Huh... I really like that idea. Is there an existing organization that supports that reform?
Of course, that organization will likely be working outside its own locale of interest, but you gotta play by the current rules to change the rules, I suppose. Such an organization's ultimate goal would be to outlaw itself:)
Because it's a representative democracy? And only a few of those 535 are representing you. Contribute to your representatives and let other people contribute to those who represent them.
Why are Americans so darn scared and jumpy? I recently spent a couple months in the poor areas of South Africa (second highest violent crime rate in the world) and all I can say is that we worry and fret about our safety way, way way too much. I actually find the tendancy to worry, and the types of worry, to be amusing. Of course if they result in losing freedom or limiting useful innovations, then it's not so funny.
But it's basically like people seek out things to worry about. A useful trait when living in the wild maybe, but not so much today. If you have access to google maps and can worry about your cat visible in the window, you're probably one of the safest people to ever live.
Sorry, my example wasn't clear. I was asking us to imagine the first coin toss ever: no data no statistics (I shouldn't have used that word). I think that even if on that first toss it came up heads, we might be able to imagine that this was not the only way it could be. We might even be able to guess by modeling the coin flip in our minds that it might come up heads about half the time and tails half the time. I think we could guess all that before flipping it again. You're right: maybe that's faith, but it could also be called a hypothesis, no.
I think we have the ability to draw conclusions without perfect data. In fact, isn't this how much science is done? Then we test the theories. I'm just theorizing that with all matter in the galaxy, and even more staggeringly in the universe, that self replicating molecules have been stirred up more than once. Considering the number of times they've been stirred, it seems a little strange to think that hasn't happened. But if the universe was truly empty of any other life, I'd be surprised but I would accept it. I am curious of your reasoning as to why in all the universe self replicating molecules would only arise once? Isn't that almost a mystical proposition?
By the way, I'm not talking about a universe teeming with life, it could be exceedingly rare if it exists. And it might not be intelligent. This isn't about dreams of Star Trek for me, just legitimate scientific curiosity. I'm surprised it raised such ire with folks. Do you look down on Carl Sagan as well?
Oh cut the trollishness, it's an interesting thing to discuss. Perhaps I am as dense as gas giant, but I did say "flip a coin once", as in the first coin, first flip. Even so, would you say you'd never be able to guess the behavior of coin flipping? My point being that we can make predictions based on what seems reasonable without gathered statistics to back it up. I shouldn't have used the word "statistical" in my first post, you're absolutely right. But to assume that we can't make any reasonable predictions about the universe without statistics is foolishness. Many discoveries in science were made through thought experiment and not confirmed by empirical data until much later. This is why humans are better at figuring things out than computers: we can think about things and make reasonably good predictions.
My guess, which is all I claimed my first post to be, is that if you take the common elements in the universe, and mix them up a quintillion times or so, it is reasonable to think that some complex self-replicating molecules will arise more than once. In fact, it sounds almost weak minded and faith based to believe anything else.
Fair enough. I suppose if you flipped a coin once and it landed on heads, you'd say that it was statistically impossible to predict it would ever land on heads again, even if flipped several billion times. Fair enough.
I think it is a statistical certainty that there is other life in the universe. I think it is a statistical liklihood that there is other life in the galaxy.
I also think it's a statistical certainty that we'll not find any in our lifetimes. And sometimes that makes me sad.
And covered with and permeated with, too! The healthy bacterial flora of the skin and digestive system; and even more amazingly the mitochondria in each cell. Most scientists now accept them to be specialized bacteria that became symbiant with primitive cells so many millenia ago, which is why they have their own genes and genetic code, distinct from the host, i.e. you. Though they're as much a part of me as my cells, I sometimes like to think of some percentage of my body weight being made of little creatures living literally in every part of me, processing glucose and ketones into ATP or whatever to keep me going. Kind of creepy but kind of cool.
Talking about extreme variations: I always liked the idea that the giant sequoia trees included forest fires in their reproductive cycle. Apparently they wait many decades until there are huge natural forest fires that wipe out the small and medium sized vegetation before the seed pods drop. Then they land in clear and fertile soil with little competition. Of course, their trunks have to be fire resistant, and they are. Their leaves and small branches have to be high enough to avoid the worst of the heat from the flames, and they are.
