election. Of course we will overlook the fact (once again) that Iran is in the state it's in 100% due to the UK and US.

"Extremist Islamic view represent popular opinion across the Middle East and are not solely the beliefs of a minority."

Well then it must be true because you said it!

Jordan, Egypt and Turkey are all moderate countries so immediately your ridiculous sweeping statement is shown to be a lie.

Stop lying please.

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM: Moneys birthing humans

[iamwm]

First and formost, clearly not all evelotionists are racists. My point is that most of the major teachers and founders of the teaching are. In the same way, I'm not saying all christians aren't racists, even though most of the major teachers and the founders aren't.

Don't think for a minute that just because some group claims to be christian that they are. It'd be like some group claim to be citizens of a nation even though they aren't. Hitler is not a poorly educated man, but he's very wrong in his conclusions. Read his book some time. I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11 .html

That's chapter 11 where he really digs into racist divisions. Don't get me wrong, Hitler probably wouldn't be thought of as an Evolutionist by most, but I use him as an example of a non christian whom many think is one. He may have been raised with good religious traditions, but he never truely understood who God is, and feel pray to conflicting teaching

-
Now for "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM" as evolutionists like to call it.

According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil records of their transformation because it happens fast in relatively small or isolated locations.

You're right: "Anyone with an elementary understanding of evolution would never make such an absurd statement." It takes someone with a deeper understanding of Evolutionary Theology to say such an absurd statement.

Here's a book full of examples of the problems with Evolution:
http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/Darwin sEnigma/index.htm

Since Darwin's book was printed, Evolution has become a moving target. Every year the Theory changes and there are some teachings of it that were proven false decades ago (like human babies having gill slits in the womb) but you still find them in High School and College text books. I haven't found a direct quote saying "Monkey's gave birth to humans" litterally, but it's strongly implied that that kind of change is required as a natural step in evolution from one Species to another.

But Evolution having some problems wouldn't automatically make it a bad thing for christians to celebrate Darwin's birthday. The fundimental idea of EVOLVING from one KIND of animal to ANOTHER KIND is HERESY (a belief profoundly at odds with orthodox teaching).

-
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
-
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
-
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
-
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
-

The list goes on a little more. The point is that if you believe Jesus (not just that he lived, but that he lives now and doesn't lie), then to teach evolution, as Darwin and most of the teachers after him taught it, is wicked. Darwin studied to be a preacher and couldn't find a congregation that would have him as their preacher. He knew he was contradicting scripture. That means Darwin was calling God a liar on purpose.

To paraphrase it: God said "I created every KIND of plant and every KIND of animal." Then Darwin said "No you didn't. You see, some early animals mutated and became the KINDS of animals we have to

ncse != science

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked out NCSE. it appears to have only the purpose of trying to make creation/ID proponents look to be wrong and have no facts to back up their "outrageous" claims. it even has sections in training people like you in how to make someone look bad with out any reasoning.

However, if you would like to view a site that actually has information to back up it's claims, visit reasons.org, and see how much of it you can debunk... although i now know that the ncse site will not help you at all seeing as though thats what i was trying to do, to see if ncse supplies any facts to debunk the things that this site uses to further prove the existence of a creator that transcends space and time.

http://www.reasons.org/ reasons.org

this group by the way is opposed to ID being taught in public schools.
they do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old
they believe the dinosaurs died out 65million years ago and that humans have been on the earth for ~50,000 years

just to give you some insight to their beliefs

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Alsee]

For instance, "We don't know why there is a lack of the transitional forms

WHAT lack of transitional forms? The entire fossil record is practically nothing BUT transistional forms.

It's like claiming organic chemistry is flawed because we don't know why there's a lack of hydrogen-bearing compounds. The entire realm of organical molecules it practically nothing BUT hydrogen bearing compounds.

Have you every looked at a science textbook? Have you ever been in a museum? (science museum, not art museum of course)

How can you possibly claim there is a lack of transitional forms?

