Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 16 of 20
I just want to point out that we'd go a long way toward minimizing hostility and having productive debate if we could get everyone on the same page as far as the definition of evolution goes. There are so many different schools of thought on this that it is unreal.
As a graduate-level scientist, I think that most things that are relevant to what is happening on earth now affecting humanity can be explained in terms of adaptation, without bringing in evolutionary philosophy.
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.
Man it takes a silly girl to lie about the dreams she has.
Lord it takes a lonely one to wish that she had never dreamed at all.
--Dashboard Confessional
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you're saying one shouldn't teach a scientific theory in science class? Since you're a graduate level scientist, I expect you know that a scientific theory is based on tons of evidence and can be regarded as fact, at least until conclusive evidence comes along that disproves it. So it should be taught, right?
I agree to a certain extent with respect to abiogenesis, that the different hypotheses should be taught as that, hypotheses, not theories. They should be discussed, but not be sold as proven fact. But evolution is different.
To be honest, I find your post quite disappointing. It shows that colleges and universities aren't doing a very good job in their science education if this is the sort of attitude the scienitists they produce have.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, so am I because all we're doing is butting heads. You've not said anything different from your first post on this thread, and repeating oneself while you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen is getting tiresome.
Originally posted by antimason:
frankly, im tired of butting heads with you- i get your point, just fine, thank you- i always have
Quote:But God is Metaphysical, ergo God has NO place in physical Science, see how I'm having to repeat myself?
i know God is metaphysical, but he designed us for the physical.
Quote:No because any evidence in DNA is going to be highly subjective, along the lines of "the smile on a babies face is proof of God!" No the smile on a babies face is proof of wind, anything more is wishful thinking. If you want the above to be science I suggest you tell us what this proof is, or at least what form it takes.
i believe God created us, and that the evidence is within the DNA itself;
Quote:Anything I called you was born mostly out of extreme frustration because you just don't listen. All I asked was for you to back up your claims rather than just repeat yourself and instead you just repeat yourself over and over. It's very annoying and extremely frustrating and is just another symptom that this isn't a debate, it's a tactic, whether you realise it or not.
call me an ignorant religious zealot and fool and all you need, but i disagree with you that man evolved from apes.
Quote:That's really funny, we point out it's science that's being attacked and religion doing the attacking and rather than proving otherwise you jump up and down while standing in Sciences house saying "ohh I'm being oppressed!"
maybe we can have a civil discussion around here once in awhile, without religion becoming the evil bad guy
What would be nice is a civil discussion where you didn't make out Science to be the bad guy, made out science to be the spawn of "kabalistic allied governments under the control of the secret societies" and that the only good in the world is to be found in religion and the only people with any morals are Christians. That would be fantastic, but until that day you don't have a damn right to moan about religion being made out as the bad guy.
Quote:And of course if they don't come to the same conclusions as you they must be dupes or stupid or under the boot of the anti-christ or...
all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned...
Quote:Kind of ironic when you're denying Evolution based on your own (lack of) understanding of the theory and your complete lack of compulsion to do any research outside of websites that proclaim it false.
once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented.
Quote:Actually schizophrenics do come up with intricate conspiracy theories based on scant evidence involving great spans of time and people and show a real confusion as to why other people can't see what they do. But nevertheless I didn't say you were schizophrenic, I said you were schitotypal.
that doesnt make me schizophrenic.
Quote:It's just that science is evil and working together with the secret societies to enslave us all, gotch ya.
despite what you say i dont hate science,
Quote:And I hate people saying something is unproven because they don't like the conclusion.
i hate unproven science sold as fact
Quote:I said Schitzotypal, not schizophrenic.
secondly, Citizen made a point of calling me a schitzo,
Quote:Quote me or retract this statement.
and extending the tirade about how im just a blind fundementalist freak
Quote:You talk about the conspiracies behind everything all the time. Calling you a conspiracy theorist is like calling FireFly an ok TV show.
conspiracy theorist;
Quote:
because i mentioned the religious philosophy behind evolution(and its similarities to the occult golem concepNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
So you're saying one shouldn't teach a scientific theory in science class? Since you're a graduate level scientist, I expect you know that a scientific theory is based on tons of evidence and can be regarded as fact, at least until conclusive evidence comes along that disproves it. So it should be taught, right?
