Shut up yourself, and try contemplating for a moment. Of course I don't think mathematics is a bedtime story. I think mathematics is a true system of knowledge. If you only believe that truth comes through the scientific method, it is *you* who should think it is a bedtime story, because mathematics is not a hypothesis, is not emperically testable, and yet we know it to be true.
My point is, much to many peoples dismay, science is not the be all end all here. Mathematics is true and is not scientific; the system of logic that science relies on is true, but it is not scientific; in 100 billion years, an expanding universe will still be true, but those who know it will know it based on our firsthand experience today, written down. So if the future people don't trust their ancestors, they will be rejecting truth. If they do trust their ancestors and arrive at the truth, they will be acknowledging that science is not the only way to learn truth, the testimony of those who came before is also a possible truth giver. Of course this does not mean that all things people wrote down before are true; but it does show us that some things written down before may be true, and may be the only way we can know a thing from the past, when all other traces have disappeared.
Anyways, scientists now accept the written down testimony of other scientists. They could and do go back and test some experiments, but not every scientist tests every experiment. That would be impossible, and the more we learn, the more science would grind to a standstill if all experiments had to be repeated before each individual scientist would trust in the results. So scientists now base what the think to be true, not just in things they have personally demonstrated to be reasonable by the scientific method, but also by learning from others' experiences, and on logic and mathematics which are outside of the scientific method.
What is interesting to me about this scenario is that a currently scientific idea will become unscientific over time. What is now a scientific theory, testable and supported by empirical data, will become nothing more than the ancestors *claims* of empirical data.
Can the claims of the ancestors be trusted, when they suggest such preposterous experiential data as a "sky full of galaxies" and "background radiation"?
If they can, then science is not the only valid way to learn about the universe. We can also learn from the experiences of those who came before us, even if we cannot experience the same thing they did.
Science is a useful way to pursue truth, but it is not the only way. I think people need to see that, and this is a good example of how that is true.
"I will say that "faith" in a system that has a goal of actively investigating and discovering facts about our universe is grossly difference than "faith" in religion, which by it's very definition, is NOT based on facts or truth."
Wow. So religion, "by its very definition", is not based on facts or truth? Maybe that is the definition you are working under. But other people do not use that definition, especially those who believe their religion's teachings are true and are based on facts.
For example, as a Christian, I think Christianity as revealed in the Bible is true. I think it is based on facts, e.g. God created the physical world; He promised Abraham a son and gave him one; Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, etc.
I understand that other people dispute these facts, but I am not so foolish that I believe something is true that I believe not to be true. I might as well claim that you hold a world view (metaphysical naturalism) that is by its very nature NOT based on facts or truth. I won't do that, because it isn't productive, but I hope you can at least see why it isn't productive for either side to make statements like that.
By the way, when I talk about "belief" and "faith", I mean to say something like "I think this to be true, based on the evidence I find convincing, despite contrary evidence that may exist which I do not find convincing enough to alter my conclusions." The use of "faith" and "belief" in current culture seems to be moving to something like "A person thinks something is true despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for it at all." I'm not sure why this is. I think it might be a case of bad logic and projecting part of one's belief system onto others, i.e.
1. That person believes something that I do not believe 2. I do not see any convincing evidence for believing it 3. Therefore there is no convincing evidence 4. Therefore that person knows they have no valid evidence for what they believe 5. And that person believes what they believe based on no evidence whatsoever
Anyways, I wish people would not following this line of thinking, because it is probably false and inconsiderate of other people's actual thought process in believing what they believe to be true.
Positing that "I didn't do the test personally" is the same as throwing out the idea of scientific method is sophistry.
I don't say "throw out the idea of scientific method". I say "throw out the idea that the scientific method is the only method for a person to acquire true knowledge about reality".
The point about the expanding universe is:
We can now know the universe is expanding through scientific methods
People in the far future will not be able to know this via the scientific method.
Regardless of their knowledge, the universe will be expanding
If they believe, based on some level of trust, that their ancestors were telling the truth, they can know the fact that the universe is expanding.
Their knowledge is an appeal to the authority of their ancestors, but their ancestors' authority was the scientific method.
I thus posit that the scientific method, while a valid way of gaining knowledge, is not the only way of gaining knowledge. There are further some branches of knowledge that are non-scientific, and non-verifiable. The great examples are mathematics and logic. We hold these truths to be self evident, that mathematics and logic are true, and that mathematical and logical theorems are valid forms of knowledge. But mathematics and logic cannot be verified by the scientific method, indeed they underlie and uphold it.
