"Teaching and publishing research are two very different things so please be a little more explicit next time."
I didn't feel that I was on trial and had to measure every word, AlexOliver. I felt that I was just talking things over with some friends.
Does it change your view now that you know that they were not fired for teaching but for doing research or for citing research? If it doesn't change your view, what difference does it make how careful I am in my descriptions? Does it bother you that these people were fired?
Rob
All the facts for evolution
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"The theory of evolution has not been disproved and it is extremely useful."
It's not useful if it is wrong, Robert. If it is wrong, it is the opposite of useful. If it is wrong, it is harmful.
I am not saying that it is wrong. I am saying that we should remain open to the possibility and encourage whatever research can be done to challenge and thereby make us either more confident that it is rightor more confident that it is in at least some ways not right.
"Intelligent Design has not (and can never be) disproved and, Pascal's wager aside, it's not very useful."
Why can't Intelligent Design be disproved?
How can we know that Intelligent Design will not be useful until we look at the research supporting it? If it leads us to an entirely new theory that replaces evolution, I would say that it had ended up being very useful indeed. We don't know today what the future holds. Science is not a closed subject (or shouldn't be).
Rob
It's not useful if it is wrong, Robert. If it is wrong, it is the opposite of useful. If it is wrong, it is harmful.
I am not saying that it is wrong. I am saying that we should remain open to the possibility and encourage whatever research can be done to challenge and thereby make us either more confident that it is rightor more confident that it is in at least some ways not right.
"Intelligent Design has not (and can never be) disproved and, Pascal's wager aside, it's not very useful."
Why can't Intelligent Design be disproved?
How can we know that Intelligent Design will not be useful until we look at the research supporting it? If it leads us to an entirely new theory that replaces evolution, I would say that it had ended up being very useful indeed. We don't know today what the future holds. Science is not a closed subject (or shouldn't be).
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"There's no politics in terms of what is correct and what isn't."
You know 10,000 times more about science than I do. Jacob. But I disagree with you re this one based on NON-scientific knowledge that I like to think I possess. To take the politics out of science, you would need to take the humanity out of the scientists. I don't see how it can be done. Man is a political animal and he cannot escape this reality of his nature by going to school for a specified number of years.
"It's about reason rather than rhetoric"
In theory, yes. But in reality?
How can any of us even get enough outside of ourselves to determine whether this is really so or not? Our views influence our perceptions.
Who determines whether something qualified as "reason" or "rhetoric"? The scientists themselves? Are they not biased? Do the scientists not favor a conclusion that it is all about reason with them and never about rhetoric with them?
Rob
You know 10,000 times more about science than I do. Jacob. But I disagree with you re this one based on NON-scientific knowledge that I like to think I possess. To take the politics out of science, you would need to take the humanity out of the scientists. I don't see how it can be done. Man is a political animal and he cannot escape this reality of his nature by going to school for a specified number of years.
"It's about reason rather than rhetoric"
In theory, yes. But in reality?
How can any of us even get enough outside of ourselves to determine whether this is really so or not? Our views influence our perceptions.
Who determines whether something qualified as "reason" or "rhetoric"? The scientists themselves? Are they not biased? Do the scientists not favor a conclusion that it is all about reason with them and never about rhetoric with them?
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"This is also why I don't put PhD after my name. I'm culturally inclined to find this pretentious 
]"
I agree that you are like this and I like this about you.
I don't have a scientific degree (if they gave out scientific dunce caps, I might qualify for one of those!). But I have a law degree. I hardly every mention it for the same reason. I believe that my legal education provided me training that helps in the work I do. But I also feel that if the benefit of the training does not show in the work, it should not impress anyone. So I prefer to let the work either impress people or not impress people on its own merits.
My sense is that the same is true of you. I haven't read your book yet, but I am confident that your scientific training informs it. That comes through for me without me even knowing the nature of your scientific training (I am 100 percent confident that it is impressive but I probably don't know enough about the field to even know what should impress me). It comes through in the work, though. I see the training and knowledge evidence itself in the work of yours that I have seen.
Rob
]"I agree that you are like this and I like this about you.
I don't have a scientific degree (if they gave out scientific dunce caps, I might qualify for one of those!). But I have a law degree. I hardly every mention it for the same reason. I believe that my legal education provided me training that helps in the work I do. But I also feel that if the benefit of the training does not show in the work, it should not impress anyone. So I prefer to let the work either impress people or not impress people on its own merits.
My sense is that the same is true of you. I haven't read your book yet, but I am confident that your scientific training informs it. That comes through for me without me even knowing the nature of your scientific training (I am 100 percent confident that it is impressive but I probably don't know enough about the field to even know what should impress me). It comes through in the work, though. I see the training and knowledge evidence itself in the work of yours that I have seen.
Rob
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
In reality, nobody is perfect, but scientists as a class are much better at saying "You know what. You're right and I was wrong because your reasons/reasoning are better than mine." than people normally are.
There's a subtle point [of personality] here. Note that I wrote "your reasons are better", not "you're better". Scientist culture does not tend to associate the opinion with the man. Normal people do this to a great extent. When a scientist says "you're wrong", he means that your opinions are wrong. Normal people would consider "you're wrong" an attack on their person.
As far as I have known scientists personally, they are very rarely personally vested in their opinions and understanding because their very business consists of coming up with new understanding every day. It's thus counterproductive to get personally attached to any one opinion. The goal is never to be right. The goal is to be correct. It is widely believed that truth is approached asymptotically.
Scientists are not political animals---at least when it comes to science. They are more like human computers. Personally detached and cranking out new ideas at a high speed.
Some interesting personality conflicts arise.
Two scientists: Perfect... their discussion will lead to one of them changing his understanding and probably both of them getting smarter.
Two nonscientists: Eventually they'll agree to disagree.
One of each: Worst case ... the scientist will keep pushing for the "solution". The nonscientist will keep trying to reach a compromise.
Incidentally, scientists as a group are very much attached to the idea that the scientific method is the supreme way of acquiring new understanding though. They are very stubborn about that one and the rest of their metaphysical setup which they all share to a great degree. Kuhn did an impressive work pointing that out.
There's a subtle point [of personality] here. Note that I wrote "your reasons are better", not "you're better". Scientist culture does not tend to associate the opinion with the man. Normal people do this to a great extent. When a scientist says "you're wrong", he means that your opinions are wrong. Normal people would consider "you're wrong" an attack on their person.
As far as I have known scientists personally, they are very rarely personally vested in their opinions and understanding because their very business consists of coming up with new understanding every day. It's thus counterproductive to get personally attached to any one opinion. The goal is never to be right. The goal is to be correct. It is widely believed that truth is approached asymptotically.
Scientists are not political animals---at least when it comes to science. They are more like human computers. Personally detached and cranking out new ideas at a high speed.
Some interesting personality conflicts arise.
Two scientists: Perfect... their discussion will lead to one of them changing his understanding and probably both of them getting smarter.
Two nonscientists: Eventually they'll agree to disagree.
One of each: Worst case ... the scientist will keep pushing for the "solution". The nonscientist will keep trying to reach a compromise.
Incidentally, scientists as a group are very much attached to the idea that the scientific method is the supreme way of acquiring new understanding though. They are very stubborn about that one and the rest of their metaphysical setup which they all share to a great degree. Kuhn did an impressive work pointing that out.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"EMH may be inaccurate, but it's still the best "science" (I hate to call economics a science) people have come up with."
You are right to detect a connection between the two topics in my mind, Jacob.
I don't have much of a dog in the fight when it comes to the evolution matter. It doesn't get me too worked up one way or the other and I have hardly spent any time looking into it.
Ben Stein wrote a brave book called "Yes, You Can Time the Market!" That won him some points from me. So when I saw that he had put out a movie on Intelligent Design, I ordered it to see what it was about. I was appalled by the firings. And, yes, that was largely because I see similarities with the EMT matter. I have been "fired" from numerous boards and blogs because of my incorrect thinking and I think those firings hurt those board and blog communities in a serious way (they discouraged others with similar views from making those views known).
I believe that the people who believe in evolution are good and smart people and I believe that the people who believe in the EMT are good and smart people. I think that both have become too dogmatic in the way they present their case. It may be that this sort of thing rubs my fur the wrong way because I am a journalist. Journalists are questioners! When people shut down questioning, it starts my spidey sense a tingling! Whether that's for good or ill is for others to say. There's no question that these process violations push buttons for me more than people's views on the substantive matters do (what people believe about evolution hardly matters to me, I don't even know that it could be said that I have much of a viewpoint myself -- and I had no viewpoint on the EMT either until people started using it as a justification for shutting down discussions of investing).
I am not anti-evolution. But I am anti-dogmatism. I know that the evolutionists will say that they do not view themselves as dogmatic and I believe that they really feel that way about it. All I can say is that I detect dogmatism in their way of discussing the subject, whether I am right or wrong to do so (and I mean no personal offense in saying that).
And I very much feel the same way about people who believe in the EMT. I like them. I respect them. I have learned lots of good stuff from them and am grateful for it. But I detect dogmatism in the way they make their case and it is a turn-off for me. Whether people like to hear those words or not, they are sincere words.
Rob
You are right to detect a connection between the two topics in my mind, Jacob.
I don't have much of a dog in the fight when it comes to the evolution matter. It doesn't get me too worked up one way or the other and I have hardly spent any time looking into it.
Ben Stein wrote a brave book called "Yes, You Can Time the Market!" That won him some points from me. So when I saw that he had put out a movie on Intelligent Design, I ordered it to see what it was about. I was appalled by the firings. And, yes, that was largely because I see similarities with the EMT matter. I have been "fired" from numerous boards and blogs because of my incorrect thinking and I think those firings hurt those board and blog communities in a serious way (they discouraged others with similar views from making those views known).
I believe that the people who believe in evolution are good and smart people and I believe that the people who believe in the EMT are good and smart people. I think that both have become too dogmatic in the way they present their case. It may be that this sort of thing rubs my fur the wrong way because I am a journalist. Journalists are questioners! When people shut down questioning, it starts my spidey sense a tingling! Whether that's for good or ill is for others to say. There's no question that these process violations push buttons for me more than people's views on the substantive matters do (what people believe about evolution hardly matters to me, I don't even know that it could be said that I have much of a viewpoint myself -- and I had no viewpoint on the EMT either until people started using it as a justification for shutting down discussions of investing).
I am not anti-evolution. But I am anti-dogmatism. I know that the evolutionists will say that they do not view themselves as dogmatic and I believe that they really feel that way about it. All I can say is that I detect dogmatism in their way of discussing the subject, whether I am right or wrong to do so (and I mean no personal offense in saying that).
And I very much feel the same way about people who believe in the EMT. I like them. I respect them. I have learned lots of good stuff from them and am grateful for it. But I detect dogmatism in the way they make their case and it is a turn-off for me. Whether people like to hear those words or not, they are sincere words.
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"scientists as a class are much better at saying "You know what. You're right and I was wrong because your reasons/reasoning are better than mine." than people normally are."
I find this believable and I find your description of the scientific personality type persuasive, Jacob.
I certainly do not think that all types of people are equally political. The most political people of all are drawn to politics and it could be that the least political are drawn to science.
Rob
I find this believable and I find your description of the scientific personality type persuasive, Jacob.
I certainly do not think that all types of people are equally political. The most political people of all are drawn to politics and it could be that the least political are drawn to science.
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"scientists as a group are very much attached to the idea that the scientific method is the supreme way of acquiring new understanding though."
I believe that the journalistic method is the supreme way!
I am joking.
I do think, though, that there are different types in the world for a good reason and that we need to hear from all of them. Evolution wants it that way (another joke!)
Rob
I believe that the journalistic method is the supreme way!
I am joking.
I do think, though, that there are different types in the world for a good reason and that we need to hear from all of them. Evolution wants it that way (another joke!)
Rob
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Some of what comes off as dogma is due to the 4th-grader effect mentioned above. It's not that people/scientists are dogmatic. It's more that they get tired of dealing with people who question the entire theory based on a "spelling error" taken out of context over an over.
It is almost always the case that people who have actually studied the question will either be embarrassed about their earlier challenges to the theory and start asking more relevant questions OR more likely, they just like to be obstinate about it. As mentioned before, many people don't want to change their opinion; they just like to argue.
It's a little bit like saying "I don't believe in the theory of general relativity because from where I stand, the Earth is clearly flat." Dealing with this level of arguments gets tiring.
(There's another level in which someone bores down on one of the 0.1% unresolved issues while fully ignoring the 99.9% resolved issues and use the 0.1% to question the entire theory. This is missing the point. Worse, because journalism has become extremely lazy in the sense of no longer digging in and giving their informed opinion of the truth but instead just hauling two opposing "expert" into the studio, the 0.1% position and the 99.9% position both get 50/50 air time in the name of "fair and balanced". This is a very sad consequence as the uninformed public then comes to believe that the informed opinion is also divided 50/50 which is far from the case.)
[On a related note, I've seen examples of Christians becoming atheists or at least agnostic once they got sufficiently educated about religion to see their own religion in a wider context.]
In the climate change debate, there are now lists of "frequently asked questions by deniers" dealing with their favorite "challenges", just so that those who actually have the knowledge doesn't have to teach the science over and over again. The very existence of such lists says a lot about the level of debate.