My point was that in the context of this thread, discussion of evolution is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. Should be taught, just in a different class. Also, due to time constraints in the classroom, we pick and choose what is important to invest time in. Intelligent design or evolution, we all agree that organisms change as their environments change, so why does it matter?
Quote:
[B/]It shows that colleges and universities aren't doing a very good job in their science education if this is the sort of attitude the scienitists they produce have.
I'd suggest not passing judgement on an entire educational system based on a single post in an internet thread. And my attitudes are shaped by more than the hours I spend in a classroom.
Man it takes a silly girl to lie about the dreams she has.
Lord it takes a lonely one to wish that she had never dreamed at all.
--Dashboard Confessional
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Look, I hate to sound harsh but science is a worldview... a phisosophy... and anyone who doesn't understand that is a just technician no matter how advanced their degree.
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.
Science is not a set of 'proven facts' or even proveable theories. Science is about asking "how". The happiest day in science is when a long-held theory falls to a better one... when a paradigm changes that allows us to think more broadly and see more connections. In my view ALL theories are provisional, no matter how useful and predictive they may have been.
And science has no room for god. It is based on a set of a priori assumptions that exclude the answer "god done it" or "here be dragons". Rather than excluding the philosophy of science from science classes, it seems to me that should be the first thing that students learn.
Quote:Then your university is doing a poor job of training scientists and a great job of training tools.
I'd suggest not passing judgement on an entire educational system based on a single post in an internet thread. And my attitudes are shaped by more than the hours I spend in a classroom.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anti- IF god exists... that's a pretty big gaping "if". I'm curious... do you ever wonder "IF" the universe exists?
first off, what would you know about secret societies? youve probably never even looked into the area- but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes). if God does exist, then all of this is related.
And just as an aside, I'm absolutely certain that secret societies of the very powerful exist today, and that some of them are as evil as PN paints them. What I can't quite credit is that these societies go back hundreds- even thousands- of years in a unbroken string of understanding. The basis of power has changed radically since feudalism. In an agrarian society power rested in land, the peasants to work it and the soldiers to defend it. Once mercantilism and capitalism evolved, the nature of power shifted to trade and money. Once the basis of power shifted, one group of people was replaced by another. (My SO's grandfather was an impoverished nobleman who married a shopkeeper's daughter for the lucre that he needed to maintain the lifestyle.) That means that secret society membership shifted as well... they had different secrets to keep, different people to dupe, different information to share, different goals to attain, and most importantly a different source of power which the old elite could not tap into. The fact that they keep their affilliations secret simply means that they realize they'd be obliterated if the average person knew what they were about. If they bond through deviant practices, that is merely an outgrowth- a re-creation- of their sociopathic practices in a milieu of Xtian ethics.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well said, Signy! Wow, that was quite eloquent.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science is about asking "how". ...And science has no room for god.
I am religious. And trained as a scientist. I will argue til I turn blue that a person can be both religious and scientific at the same time, and that being one does not necessarily exclude being the other.
But religion itself does not belong in science. The scientific method has no room for God or any other ideas that cannot be tested empirically. ID is a religious philosophy and absolutely has no place in a science class.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason that we have this problem is nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing at all about the existance or otherwise of God. The problem is to do with the primacy of the Bible and more specifically with the origins of political and cultural power. That battle, in one form or another, dates back in our history at least as far as the chief and the shaman.