All I want people to do is realize that there is knowledge beyond the scientific method that is equally valid; that the scientific method is useful and necessary, but it is not the be all and end all here.
"My parents, and the people they gave authority for thinking over to, believe this (insert any mythology), you use the scientific method, one of us is wrong."
The problem is this: even people who think the only valid form of knowledge is knowledge derived from the scientific method, actually end up accepting knowledge based on trust and "authority". I.e. you believe the earth orbits the sun, that electrons protons and neutrons compose atoms, that your cell really has DNA, and many other things. Someone did an experiment to determine each of these things, but it is unlikely that you or many others have done each of these experiments yourselves. If you have not, then you are accepting a story from other people that you have not empirically verified.
You could probably go and verify each of those things yourself, but could you verify all the scientifically derived knowledge that the human race has accumulated, and do so in your own lifetime? It is unlikely that you could or that you would want to.
There was an article recently about how the universe is expanding, and in the distant future, any humans around would not be able to tell we are in an expanding universe because all the points we measure expansion by would be too far away to measure anymore. At that point, humans could choose believe the stories written down about how we live in an expanding universe. They would no longer be able to scientifically verify the true answer, but they could arrive at it if they trusted those who came before them.
All world religions have people who claimed to have experiences with God or the supernatural. E.g. Abraham heard God saying, "Abraham, go to the land I will show you. I will bless you and bless all the world through you." If that truly happened, and we truly have that story passed down from Abraham, then we can choose to believe it. If it truly happened and we trust only the scientific method, then just like those future humans in the expanding universe, we close ourselves off to valid but scientifically-unknowable knowledge.
"Modern religious people seem to have no problem with God being a flat-out liar doing things like making light from stars a billion light years away already be "on the way", and showing events that never actually happened."
The only caveat would be if God did this, created people, and then told them, "I know this stuff all looks really old, but actually, I just made it so you'd have a nice place to live." Then it's not deception anymore. The only problem would come when the people stopped believing God and decided to make up their own story about how stuff got there. Hypothetically speaking.
Agreed. Good for them, it's good to see a country looking out for the welfare of its own citizens ahead of the profits of some multinational corporation.
>>Of course, where there is nothing, there is also no uncertainty principle to be violated.
Perhaps that is true. But then perhaps it is also true that when there is nothing, there is no 'ex nihilo nihil fit' principle to be violated. Which do you find the more compelling principle?
Well, really I think that something must always have existed. There must be some eternal Reality, a system of rules and laws, a structure, whatever, that gives rise to the universe that we see around us. People that say everything came from nothing don't really mean "nothing" - they still assume some rules that can cause a nothing->something transition.
Part of the problem with trying to explain the beginning of reality is that there is no valid explanation that makes any sense. You just have to start with, "Reality is uncaused and self-existent", or "I AM THAT I AM". The main question we get to debate is, does this self-existent reality have a personality or not.
The uncertainty principle only applies to observable systems, and if there is nothing, there cannot be observer. Where there is no observer, there is no measurement and no knowledge, therefore both pieces of information *cannot* be known, and there is no violation of the uncertainty principle.
Of course, where there is nothing, there is also no uncertainty principle to be violated.
Maybe they don't always use the word evolution because it is not always evolution?
Bacteria are known to send messages to each other, and we don't know the full extent of what they can tell each other yet.
"More recently, scientists have begun to understand that the importance of cell-to-cell communication goes far beyond mere head counting. Many things that bacteria do, it turns out, are orchestrated by cascades of molecular signals. One such behavior is the formation of spores that make bacteria more resistant to antibiotics." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/quorum.ht ml [Wired 2004]
What if bacteria have genes for living in certain extreme situations (heat, vacuum, cold, radiation, human white blood cells) but those genes are currently turned off. Say one bacterium has that turned on, and it is surviving OK, it transmits that info to other bacteria that are doing poorly. But say that message has the effect of turning on the inactive gene that they needed to survive. They start transmitting protein/peptide/whatever messages too and before you know it all the suriving bacteria have turned on the needed gene. They of course pass it on to their offspring when they divide.
Is what just happened evolution? Or is it communication? Maybe the gene the bacteria needed evolved in the past, but now it is not evolution, it is rather epigenetic change brought on by messages from other bacteria.
Maybe these medical researches don't say "evolution" because they know there are other possible processes, but they don't know specifically what process is at work. In that case it is better to be vague (emerge) than to be wrong (evolve).
Actually, I think you've hit on the way to end America's 2 party system. If enough people can just hack 3rd parties to victory, and not get caught, the American public will finally see them as an option! Time to see some green and orange and purple mixed in with the red and blue on those political maps.