[Punctuated Equlibrium] likely can't be proven either.

Again, just because you are not familiar with the field does not mean it does not exist. Not only has punctuated equlibrium been "prooven", I have personally experimented with the process of evolution and I have personally witnessed that PE is an inherent behavior exhibited in evolutionary systems. Over time a population builds up an increasing library of non-fatal mutations. The population as a whole may reamin fairly stable as this diversity accumulates. Then at some point - either by a change in envoirnmental pressures or due to some critical mutation breakthrough - the entire population undergoes a fairly rapid shift as the critical newly beneficial mitation(s) overtake the population, and apowerful combinatorical search goes on in that population searching for other mutations in that accumulated library of diversity, a search for other mutations that combine with or support or improve the critical mutations suddenly sweeping the population. In particular this is also a search for latent library mutations which can "repair" or compensate for any harmful side effects associated with the new critical development. Any new positive mutation is quite likely to be "crude" and to include problems or defects. A crab with a mutated claw may be able to use it to get at a new food source - but it is still likely misshapen disfunctional mutated claw. So a rapid search goes on through that accumulated library of variation to find other mutations that can combine with it - additional mutations that will (A) improve the new mutant ability to get that new food source even better and (B) repair the shape and function of that newly mishapen claw.

And during that rapid lurch to seize on that critical new mutation, and during that fairly rapid search for additional mutations to support and combine with and complment and repair that new critical mutation, there is a greatly increased extinction rate among the other individuals of the population, and a greatly increased extrinction rate for all of the other mutations and variations in that population. And the signifigance there is that the diversity gets depeleted. You get no evolution when there is no diversity. So the natural effect after such a shift is a depletion of diversity and a depletion of evolutionary fuel and a depletion of evolutionary change. You have a relatively rapid (punctuated) change in a cluster of several "micro mutations" and then you tend to get a "quiet period" (equlibrium) during which the population builds up a fresh library of diversity.

It is facinating to experiment with the evolution process and to watch how a population sometimes undergoes a fairly slow and steady change improving in some direction, and how sometimes a rare critical mutation will arise, or a combination of mutations will combine into some breakthrough development, and to see how the population will rapidly sieze on it and use the other mutations to further develop it. Facinating to measure the diversity levels and to watch how they rise during the "quite periods" and how the diversity gets depleted during the occational lurches.

Of course you're probably wondering how I could have done these experiments and how I could have personally measured and observed these things. Well of course it would take a Very Long Time to run experiments and observations across thousands or tens of thousa

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Alsee]

ridicule those who doubt evolution as being 'anti-science'

There is a mere fraction of one percent of actual professional biologists who doubt evolution.

The ones being reidiculed as anti-science are the nonscientists trying to run a PR cambaign against evolution and trying to meddle in public school science education.

purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism

What "purges"? Professional biologists have had several years of education in the field and understand the subject and have looked at and understood the evidence. And more than 99% of them have been convinced by that evidence and understanding. There is a fraction of a percent who reject evolution and doing work trying to refute it, but thus far their published work has been found flawed and/or unconvincing by actual professional experts in the field.

Over the last nearly hundred and fifty years, the evidence supporting evolution has simply won over and convinced the experts. Evolution steadily earned its way up from 0% acceptance to well over 99% acceptance. If and when there's some better theory, then that alternative is required to take the same route. Any alternative needs to present evidence and it needs to convince the experts in the field and needs to earn its acceptance.

legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design

The nly legal action was against a group of people who attempted to abuse the force of government. Legal action against people who had made court documented public statements that they were attempting to use the force of government for the explicit purpose of imposing their religion onto other people's chidlren. People who made court documented public statements that they had NO intent of trying to improve science education, court doumented public statements that they were acting for strictly religious purposes to use government power to advance their own religion. The people who hijack the Dover school board to push ID made documented punlic statements that they didn't care about science education and that the policy they were imposing had absolutely nothing to do with teaching science. The hired legal experts and hired scientists they brought in to testify in support of the policy failed to present any legitimate basis for the policy and failed to present any scientific backing at all for the policy.