Humans are pack animals, they are associative, be it in extended family groups, tribes or nations one thing that has always been true is that someone has to be in charge. The leader can get his authority for any number of reasons, his strength in arms, his previous success in providing for his tribe, his venerable age, or even his family history. What always remains true though is that he maintains that power ultimately through the consent of the people. To be clear "the people" in this case does not mean everyone his orders could effect, as in the democratic sense, but those people that were in a position to physically depose him. If the leader makes choices that the people agree with and which benefits them, then he continues to be leader. If by mistake or inaction he allows enough desent against his rule to amass, that disquiet will eventually find a rival to voice it. Thus political power is essentially "performance based."
The second string of power is religious. Humans are hardwired for some kind of religious expression and it forms part of us just as the pack instinct does. At some point in our social evolution a point was reached where we had enough food so that some individuals could investigate spiritual matters and be supported by the tribe as a whole. These are shaman, holy men and priests. Their primary objective is to connect to the universe and try to find the big picture, the big patterns that would let you foresee future events and therefore guard against them. Unlike the leaders, the priest gains his power from the belief and actions of the believers. As can be seen this is a parallel and competative power to the political power of the leader. There has always been conflict between the two, we have evidence that in ancient Egypt there was a religious coupe against the first fledging monotheastic religion, and the competition between church and state shaped most of European history.
If I am a leader, I get my authority from the people's willingness to accept my orders. Further, I am leader by results, if the key people that keep me in power do not like what I am doing then I will be out. A religious leader gets his authority from the belief of the faithfull that he is a legitimate spokesman for their diety. To put it crudely, a priest is a priest because they tell you that God said so. It is not a performance related job, nobody expects miracles as a means of proving your claims.
So here is the curent situation. Christians have a holy book called the Bible. Depending on the type of Christian you are the book represents either the teachings of the various prophets edited and mangled by many human hands or the absolute devinely inspired and complete word of God. It gives you a foretaste of where this debate is going that the second group doesn't even acknowledge the first to be Christian just on the basis of that distinction. Now if you are part of the group that believes that the Bible is literally the word of God then you can't allow any challenge to that "truth" to go unanswered. Remember the priest's power is only the belief of the faithful that he is a legitimate messenger, if any doubt exists then the priests power is weakened.
Any activity that challenges the absolute truth of the Bible is disputed. Evolution is one good case because it is so visable. It has to be challenged because if the Bible is not absolutely right, if it can be questioned, then other Bible based agendas the priest wants to push can also be questioned. A fundementalist of any religious stripe is basically the guy that says "I'm in charge because God says so" since we can't ask God directly then the fundementalist backs up his claim by quoting hol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a graduate-level scientist, I respectfully disagree.
Originally posted by Uncomprehending:
As a graduate-level scientist, I think that most things that are relevant to what is happening on earth now affecting humanity can be explained in terms of adaptation, without bringing in evolutionary philosophy.
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance.
There is no topic about our natural and physical world that cannot be examined with the scientific method. Macro-evolution can be studied as a philosophical paradigm, but it can also be subject to empirical inquiry. Granted the actual evidence (fossils and such) is scant and difficult, and the conclusions should be interpreted cautiously. Maybe the origins of life will never be scientifically *proven.* But hypotheses about the possible origins of life can certainly be scientifically and empirically *tested.*
And who is to say that origins of life has no concrete relevance? If we were to discover that it is possible or likely that we evolved from semiconducting rocks instead of warm amino acid soup, wouldn't that be quite relevant to the way our bodies work (perhaps predominantly electromagnetically rather than chemically)? That is to say, relevance is a subjective determination.
I am a homeschooler, and my daughter wants to become a scientist (like her parents). You bet I am teaching her about evolution as part of her science curriculum. I teach her to distinguish between what can be observed and tested, and what cannot, between micro and macro-evolution. I teach her that macro-evolution is a debatable but exciting theory, and if we ever found out more about where we came from, we can find out more about where we are going. I teach her there are a lot of people who tout conjecture as fact, and it is important to know how we know what we know. Some of this is philosophy, but then epistemology is part of science as well.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would more religious people have this sort of attitude, people like myself might not have turned from being simply atheistic to being somewhat antitheistic.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
...a person can be both religious and scientific at the same time, and [...] being one does not necessarily exclude being the other.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME