|
Comments
I am so linking to this tomorrow, Spike. THANK YOU.
Posted by Scott McCloud at October 27, 2004 06:02 PM
66.254.94.190
Just remember, for dramedy, you're invincible. - Amir.
And I'm a smiling ninja.
Smile ninja, smile.
*bang*
Posted by Mr. Yuy at October 27, 2004 06:31 PM
160.253.0.248
I used to have the funnest time in Catechism classes. When I was in grade 5, I explained to my pshyo teacher why Dinosaurs could exist, and how genesis could agree with Evolutionary theory. To me, it was all the same. We tended to have a fun teacher one year, and then a crazy one the next [one of the crazy ones actually has an altar in his backyard to give his family eucharist each day. Which is technically a form a blasphemy sicne it's not in a church. He's SO going to hell :)].
People take things WAY too literally. This thing was written over 100 years ago. That doesn't mean it's meant to be read as if it's reality. God knows what changes have been made [well, mabye not. God's probably forgotten some of it. It has been a long time y'know]. Then again, I'm a "pick and chose" Catholic. So what do I know ^_^
Posted by Andre at October 27, 2004 06:36 PM
142.166.237.111
I have ALWAYS found that people who speak against evolution just don't understand it in the first place.
Posted by Zack at October 27, 2004 07:01 PM
24.131.183.235
good golly, that made me all giggley on the inside!
Posted by Jenn at October 27, 2004 07:10 PM
69.4.151.54
*HEART*
Posted by Dylan at October 27, 2004 07:59 PM
66.159.154.11
HAHAHA HOLY SHIT!
... I can't stop grinning. Spike, for you I have the love.
Posted by Nick Fagerlund at October 27, 2004 09:11 PM
66.41.74.111
I argued with a fellow at school about this very thing. He concluded with, "Well, God CREATED evolution."
What a fantastic article.
Posted by Clio at October 27, 2004 09:30 PM
24.69.255.237
Wheeeee! It's like Christmas has come early!
Posted by Lisa Jonte at October 27, 2004 09:51 PM
69.107.49.240
National Geographic: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names, baby!
Posted by Spookable at October 27, 2004 09:59 PM
68.210.251.48
We as a country need this like we need oxygen.
Posted by Computolio at October 27, 2004 11:16 PM
66.238.96.69
That sound you hear is a million fundies picking up this issue at the newsstand, excitedly expecting to find their beliefs no longer marginalized...
And then their cries of anguish as they realize that no, the scientific community still puts them in the same class as the flat-earthers, where they belong.
Posted by Wagner at October 28, 2004 01:08 AM
24.28.87.101
I do expect to learn one thing from that article, which is how to explain the science to "the special class" in words that they can understand.
Posted by Reinder at October 28, 2004 03:36 AM
82.74.252.143
I saw this and burst out laughing. Even when I showed it to them, no one else in the office could understand why.
Posted by Sara at October 28, 2004 10:36 AM
147.136.254.249
Brilliant, just brilliant.
I always loved NG and now my love has turned into a dangerous obsession... er... well no, but still wonderful of them to deliver the smackdown like that.
Maybe with a few more decades the religious wackos will become an easily ignorable minority.
Posted by William G at October 28, 2004 10:46 AM
211.247.28.229
Let's hope so, William.
Posted by Reinder at October 28, 2004 12:06 PM
82.74.252.143
Just got my copy in the mail.
MAGNIFICENT.
Posted by dirk at October 28, 2004 01:37 PM
65.42.86.181
Got this back from SF author David Brin when I bounced the news about the Hobbits off of him:
"I find it truly stunning how many people can shrug off stuff like this, preferring instead a tiny, cramped cosmos just 6,000 years old, scheduled to end any-time-now in a scripted stage show. "
Posted by Stefan Jones at October 28, 2004 01:53 PM
134.242.21.161
It's for the scarily high percentage of doctors who don't believe in evolution.
Posted by Aquila at October 28, 2004 02:49 PM
203.109.254.40
People who don't already know this never will. It is a sad fact that on this issue no amount of "proof" will suffice. If the facts don't fit their "frame" they just disregard the facts. I mean, we're talking about people who take the bible literally. Not exactly the sort who are strong on reason.
Posted by kevin at October 28, 2004 02:56 PM
63.145.207.194
I have never understood why religious beliefs and science have to be incompatible. Religion is essentially allegory couched in archetypes drawn from the unconscious mind. Attempting to concretize spiritual writings robs them of any worth they might impart. I've always thought Joeseph Campbell made this point very eloquently, but the fundamentalists of various religions never stop trying.
Posted by Greg O. at October 28, 2004 03:25 PM
209.221.58.56
[I hope every Billy-Bawb in Dogpatch lets this issue sneak into the trailer, just for the cover. I just wish I could see all their faces when they sit down to read it.]
The joke's on you, sinner! Billy-Bawb can't read!
Posted by michael patrick at October 28, 2004 05:50 PM
63.164.145.198
I think I love you.
Posted by Klig at October 28, 2004 06:05 PM
157.128.218.206
I would have loved to seen the look on poor Mose's face when God was explaining DNA and RNA and the string theory and our 14 dimensions.
"You know what YHWH? I think I will just paraphrase for you: In the beginning..."
Posted by geoff b at October 28, 2004 06:48 PM
216.57.200.50
Your moral high-horse, leave it sir.
Realize that science is as illusory and ephemeral as any religious and it's branching sects.
It would be helpful if you opened your mind, rather than closed your heart.
Posted by Life at October 28, 2004 09:59 PM
68.126.186.165
"sir." Oh, Lord, a bright one.
Okay, let's talk "open minds." Have you actually read the article? Or does your own deep, obviously superior open-minded enlightenment cancel out any evidence to the contrary of your personal desire for supernatural wonder?
OMG WHY WON'T U OPEN UR HEART 2 NATURAL SELECTION DOOD.
Matter of fact != matter of pride. Sorry. Your argument sucks.
Posted by spike at October 28, 2004 10:56 PM
65.42.86.181
"Realize that science is as illusory and ephemeral as any religious and it's branching sects."
I love it when people claim that "science is illusory" over the fucking INTERNET. That damn quantum physics, letting you argue about how illusory science is with people thousands of miles away.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 02:00 AM
24.28.87.101
The entity that names itself as 'Life' seems unaware of something.
Science is observation, hypothesis, experimentation, re-evaluation of hypothesis.
Regardless of the origin of reality, be it a simple matter of interacting energy fields, or some vast and cosmic being's daydream, it's consistent. Things are tested once, twice, three times or a thousand times, and from what they do, you make a guess as to why, and think of ways to test the matter to confirm or disprove your idea.
Ideas that fail are modified and tested again. Telling someone they aren't true, or waving about a book in which it is implied they might not be wholly accurate do not make them less true. Nor does denying all things. It doesn't make them omre true either.
Hypotheses and theories rise and fall on a regular basis. Some last for a long time, others last no longer than a sandcastle with the tide coming in. Science isn't faith. Your theory doesn't match the results of replicable experimentation, then it has to go. There's no fear that your world's falling apart, nor that the other theories or hypotheses you use are false because one other was.
Just the hard and unyielding nature of the universe letting go of little hints, one at a time, as to how it all really works.
Posted by Garth Vader at October 29, 2004 02:23 AM
142.59.53.213
I think what "Life" may have been getting at, and I could be wrong, is that it is possible to view the world in any number of ways, and viewing it through science can put certain limits on the imagination. Maybe. I'm not saying I agree.
As for those who choose to ignore or destroy Darwinism, I don't know that this article will really change a lot of minds. There will likely be a few who, on the merits of this cover article, decide they can never trust National Geographic again.
I always try to bring up, when discussing this issue with detractors, that Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest is easily observable in nearly limitless other forms: interpersonal, economic, technological, et-cetera. They never seem to agree that it makes sense, then, that this system could be responsible for producing homo sapiens.
Oddly enough, though, there is less objection out there that Darwinism might apply to all other species. People get touchy when it comes to the origins of Man.
Posted by Quigley at October 29, 2004 03:10 AM
67.136.131.232
I don't understand Creationists.
In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo is asked to deal with the fact that the Bible infers, repeatedly, that the sun orbits a fixed earth, when it seemed clear to him, and many mathematicians with telescopes, that it most probably did not. The Bible calls the sun a prefect, blemish-less sphere, Galileo found evidence most easily explainable as sunspots.
Galileo was alright with that. It doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, it means that we have two Books; The Bible, and what he called the Book of Nature, and there are things we can learn from both. Just as you wouldn't try to learn Ethics from a Physics handbook, why would you try to learn Physics or Biology from the bible?
This problem has been solved for close to 400 years now.
Posted by Fishy at October 29, 2004 05:01 AM
128.135.175.8
It would be helpful if you opened your mind, rather than closed your heart.
The trouble with opening your mind too far is that your brain falls out. Which explains quite a lot about creationists
Posted by DrHyde at October 29, 2004 06:53 AM
217.206.131.214
What? The Earth going around the Sun isn't a theory you dumbass. It's observable fact tied to the LAW of Gravity. lol. Oh, and Darwin was wrong.
Posted by Chess at October 29, 2004 08:57 AM
24.141.78.72
Don't kid yourself. Creationists can't read!
Posted by Mike Steinbaugh at October 29, 2004 09:46 AM
68.69.245.195
"What? The Earth going around the Sun isn't a theory you dumbass. It's observable fact tied to the LAW of Gravity. lol. Oh, and Darwin was wrong."
The "Law" of gravity is also a theory.
If Darwin was wrong, then by all means, I ask you (or anyone) to explain why with some logical reasoning (they certainly would have a lot of explaining and disproving to do…). I'm sure that the scientific community would be eager to know (no sarcasm here), that’s because science deals with reasoning and proof, rather than irrational blind belief
Posted by Slinky at October 29, 2004 10:00 AM
66.20.133.205
I am definitely buying that issue! That one is a keeper!
Posted by Scott Johnson at October 29, 2004 10:31 AM
198.231.23.241
>>"What? The Earth going around the Sun isn't a theory you dumbass. It's observable fact tied to the LAW of Gravity. lol. Oh, and Darwin was wrong."
Hey, it's computer lab day in the special class!
Dude, seriously: I think it's just so great they let you people out of your cages long enough to play with computers, nowadays. That is just so progressive.