Even on earth life has found amazing ways to survive. I'm sure there's some life out there living in environments that we consider inhospitable... because there are already many here on earth doing the same thing.
I have keyless entry and ignition on my car (2004 Prius) and I gotta say, I do like it a lot. When I rent cars nowadays and have to use a physical key, or even a pushbutton to unlock, it feels positively archaic and a bit annoying. I'd most likely get the feature again on my next car. They put a lot of thought into the behavior, and it basically does what you expect without you even thinking about it. Eventually it feels like the car just knows you.
Sometimes it can be confusing, like if you get out of the car while it's running to let a friend borrow it. It gives a beep to let you know -- but if you don't remember to take the key out of your pocket and give it to your friend, they can drive away but won't be able to start the car once they turn it off. That's never actually happened to me, but it's just something annoying that could happen with the system.
But it's still one of the nicest little conveniences I've seen added to a car in quite a while.
Yeah, you're right. I was only putting that up because the parent hadn't even made a logical point. But I agree logic holds little sway with most religious types. I don't argue with people on these topics unless they want to.
But sometimes I just want to yell "for god's sake! you've rationalized a hundred other ridiculous things! can't you find some rationalization for evolution so we can all move on?"
You think it's terribly unfair that the world's richest nations might be expected to give a little more than the world's poorest nations? Is it that hard to understand that because we have so much perhaps more should be expected? Don't you think that a nation with enough extra time and money on it's hands to fret about the disposal of Anna Nicole Smith's body for a month could handle the terrible sacrafice of improving its environmental footprint, and that we might cut a little slack for the nations where people struggle to keep a roof over their heads?
Even as an environmentalist, I would still take a pragmatic view on environmentalism vs. human development at its early stages. I think that once a nation makes it past.8 on the Human Development Index (US is.948), that it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to start cleaning up their act.
An interesting take I had not considered... however, couldn't it be argued that in his all-powerfulness he already made all choices and this is why he his all-knowing? I mean, yeah, it's kind of ridiculous, such is the whole concept, but if we're talking about God, I think that could make some kind of sense? His power and knowledge came into being at once and that was all there was?
Man, it must suck to be God. What a boring, boring life.
I think the accepted use of censorship is censorship by authority. Me only telling the interesting parts of my life in my blog isn't censorship by most standards. And really, government censorship is what people usually worry about because the government can mess up your life a lot worse if they don't like what you're saying than most corporations can.
Call me a heretic, but there are a few reasons why I do it from time to time. Mainly it's fun, more fun than using my indoor broiler. But also it still tastes better than inside cooking if you thow some mesquite chips on the grill first, right on top of the lava-rocks that sit on top of the propane. It's convenient and it still tastes pretty good and you wouldn't want to do that indoors. Also, even without the mesquite chips, grilling over a flame seems to work better than grilling under a flame. Something about heat rising, I would guess.
In the end I will admit that a true smoke is the way to go for ultimate flavor, but for me I can get most of the flavor, most of the fun, and less hassle with a propane grill.
Good point. I wonder how long the debates went on about their discoveries... a solid theory of evolution has only been around for 150 years or so. Maybe just like the earth-centered universe we'll all eventually come around.
Funny related story: my grandfather was a pastor at a Christian church. At some point in the sixties, I think, he had an guest preacher come by -- a very old Italian fellow. For his sermon, he focused on how ridiculous it was that scientists claimed the earth was round. He read passage after passage from the bible that demonstrated that the earth was flat, and he had a good laugh since it was so obvious that it was flat. The scientists, he said, were fools. Again, this was in the 1960's.
My poor grandfather had to dedicate the entire sermon the following week to undoing the damage. He found several passages in the bible that implied the earth was round, and he preached about that. He also bought the old fellow, the guest preacher, a globe.
Aside from the obvious ridiculousness of believing the earth is flat at that point in time, I find it extra amusing that both men were able to support their completely contradictory ideas from the same book.