It was the ID side that deliberately manufactured the court battle.

Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model.

Yep. Evolution faced exactly that opposition and exactly those sorts of attacks. It took decades for evolution to overcome all of that and earn it's current acceptance by the scientific community.

Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection.

No it hasn't. And in any case the proper place for that debate is at the scientific table amongst experts, not in PR campaigns and not in the legislature, and most of all not in manipulating public highschool curriculums.

As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly.

As I mentioned in my other post, Behe's work actually demonstrates the exact opposite. Go ahead, read the court record in the Intelligent Design court case. Read Behe's own testimony on the subject. Read where Behe himself states that bacteria will in fact spontaneously evolve "irreducably complex" genetic developments.

Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species.

Look at ring species (link is in my other post). It's indisputable proof that evolution can and does split species. Indisputable proof the

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Jay9333]

You said, "WHAT lack of transitional forms? The entire fossil record is practically nothing BUT transistional(sp) forms."

That is where we definitely disagree. I'm not a geologist or a paleontologist so it wouldn't make sense for me to argue with you about specific fossils, but I know of quite a few that would disagree with you. And I know that number grows every year as I've been following creationist organizations for years. One example is Dr. Joachim Scheven, a zoologist/paleontologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Munich. Dr Scheven even has a species of twisted-wing insect named after him: Bohartilla joachimscheveni. He discovered it Dominican amber (fossilized tree resin), which evolutionists claim is 35 million years old. If that were true, imagine how many millions of generations of this Bohartilla would have given mutations the opportunity to change this type drastically. However, it is fundamentally identical to the living Bohartilla from Central America.

He says, "Fossils never show any significant 'evolution' -- rather, they show that fossil creatures have no remaining living counterparts (extinction), or that they have stayed essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information)."

Considering ring species, an article at answersingenesis.org, which lists many scientists among its contributors, states "... there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two... species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not al-ready present in an ancestral, interbreeding... population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher."

Basically, "an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind--just as creationists maintain must have happened."

I think the Dover, PA case failed because of the strong religious motive of the school board members involved. However, as more and more scientists come to see the validity of alternate theories explaining what we find in the fossil record and in the complexity of life's processes we will see different results down the road.

AMENDMENTS TO WHAT I JUST SAID

[DavidPesta]

I try to be very careful about communicating clearly and not allowing my statements to be ambiguous. I am still learning to be better at this. Apply these changes to what I said to avoid misunderstanding.

1. Third paragraph, last sentance, add the word 'natural' so it reads:
In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance natural evolution.

2. Fourth paragraph, first sentance, remove the words 'as you put it' so it reads:
Without PR movies there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'?

'as you put it' I was referring to you calling them 'PR' movies. You're right, they are PR movies. My point is, what would you expect a minority point of view to do to gain support and research ability? It doesn't appear that you are applying a fair objective way of thinking about this group like what would be expected if you didn't hold some kind of discriminating mindset.

Re:AMENDMENTS TO WHAT I JUST SAID

[Follier]

Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?

Absolutely. Most scientists are not atheists (and I know that you know this, just reiterating) even if they are naturalists. True believers of a Creator don't need to see evidence in it, and don't need to be threatened by observations of the natural world. Further, they don't need to use their Creator to fill in (what are most likely temporary) gaps in knowledge. If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it. No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way. But that's just my take on it, maybe I'm being flippant (again lol)

the origin of ID is irrelevant

Well said, I stand corrected.

It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit

Again, well said. It does not have any scientifit merit, however, and that's the crux of the problem.

Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition...

Exactly. Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.

Without PR movies, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability.

These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind. Sorry I was trying to find a link for those - they're hilarious. The only difference is that the producers of the ID movies were sincere in their beliefs (I hope) and the Global Warming movies were just blatently BS ^_^
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed. But instead of going through the channels of science, the technique seems to be either 1)trying to poke holes in evolution (which is irrelevent) or 2)convince the general public that it's true on its own faith-based merit.

Re:AMENDMENTS TO WHAT I JUST SAID

[DavidPesta]

DavidPesta: Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?
Follier: Absolutely.

A misunderstanding. Philosophical naturalists as I would define it cannot be theists as a matter of definition, so I was asking a rhetorical question that was easily misunderstood, my apologies. The reason I asked this question is because you also asked a rhetorical question: 'Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?' ID by definition requires a supernatural creator of some kind, so of course the avid supporters will believe in a supernatural creator. Anyway, the original point you were making was that all ID scientists are theists and as a result are suspect to having a religious agenda. Since then we established that this was irrelevant to the issue itself, making all of this a moot point now. In any case, even if they are all theists, a religious agenda cannot be proven in all of them. I still contend that many who would study ID are agnostic, fair and open minded individuals who are undecided about a supernatural creator--again an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the very issue itself.


Most scientists are not atheists ... even if they are naturalists.

Indeed, theistic scientists will practice naturalism in order to do science properly, but their personal beliefs contradict the naturalism that they use as the tool to practice science effectively. You're right, it's not really a problem!


If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it.

Not so fast! There is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, not to mention a Creator. But it all falls outside of mainstream science because science requires naturalistic explanations as a rule, remember? Therefore, you will never know about this evidence unless you are an active participant in the supernatural, or study those who are. Here's a tip: Most religious people don't participate in the supernatural either--at least not in an easily detectable way, and there is a heck of a lot of fraud and misunderstanding out there. As for evidence of a 'Creator', well my definition of ID in the other thread is a start and will have to suffice for now. (Let's not solve years of thought and experience in one day.)


No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way.

No, I maintain that ID is falsifiable and therefore conditions exists where I can disbelieve it. (See the other thread.)


Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.

You just made our point. It turns out that these methods of funding are nowhere near the overwhelming resources that get put into the number of projects that would support natural evolution. Substantial quantities of religious money doesn't end up going to ID researchers even if it does make it past the pockets of clergy.


These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind.

Probably so, but this particular film is much more than that--you are making a judgement about a film that you haven't even seen, and that is a mistake in this case. Watch the film already!


Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed.

As long as the definition of ID requ

Re:standing up against the fundies..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Christian, believe the fetus is a person, but do NOT believe it has a right to life.

The mother's rights are more important.

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Alsee]

The majority of your post stands and falls on one single piont - the idea that information cannot be added/increase, or the lesser claim that information has not been proven to be added/increase.

Information addition/increase is a known fact:

Mathemeticians have proven through pure math theory that a replicating system (with inheritance and variation) will create or increase information when subject to any selection skew on that replication process. I know enough math to have read and understood papers and results in this area. I can point you so some interesting links in this area if you are a math geek.

Programers have proven and and actively demonstrated that a replicating system (with inheritance and variation) will create or increase information when subject to any selection skew on that replication process. I am a programmer and I have done signifigant exploration in this area. I have personally witnessed the creation/increase in information. I can point you to interesting links in this area if you are a programmer and are interested in testing and exploring this for yourself.

Biologists have observed many examples and thus proven that information creation/increase does in fact occurr in real species. Wild bacteria were discovered to have created entirely new genes for digesting nylon - an entirely synthetic substance that does not exist in nature. Nylon has an entirely novel chemical bond structure that appears in nowhere in the natural enviornment, and no species had any enzymes capable of touching it at all, much less digesting it. Yet some 30 years after we started making nylon, a bacteria was discovered in the wastewater output of a nylon manufacturing plant, and that bacteria had an entirely novel kind of gene for digesting it. In fact the evolution of that new ability to digest nylon was replicated in a laboratory. Ordinary bacteria with no genes for digesting nylon were placed in a growth culture with almost no food, but plenty of nylon and nylon fragments. Under near stravation pressure most of the bacteria died - but in a matter of days one of the bacteria developed a very crude ability to attack the smallest nylon fragments, and that individual multipled and took over the entire culture. Over the next days and weeks it impoved in a series of steps, gaining the ability to digest larget nulon fragments and complexes, and to digest it more efficiently. After a mere three months the bacteria developed the full ability to efficently digest raw bulk nylon. I can get you links for it if you like.

But even aside from mathemeticians and programmers and biologists, it is easy to give simple explanations that should make it blatantly obvious to anyone. One of the simplest and most powerful kinds of mutation is the simple duplication of a gene. That duplicate copy can get mutated without damaging the original gene and without harming the function of that gene and without losing any of the information and function of that gene. The mutated duplict copy can then vary and lock on to doing something different. One example - an example that not only *happens* but which is in fact the basis of an entire industry - is that a bacteria gene for digesting one kind of sugar can mutate and instead function to digest a different kind of sugar. The industry that tests chemicals for carcinogenic risk is based on this. They put bacteria with the gene for digesting one sugar onto a growth plate with only the wrong kind of sugar that it can't eat, along with the chemical they want to test. Most of the bacteria will starve and die, but a very very few will mutate their gene to target the new sugare and multiply. What they do is count the how many separate colonies appear, each independantly evolving the gene for the new sugar. Normally this would be a very low number. If the chemical they are testing is a mutagenic cancer causing chemical, it will increase the mutation rate in the bacteria. If it is a hazardous mutagenic chemical lots of the bacteria will mutate a lot more than n

Call it "The El Dorado" effect

[MichaelPenne]

Great way to get funding to build a rocket and 4th dimensional binoculars...seems to be the great-grandparent's argument:-).

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, nobody actually reads the content...they just see it as a bush rant and write it off.

/.ers must rake in the reading comp...

As the old saying goes...

[xpyr]

If you can't beat em, join em.

Re: hindering science in God's name

[Jay9333]

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

Re:no one is trying to hinder science in God's nam

[Jay9333]

If you don't like what I've written about Galileo you can take it up with my physics and history professors at NCSU. I'm just regurgitating what I've learned there. I'm not a historian by training; I'm a programmer. And the jist of my post remains the same. I wasn't saying the present situation is exactly like the situation Galileo was in. I was saying I see some similarities; that's all.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet many evolutionists here have said they see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid of Christian views of science somehow seeping into society (note Ohio State School Boards decision yesterday). As I said in my first post, I find very interesting the similarities between the present situation and how I noted Thomas Kuhn describes 'scientific revolutions' in my first post.

There are quite a few scientists out there (respected and published in their respective fields including genetics, biology, paleantology, and geology) that view the same evidence as the naturalist evolutionists but come to different conclusions.

Re: no hinderance of science

[Jay9333]

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid of Christian views of science somehow seeping into society. As I said in my first post, I find very interesting the similarities between the present situation and how I noted Thomas Kuhn describes 'scientific revolutions' in my first post.

I'm not sure about the finances of the Discovery Institute, but I know of other creation scientists' organizations that fund scientific research. There are quite a few scientists out there (respected and published in their respective fields including genetics, biology, paleantology, and geology) that view the same evidence as the naturalist evolutionists but come to different conclusions.

The creation scientists that I've read or heard are not, as you say, "worried that science has somehow usurped their faith." In fact, many will specifically tell you that they are theologically secure in their faith regardless of where science leads them. If the earth does end up being 600 million years old instead of 6000 years old, then a bit of theological tip-toeing still more then adequately preservers the Scriptures claims to be a perfect *moral* guide, perfectly able to equip man to know Christ and his salvation. The real problem, they say, is that the evidence does not lead them to the same conclusions of naturalistic evolutionists. And there are many such scientists. I even knew a few when I was at NCSU (including one of the top professors in the botany dept.) and that school is by no means a Christian institution.