No primate left behind. Man. I'm feelin' it, I am. Right... here.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 11:29 AM
68.20.212.155
Yeah, anybody who studies history knows that science has never been wrong about anything... Especially on theories regarded as 'canonical truth' by intellectual elites for hundreds of years.
Posted by Shazbot at October 29, 2004 11:39 AM
207.138.176.254
I don't care one way or the other if Darwin's theories are correct or not, largely because they have no effect on my life. However, I have trouble understanding the disdain most of you share for individuals who don't believe in evolution. Who cares? They don't have any effect on your life. There are people who believe the earth is flat and the holocaust never happened, but I'm fine with letting them remain ignorant until death if it makes them feel good.
Posted by ben at October 29, 2004 11:42 AM
64.186.51.161
If evolutions on a large scale, like goop > fish > monkey > human is true. Why are there no examples of species in mid-evolution? I don't see any fish with two feet or monkey gettting any smarter.
I'm not denying that animals can evolve, such as a frog chaning color to blend in with a better envrionment. But I don't buy evolution on a large scale.
Also Darwin was a racist, who belived that white folk would soon overtake color races.
Posted by rockpants at October 29, 2004 11:45 AM
205.242.113.3
Shazbot: Point out where anyone, anywhere in this thread said science was perfect, and I'll wire you a million bucks. Otherwise, keep the strawman in the cornfield, mkay? The trick-or-treaters'll love it.
Science's highest awards go to individuals who prove long-accepted theories wrong. That's something Creationists don't seem to understand; science is flexible. It thrives on change. If someone published a paper tomorrow that completely refuted evolution, with unassailable proof and reproducable results, he wouldn't be burned at the stake. He'd get a Nobel prize.
Ben: I'd care a lot less about what Creationists believed if they weren't trying to jackhammer it into every biology class in the the country. There's a reason NG ran this story.
and rockpants: Everything is in "mid-evolution." There's no start or end. It's a process of adaptation, not a Point A to Point B thing. Read the article. You don't understand the theory.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 11:54 AM
68.20.212.155
The 'faith' that science requires is acceptance of two unprovable precepts: (1) The universe is fundamentally knowable; and (2) the scientific method is the best means for achieving this knowledge.
It's pretty easy to believe both of those, because there just so damn practical. But it's not necessarily the only worldview.
But I think this article in National Geographic is important. I think one of the problems is that evolution is taught poorly. High school students will realize on their own the problem of the vertabrate eye, and other adaptions which offer no fitness advantage, and may even carry a penalty until the reach a critical point. The way this is possible needs to be explained.
So if the argument goes
Creationist: Intelligent design.
Scientist: Evolution.
Creationist: Vertabrate eye?
Scientist: You're a moron, I'm a scientist.
Science merely reduces itself to a priesthood, requiring adherence simply because of the authority of their priesthood.
On the other hand, I suppose I can't work up the ire toward creationists seen by some people on this list, because I've never actually met a creationist or a biblical literalist. Maybe I'd become just as irritated.
Posted by Jim at October 29, 2004 11:59 AM
198.240.130.75
Hey, somebody must have posted a link to this entry on a creationist forum somewhere. Three people posting in defense of the indefensible within six minutes? They're "rallying the troops"!
They're going go try to shout you down, Spike, to overwhelm you with numbers. You've got better things to do than to try to answer their idiocy point-by-point and we all know it.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 12:01 PM
24.28.87.101
Jim: Yeah. A lot of methods for teaching evolution're pretty sub-par, which is why you tend to get questions like.. well... "OMG SO HOW COME WE CAN'T FIND STUFF IN MID-EVOLUTION, THEN???"
Uh, look in the mirror?
And eye evolution is goddamn awsome. I saw it explained once on an episode of "Bullshit!," how it went from this light-sensitive patch, to a concave light-sensitive patch, to a concave, light-sensitive patch filled with fluid, etc....
What use is half an eye? Well, a lot, actually.
(PS; yeah, Wagner, I suspected something like that. That's a pretty typical tactic, actually. They try to make up for in volume and persistence what they lack in fact.)
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 12:08 PM
68.20.212.155
Yeah, the old "half-an-eye" line is so fantastically weak it's funny. Look through nature just a little bit, and you'll -find- primitive proto-eyes being put to good use all over the place. Look through the fossil record (and some living creatures, as well), and you'll -find- all those "transitional forms" Creationists refuse to believe in.
Like it says in the article, this stuff is right there. Snakes have pelvises. Humans have appendixes. Some fish have lungs, and others have the beginnings of feet. Evolution is observable in the world and in the laboratory, and anyone who draws a distinction between that and so-called "macro-evolution" doesn't really understand the timescale we're talking about.
Posted by Matt at October 29, 2004 01:19 PM
64.199.33.90
They don't tell you the full name of Darwin's book: "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Posted by Anthony Martin at October 29, 2004 01:20 PM
24.152.142.113
I don't think the argument is about evolution.
Evolution is not a theory. It can be observed in the lab. It can be observed in little marine animals in our seas. Its also why our antibiotics are becoming less and less effective against bacteria.
The argument is about whether Darwin's theory of how evolution happens is true - i.e. natural selection.
Posted by Phil at October 29, 2004 01:22 PM
213.106.4.211
"They don't tell you the full name of Darwin's book: "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life""
This is, of course, a spectacular and brutal misrepresentation of what Darwin meant by the term "races". Anybody who's actually read "The Origin of Species" (which Martin obvious hasn't) knows this.
BTW, Martin, would you be so kind as to tell us which fundie site referred you here?
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 01:26 PM
24.28.87.101
DARWIN WAS RACIST. THAT MEANS EVOLUTION IS WRONG.
Floored by your reasoning.
This is goofy. My regular readers don't typically foam at the mouth like this. Think I'll check the logs. Maybe I got linked on HawtBibleFellatio.com...
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 01:31 PM
68.20.212.155
"Evolution is not a theory. It can be observed in the lab."
That's what the formal, scientific definition of "theory" means, actually: A hypyothesis backed up by experimental data. Everything science has discovered about the way the world works is considered theory, because it's all subject to change if new observations disprove old ideas.
That is why science is awesome.
Posted by Matt at October 29, 2004 01:37 PM
64.199.33.90
I accept the definition of "theory", but I can observe a test tube and a chair the lab too. When does something stop becoming a theory and become widely accepted? I was pointing out that evolution is proven; Darwins theory is more difficult to prove.
Posted by Phil at October 29, 2004 01:45 PM
213.106.4.211
I just had to add that rockpants is clearly uninformed. I'm stating the obvious there, of course... We have found plenty of archeological evidence of many stages of evolution for many creatures. All of these are "midevolution" NG constantly runs stories of new primitive human remains and usually shows a number of skulls showing the development of the current human bone structure in various regions. We've seen the same things in many animals, and the information is out there availible for your perusal. There's plenty more if ya like digging things up. Have fun with that.
I love the evolutionist's replies... they don't respond directly to comments or questions... they merely pose their own as evidence. Such as the classic, "Well then why ____?" Add your fundie belief in that blank. The classic irrelevant information is classic too. "Evolution SUX0RS! Darwin wore purple socks so he was a FAGZ0R!" Darwin's socks have nothing to do with his studies of evolution, no does his sexuality. Hence comments like, "Also Darwin was a racist, who belived that white folk would soon overtake color races."
Even if he did believe that, he had his reasons. Ignorant as they may be, they're less ignorant than your stagnant unsupported belief in creationism. He probably had a whole arguement for that belief based on his observations. Does that mean it's an accurate or good belief to hold, no. But it also doesn't discredit his work in the field of evolution.
Also, rockpants, if you want fish with feet, they're called amphibians. There are quite a few of them.
"Oh, and Darwin was wrong."
N-i-c-e. That was slick chess. You really conviced everyone of your right-i-tude with that one. Score one for the creationists. Who can argue with that? ::looks around:: Oh wait, 90% of the posts in this thread.
Anyways. When I say creationists, I'm of course refering to fundamentalist christians who believe in, and only in, the exact writing of their english translations of the bible. Oh wait, you don't have a copy of the dead sea scrolls and other historical copies of the bible that you can read or cross-reference for interpretations? Oh really? That's too bad. No one you know does either? Hmmm... What about your church/preacher? Not even them? Just go with the one in English, I'm sure it's just a good anyways right? Clearly it's a very exacting in it's translation. The context and meanings are exactly the same I'm sure. Heck, reading any translation of a text written in foreign mumbojumbo is just a good as reading the original right? Oh, and it doesn't matter that god didn't actually write the bible does it? The fact that the stories there in were all told by word of mouth for quite a while before they began to be written by humans... that wouldn't have any baring on it either would it? And all stories written about Jesus, the basis of the new testament weren't begun to be written untill at least 100 years after his death... that didn't matter either right? So they can't just be historically based morality tales can they? No they're definitely literal facts you read in your King James Version bible... that was editted by said King to get some things straight. So even if the there is the Christian God who is exactly as described and heaven and all the other supernatural aspects of the text are relatively close to truth (which I'm not saying its not, as there is no way to prove it either way) you really NEED to take every damn word in your little bible litterally... that darwin's theories couldn't POSSIBLY be correct because your bible told you that god made the world and the universe and everything in 7 days... a day of which isn't of course defined anywhere... but we'll just assume a normal Earth day as it was written by men on Earth... so that's clearly the meaning... isn't it? So your one book told you that... or we can go to the hundreds of sources based on human observation, humans quite similar to the ones that transcribed the bible, that tell us that evolution probably exists. Not undeniably, but in all likelyhood it does... and they're willing to admit that they might be wrong and you might be right. But you can't do that... because you're little book told you that it was so and to believe even the slightest word to the contrary will throw you into the shadowly doubt of your great lord... and if he doubts your love and devotion... you clearly deny his son as lord and saviour and you'll spend the rest of eternity in Hell when you die... right? That's gotta be it. I wouldn't want to go to hell either. But maybe God doesn't care whether you blindly believe every word written in that book as literal truth. Maybe he wants you to live a good life by it's precepts and have faith in Him and His son. Maybe if you do that AND acknowledge that maybe jussst maybe Darwin was on to something... maybe that would be okay.
-Dranore
Posted by Dranore at October 29, 2004 02:05 PM
65.96.63.152
Phil: observation used in relation to science generally means qualitative and/or quantitative measurements in a controlled setting. While one is able to "observe" a chair in a lab - its a pretty trivial observation.