I hear all that, but is it really any different from accepting modern medicine? According to the bible, health afflictions are curses and are best eradicated by sacrafice and prayer. What I don't get is why someone could throw out that much of the old (and new) testaments and then balk at evolution. And I don't agree that taking the vague creation story as a parable makes the bible worthless; first because there are already recognized parables in the bible and second because it could be a simplified explanation of creation through a big bang and evolution... let there be light, divde the night from day, bring forth plants, then animals, then us. I imagine if I explained my scientific ideas about creation to someone several thousand years ago they might write something similar.
But you're right in the sense that many Christians won't accept it. Ah well, still seems absurd to me, but then again so much of Christianity does.
I said I don't believe in god. I'm an athiest. Thus your question makes no sense.
My point was that for someone who _does_ believe in god, natural selection can be the mechanism by which he created us.
And furthermore you've totally blown your attempt at disproving god. From a logical perspective, he can certainly be all-powerful and all-knowing. The problem doesn't arise until you also try to add in that he's all-good. Then it falls apart because he has created/allowed such suffering. He could be any two of those three things, but not all three. That's the generally accepted proof against the Christian god.
Personally I shake my head as soon as someone uses the word "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" or "all-anything". I don't believe in absolutes or ultimates. There is no unstoppable force, there is no immovable object. We live in a world of infinite regress and assention.
You're right, religeon adapts for sure. Humans will adapt and modify anything they get their hands on. But by declaring a particular book "sacred", be it the bible, the koran, or whatever, they are stuck with certain things that don't make sense any more. Like stoning to death adulterers and disobedient children. Most modern Christians adapt by ignoring large portions of the bible, which is fine with me (and highly beneficial for them), but most still claim the book is infallable. Even though they find rationalizations for their selective reading, they believe the ancient books are sacred. Sacred in the sense that they cannot be questioned.
In contrast, science is fundamentally based on the premise that nothing is too sacred to be questioned. And this has proven itself a very practical and useful thing.
I actually think that before the advent of the printing press, religion worked much better. Via oral tradition the "sacred" teachings could adapt over time as people left out bits that became unpallatable, or added bits of new wisdom that seemed to fit things better. The idea that it was set in stone was good, but the fact that it wasn't literally set in stone was also good. But once it was we got stuck with an old version of mankind's wisdom, which only partly applies to modern life.
I agree 100% with your "let's peacefully co-exist". I am content to let everyone believe what they want and to express what they like as long as they do the same for others. So don't take my expression below to be an attempt to convert or insult yours or anyone elses beliefs, but rather as an expression of my view.
I am an athiest and I believe natural selection to be the orgin of the species, as it were. The big bang is too abstract for me to seriously consider, but it might as well be true as it doesn't say much practical to current existence. But in response to your claim, I really don't think that many people "hang on to evolution... as a religion". If someone came up with a better explanation I would most certainly consider it; that's why science is not a religion: it adapts. The bible is purportedly unchanging, and for that reason alone it is of limited usefulness as it can't take into account new discoveries. Science can. Sure, there are some scientists who hang on to pet theories in spite of evidence to the contrary, but fundamentally science is an endless exploration of what is, and it allows for error. Ptolomy was overturned by Copernicus. Newton was overturned by Einstein. It's amazing how non religious science is, given that it's coming from people, an inherintly religious tending breed of creature.
I don't discount the usefulness of myth (and I use that term entirely non-pejorativly). Myth is an important part of the human experience, and can help us discover truths about ourselves on which science has nothing to say.
Bah! I say bring it right into the heart of public education. Make a cirriculum. Put it on PBS. Require it as a major from K-12. Then, like math and science, it will become incredibly uncool and kids won't have any interest in it and they'll rebel against the idea as they get older. In 20 years we'd see a massive dropoff in church enrollment.
There seems to me no better way to ensure a complete disinterest in something than to teach it in school.
...is a recognition from both sides that evolution is not in opposition to the bible or Christianity. Many (most?) Christians know this already, but there are a few (like the folks that made this museum) who haven't figured it out yet. There are also many non-Christian evolutionists who think that evolution is counter to Christianity. I was raised a Christian, though I am no longer one, but I don't see that evolution contradicts the bible.