There may even be as many creation scientists as there are hard-core "molecule to man" evolutionists. The problem is, most scientists specialize in other areas and don't really care about the debate... so they just blindly accept whatever hypothesis they've heard in school. Thankfully, most people are not hopelessly deceived. Polls in America show that the majority believes in creation, and many more want it taught. Less than 10% are confirmed evolutionists, yet they seemingly control education. They may teach that evolution is well proven, but we don't have to believe them.

Re: no hinderance of science

[JetJaguar]

Your quote of Patterson is a false representation whether you know it or not. You don't have to look very hard to find reputable references that show Patterson completely disavowed such an interpretaion of his words.

The fossil record is nothing but transitional forms. You are a transitional form between your parents and your children. The fact that the differences between your parents, you, and your children (if you have any) are minute is precisely what evolution predicts we should see. There is no debate amoung biologists on this issue. You can claim that there is all that you want, but that doesn't make it true.

And as I attempted to illustrate in my previous post. What Kuhn is talking about bears little resemblence to the ID movement. What scientific revolution was ever brought about by a group of people lobbying school boards and politicians? Name just one.

As for there being as many scientists in favor of ID as evolution? You are absolutely kidding yourself. Why is it that it's taken the Discovery institute years to get just 400 people to sign their petition in support of ID, while it took less than a week during last October for a biology post doc to collect almost 10,000 signatures from scientists across all discplines in support of evolutionary theory, which were presented to the judge of the Dover trial? Such an event defies all credulity of your contention that the numbers could be close to 50-50

As for ID scientists not being concerned about science trumping faith... If this were so, then why do documents put out by the Discovery Institute and endorsed by it's scientific fellows specifically say that this is what they believe, and that they are out to restore faith to it's proper place? While I am sure there are ID proponents that might take issue with such a stance, it would seem that this is the opinion of the majority of the people standing behind it.

The evidence contradicts everything you've stated.

Re: no hinderance of science

[Jay9333]

I'm not so sure it is a false representation of Patterson. He says, "The passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"

I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.

I don't know. And again, I'm no physical scientist. I do know that the Discovery Institute is just one organization involving creation scientists. There are quite a few other organizations, and sometimes slight differences might keep some of their membership varied. Given that the DI has 400 petitioners (if you are correct), I'd say the number of non-active creation scientists (such as those I knew at NCSU) and active creation scientists in other organizations would have to bring the total to the thousands.

Hardly a "few on the fringes". I don't think I'm kidding myself here. And as far as scientists not being concerned about science trumping faith... of course Christian scientists are going to state they believe the Scriptures as literally true. I'm just saying that I've heard a number of them say that if the evidence *proved* an older earth, they would have to begin to understand some of the Scriptures in a more poetic sense... and it wouldn't be the end of their faith. However, they haven't yet seen that "proof"... and even if considerable evidence is presented to them, they won't give up on the literally true Scriptures until they've critically and sceptically analyzed that evidence. After all... that's what science is all about, isn't it?

Re: hindering science in God's name

[Alsee]

Oops, sorry for such a looooooong post. Multiple big issues. Try to bear with me to the end, chuckle.

sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid

Is there any reason you thing that MULTIPLE COURTS would all be participating in some conspiracy to suppress the truth? What are the COURTS afraid of? Is it really rational to suggest that the courts are all conspiring against you? Isn't it more likely that there have been very specific LEGAL reasons that the courts have been ruling the way they have been ruling?

Imagine a school board comes up with a very reasonable, logical, and valid proposal for some change in the rules in relation to student bussing.

Now imagine that school board decides to selectively enforce that rule. They set the rule such that it only applies to specially targeted regions.

Lets further assume that there is absolutely no valid governmental purpose for that selective enforcement. In fact there is no rational basis at all for that selective targeting.

Now imagine that the targeted regions just so happen to be where all of the black kids live, and the new rules will just so happen to keep the black kids from being bussed over to the "white schools".

And now imagine that the idiots imposing this rule are STUPID enough to go out in public and brag to their white supporters about how they did it for the express purpose of promoting the white race and explicitly to knock the blacks down.