In science, when the proffesional community develops a large body of work that fails to reject a given hypothesis (some proposed idea or intellectual framework that is falsifiable and that explains a class of phenomena), the hypothesis becomes a theory. In other words, theory is a hypothesis that everyone (in the scientific community) thinks is fairly solid and has withstood many tests. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when that has occured, its more of a general consensus thing.
Posted by Another Matt at October 29, 2004 02:22 PM
209.56.60.249
Personally, I always found the concept of a God that could create a near-inifinite universe that could spontaneously create life that itself could evolve a species that recognized such a God to be far more awesome a being than one that said 'POOF! Done.-- BTW, DON'T CHANGE AND DON'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW I DID IT SO THERE!'
It goes back to the Ontological Arguement: Imagine a being in which no greater can be concieved and all that.
Again, Science and Religion are not incompatible. One explains What and How; the other the infinitely bigger question -- WHY?
Posted by dirk at October 29, 2004 02:27 PM
65.42.86.181
I just wasted my who break reading this.
I'll go with the Quantum Physics side and say that none of us really exist at all.
If anything we could be, along with evolution, "God's Nightmare".
But that's just me and my radical thinking.
Posted by Psychomelody at October 29, 2004 02:37 PM
216.158.45.60
Another Matt: I agree.
I remember having a conversation with a creationalist about when God supposedly created the universe 10,000 or so years ago. Today we observe stars that are further away than 10,000 light years. This either means God didn't create the universe a few thousand years ago, or he created a universe together with light mid-journey from far away stars to earth. Why would he try and decieve us?
Posted by Phil at October 29, 2004 02:39 PM
213.106.4.211
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeahhhh ah-ah-ah-ahhhhhhhhhhhhha-ah-ah-ah-ahhhhhhhhhh!
(That's as close to a Tarzan Yell as this Catholic can type) Love it. Loooove it!!!!!
Let's get what we know and what we have faith in straight, and stop telling God what He could or could not do, and look and see what He has shown us He has done! Right Ons, all around!
Posted by Fred Hintze at October 29, 2004 03:03 PM
65.221.248.4
Let's talk about God in the same thread as evolution when it's just as verifiable in a laboratory setting, mkay?
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 04:21 PM
68.20.212.155
"In addition," Henry noted, "our University has a fine theozoology department. Few faculties anywhere can rival our professors when it comes to studying and classifying
new sorts of God!"
"How many kinds of God are there?"
"One, so far," Henry admitted, "but the Department has just recently constructed a ministerial accelerator that they believe will give rise to as many as seventeen forms of God heretofore unknown."
-- "Nobilis" by R. Sean Borgstrom
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 04:36 PM
24.28.87.101
Oh come on now people! Of course evidence of evolution exists, but what about the mechanism? (and btw, I don't believe in "God" and Godly Creation) If I told you that I'm going to shake a billion crystals of glass together for a trillion years and I'm eventually going to get a wine goblet you'd laugh at me. Why scientific minds believe the inductive reasoning of evolution and have stopped searching for the real mechanism behind it is beyond me. We've just stopped thinking about it and have accepted that "It just happened because so much time passed." Yeah right-that explains what happened all right. What happenned to reproducable proof?
And I've never seen so many people go rabid before as they do in this comments section over their belief except in a church. As if National G tricking perhaps non-believers into reading an article is really going to change anybodies mind.
Geez. Jeff
Posted by Jefree Jade at October 29, 2004 05:07 PM
24.93.142.54
Wow. One-sided flame war. Excellent.
I highly doubt this post will do any good. First of all, I haven't read the NG article... the first I heard of it was from Scott McCloud's site. Perhaps the article will explain everything I need to know, and everything I type from here on out will be moot. Fair enough.
The creation account in Genesis does not require a universe less than 10,000 years old. Verse 1: God creates the heavens and the earth. Verse 2: Earth is void and barren. In between those two verses, you can put as many millions, billions, and/or trillions of years that you desire.
However, even if everything is really less than 10,000 years old, the whole thing about stars being more than 10,000 light-years away doesn't prove anything for me. For some reason, even though no human vehicle has been more than one light-day away from the earth, most scientists assume that the speed of light is constant for the entire universe. I've yet to understand that one.
I'm going to stop now, because no one actually reads the long threads on messageboards. 90% of the board has permission to bash me. No, seriously. This is the Internet, I won't take it personally.
Posted by Ilsoap at October 29, 2004 05:22 PM
24.67.253.204
"We've just stopped thinking about it and have accepted that "It just happened because so much time passed.""
Maybe you have, because you don't understand actual evolutionary biology. Nobody is claiming this, so you're arguing against against nobody.
When you actually understand evolutionary biology (hint: look up "modern synthesis"), get back to us.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 05:22 PM
24.28.87.101
All this chortling at anti-evolutionist God-fearers. My, My.
Has it ever occurred to you people that it is acceptable to believe in God and scientific knowledge at the same time? There are a large group of us out here, you know.
Posted by Beowulf at October 29, 2004 05:38 PM
66.167.53.186
Beowulf: sure.
But something they don't seem to grasp: A man's relation to his god, his religion, and his dogmatic belief systems are philosophies. Not science.
If you want to believe that an invisible cosmic force nudged a four-legged fish out of the water one day a zillion years ago instead of that fish deciding the kelp looked tastier in the OTHER tidepool and lumbering out of the surf of its own accord, that's fine with me. People believe all sorts of goofy things, knock yourselves out. But don't agitate and bully the local schoolboards to have your beliefs taught as fact in a classroom, or attempt to suppress facts that contradict your beliefs.
A few hundred years ago, a few of the bright bulbs posting here would probably have petitioned to stick Galileo's head on a pike.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 05:49 PM
68.20.212.155
But where do you base the premise of science off of, then?
I'm with bewulf on this; in believing that creationalism and science coenside with one another.
I mean, there are facts that back up what the Bible says, and there are facts that back up the theory of evolution. You can't deny that neither one have their good points; just think about it for a bit, and try to keep open ears to all possibilities.
And on an off-topic note..
Did you know they found Noah's arc? It was stuck inside the side of Mount Everest, I believe. HOw this would prove what some of the Biblical passages say, is because the boat was pinned about... What, 60,000 miles or so above sea-level (aka, "the great flood"?). And considering that the Noah's arc passage took place about.. Er, I couldn't give an exact date, but it was before Christ--I think anyways, I haven't read the bible to be honest--neandrathals certainly couldn't have built it, yes? All considering, human life apparently didn't exist until... God knows when. Heh.
Anyways, that's my two cents on the subject. YOu can assume I'm a blind-sighted idiot if you want, but eh, whatever. :p
Posted by iut at October 29, 2004 07:27 PM
24.128.144.106
"Did you know they found Noah's arc?"
No, they didn't. If you think they did, you're terribly ignorant and shouldn't be trying to lecture other people on scientific philosophy.
And it's "ark".
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 08:05 PM
24.28.87.101
Speaking of people who believe all sorts of goofy things...
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 08:48 PM
68.20.212.155
No, your brain doesn't fall out if you open your mind. Try it. Just once.
No, scientists would not be happy to welcome evidence that Darwin's theory was wrong.
Yes, just as in Galileo's time, dogma reigns supreme.
Dr. Raymond Damadian, Cornell University. Inventor of MRI scanning. The 2003 Nobel prize for medicine went to MRI. Two gentlemen shared it.
The inventor of MRI technology was not one of them. His colleagues at Cornell were stunned. But they knew why. Dr. Damadian believed in creation.
I guess religion and science don't mix any better than they did for Galileo, do they?
Posted by Anthony at October 29, 2004 10:58 PM
207.27.152.6
Some things:
ALL species are in mid-evolution. All life forms are transitional forms.
Partial eyes do exist in nature. See a flatworm or a box jellyfish.
60,000 miles 'above sea level' is about a quarter of the way to the moon.
Posted by Chuck at October 29, 2004 11:00 PM
24.85.5.49
Ya'll are so cute when you get all offended and huffy like that.
Why is it I've never seen an incidence of the phrase "open mind" used where someone wasn't getting geared up to throw a tantrum just because someone else refused to just go along with whatever bullshit nonsense they said without any critical analysis? Talk about a guaranteed litmus test for fluffery.
"I AM A DRAGON FAIRY PRINCESS PRIESTESS QUEEN AND ALSO MOUSSE FROM RANMA 1/2 IN A PREVIOUS LIFE U GUYZ AND I JUST WON THE ASTRAL PLANE DRAGON WAR WHILE WAITING HERE IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE"
"What the fuck are you talking about, Edgar?"
"OH GOD U GUYZ ARE SO CLOSED MINDED!!!!!"
"Open-minded." I hear it's in the all-time top ten of The Most Thoroughly Abused Phrases in the English Language, somewhere between "Reubenesque" and "family values." Spare me your pleas for "open-mindedness."
You know what "open-minded" is? Restructuring the evolutionary family tree of homo sapiens to account for that new Hobbit-thing they found fossils of in the Pacific.
You know what it's not? Neglecting to hold you to the same standards for truth and reality I reserve for everyone and everything else.
Get some facts. Then we'll talk.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 11:09 PM
68.20.212.155
"Get some facts. Then we'll talk" is an odd thing to say, since this whole discussion down to here has been pretty much, "My professor said evolution was the hard-core gospel and that makes it so and they don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are." It didn't seem like the facts were that important to anybody.
Are you actually interested in facts? If so, which ones?
Posted by Anthony at October 29, 2004 11:23 PM
207.27.152.6
"My professor said evolution was the hard-core gospel and that makes it so and they don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are."
Just because -you- haven't done the reading doesn't mean that the rest of us haven't, sparky.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 11:49 PM
24.28.87.101
"My professor said evolution was the hard-core gospel and that makes it so and they don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are."
Jeebus, this sounds familiar. Just replace a few words and you have...
"Dubya said there were WMDs in Iraq and that makes it so and the Liberals don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are."
This explains a LOT.
Posted by scratch chickie at October 30, 2004 12:10 AM
4.10.172.102
I've read the best evolution textbooks out there. I am quite familiar with the ever-changing family tree and the brilliant theory of natural selection. I absolutely believe in science—Look mom, my high-speed internet connection, my air-conditioned office, my GPS system based on satellites. All of today's awesome technology is based on science—repeatable, empirical, legitimate science, based on observations in the future, not conjecture about the past.
Did you know that Wernher von Braun, the head of the Apollo project that made the first manned moon landing, was a creationist? Pretty clever for a Billy Bawb who can't read, don't you think?