The bible is full of events natural events that science has gone on to explain but which we don't fret about. Every time someone falls to the ground they were being pulled by a magical force which science later called "gravity". Does knowing the way in which gravity works, and the ability to predict its effects contradict the bible? No: people assume that God created gravity and that is the method by which he keeps people stuck to the Earth and the planets and stars in rotation. What about disease? When it was discovered that bacteria and viruses cause disease, and that we could control the effects to a large degree, was the bible's absence in describing the physical mechanism of disease a sudden point of contention? No.
So why is it that natural selection, an obvious, elegant, and indeed predictive theory (see drug resistant pests) seen as something else? Why can't natural selection be the mechanism by which God brought forth first the plants, then the animals, and then man, as described in Genisis?
He does not need to be a "God of the Gaps" filling in only that which we don't know. He can be God the architect, designer of all that which we do know, and also that which we have yet to discover.
Personally, I don't believe in God, but most of my family does. I am continually surprised that they struggle so hard with evolution.
I actually think that's the key -- somewhere along the line people got the idea that "mere" metaphor and myth were somehow inferior to science and fact. That thinking set the stage for the sad extremist dichotomy we see now. As far as I can tell they are all of them required for a full human experience and understanding. My love of science doesn't prevent me from recognizing the beauty, the usefulness, and indeed the "truth" embodied in myths. I believe the bible to be wholly the work of man, but I also think that it is a book that offers great insight into the human condition -- not in spite of its obvious flaws, but because of them: it shows us the tormented neediness we experience, enough to create a "god" so insecure he seems to desperately needs our approval, the absurd idea of a chosen people to justify our crimes against each other, the nonsensical idea that one man's death can somehow absolve us of our own wrongdoing... it's so ridiculous and so terrifically human.
Okay, I'm babbling now, but it's been on my mind. Continue on with your poetry:)
Slashdot Mirror
Huh... I really like that idea. Is there an existing organization that supports that reform?
:)
Of course, that organization will likely be working outside its own locale of interest, but you gotta play by the current rules to change the rules, I suppose. Such an organization's ultimate goal would be to outlaw itself
why shouldn't I be able to...
Because it's a representative democracy? And only a few of those 535 are representing you. Contribute to your representatives and let other people contribute to those who represent them.
Ah yes, very easy to criticize the priorities of others... especially as we sit and argue the fate of the world here on Slashdot :)
Why not each of us working on a cure for cancer?
Why are Americans so darn scared and jumpy? I recently spent a couple months in the poor areas of South Africa (second highest violent crime rate in the world) and all I can say is that we worry and fret about our safety way, way way too much. I actually find the tendancy to worry, and the types of worry, to be amusing. Of course if they result in losing freedom or limiting useful innovations, then it's not so funny.
But it's basically like people seek out things to worry about. A useful trait when living in the wild maybe, but not so much today. If you have access to google maps and can worry about your cat visible in the window, you're probably one of the safest people to ever live.
Cheers.
That was supposed to be "hypothesis, no?"; without the question mark I sound even more confused than I do usually :)
Sorry, my example wasn't clear. I was asking us to imagine the first coin toss ever: no data no statistics (I shouldn't have used that word). I think that even if on that first toss it came up heads, we might be able to imagine that this was not the only way it could be. We might even be able to guess by modeling the coin flip in our minds that it might come up heads about half the time and tails half the time. I think we could guess all that before flipping it again. You're right: maybe that's faith, but it could also be called a hypothesis, no.
I think we have the ability to draw conclusions without perfect data. In fact, isn't this how much science is done? Then we test the theories. I'm just theorizing that with all matter in the galaxy, and even more staggeringly in the universe, that self replicating molecules have been stirred up more than once. Considering the number of times they've been stirred, it seems a little strange to think that hasn't happened. But if the universe was truly empty of any other life, I'd be surprised but I would accept it. I am curious of your reasoning as to why in all the universe self replicating molecules would only arise once? Isn't that almost a mystical proposition?
By the way, I'm not talking about a universe teeming with life, it could be exceedingly rare if it exists. And it might not be intelligent. This isn't about dreams of Star Trek for me, just legitimate scientific curiosity. I'm surprised it raised such ire with folks. Do you look down on Carl Sagan as well?
Cheers.
Oh cut the trollishness, it's an interesting thing to discuss. Perhaps I am as dense as gas giant, but I did say "flip a coin once", as in the first coin, first flip. Even so, would you say you'd never be able to guess the behavior of coin flipping? My point being that we can make predictions based on what seems reasonable without gathered statistics to back it up. I shouldn't have used the word "statistical" in my first post, you're absolutely right. But to assume that we can't make any reasonable predictions about the universe without statistics is foolishness. Many discoveries in science were made through thought experiment and not confirmed by empirical data until much later. This is why humans are better at figuring things out than computers: we can think about things and make reasonably good predictions.
My guess, which is all I claimed my first post to be, is that if you take the common elements in the universe, and mix them up a quintillion times or so, it is reasonable to think that some complex self-replicating molecules will arise more than once. In fact, it sounds almost weak minded and faith based to believe anything else.
But to each there own.
Fair enough. I suppose if you flipped a coin once and it landed on heads, you'd say that it was statistically impossible to predict it would ever land on heads again, even if flipped several billion times. Fair enough.
I think it is a statistical certainty that there is other life in the universe. I think it is a statistical liklihood that there is other life in the galaxy.
I also think it's a statistical certainty that we'll not find any in our lifetimes. And sometimes that makes me sad.
the bugs you're surrounded with.
And covered with and permeated with, too! The healthy bacterial flora of the skin and digestive system; and even more amazingly the mitochondria in each cell. Most scientists now accept them to be specialized bacteria that became symbiant with primitive cells so many millenia ago, which is why they have their own genes and genetic code, distinct from the host, i.e. you. Though they're as much a part of me as my cells, I sometimes like to think of some percentage of my body weight being made of little creatures living literally in every part of me, processing glucose and ketones into ATP or whatever to keep me going. Kind of creepy but kind of cool.
Talking about extreme variations: I always liked the idea that the giant sequoia trees included forest fires in their reproductive cycle. Apparently they wait many decades until there are huge natural forest fires that wipe out the small and medium sized vegetation before the seed pods drop. Then they land in clear and fertile soil with little competition. Of course, their trunks have to be fire resistant, and they are. Their leaves and small branches have to be high enough to avoid the worst of the heat from the flames, and they are.
Even on earth life has found amazing ways to survive. I'm sure there's some life out there living in environments that we consider inhospitable... because there are already many here on earth doing the same thing.
I have keyless entry and ignition on my car (2004 Prius) and I gotta say, I do like it a lot. When I rent cars nowadays and have to use a physical key, or even a pushbutton to unlock, it feels positively archaic and a bit annoying. I'd most likely get the feature again on my next car. They put a lot of thought into the behavior, and it basically does what you expect without you even
thinking about it. Eventually it feels like the car just knows you.
Sometimes it can be confusing, like if you get out of the car while it's running to let a friend borrow it. It gives a beep to let you know -- but if you don't remember to take the key out of your pocket and give it to your friend, they can drive away but won't be able to start the car once they turn it off. That's never actually happened to me, but it's just something annoying that could happen with the system.
But it's still one of the nicest little conveniences I've seen added to a car in quite a while.
Yeah, you're right. I was only putting that up because the parent hadn't even made a logical point. But I agree logic holds little sway with most religious types. I don't argue with people on these topics unless they want to.
But sometimes I just want to yell "for god's sake! you've rationalized a hundred other ridiculous things! can't you find some rationalization for evolution so we can all move on?"
Cheers.
You think it's terribly unfair that the world's richest nations might be expected to give a little more than the world's poorest nations? Is it that hard to understand that because we have so much perhaps more should be expected? Don't you think that a nation with enough extra time and money on it's hands to fret about the disposal of Anna Nicole Smith's body for a month could handle the terrible sacrafice of improving its environmental footprint, and that we might cut a little slack for the nations where people struggle to keep a roof over their heads?
.8 on the Human Development Index (US is .948), that it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to start cleaning up their act.
Even as an environmentalist, I would still take a pragmatic view on environmentalism vs. human development at its early stages. I think that once a nation makes it past
An interesting take I had not considered... however, couldn't it be argued that in his all-powerfulness he already made all choices and this is why he his all-knowing? I mean, yeah, it's kind of ridiculous, such is the whole concept, but if we're talking about God, I think that could make some kind of sense? His power and knowledge came into being at once and that was all there was?
Man, it must suck to be God. What a boring, boring life.
I think the accepted use of censorship is censorship by authority. Me only telling the interesting parts of my life in my blog isn't censorship by most standards. And really, government censorship is what people usually worry about because the government can mess up your life a lot worse if they don't like what you're saying than most corporations can.
Call me a heretic, but there are a few reasons why I do it from time to time. Mainly it's fun, more fun than using my indoor broiler. But also it still tastes better than inside cooking if you thow some mesquite chips on the grill first, right on top of the lava-rocks that sit on top of the propane. It's convenient and it still tastes pretty good and you wouldn't want to do that indoors. Also, even without the mesquite chips, grilling over a flame seems to work better than grilling under a flame. Something about heat rising, I would guess.
In the end I will admit that a true smoke is the way to go for ultimate flavor, but for me I can get most of the flavor, most of the fun, and less hassle with a propane grill.
Cheers.
Good point. I wonder how long the debates went on about their discoveries... a solid theory of evolution has only been around for 150 years or so. Maybe just like the earth-centered universe we'll all eventually come around.
Funny related story: my grandfather was a pastor at a Christian church. At some point in the sixties, I think, he had an guest preacher come by -- a very old Italian fellow. For his sermon, he focused on how ridiculous it was that scientists claimed the earth was round. He read passage after passage from the bible that demonstrated that the earth was flat, and he had a good laugh since it was so obvious that it was flat. The scientists, he said, were fools. Again, this was in the 1960's.
My poor grandfather had to dedicate the entire sermon the following week to undoing the damage. He found several passages in the bible that implied the earth was round, and he preached about that. He also bought the old fellow, the guest preacher, a globe.
Aside from the obvious ridiculousness of believing the earth is flat at that point in time, I find it extra amusing that both men were able to support their completely contradictory ideas from the same book.
I hear all that, but is it really any different from accepting modern medicine? According to the bible, health afflictions are curses and are best eradicated by sacrafice and prayer. What I don't get is why someone could throw out that much of the old (and new) testaments and then balk at evolution. And I don't agree that taking the vague creation story as a parable makes the bible worthless; first because there are already recognized parables in the bible and second because it could be a simplified explanation of creation through a big bang and evolution... let there be light, divde the night from day, bring forth plants, then animals, then us. I imagine if I explained my scientific ideas about creation to someone several thousand years ago they might write something similar.
But you're right in the sense that many Christians won't accept it. Ah well, still seems absurd to me, but then again so much of Christianity does.
Wow, what a malformed post.
I said I don't believe in god. I'm an athiest. Thus your question makes no sense.
My point was that for someone who _does_ believe in god, natural selection can be the mechanism by which he created us.
And furthermore you've totally blown your attempt at disproving god. From a logical perspective, he can certainly be all-powerful and all-knowing. The problem doesn't arise until you also try to add in that he's all-good. Then it falls apart because he has created/allowed such suffering. He could be any two of those three things, but not all three. That's the generally accepted proof against the Christian god.
Personally I shake my head as soon as someone uses the word "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" or "all-anything". I don't believe in absolutes or ultimates. There is no unstoppable force, there is no immovable object. We live in a world of infinite regress and assention.
Cheers.
You're right, religeon adapts for sure. Humans will adapt and modify anything they get their hands on. But by declaring a particular book "sacred", be it the bible, the koran, or whatever, they are stuck with certain things that don't make sense any more. Like stoning to death adulterers and disobedient children. Most modern Christians adapt by ignoring large portions of the bible, which is fine with me (and highly beneficial for them), but most still claim the book is infallable. Even though they find rationalizations for their selective reading, they believe the ancient books are sacred. Sacred in the sense that they cannot be questioned.
In contrast, science is fundamentally based on the premise that nothing is too sacred to be questioned. And this has proven itself a very practical and useful thing.
I actually think that before the advent of the printing press, religion worked much better. Via oral tradition the "sacred" teachings could adapt over time as people left out bits that became unpallatable, or added bits of new wisdom that seemed to fit things better. The idea that it was set in stone was good, but the fact that it wasn't literally set in stone was also good. But once it was we got stuck with an old version of mankind's wisdom, which only partly applies to modern life.
I agree 100% with your "let's peacefully co-exist". I am content to let everyone believe what they want and to express what they like as long as they do the same for others. So don't take my expression below to be an attempt to convert or insult yours or anyone elses beliefs, but rather as an expression of my view.
... as a religion". If someone came up with a better explanation I would most certainly consider it; that's why science is not a religion: it adapts. The bible is purportedly unchanging, and for that reason alone it is of limited usefulness as it can't take into account new discoveries. Science can. Sure, there are some scientists who hang on to pet theories in spite of evidence to the contrary, but fundamentally science is an endless exploration of what is, and it allows for error. Ptolomy was overturned by Copernicus. Newton was overturned by Einstein. It's amazing how non religious science is, given that it's coming from people, an inherintly religious tending breed of creature.
I am an athiest and I believe natural selection to be the orgin of the species, as it were. The big bang is too abstract for me to seriously consider, but it might as well be true as it doesn't say much practical to current existence. But in response to your claim, I really don't think that many people "hang on to evolution
I don't discount the usefulness of myth (and I use that term entirely non-pejorativly). Myth is an important part of the human experience, and can help us discover truths about ourselves on which science has nothing to say.
Bah! I say bring it right into the heart of public education. Make a cirriculum. Put it on PBS. Require it as a major from K-12. Then, like math and science, it will become incredibly uncool and kids won't have any interest in it and they'll rebel against the idea as they get older. In 20 years we'd see a massive dropoff in church enrollment.
There seems to me no better way to ensure a complete disinterest in something than to teach it in school.
...is a recognition from both sides that evolution is not in opposition to the bible or Christianity. Many (most?) Christians know this already, but there are a few (like the folks that made this museum) who haven't figured it out yet. There are also many non-Christian evolutionists who think that evolution is counter to Christianity. I was raised a Christian, though I am no longer one, but I don't see that evolution contradicts the bible.
The bible is full of events natural events that science has gone on to explain but which we don't fret about. Every time someone falls to the ground they were being pulled by a magical force which science later called "gravity". Does knowing the way in which gravity works, and the ability to predict its effects contradict the bible? No: people assume that God created gravity and that is the method by which he keeps people stuck to the Earth and the planets and stars in rotation. What about disease? When it was discovered that bacteria and viruses cause disease, and that we could control the effects to a large degree, was the bible's absence in describing the physical mechanism of disease a sudden point of contention? No.
So why is it that natural selection, an obvious, elegant, and indeed predictive theory (see drug resistant pests) seen as something else? Why can't natural selection be the mechanism by which God brought forth first the plants, then the animals, and then man, as described in Genisis?
He does not need to be a "God of the Gaps" filling in only that which we don't know. He can be God the architect, designer of all that which we do know, and also that which we have yet to discover.
Personally, I don't believe in God, but most of my family does. I am continually surprised that they struggle so hard with evolution.
Cheers.
I actually think that's the key -- somewhere along the line people got the idea that "mere" metaphor and myth were somehow inferior to science and fact. That thinking set the stage for the sad extremist dichotomy we see now. As far as I can tell they are all of them required for a full human experience and understanding. My love of science doesn't prevent me from recognizing the beauty, the usefulness, and indeed the "truth" embodied in myths. I believe the bible to be wholly the work of man, but I also think that it is a book that offers great insight into the human condition -- not in spite of its obvious flaws, but because of them: it shows us the tormented neediness we experience, enough to create a "god" so insecure he seems to desperately needs our approval, the absurd idea of a chosen people to justify our crimes against each other, the nonsensical idea that one man's death can somehow absolve us of our own wrongdoing... it's so ridiculous and so terrifically human.
:)
Okay, I'm babbling now, but it's been on my mind. Continue on with your poetry