Well, that's what we have here. It doesn't matter if the proposed rule is superficially valid and rational when it is deliberatly enforced selectively, when there is no legitimate or rational basis for that selective targeting, when it is imposed for the purpose of doing something unconstitutional. The fact that they admitted the purpose in public merely makes it that much easier and faster for the court to smack them down.

It is perfectly acceptable for the government to attempt to improve science education. It is perfectly acceptable for a science education to teach how to investigate and critically analyze various subjects in science. It is perfectly acceptable for a science education to accurately cover what level of support each subject has amongst professional scientists in it's field. It is perfectly acceptable for a science education to teach how the scinetific prossess works and to cover alternative scientific theories and accurately portray what level of support they have with professional scientists in the field. It is perfectly acceptable for a science education to cover what scientific controversies there are and to cover the competeing arguments and the evidence.

The Ohio rule said:
"describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

The rule would have been perfectly acceptable had that had any genuine intention of serving legitimate science educational interests. The rule would have been perfectly acceptable had it said:
"describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of science."

There was no legitmate government purpose for their rule to selectively target one arbitrary field of science. There was no rational scientific or educational basis for the rule to selectively target evolution.

And then the idiots are STUPID enough go out in public and brag to their supporters that they imposed the rule specifically to support and promote their Bible and their religious beliefs. They go out in public and explicitly admit that their purpose for the rule was to undermine evolution, and that they did so solely in the hope that it would benefit and p[romote their religion and their religious beliefs.

Well guess what? Here in America the constitution says that it is illegal to impose the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT upon other people for the purpose of establishing special governmental favor

Re: no hinderance of science

[JetJaguar]

You are getting the general gist of what he's saying, but you're still intentionally misinterpreting for your own ends. In Patterson's own comments about this, what he says that it is impossible to tell if modern birds are directly descended from archaeopteryx, or if archaeopteryx is a branch off of the line that did lead to modern birds. From the point of view of the theory, this is perfectly fine, because evolution predicts this should happen. It is also a good validation of the theory because it most definitely shows that such transitional creatures existed whether or not they are part of the main line of descendence is irrelevent. Is archaeopteryx all by itself an air tight case? I wouldn't say so, but when placed in the context of the much larger body of evidence we have, it is another compelling piece of the puzzle.

The Discovery Institute is the only place promoting intelligent design. Sure, there are other institutions that are more formally associated with creationism, but at this point they are all largely riding the coat tails of DI. The Discovery Institute is intelligent design, and anyone on the ID bandwagon is necessarily endorsing the majority of the Discovery Institute's agenda. Not to mention the fact that when you start digging into these other institutions, they also more or less said the same thing. Some of the things that Duane Gish used to say about what is motivating creation science are precisely the same things that the Discovery Institute has said, almost word for word. As someone that has been watching the activities of the Discovery Institute, and similar so-called think-tanks for over 10 years now, there is little doubt that they largely agree on nearly all of their underlying motivations. Perhaps you should look into the history of it.

You're also doing some very dodgy math in extrapolating 400 petition signers into "thousands." First of all, there really aren't that many scientists in the US. There really aren't, I don't know the exact figure, but in comparing the 10,000 signers on the side of evolution, it would be likely that I can extrapolate that number to 100,000 or so without too much trouble. That still makes your "thousands" of credentialed supporters a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Christian scientists think scriptures are literally true? False. Even the Discovery Institute says it doesn't believe all the scriptures are literally true. So you're playing games of semantics with your argument. And it doesn't hold up.

I would also like to point out that you never answered one of the questions that I deem the most important. If God created a universe specifically with physical laws capable of allowing life to arise spontaneously, is that not direction? And who are you to claim that it is not?

Correction! I make it a point *not* to be a hypocr

[Alsee]

Correction:
I make it a point ***NOT*** to be a hypocrite.

Nasty spot for me to drop a word. LOL.

-