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 12:16 AM
207.27.152.6
http://userpic.livejournal.com/21558292/932864
The above Pics made into an LJ icon. Guy on my friends list did it.
Tres cool.
:>
Oh, I like your security for posting.
Posted by Erg at October 30, 2004 12:20 AM
67.101.98.203
I didn't and won't vote or root for Bush, scratch chickie, so you can sit down again.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 12:20 AM
207.27.152.6
Anthony, you are dancing around your point. Please cut to the chase: what are you trying to argue here? It does not appear that you disagree with evolutionary biology. So what -exactly- are you trying to say? Be as clear as possible so people don't try to argue against a point you're not making.
Posted by Wagner at October 30, 2004 12:22 AM
24.28.87.101
Erg: yeah, I know, it's sorta annoying. But it keeps spam-bots from posting. Automated blog-spammers used to post every other day here; Now, they can't get past the CAPTCHA. It's horrible how that's necessary these days. It shoudln't be, but it is.
PS: Awaiting a dissertation on Wernher von Braun's numerous contributions to evolutionary science.
O wait.
Posted by spike at October 30, 2004 12:44 AM
68.20.212.155
I believe in natural selection, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated by experimentation.
But natural selection, obviously, needs something to select. If you've done your reading, you'll say it with me—MUTATIONS!
Good, but there is a slight problem. Random mutations, the driving force of Darwinian evolution, never produce new information. They rearrange or destroy information, and natural selection then selects for or against the new arrangement.
Molecules-to-man evolution requires the addition of vast quantities of information to the genome. Evolutionary theory says we need lots and lots of information-destroying mutations over millions of years, to produce ever-increasing complexity.
In other words, if I am selling say, reel cheep bumper stickers and I lose a little money on each sale, I can just make it up in volume, right? Until National Geographic, Richard Dawkins, or any of the other arguably brilliant minds on the world scientific scene can answer this question, it will remain one of the many reasons why I cannot accept evolutionary biology.
I welcome critisism that consists of more than name-calling and conjoined lists of four letter words, but morning comes and I must sleep now.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 12:51 AM
207.27.152.6
No, Spike, Wernher von Braun was a Creationist, so he didn't contribute to evolution.
And he was an operational scientist, you know, the kind that puts rockets on the moon and finds cures for diseases, not a historical scientist who is responsible for the slipping last year's missing link back out of the family tree and planning the welcoming party for the 2004 Missing Link of the year.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 01:03 AM
207.27.152.6
And Issac Newton put stock in alchemy.
Your point? Oh, wait, you don't have one. All you can do is point out that OMG FAMOUS PEOPLE who don't actually have any expertise in the field we're actually discussing agree with you sometimes, which makes you right.
Oy vey. Weren't you goin' ta bed?
Posted by spike at October 30, 2004 01:11 AM
68.20.212.155
"Good, but there is a slight problem. Random mutations, the driving force of Darwinian evolution, never produce new information."
Oh, you're one those "Intelligent Design" people. A fan of Behe, or maybe Dembski?
Mutations produce new information all the time. If you want to argue against this, you're going to have to dismiss great piles of experimental data: in particular, there's a bunch of mutant bacteria that can digest -nylon- that didn't exist a century ago. We understand the mutation that created the process that lets this bacteria do this, and if you think that a new digestize enzyme isn't "new information" then... well...
BTW, there's no such thing as a "missing link". 'Cause, you know, you're an ape.
Posted by Wagner at October 30, 2004 01:13 AM
24.28.87.101
Let's see. Mutations don't increase information?
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
As for the claim (not explicitly made) that evolutionary biology doesn't contribute anything to operational science, what about the various vaccines and drugs that rely on the knowledge brought to us through the study of evolution...
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
As for the theory handwringing. Now, let us get this straight. A theory is something that is a level or two above the observations. The fossil record could be our observation. From that, we hypothesise that x may be true. As we build up correct hypotheses and discard false hypotheses, a certain set of hypotheses become linked together. At this point, the theory comes in to existence. The theory of evolution is composed of all the observations and confirmed hypotheses that we have seen thus far. Genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, physiology, geology, paleontology, developmental biology. All these fields contribute confirmed-hypotheses, and we can figure out a conclusion based on the contributions of all of these fields.
It is amazing, then, to see how the theory of evolution has not really needed to develop since Darwin proposed natural selection. We have seen so many changes in that time, and still evolution has stood strong. Evolution, in the field of geology and paleontology has had enormous predicitive power. When looking for fossils for a certain type of species, geologists and paleontologists work out where in the grand scheme of things the fossil they are looking for would come and generally can go straight to it with little difficulty.
Creationists see the theory as an end in itself rather than as a continuing, falsifiable and changing explanation. Every single minor deficiency of evolution is picked out. But instead of doing the science to confirm the truth about that deficiency, they just say "Since current science has yet explained x, God must have done it", when they should actually be saying "Since current science has yet explained x, let's go in to the lab and find an explanation for x". If every scientist who ran up to a problem simply said "Err, we don't know. God did it!", we wouldn't really have any science. Instead, they gritted their teeth and said "We don't know. But we're gonna find out!". The very fact that we have cars, computers and chemotherapy is the result of that determination to find out the true answer rather than plump for "God did it".
Posted by Tom Morris at October 30, 2004 05:26 AM
195.137.69.156
I've been reading down this list in the wee hours of the morning after a long night of work, and I see a pretty steady stream of vitriol spewing from the side of "keep the faith" and a steady rise on the bile levels from the evolution front.
Let me be clear here. My Father taught earth science for thirty years, is a devout Roman Catholic and raised his children to see the facts about the world around them. Like the article says evolution is the real deal. I think the problem the religious side in this "would-be" debate has is not their definition of science or certain theories within science, but the definition of their own god. It's too simple and not open for debate with these people. Like you can fit god in a box, or "a book". Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it isn't. Just because it threatens the ideas you hold doesn't mean its wrong. The God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister. He/she/it doesn't make mistakes, and covers a scope so great in all directions that science serves only as a force to create questions rather than answer them. Ask any astrophysicist, when they actually discover something that their theories state as possible they then have to ask 'how is it possible'.
The problem creationists have is that they limit their god. I am sorry your god fits in a shoebox with your baseball cards. The god I learned about is bigger than that, and the people I learned it from were bigger than you. There is enough room for the universe within god and for god within the universe. Sorry to those of you who have been arguing with these people for over a day now. I myself have wasted fifteen minutes typing this up that I will never get back. Don't waste anymore time with these hypocrits of the faith. You can't win an argument with the 'blind'. Spike, I love your site and the way you think.
Posted by Cleo at October 30, 2004 06:50 AM
70.16.106.209
I myself am in science, and firmly believe in all types of evolution (and yes I understand the theory behind it, I have taken Invertebrate Palaeontology). I am also a geologist, which requires me to believe in an earth at LEAST 4.6 billion years old. I also believe in God. I think part of the problem here is that most of the evolutionists (of which I am one) are equating religion with faith. I do not believe that the bible is the ultimate truth. It is metaphorical and written by man, meaning that it is not factual. It is a series of stories written by people in an attempt to explain the world around them. Believing in a higher power, whether that be God, Buddha, Gaea, or any of the other numerous entities is part of human nature, though it is certainly not a requirement. It is simply a choice.
I find it frustrating and sad that people automatically assume I am unintelligent and uninformed by believing in God. It is possible to accept science and FAITH. I do not believe it is necessarily possible to believe in science and RELIGION, because science is constantly evolving and changing, whereas religion is stagnant. Faith is not.
Posted by Tiamat at October 30, 2004 08:30 AM
24.78.23.225
>>I don't care one way or the other if Darwin's theories are correct or not, largely because they have no effect on my<<
Well, that's arguable. If you are a student or have children (or plan to), do you want legislation to be passed to force schools to teach things that aren't true?
And anyone who has any questions about evolution can probably find the answers at http://www.talkorigins.org - even if you just like to hear Billy-Bawb talk with his foot in his mouth, you can go to the "Feedback" section. ALways fun readin' (assuming y'all can read).
Posted by michael patrick at October 30, 2004 03:11 PM
63.164.145.198
Before I respond to anything else, I want to thank Tom Morris for explaining what a theory is.
I am well aware of the nature of theories, and if you look back through my posts you will find an absence of "theory handwringing" for that reason.
I want to mention one important issue that I left out in my previous posts, that of presuppositions. Contrary to what many science popularizers would have you believe, evidence does not speak for itself. There is neither "evidence for evolution" or "evidence for creation." Evidence is evidence.
Fossils do not come with date tags attached, and the various methods scientists use to date rocks or fossils nearly always give wildly differing results. So how do you choose which dating method to trust for a given fossil find. Well, the scientist always has in the back of his or her mind an idea of how old he or she wants this find to be.
All that remains to be done is to pick from the ten or more results the one that most closely matches our existing beliefs about how old the specimen should be. The age so derived is then often claimed as decisive proof of evolution, when in truth it is a *result* of evolutionary presuppositions.
Most scientists are taught materialism as a dogma, a set of glasses through which all evidence must be viewed. Darwinism has been raised to the status of a god, whose priests are responsible to make sure no other ideologies make their way into science.
In spite of this, there are many highly educated scientists, often with no Christian background whatsoever, who are finding it impossible to continue forcing their observations into the straitjacket that is Darwinism. They attempt to present real research that suggests other explanations for the evidence we observe, but they usually find themselves without an audience.
Peer-reveiwed science journals repeatedly refuse to publish legitimate research by scientists known to believe in other theories than darwinism, no matter how unrelated the subject may be to origins.
And one of the biggest tools of the ruling arbiters of orthodoxy are magazines such as National Geographic, which present the issue as if there is *no* dissent in the ranks of legitamate scientists. So, while Spike rejoices because NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC!!!! (blessed be he) says Darwin was right, let me leave you with an excerpt from an open letter written to Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary of the Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 08:02 PM
207.27.152.6
"A cadre of zealous scientists [are] acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken."
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
(This was regarding the article "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in NG's November 1999 issue)
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 08:36 PM
207.27.152.6
"the various methods scientists use to date rocks or fossils nearly always give wildly differing results."
No, they don't.
So are you lying, or just ignorant? Either way, why should anybody pay you any attention at all?
Posted by Wagner at October 30, 2004 11:27 PM
24.27.35.180
To Andre: bollocks to you, it SO wasn't a blasphemy to have an altar there.