Dood. God just brought two every kind of animal (two cow-like animals, two horse-like animals, two dog-like animals, etc.) and after the Flood they just evolved into a lot more of what we call "species" to fill more ecological niches.
So two cows -> bison and yak and Scottish highland coo and bison etc. (I know those probably aren't all so closely relate but you get the picture.) Maybe God put speciation on overdrive after the Flood.
Both sides of that argument have been going on for more than 500 years. Check out this chapter from "The Wisdom of Solomon", written by a Jew well before the time of Christ. (Of course the writer is taking the "Fundementalist" side of things, but he presents part of your worldview as the worldview he is opposing.) What is the point? It is not modern science that has made this variety of beliefs available. People have held both sets of beliefs as far back as we have records.
Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 2
1. For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, "Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a life comes to its end, and no one has been known to return from Hades.
2. For we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been, for the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts;
3. when it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air.
4. Our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will remember our works; our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and be scattered like mist that is chased by the rays of the sun and overcome by its heat.
5. For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow, and there is no return from our death, because it is sealed up and no one turns back.
6. "Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist, and make use of the creation to the full as in youth.
7. Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no flower of spring pass us by.
8. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.
9. Let none of us fail to share in our revelry; everywhere let us leave signs of enjoyment, because this is our portion, and this our lot.
10. Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow or regard the gray hairs of the aged.
11. But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless.
12. "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
13. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
14. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15. the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.
16. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
17. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
18. for if the righteous man is God's child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.
20. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
21. Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,
22. and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls;
23. for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity,
24. but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.
We don't need our concerns over civil liberties assuaged. We need our civil liberties protected. By ourselves, not by the government, or this will turn into a 1984-esque "Ministry of Civil Liberties.".
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
I think a correct parse of the sentence would be:
"It's basically a blimp (that thinks it's a geostationary satellite) floating at 65K feet!"
Or:
It's basically a blimp.
The blimp is floating at 65K feet.
The blimp thinks it's a geostationary satellite.
There is some genetic change, in any worldview, that is not ascribable to evolutionary processes. For example, breeders influence the traits of their livestock or crops by selective breeding. And Monsanto and other groups genetically engineer crops. Whatever DNA gengineers splice in there did not get there by evolutionary processes.
If scientists 1000 years from now try to figure out why certain varieties of canola plants are immune to certain pesticides, if they don't have the records, they might assume it was because of beneficial evolutionary adaptations. But they would be wrong; it would be because of Intelligent Design by Monsanto geneticists.
Slashdot Mirror
Being alive is not just an illusion. Illusions need observers to perceive them!
Shut up yourself, and try contemplating for a moment. Of course I don't think mathematics is a bedtime story. I think mathematics is a true system of knowledge. If you only believe that truth comes through the scientific method, it is *you* who should think it is a bedtime story, because mathematics is not a hypothesis, is not emperically testable, and yet we know it to be true. My point is, much to many peoples dismay, science is not the be all end all here. Mathematics is true and is not scientific; the system of logic that science relies on is true, but it is not scientific; in 100 billion years, an expanding universe will still be true, but those who know it will know it based on our firsthand experience today, written down. So if the future people don't trust their ancestors, they will be rejecting truth. If they do trust their ancestors and arrive at the truth, they will be acknowledging that science is not the only way to learn truth, the testimony of those who came before is also a possible truth giver. Of course this does not mean that all things people wrote down before are true; but it does show us that some things written down before may be true, and may be the only way we can know a thing from the past, when all other traces have disappeared. Anyways, scientists now accept the written down testimony of other scientists. They could and do go back and test some experiments, but not every scientist tests every experiment. That would be impossible, and the more we learn, the more science would grind to a standstill if all experiments had to be repeated before each individual scientist would trust in the results. So scientists now base what the think to be true, not just in things they have personally demonstrated to be reasonable by the scientific method, but also by learning from others' experiences, and on logic and mathematics which are outside of the scientific method.
What is interesting to me about this scenario is that a currently scientific idea will become unscientific over time. What is now a scientific theory, testable and supported by empirical data, will become nothing more than the ancestors *claims* of empirical data.
Can the claims of the ancestors be trusted, when they suggest such preposterous experiential data as a "sky full of galaxies" and "background radiation"?
If they can, then science is not the only valid way to learn about the universe. We can also learn from the experiences of those who came before us, even if we cannot experience the same thing they did.
Science is a useful way to pursue truth, but it is not the only way. I think people need to see that, and this is a good example of how that is true.
"I will say that "faith" in a system that has a goal of actively investigating and discovering facts about our universe is grossly difference than "faith" in religion, which by it's very definition, is NOT based on facts or truth."
Wow. So religion, "by its very definition", is not based on facts or truth? Maybe that is the definition you are working under. But other people do not use that definition, especially those who believe their religion's teachings are true and are based on facts.
For example, as a Christian, I think Christianity as revealed in the Bible is true. I think it is based on facts, e.g. God created the physical world; He promised Abraham a son and gave him one; Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, etc.
I understand that other people dispute these facts, but I am not so foolish that I believe something is true that I believe not to be true. I might as well claim that you hold a world view (metaphysical naturalism) that is by its very nature NOT based on facts or truth. I won't do that, because it isn't productive, but I hope you can at least see why it isn't productive for either side to make statements like that.
By the way, when I talk about "belief" and "faith", I mean to say something like "I think this to be true, based on the evidence I find convincing, despite contrary evidence that may exist which I do not find convincing enough to alter my conclusions." The use of "faith" and "belief" in current culture seems to be moving to something like "A person thinks something is true despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for it at all." I'm not sure why this is. I think it might be a case of bad logic and projecting part of one's belief system onto others, i.e.
1. That person believes something that I do not believe
2. I do not see any convincing evidence for believing it
3. Therefore there is no convincing evidence
4. Therefore that person knows they have no valid evidence for what they believe
5. And that person believes what they believe based on no evidence whatsoever
Anyways, I wish people would not following this line of thinking, because it is probably false and inconsiderate of other people's actual thought process in believing what they believe to be true.
I don't say "throw out the idea of scientific method". I say "throw out the idea that the scientific method is the only method for a person to acquire true knowledge about reality".
The point about the expanding universe is:
I thus posit that the scientific method, while a valid way of gaining knowledge, is not the only way of gaining knowledge. There are further some branches of knowledge that are non-scientific, and non-verifiable. The great examples are mathematics and logic. We hold these truths to be self evident, that mathematics and logic are true, and that mathematical and logical theorems are valid forms of knowledge. But mathematics and logic cannot be verified by the scientific method, indeed they underlie and uphold it.
All I want people to do is realize that there is knowledge beyond the scientific method that is equally valid; that the scientific method is useful and necessary, but it is not the be all and end all here.
The problem is this: even people who think the only valid form of knowledge is knowledge derived from the scientific method, actually end up accepting knowledge based on trust and "authority". I.e. you believe the earth orbits the sun, that electrons protons and neutrons compose atoms, that your cell really has DNA, and many other things. Someone did an experiment to determine each of these things, but it is unlikely that you or many others have done each of these experiments yourselves. If you have not, then you are accepting a story from other people that you have not empirically verified.
You could probably go and verify each of those things yourself, but could you verify all the scientifically derived knowledge that the human race has accumulated, and do so in your own lifetime? It is unlikely that you could or that you would want to.
There was an article recently about how the universe is expanding, and in the distant future, any humans around would not be able to tell we are in an expanding universe because all the points we measure expansion by would be too far away to measure anymore. At that point, humans could choose believe the stories written down about how we live in an expanding universe. They would no longer be able to scientifically verify the true answer, but they could arrive at it if they trusted those who came before them.
All world religions have people who claimed to have experiences with God or the supernatural. E.g. Abraham heard God saying, "Abraham, go to the land I will show you. I will bless you and bless all the world through you." If that truly happened, and we truly have that story passed down from Abraham, then we can choose to believe it. If it truly happened and we trust only the scientific method, then just like those future humans in the expanding universe, we close ourselves off to valid but scientifically-unknowable knowledge.
"Modern religious people seem to have no problem with God being a flat-out liar doing things like making light from stars a billion light years away already be "on the way", and showing events that never actually happened."
The only caveat would be if God did this, created people, and then told them, "I know this stuff all looks really old, but actually, I just made it so you'd have a nice place to live." Then it's not deception anymore. The only problem would come when the people stopped believing God and decided to make up their own story about how stuff got there. Hypothetically speaking.
Agreed. Good for them, it's good to see a country looking out for the welfare of its own citizens ahead of the profits of some multinational corporation.
>>Of course, where there is nothing, there is also no uncertainty principle to be violated. Perhaps that is true. But then perhaps it is also true that when there is nothing, there is no 'ex nihilo nihil fit' principle to be violated. Which do you find the more compelling principle? Well, really I think that something must always have existed. There must be some eternal Reality, a system of rules and laws, a structure, whatever, that gives rise to the universe that we see around us. People that say everything came from nothing don't really mean "nothing" - they still assume some rules that can cause a nothing->something transition. Part of the problem with trying to explain the beginning of reality is that there is no valid explanation that makes any sense. You just have to start with, "Reality is uncaused and self-existent", or "I AM THAT I AM". The main question we get to debate is, does this self-existent reality have a personality or not.