You're such a dweeb, even God thinks you're a drongo, for that one. :)
Posted by Sarsparilla at October 31, 2004 12:38 AM
195.92.67.69
My husband is the son of a Catholic and a Methodist, and his parents evidently dealt with their differences of faith by raising their children with no religion whatsoever. As a result, he knows remarkably little about Christianity, and as a good Catholic I frequently have to explain things, like who Jesus is.
So tonight we were discussing the stem cell legislation that's up on the ballot here in California, and how Mel Gibson opposes it for religious reasons, and my husband asked me, "Would fundamentalist Christians support cloning dinosaurs?"
I thought about it for a minute, then said, "I'm not sure fundamentalist Christians believe in dinosaurs."
"Why not?"
"Well, they believe the universe is only 5,000 years old, or about a week older than the Jewish people. So the dinosaurs didn't really have much time to exist."
"Do they think dinosaurs were around at the same time as people?"
"No, I think dinosaurs could only have been around during the seven days God took to create the Earth."
"Like on Thursday?"
"I think so."
"Then how do they explain the bones?"
"God put them there to trick people."
"Why would God do that?"
"Or possibly they're not dinosaur bones at all, but actually the bones of giants."
"There's no giants in the Bible!"
"Yes there are. The Old Testament says that in ancient times angels used to have sex with humans, and their children were giants."
He started laughing. "It does not!"
Sometimes it's really hard to discuss science with that man.
Anyway, it made me think of you, Spike.
Posted by Shaenon at October 31, 2004 12:58 AM
64.165.200.128
"I'm not sure fundamentalist Christians believe in dinosaurs."
to paraphrase the funniest thing Jimmy Fallon ever said, "They call dinosaurs 'Jesus Horses' "
Posted by michael patrick at October 31, 2004 01:36 AM
141.150.202.21
Of course, "Young Earth" Creationists (those who believe that the world is only a few thousand years old) are a dying breed. Unfortunately, their succesors preach "Intelligent Design" which is supposed to be a more scientifically palatable form of creationism. Of course, it still isn't true.
Posted by Michael Patrick at October 31, 2004 01:47 AM
141.150.202.21
Oh, and in case anybody was wondering about Storrs L. Olson and Anthony's little quote there, Olsen is of the minority opinion that birds are -not- the descendents of theropod dinosaurs. The vast majority of paleornithologists believe, based on substantial evidence, that birds are descended from theropods (a kind of bipedal carnivore that included velociraptors), and Olsen's contrarian position gets him quite a bit of attention.
He is, however, a strident believer in the modern synthesis evolutionary biology, as evidenced by the fact that he's one of the world's preeminent authorities on bird fossils. Anthony pretending that he's some kind of anti-Darwinian, based on that quote, is typical Creationist quoting-out-of-context. I wonder what site he pulled that quote from, without knowing anything about Olsen himself?
Posted by Wagner at October 31, 2004 02:42 AM
24.28.87.101
"Fossils do not come with date tags attached, and the various methods scientists use to date rocks or fossils nearly always give wildly differing results. So how do you choose which dating method to trust for a given fossil find. Well, the scientist always has in the back of his or her mind an idea of how old he or she wants this find to be."
Err, no. The dating methods are pretty damn accurate:
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Radiometric_dating_gives_unreliable_results
We have tested the dating methods against each other and also against human-archaeological finds that we know are a certain age because of our knowledge of history.
"Most scientists are taught materialism as a dogma, a set of glasses through which all evidence must be viewed. Darwinism has been raised to the status of a god, whose priests are responsible to make sure no other ideologies make their way into science."
That's bull. There are many scientists who are faithful. Science has a presupposition of what we call "methodological naturalism". That is, the theories that scientists draw must be based on natural explanations. This is because supernatural explanations provide no scope for further study. Observe...
1. Look at the amazing diversity of animal and plant species on this planet!
2. I hypothesise that they were created by a supernatural, theistic deity.
Point (2) is silly. Not only is it not falsifiable or verifiable, but it also lacks any explanatory power. How did this deity create the intricate complexities? Err, "God did it". How did this deity create beings with consciousness? Err, "God did it".
1. Look at the amazing diversity of animal and plant species on this planet!
2. I hypothesise that the diversity of life came in to being through a process of evolution via natural selection. Individuals with the ability to survive in their environment better than other individuals would survive, and pass on their genes to the next generation.
In this, not only does (2) explain how diversity came in to being, but it also provides scope for falsification and verification. If we can show that evolution happened via a different mechanism, or that evolution didn't happen at all, then we must reject this idea. Better still, if we do verify the hypothesis, it also provides us with something to investigate. How, precisely, do mutations happen? Or how does sexual intercourse happen? How are the genes passed on (DNA etc.)?
What the above commenter and others, like Phillip Johnson, are claiming is that methodological naturalism is synonymous with epistemic naturalism and, shudder, epistemic materialism. The point about science is that it does not presuppose any epistemological or ethical theory. Good science is still good science whether it is performed by Christians, atheists, Scientologists, capitalists, socialists, ethical egoists, utlitarians, neoconservatives or Marxists. If their experiments fit in with scientific methodology, it is good science. If they don't, it's not.
You are right on one front though. Scientists should ensure that no ideology gets in to science. The point about Darwinism is that it isn't ideology, it's evidence-based methodologically correct science.
"Unfortunately, their succesors preach "Intelligent Design" which is supposed to be a more scientifically palatable form of creationism."
The point about the ID movement isn't that it's "more scientifically palatable". Scientifically, it's a mixture of Paley's Watchmaker argument and Swinburne's Card Shuffler argument. There is no science behind it. Just reheated philosophy of religion arguments (and I should know: I spend a significant portion of my time studying philosophy of religion) with a veneer of scientific respectability. Purpose? To pretend to school boards that Darwinism is naughty and bad and that they need to give "balanced treatment to equal theories".
The reason you'll find Darwinism in scientific journals is a simple one. It is in about the same amount of doubt as gravity, quantum mechanics and the germ theory of disease.
Posted by Tom Morris at October 31, 2004 03:58 AM
195.137.69.156
I didn't mean to imply that I actually believe that ID is scientifically palatable. I DO believe that it is more presentable to the general public and (most dangerously of all) to the education system. Most ID proponents don't shout and preach hellfire and they've removed that most obvious flaw of stating that the earth is only a few thousand years old. They refer to their ridiculous notions and outright lies as "alternative opinions". This gives them an air of legitimacy with many people who fail to look beneath the surface.
Posted by michael patrick at October 31, 2004 09:18 AM
141.150.202.21
I am forever letting this entry and its comments stand in testement (lol testement lol) of exactly how hilariously unreasonable excessive religious fervor can be.
I can't figure out which part is better; Anthony towing the Creationist/Intelligent Design line to a T by relying on Ann Coulter-style disembodied quotes from completely unrelated texts and a desperate hope in the ignorance of his opponent, or his masterful disassembly by about ninety other people. It's TalkOrigins all over again!
I'm shocked the second law of thermodynamics didn't come up. It's the first bullet out of every crackpot's gun.
Thanks, kiddo!
Posted by spike at October 31, 2004 12:22 PM
68.20.20.244
I just wish the whole article was available on the web. It's infuriating to not be able to link to it in its entirety.
Posted by Tom Coates at October 31, 2004 02:45 PM
81.154.17.179
A longer extract from the article is available on the National Geographic website - http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html - though I would also like to be able to link to the whole thing.
Posted by Eldan Goldenberg at October 31, 2004 03:23 PM
65.43.146.117
I have yet to make any further comment... the local bookstore doesn't have the November National Geographic yet. (Which, I think, is what this is about.)
I still stick with the one-sided flame war comment, though. Treating anyone like an idiot isn't exactly inspiring them to research your point of view.
Posted by Ilsoap at October 31, 2004 06:49 PM
64.251.71.133
On "openmindedness":
"Doubtless it is a good thing to have an open mind, but a truly open mind should be open at both ends, like the food-pipe, with the capacity for excretion as well as absorption."
--Northrop Frye
Posted by gwalla at October 31, 2004 08:00 PM
67.169.146.235
"I still stick with the one-sided flame war comment, though. Treating anyone like an idiot isn't exactly inspiring them to research your point of view."
Anthony insulted -my- intelligence by lying and assuming that I wouldn't catch him. I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt and propose that he was lied to first, and was just passing along incorrect information, but given the fact that he was attempting to lecture -us- on proper scientific procedure and the need to do proper research, I don't feel the need to be kind.
If the war is one-sided, it's because the other side isn't armed.
Posted by Wagner at October 31, 2004 08:14 PM
24.28.87.101
For those that do not already understand evolution, carbon dating, and science in general need to read through this entire site before making any more comments here:
http://evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
it is basically capable of explaining what you need to know. if you have another idiotic thing to say that is not in that wiki, try researching it before saying something stupid.
Posted by Quinn Mallory at October 31, 2004 08:41 PM
129.130.98.60
I'd like it if they found living Homo floresiensis & they could learn to talk & use tools (maybe computers) & they could say what they thought of creationists. Hell yeah!
Posted by wazza at November 1, 2004 06:26 AM
203.213.81.47
I would hope that if we found living Homo Floresiensis (which I don't find likely but just the thought that it isn't *completely* impossible tickles me no end) we'd have the good sense to stay the hell away from them so that we don't infect them with the common cold and eradicate them.
And any missionaries trying to convert them should be shot preemptively.
Posted by Reinder at November 1, 2004 09:04 AM
213.10.125.93
Wagner.
Quote my lie.
I used a quote from Storrs L. Olson precisely *because* I knew him to be a darwinian (can you get a job at the Museum of Natural History, other than groundskeeper, without being so?).
It would be no news to any of us if a creationist thought NG was playing fast and loose in an article on evolution, so it would have been pointless to quote one. "Duh, so some fundie thinks NG is wrong about birds." Of course creationists disagree. My point was that even among the ranks of evolutionists who are clearly experts in their fields, these issues are not nearly as cut-and-dried as NG portrays them to the public.
I'm sorry you missed my point.
"Doubtless it is a good thing to have an open mind, but a truly open mind should be open at both ends, like the food-pipe, with the capacity for excretion as well as absorption."
Thank you. That's very well put.
Posted by Anthony at November 1, 2004 12:45 PM
207.27.152.6
"Quote my lie."
Well, let's see. You said this:
"Peer-reveiwed science journals repeatedly refuse to publish legitimate research by scientists known to believe in other theories than darwinism, no matter how unrelated the subject may be to origins. And one of the biggest tools of the ruling arbiters of orthodoxy are magazines such as National Geographic, which present the issue as if there is *no* dissent in the ranks of legitamate scientists. So, while Spike rejoices because NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC!!!! (blessed be he) says Darwin was right, let me leave you with an excerpt from an open letter written to Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary of the Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society."
Which you then followed up with the quote from Olsen. What is one to believe, other than that you wanted people to believe that Olsen "believes in other theories than Darwinism"?
In fact, considering that the original quote is this:
"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith."
You -actively removed- the references to theropods from the quote, without indicating that you had done so. I can think of no reason to do this other than to deliberately mislead people.
Posted by Wagner at November 1, 2004 03:48 PM
24.28.87.101
Great article. I like this place - I'd like to invite you all to check out this site:
http://bsalert.com/
Posted by BSAlert at November 1, 2004 05:23 PM
65.240.108.2
"If the war is one-sided, it's because the other side isn't armed."
Well... I won't speak on behalf of all creationists on this board, but speaking for myself, you're absolutely right. I wouldn't say I'm completely unarmed, but it's been a few years before I've looked at the theory of evolution as possibly being factual.
The last time I looked at it, it looked too flawed. Obviously, micro-evolution has been proven (change within a species to adapt to its environment), but the creation of DNA, evolution into completely new species, mutations as being progressively good things... that was too much.
This board has changed that. I don't appreciate the view that you'd have to be stupid to believe what I believe, but I admire your passion. You all have obviously found something that makes perfect sense to you, and you believe it enough to fight for it.
So... you've hooked me. When I find a National Geographic for the month of November, I'm getting it, and I'm reading the whole article with a sincerely open mind. And then I'll come back here and report what I've found.
If I find I've been wrong the whole time, I'll believe in the theory of evolution. Seriously.
Now, out of curiosity, any evolutionists out there willing to do the same thing? Give creationism a try?
(Oh, and one more question... if Noah's Ark WAS proven to be found on Mount Ararat, would that change anything for anyone?)
Posted by Ilsoap at November 1, 2004 06:19 PM
24.67.253.204
So, let me get this straight. It is reasonable to you that Noah built a boat, in which he collected and housed one each of 36 species of cat, 310 species of monkey (sounds problematic), 30 million species of insect, etc, etc. You think it is acceptable that on this boat he was able to feed for over a MONTH, elephants, rhinoceroses, cows, pigs, giraffes, lions, gazelles, black bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, moose, elk, deer, horses, ostrich, chickens, camels, and gorillas, etc?
I am just trying to understand your point.
You actually believe that Noah, one man, was able to collect from all parts of the world, likely by WALKING, all land dwelling animals that we know to exist today? Is this what you think? Really? . . . Really? Well, frankly, I don’t know why you would be throwing stones at evolution. If you have brought yourself to the point that you can accept the literal interpretation of Noah’s arc, you should have no problem accepting a far less ludicrous idea like, I don’t know, mutations being progressively good things.
Posted by lil buckeroo at November 1, 2004 08:04 PM
67.160.238.166
If you're going to read the whole National Geographic article with an open mind (is there a lot of empty space there?), to be "fair and balanced" in the Fox News tradition you also need to read the whole Creation document, i.e. the Holy Bible. You will see that the darwin thing is the product of an "open mind" with an incredible, anti-Christ imagination run amuck. May God grant you repentance before it is too late for you and you see for your self the fables of darwin are an eternal error...at your expense.
Posted by dansmom at November 1, 2004 08:23 PM
4.154.253.176
"Now, out of curiosity, any evolutionists out there willing to do the same thing? Give creationism a try?"
Sure. Show me the scientific evidence in favor of creationism. To do so, you first have to define a theory of creationism, one that satisfies the requirements of a scientific theory. This includes (but is not limited to) the criteria under which it would be falsified.
Not one creationist has managed to present such a theory, in all of the history of the evolution debate. If -you- can, I'll be very impressed.
(Actually, that's not true. There's been a couple put forward that were falsifiable. They were quickly shown to be false.)
Posted by Wagner at November 1, 2004 08:27 PM
24.28.87.101
BTW, I give "dansmom" an eight out of ten on the troll-o-meter. You gave yourself away with the Fox News reference, though.
Posted by Wagner at November 1, 2004 08:31 PM
24.28.87.101
Fox News fits the whole darwin thing, a fable "fair and balanced"
Posted by dansmom at November 1, 2004 08:36 PM
4.154.253.176
"The thing about evolution is that if it hasn't turned your brain inside out, you haven't properly understood it ... Then to my surprise I discovered that it was converging with my growing interest in computers ... The connection lies in the counter-intuitive observation that complex results arise from simple causes, iterated many times over. It's terribly simple to see this happening in the computer ... it all grows out of simple lines of code that start with adding one and one, testing the result, and then doing it again. Being able to watch complexity blossom out of this primitive simplicity is one of the great marvels of our age, greater even than watching man walk on the moon ... It's much more difficult to see it happening in the case of evolution ... our invention of the computer has for the first time let us get a feel for how it works ... It's all part of the same underlying process that we in turn are a part of."
-Douglas Adams, Turncoat
Posted by Dirk Gently at November 1, 2004 08:47 PM
62.147.161.24
HUH?
Posted by dansmom at November 1, 2004 09:08 PM
4.154.253.176
All right, I've read the article, but as I work nightshift, I don't have time to comment on that right now. The only thing I wanted to address was lil buckeroo's question, what my point of asking about Noah's Ark was. My only point about that was that, if an incredibly large boat was found on Mount Ararat, would this change anything in your mind. The question was not meant to turn into a Noah's Ark discussion, because that would get us sidetracked.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 12:59 AM
64.251.71.133
Oh, and incidentally, Douglas Adams' quote could just as easily be a defense for creationism, because in a computer, no new information is being created.
Let me clarify. A computer program is made of 1's and 0's, so a blank hard drive could be looked at as an immensely large quantity of 0's, while a hard drive with many programs on it is the same number of digits, only now some of them are 1's. More programming, but same amount of information (just like a black bitmap image of 800x600 is the same filesize as a photograph 800x600).
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 01:02 AM
64.251.71.133
"because in a computer, no new information is being created.
Let me clarify. A computer program is made of 1's and 0's, so a blank hard drive could be looked at as an immensely large quantity of 0's, while a hard drive with many programs on it is the same number of digits, only now some of them are 1's."
By this reasoning, a copy of Shakespeare's Macbeth contains as much information as an equivalent number of pages of: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
BTW lil buckeroo, Noah didn't have to collect the animals- they delivered themselves to the ark. No doubt they also magically shrank to 1:1000 scale for the journey.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 2, 2004 04:34 AM
193.1.172.148
"By this reasoning, a copy of Shakespeare's Macbeth contains as much information as an equivalent number of pages of: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."
Yes. At least as far as a computer is concerned. Hence, the argument that mutations don't give any new information, they only mutate what already exists. Those mutations, however, will turn jibberish into either more jibberish or something that actually makes sense.
Wait, that sounds like an argument FOR evolution, and I guess it is. After reading the National Geographic article that this extremely long thread is based on, the thing I got the most out of it was the part about speciation. I'd never really had speciation explained to me properly before, but it makes so much sense now. Two sets of the same species, mutating in two different directions, could eventually become so far mutated that they couldn't mate with each other.
I cannot for the life of me understand why this concept seemed so scary before. By itself, speciation does not in any way threaten anything Biblical that I know of (even if you only believe in a 6,000-year-old earth, which I don't).
So yeah, that was the best part of the article for me. The article still disappointed me in some regards, though. One of the main things holding me back, the creation of the RNA molecule from random chemicals, wasn't even addressed. And most of the article was about how there were so many creatures that existed, and similarities between them. I've never heard any creationist deny that many animals are similar.
Anyways, I have more to say, but it will have to wait for the morning. I might be working night shifts, but I'm not a night person. Later.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 05:04 AM
24.67.253.204
Hey CHica, I linked this to my blog....it must be spread.
Posted by Juan Navarro at November 2, 2004 09:13 AM
65.2.229.95
Well, I guess I reject the idea of evolution on a part religious and part personal basis. In other words, I don't like the idea of evolution, and my personal reading of Genesis tends to back that up. I'd like to read a bit more into the evidence for it, I guess (any sites anyone could reccomend are appreciated). I guess I don't really know enough about either side of the argument to call myself a creationist.
But it's important to note the Christianity (or Judaism, for that matter) itself ISN'T opposed to the theory. It's people that are opposed to the theory. There exist Christians, even orthodox or fundamentalist Christians, that believe evolution theory. My best friend and fellow theology philosopher by night is one of them. That's the most important thing here.
Posted by David House at November 2, 2004 12:59 PM
217.42.93.189
Okay, I want to say a bit more, having read some of the comments.
First, EVERYTHING is a theory. NOTHING can be proven, in the sense that mathematics (our ultimate proving tool) relies on axioms: small assumptions which we must guess are true for mathematics to hold together. It's possible these are wrong. Of course, that's not at all practical, but that's not the point. At the fundamental, evolution is a theory, the same that gravity is a theory (PROVE that when I let go of a ball, it won't float upward?).
So in a way, all science relies on a small bit of faith. (A small bit, but that doesn't matter: 'If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can move mountains': matthew 17:20)
Creationism is a theory: it's an idea which requires faith for you to believe. It doesn't make me 'stupid' if I believe it. And I don't care if the evidence for evolution is overwhelming for evolution. That doesn't make creationism (notice the shift in focus) wrong.
Posted by David House at November 2, 2004 01:24 PM
217.42.93.189
oh my god i just read this and saw
"incredible, anti-Christ imagination run amuck."
and now I have my epitaph!
Posted by K. Thor Jensen at November 2, 2004 02:39 PM
66.92.118.162
>
I've always been up a stump about that one. If the smallest amount of faith is all that is needed to move mountains, then why is it that no one has ever actually seen a mountain move? Last time I checked the Poconos were in the same place they always were. Sure, there's the occasional earthquake or volcanic activity, but that can easily be attributed to natural forces, not prayer and faith.
Of course, the obvious argument is that the old mustard seed vs. mountain thing is just a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally. If that's so then why can't we consider the fact that most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally?
Posted by michael patrick at November 2, 2004 04:25 PM
63.164.145.198
"Creationism is a theory"
It's not a -scientific- theory. There are certain requirements for something to fall under the heading of "science", and creationism simply does not qualify.
That's the rub, you see. If you want to believe that God Created The Heavens And The Earth, go for it. No skin off my back. But if you want to start walking around trying to call your religion -science-, then those of us with an actual scientific background are going to get a wee bit upset and start calling you nasty names, because trying to splice religion and science does serious damage to both.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 04:56 PM
24.28.87.101
Yeah, creationism is definitely not a scientific theory. If that's the reason you won't research creationism, I can't do a whole lot for you, because that would require putting forth a scientific theory that not only proves God's existence but proves what was created by him. As a scientific theory, that's impossible.
Conversely, I would also hate to live in a universe where everything could be scientifically proven. I find the possibility that everything there is to know can be scientifically proven quite depressing.
I don't call Christianity science, but I do believe that that doesn't stop it from being a valid part of explaining the world around me.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 05:16 PM
24.67.253.204
>
why?
Posted by michael patrick at November 2, 2004 06:39 PM
63.164.145.198
sorry, I seem to be having trouble making quotes. they keep disapearing so it seems like i'm responding to thin air. that last post should have been like this:
"Conversely, I would also hate to live in a universe where everything could be scientifically proven. I find the possibility that everything there is to know can be scientifically proven quite depressing."
- why?
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 2, 2004 06:41 PM
63.164.145.198
"Yeah, creationism is definitely not a scientific theory."
Then keep it out of the science classrooms, please. That's really all I ask.
And it's not that I "won't" research creationism because it's not science... It's that I -can't- research it because it's not science. If it's not science, I can't do scientific research on it. What other kind of "research" is there?
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 08:46 PM
24.28.87.101
Ok, here's some research for you to do:
How big was Noah's Ark, according to Genesis?
How many animals did he need to fit into it? (two of each kind, not each species, since speciation happens relatively rapiidly and is not denied by reputable creationists)
Do the animals fit in the ark?
What would the evidence be today *if* there really was a worldwide flood about 4000 years ago?
Posted by Anthony at November 2, 2004 09:07 PM
207.27.152.6
Anthony:
So "researching Creationism" basically means "reading the Bible and taking it literally". I kind of figured, but thanks for being so honest about it.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 09:26 PM
24.28.87.101
Did darwin explain why the earth is the size it is? Why not smaller/larger? Why does it stay in its place? And all the planets stay in their places doing what they are appointed to do? Why do the waves of the ocean stop where they do? The sun is faithful in its place as is the moon. Did darwin explain that too? Does his theory explain why the intricate television still cannot match the delicate power, and operation (not to mention the comparison in size) of the human eye? Where did these great minds get all that wisdom to understand and work out such complicated theories?? It must be only for the wisest of the wise to understand these things. And for the rest of us there is: "In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth..." .
Posted by dansmom at November 2, 2004 10:01 PM
4.156.24.136
Ten out of ten, dansmom. I love the "Darwinism as a theory of astrophysics" take. It's brilliant and original, I may use it later when I'm doing my own parody.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 10:12 PM
24.28.87.101
Is that plagiarism? *) Thanks for the 10.0
Posted by dansmom at November 2, 2004 10:18 PM
4.156.24.136
P.S. Its not original...ahem. certainly brilliant...its GOD, Genesis 1:1 *)
Posted by dansmom at November 2, 2004 10:20 PM
4.156.24.136
No, seriously, you can drop the pretense, dansmom. It's obvious that you're just an amazing simulation of a fundamentalist Christian whackjob... I mean, nobody is really dumb enough to expect Darwin to have written about orbital mechanics in the mid-to-late 1800's, right? Nobody would be dumb enough to confuse "Darwinism" with astrophysics and the theories of star system formation, right?
Right? Please tell me I'm right.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 10:30 PM
24.28.87.101
The problem with evolution being taught in schools is not when it's taught as something that has been scientifically observed. The problem is when evolution is taught as, by itself, an explanation for life on earth. Or worse, when the theory of evolution is taught as the only theory that real scientists accept for life on earth, while creationism is only for crackpots.
As for the other question... why would I consider a universe where everything can be proved to be depressing? Because... why keep living? Seriously, what's the point? If we're all made from goop, and when we die, we turn into dust, without any faith in a heaven or an afterlife as a possibility, it reduces me to no more than many quadrillions of molecules performing chemical processes governed by coincidence.
I mean, seriously... how can atheists stand living like that?
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 03:35 AM
24.67.253.204
The problem with evolution being taught in schools is not when it's taught as something that has been scientifically observed. The problem is when evolution is taught as, by itself, an explanation for life on earth. Or worse, when the theory of evolution is taught as the only theory that real scientists accept for life on earth, while creationism is only for crackpots.
As for the other question... why would I consider a universe where everything can be proved to be depressing? Because... why keep living? Seriously, what's the point? If we're all made from goop, and when we die, we turn into dust, without any faith in a heaven or an afterlife as a possibility, it reduces me to no more than many quadrillions of molecules performing chemical processes governed by coincidence.
I mean, seriously... how can atheists stand living like that?
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 03:36 AM
24.67.253.204
Oops. Double-post error. Sorry about that.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 03:36 AM
24.67.253.204
"I mean, seriously... how can atheists stand living like that?"
Well, I can't speak for any other atheists (it always feels wierd to use that word- it was "bad language" where I went to school), but personally I'm not all that bothered. It doesn't lessen the joy I take in life or the love I feel for others in the slightest. I mean, if you accept god as the cause for the whole shebang, then you're "no more than many quadrillions of molecules performing chemical processes governed by".........magic.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 3, 2004 05:54 AM
193.1.172.148
Ilsoap-
First off, evolution IS the only theory that real scientists accept. Even most creationist, when pressed, will finally admit that creationism is NOT scientific. Therefore it can't be accepted by science. In the end, all creationist arguments boil down to "things happen that way because God made things happen that way". Science can't accept that answer. Scientists don't say, "Evolution is true because Darwin says so". Evolution is true because of the OVERWHELMING evidence.
And as for your second statement...the reason why you should consider such a universe is because it exists. Everything CAN be explained somehow.
Your only reason for closing your mind to that fact is fear. Fear of death. Fear of not having a grand purpose. Fear that you, your loved ones, and all of humanity are just an inconsequential mote of dust.
But so what? If that's the case, then that's the case. Believing things that aren't true won't change the facts. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'lalalala' won't give you immortal life.
And most important of all, following empirical evidence to find explanations of the events that shape our universe doesn't negate the existence of your god. Not yet, anyhow, and perhaps it never will. Just because we have discovered that mankind descended from previous life forms who in turn descended from forms before them (as opposed to being formed spontaneously out of the dust by an ancient Caananite deity) doesn't mean that you DON'T have a soul. Especially when we can't really define what a soul is. It has no physical form and leaves no trace. When you die it presumably goes away (assuming it was there in the first place). If you want to believe that your deceased loved ones are sitting on a cloud waiting for you to pass so you can all be together again, then go right ahead. That doesn't change the likeleyhood that your ancestor was a sponge.
And besides that, scientists still have no concrete explanation for the existence of the universe and possibly never will. Sure, the Big Bang theory is most likely true, but what existed before that? Nothing? God? A previous universe that suffered a big crunch and re-expanded? Even if any of those possibilities are proven, they do not answer the ultimate question. If God made everything, then where did God come from? The only response we can be given is "God always was" or for atheists, "Before the big bang, the empty universe with maybe just a few sub-atomic particles condensed into a single point always was" . Both arguments take us to pretty much the same place.
I apologize for running off so much. It's been a long year. Lots on my mind.
Posted by michael patrick at November 3, 2004 06:46 AM
141.150.202.21
Ilsoap:
It is not science's job to provide people with a reason for existence. The fact that the theory of evolution fails to do so is not a problem with that theory. Atomic theory doesn't say anything about the meaning of life, either, and nobody complains about it.
Posted by Wagner at November 3, 2004 08:44 AM
24.28.87.101
"It's not a -scientific- theory. There are certain requirements for something to fall under the heading of "science", and creationism simply does not qualify."
Doesn't matter. Here we're trying to explain how we came to be what we are (actually, the Bible answers the 'why', not the 'how', so we shouldn't really be debating at all, but I'll talk a bit about that later). Whether you take the scientific theory or the religious theory, they're both theories. I take a mix to understand my world. Others take purely science. (You can't take purely religion as it fails to explain some of the more modern phenonema: we must instead take scientific theories that fit in with existing religious theories). My point is that creationism IS a theory, and if you don't want to teach it alongside particle theory and quantum theory, I understand, but that doesn't make it wrong. Just because a theory can't be accepted by science doesn't mean it can't be accepted by a scientist. That's really important, as the message of Christianity is personal.
But I must come again to what I mentioned at earlier. The Bible answers the WHY. Why we're on this earth, not how we got here. That's the important thing, and that's why we have debate when trying to bend the WHY into HOW. And the WHY is the truly brilliant and life-changing thing about Christianity.
michael patrick:
"And most important of all, following empirical evidence to find explanations of the events that shape our universe doesn't negate the existence of your god. Not yet, anyhow, and perhaps it never will."
That's brilliantly said, and is really the crux of my argument. Nothing can prove or disprove the existance of any god. Everyone must decide for themselves what their personal answer to that question is.
Posted by David House at November 3, 2004 12:52 PM
217.42.93.171
Thanks for the compliment Wagner. I'll take the fundamental Christian wackjob as a badge of honor---without the pretense, no pretense here. (see my original post)no pretense. For an intense and highly technical examination of this subject see:
Library of Congress Number 54-12335, Publisher: Eerdmans; "The Christian View of Science and the Scriptures" I know you will recognize the names and theories in the scientific realm. You're a good critic Wagner. Kudos..
Posted by dansmom at November 3, 2004 12:56 PM
4.156.24.36
Out of curiosity, let's say that it's true that God DID create everything. I don't care whether you believe that to be true, let's just say it is.
Are you saying that, even if it's true that God created everything, because it can't be proven, you don't want it mentioned in science textbooks?
Because I can live with that. Just so long as students know that not everything can necessarily be explained scientifically.
As for lukbhindu and michael patrick, I guess I understand your side a little better now, but it's still hard to comprehend. I would only be quadrillions of molecules governed by magic if God was impersonal, and while believing things doesn't make them true (which I agree with), not finding 100% scientific proof for things doesn't make them false.
Basically, if there was no choice but to know that I am just the product of evolutionary goop, I would not live like I do now. There would be nothing stopping me from trying drugs or driving too fast down the highway or eating as much junk food as I wanted to. Honestly, what's the worst that can happen? I DIE? There isn't even a clear scientific definition of life to begin with. Take care of the environment? Why? That's just the world going its natural course.
"If God made everything, then where did God come from?" Actually, that's one of the reasons I believe in God. In order for our universe to exist, something must have created itself, and logically, I would think that something that can create itself is very, very smart.
P.S. In case I forget to do this later, I'd like to take the opportunity right now to thank everyone on this board that actually gave me constructive responses to my beliefs. If it weren't for you guys, I would never have found the logic in speciation, and despite any insults that were said here, I'm glad that I came.
P.S. #2 Could someone PLEASE tell me how DNA/RNA can be created from random molecules?
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 04:44 PM
24.67.253.204
Creationism isn't "wrong" unless you try to treat it as a science. Nobody rational is going to give you any crap for believing that there's some supernatural force driving the steering wheel of the universe, as long as you don't start trying to prove it with science.
It's only when people like the ICR or the Intelligent Design folks start trying to mix their God in with their science that things get all broken, because science simply doesn't work like that. The moment you add an omnipotent cause to your model, you might as well just give up and go home because you can no longer falsify your model or use it to make any useful predictions. Scientific models that are useful are that way because they define the limits of the behavior of the system they model, and any model that has the word "omnipotent" in it anywhere obviously isn't useful anymore.
I don't care if you believe in God or not. Some of the smartest people I know are Christians. But they know better than to look for God in their microscopes.
dansmom: That book is not listed in the Library of Congress catalog, under that number or any other.
http://catalog.loc.gov/
According to Witham's "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America", that book was published in 1954, having been written by Baptist theologian Bernard L. Ramm. According to Amazon, it is long out of print, and there do not appear to be any copies available online. This makes it somewhat unlikely that you have read it either. It being fifty years old at this point, I think it would be somewhat behind in its coverage of modern biology; in any case, a book that attempts to *reconcile* evolution with creation by presenting the Genesis creation story as a parable for billions of years of evolution would seem to be the sort of "anti-Christ imagination run amuck" that you were complaining about earlier.
Ilsoap: The evolution of DNA and RNA is one of those "if you can come up with the correct answer, you'll win a nobel prize" kind of questions. For a general layman's descriptions of where current theories are, try the following:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_the_first_proteins
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/RNA_world
Posted by Wagner at November 3, 2004 06:49 PM
24.28.87.101
For some reason I feel compelled to join in... Anthony, it's not "two of every kind" that went into the Ark. It's seven of every clean animal, and two of every unclean. Which just means lots more animals. It can't be taken literally; it makes no sense.
Who asked if it would make a difference if they did find the Ark? It wouldn't, not to me. If they find a big ancient boat on a mountainside, I'm going to be intrigued, but to take that as proof of the literal truth of the Bible? It proves nothing. There are lots of facts that can be interpreted as providing evidence for Biblical truths, but they don't provide proof. They can be interpreted in other ways as well, in ways that match a more rational and consistent worldview.
Posted by zenkitty at November 3, 2004 10:48 PM
68.44.97.56
"mix their God in with their science"... you know, if God created the universe, he would have created science too. And, if omnipotence can't be involved in scientific theory, it's very possible that scientific theory is very inadequate do describe everything.
Thanks for the info, though, about the DNA/RNA. The part about RNA being "irreducible" certainly lends itself to "God made it that way", but I'm still interested in any progress scientists make on that front. Of course, I don't think I'll have to do much searching when/if it happens; with something like the creation of DNA, I imagine it'd be featured in every major newspaper in the civilised world.
So... you know, I guess that's it for me here. Pretty much every burning question I can think of about this subject has been answered. I now have new ideas about how evolution fits into the Biblical account. If anyone wants to hear them, I'll post them, but I'm not expecting to "convert" anyone.
Oh, and the whole question of whether or not Noah's Ark can be taken literally. You know, I'm going to have to do the math myself on that one, although that's off-topic for this message thread, and this thread is pretty long as it is.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 11:25 PM
24.67.253.204
"you know, if God created the universe, he would have created science too."
No, science is a tool created by mankind to describe the universe (which may have been created by God). God did not create science, any more than God wrote Shakespeare or God built my house. Science, Shakespeare, and houses are creations of mankind.
"And, if omnipotence can't be involved in scientific theory, it's very possible that scientific theory is very inadequate do describe everything."
Science is unable to describe God because God is, by definition, without limits. I don't see this as somehow making science less useful; theology can't tell us how to build a television set or set a broken limb, but that doesn't make it less useful either.
And RNA isn't "irreducible"; you didn't read the articles closely enough.
Posted by Wagner at November 3, 2004 11:55 PM
24.28.87.101
Corrections noted. No, God wouldn't have created science, just the laws (or "theories", if we must) behind them. And I shouldn't have said science is inadequate, just that it's limited, and to get a full picture of the universe, I don't believe science alone will cover it.
And I'll read the RNA stuff again... I understood some of the amino acid stuff, but there was an awful lot that went waaay over my head. I don't think I'll be the one getting a Nobel prize for the origin of RNA.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 4, 2004 12:50 AM
24.67.253.204
"Corrections noted. No, God wouldn't have created science, just the laws (or "theories", if we must) behind them. And I shouldn't have said science is inadequate, just that it's limited, and to get a full picture of the universe, I don't believe science alone will cover it."
I think that you may have science confused with nature:
Nature- (n) The material world and its phenomena.
The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
Science is more of a process-
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Posted by michael patrick at November 4, 2004 01:43 AM
141.150.202.21
Michael basically beat me to it, but I'm going to make a more important point:
The "laws of science" are creations of mankind. They are *models* for the way the universe operates, not the actual way the universe operates. When a model comes along that is better able to describe the universe, it replaces the old model.
This is what happened when Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics; a new model that provided more accuracy replaced an older model. Neither model was considered "how the universe really works" except by people who don't understand the scientific process.
This is why modern biology is currently based almost completely around the Modern Synthesis of evolution; it is the model that has the most descriptive power. When people try to poke holes in it by pointing out that current theories can't explain X or Y, the correct answer is "so what?" We don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet, but that doesn't mean we've tossed quantum physics out the window. We keep quantum physics around because it is the model with the most descriptive power, even though it is incomplete; *all* scientific models are incomplete, and screaming about holes in this one or that one is just silly.
Posted by Wagner at November 4, 2004 10:10 AM
24.28.87.101
If you believe God exists, he essentially has created science, he's prompted the philosophers and scientists at each crucial point to develop science further. He was the inspiration, the muse, to each person we credit with a wonderful discovery.
Including, quite ironically, Darwin. But hey, without the problems science is throwing at us at the moment, modern theology would cease to exist, and theology is a great way that God lets people know his amazing news. It's sort of working to his advantage :)
Posted by David House at November 4, 2004 10:46 AM
217.42.93.172
"If you believe God exists, he essentially has created science, he's prompted the philosophers and scientists at each crucial point to develop science further. He was the inspiration, the muse, to each person we credit with a wonderful discovery."
So you don't believe in free will, then?
After all, if God was the inspiration for all science, then wasn't God also then the inspiration for everything you do every day? How do you make the distinction? If you think that you know where to draw the line between "normal human thought" and "divinely-inspired thought", then aren't you claiming to know the mind of God? Isn't that heretical?
If God is responsible for everything good that man produces, then God must be responsible for everything that man produces, period. And that means no free will. I'd hate to live like that.
Posted by Wagner at November 4, 2004 10:55 AM
24.28.87.101
OK. Based on what I've heard so far, I'm going to make a theory of my own:
Statement 1: Science is the process of taking information that has been observed with the five senses, testing it, and making theories based on those observations.
Statement 2: Omnipotence can not be tested in a controlled environment, and is therefore outside the realm of science.
Statement 3: God, according to Christianity, is omnipotent.
Therefore, any atheist that says they'll only believe in God if he can be proved real by science is using circular reasoning. It will be impossible to prove to that person that God exists, whether or not he does.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 4, 2004 05:53 PM
24.67.253.204
This whole discussion has been off-topic from the start. National Geographic proposes an evaluation of the theory of evolution, and here you are, talking about Noah's Ark and faith vs. science.
Since youre talking about this stuff, I will, too!
This 'faith vs. science' conflict has been brewing for the past 500 years, and little good has come from it. These are different fields, and bad things happen when they mix. Planetary astronomy was held back for centuries because people wanted God to have a physical place close to Earth. People tried to find God in the sky, and eventually gave up. Perhaps people gradually realized that they could still find God without Ptolemaic theory. Evolution is running into opposition because people want the workings of God over time to be visible on Earth. Eventually, people will give up on Creationism, because enough people will be able to find God without it.
As to what faith and science are, i don't know what faith is. Some definitions of faith hinge on there being a God, some on the absence of any gods.
Science, on the other hand, is less mysterious. Science is all about trying to predict what's going on by making increasingly better models of natural phenomena. By better, of course, I mean 'more accurate with respect to observations, more internally and logically sound, and more consistent with other accepted theories'.
Some models, like quantum physics, start from ad hoc rules based on observation and are gradually refined into theories that explain what happens in a wide variety of cases, and to a certain extent, why those things are happening. Evolution started as a general theory to explain the origin of species and was gradually refined into its present form: a theory with actual predictive power (not necessarily predicting the future, but still predictive). Of course, 'evolution' is still such a general theory that you won't get anything out of it without going into specifics.
As to the argument over specifics in evolution, those do not disprove evolution anymore than the disagreement over superstring theory could disprove quantum physics. The arguments over strings are likely to go on for some time, but the physicists still agree on Schrodinger's equation. There are scientists who disagree with the theropod-bird model, but they do so within the framework of evolution.
In closing, don't take scientific theories for absolute facts. Take them as models to describe and predict what we see. The theories we have now do just that pretty well. As for God, religion, and faith, those are here to give us some facts. When we have truly found God, God is a source we can trust, even when we can't trust our own eyes. In the end, though faith and science don't mix, faith is more important.
Posted by Space Chicken at November 4, 2004 06:06 PM
129.219.144.135
Ilsoap-
I'd say you're absolutely right. The existance (or lack thereof) of God is completely unverifiable through science. I don't know of any scientist (or anyone else for that matter) who has challenged the faithful to prove their faith ever. There would be no poi | 