The uncertainty principle only applies to observable systems, and if there is nothing, there cannot be observer. Where there is no observer, there is no measurement and no knowledge, therefore both pieces of information *cannot* be known, and there is no violation of the uncertainty principle.
Of course, where there is nothing, there is also no uncertainty principle to be violated.
Maybe they don't always use the word evolution because it is not always evolution?
t ml [Wired 2004]
Bacteria are known to send messages to each other, and we don't know the full extent of what they can tell each other yet.
"More recently, scientists have begun to understand that the importance of cell-to-cell communication goes far beyond mere head counting. Many things that bacteria do, it turns out, are orchestrated by cascades of molecular signals. One such behavior is the formation of spores that make bacteria more resistant to antibiotics." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/quorum.h
What if bacteria have genes for living in certain extreme situations (heat, vacuum, cold, radiation, human white blood cells) but those genes are currently turned off. Say one bacterium has that turned on, and it is surviving OK, it transmits that info to other bacteria that are doing poorly. But say that message has the effect of turning on the inactive gene that they needed to survive. They start transmitting protein/peptide/whatever messages too and before you know it all the suriving bacteria have turned on the needed gene. They of course pass it on to their offspring when they divide.
Is what just happened evolution? Or is it communication? Maybe the gene the bacteria needed evolved in the past, but now it is not evolution, it is rather epigenetic change brought on by messages from other bacteria.
Maybe these medical researches don't say "evolution" because they know there are other possible processes, but they don't know specifically what process is at work. In that case it is better to be vague (emerge) than to be wrong (evolve).
Actually, I think you've hit on the way to end America's 2 party system. If enough people can just hack 3rd parties to victory, and not get caught, the American public will finally see them as an option! Time to see some green and orange and purple mixed in with the red and blue on those political maps.
Dood. God just brought two every kind of animal (two cow-like animals, two horse-like animals, two dog-like animals, etc.) and after the Flood they just evolved into a lot more of what we call "species" to fill more ecological niches. So two cows -> bison and yak and Scottish highland coo and bison etc. (I know those probably aren't all so closely relate but you get the picture.) Maybe God put speciation on overdrive after the Flood.
Both sides of that argument have been going on for more than 500 years. Check out this chapter from "The Wisdom of Solomon", written by a Jew well before the time of Christ. (Of course the writer is taking the "Fundementalist" side of things, but he presents part of your worldview as the worldview he is opposing.) What is the point? It is not modern science that has made this variety of beliefs available. People have held both sets of beliefs as far back as we have records. Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 2 1. For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, "Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a life comes to its end, and no one has been known to return from Hades. 2. For we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been, for the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts; 3. when it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air. 4. Our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will remember our works; our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and be scattered like mist that is chased by the rays of the sun and overcome by its heat. 5. For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow, and there is no return from our death, because it is sealed up and no one turns back. 6. "Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist, and make use of the creation to the full as in youth. 7. Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no flower of spring pass us by. 8. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither. 9. Let none of us fail to share in our revelry; everywhere let us leave signs of enjoyment, because this is our portion, and this our lot. 10. Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow or regard the gray hairs of the aged. 11. But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless. 12. "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15. the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18. for if the righteous man is God's child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." 21. Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22. and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls; 23. for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity, 24. but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.
We don't need our concerns over civil liberties assuaged. We need our civil liberties protected. By ourselves, not by the government, or this will turn into a 1984-esque "Ministry of Civil Liberties.".
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
We can already control some matter directly with our minds. Everyone who doesn't believe it, raise your hand.
I think a correct parse of the sentence would be: "It's basically a blimp (that thinks it's a geostationary satellite) floating at 65K feet!" Or: It's basically a blimp. The blimp is floating at 65K feet. The blimp thinks it's a geostationary satellite.
There is some genetic change, in any worldview, that is not ascribable to evolutionary processes. For example, breeders influence the traits of their livestock or crops by selective breeding. And Monsanto and other groups genetically engineer crops. Whatever DNA gengineers splice in there did not get there by evolutionary processes.
If scientists 1000 years from now try to figure out why certain varieties of canola plants are immune to certain pesticides, if they don't have the records, they might assume it was because of beneficial evolutionary adaptations. But they would be wrong; it would be because of Intelligent Design by Monsanto geneticists.