It is almost always the case that people who have actually studied the question will either be embarrassed about their earlier challenges to the theory and start asking more relevant questions OR more likely, they just like to be obstinate about it. As mentioned before, many people don't want to change their opinion; they just like to argue.
It's a little bit like saying "I don't believe in the theory of general relativity because from where I stand, the Earth is clearly flat." Dealing with this level of arguments gets tiring.
(There's another level in which someone bores down on one of the 0.1% unresolved issues while fully ignoring the 99.9% resolved issues and use the 0.1% to question the entire theory. This is missing the point. Worse, because journalism has become extremely lazy in the sense of no longer digging in and giving their informed opinion of the truth but instead just hauling two opposing "expert" into the studio, the 0.1% position and the 99.9% position both get 50/50 air time in the name of "fair and balanced". This is a very sad consequence as the uninformed public then comes to believe that the informed opinion is also divided 50/50 which is far from the case.)
[On a related note, I've seen examples of Christians becoming atheists or at least agnostic once they got sufficiently educated about religion to see their own religion in a wider context.]
In the climate change debate, there are now lists of "frequently asked questions by deniers" dealing with their favorite "challenges", just so that those who actually have the knowledge doesn't have to teach the science over and over again. The very existence of such lists says a lot about the level of debate.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"I've seen examples of Christians becoming atheists or at least agnostic once they got sufficiently educated about religion to see their own religion in a wider context."
I have heard about many such cases, Jacob.
But I have also heard about cases of scientists who have become religious because of the wonders of God that they discovered through their science.
Everybody is looking at the same evidence. But people are seeing different things in it. Someone who believes in God sees evidence of him in just about everything that comes across his path. Someone who believes that there is not a god sees evidence that there is no god in just about everything that crosses his path. The same evidence can be interpreted in different ways depending on the perspective one brings to it.
Rob
I have heard about many such cases, Jacob.
But I have also heard about cases of scientists who have become religious because of the wonders of God that they discovered through their science.
Everybody is looking at the same evidence. But people are seeing different things in it. Someone who believes in God sees evidence of him in just about everything that comes across his path. Someone who believes that there is not a god sees evidence that there is no god in just about everything that crosses his path. The same evidence can be interpreted in different ways depending on the perspective one brings to it.
Rob
@ Rob @ Jacob Here is an example of a scientist who came to believe in God--a geneticist. Francis Collins claims that 40% of scientists are believers, and talks about the awe inspired by the human genome.
I have, at times, felt the tug of Providence, but most days it seems wishful. The most moving things to me about many devout (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are their good works. Jimmy Carter's Habitat For Humanity comes to mind. More moving, to me, are good works performed by those without faith.
I have, at times, felt the tug of Providence, but most days it seems wishful. The most moving things to me about many devout (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are their good works. Jimmy Carter's Habitat For Humanity comes to mind. More moving, to me, are good works performed by those without faith.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"I have, at times, felt the tug of Providence"
And I at times feel the tug the other way, Zev. I believe that just about everyone feels at least a tiny tug in both directions.
"More moving, to me, are good works performed by those without faith."
Maybe they evidence their "belief" through actions rather than words. And maybe that counts for more.
Rob
And I at times feel the tug the other way, Zev. I believe that just about everyone feels at least a tiny tug in both directions.
"More moving, to me, are good works performed by those without faith."
Maybe they evidence their "belief" through actions rather than words. And maybe that counts for more.
Rob
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
"Does it change your view now that you know that they were not fired for teaching but for doing research or for citing research? If it doesn't change your view, what difference does it make how careful I am in my descriptions? Does it bother you that these people were fired?"
It wouldn't bother me one bit if a public school elementary teacher was fired for teaching intelligent design to impressionable children, not one bit. It incredibly bothers me that people would be fired for citing research in a paper or something else.
It wouldn't bother me one bit if a public school elementary teacher was fired for teaching intelligent design to impressionable children, not one bit. It incredibly bothers me that people would be fired for citing research in a paper or something else.
It appears to me that many “Ah Ha” moments developed after witnessing how pathetic and/or ridiculous most “religious” people are or appear. Mainly due to the blind believe in the FSM when there is no way to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. I will be the first to agree on this point. Most “believers” appear about as educated as a walrus splashing on the seashore.
Looking to believers is a sure way to never believe in God. I started this post while enjoying a few brews and personally have not religiously (pun intended) gone to church for about 14 years. I almost decided not to respond to anyone because it dawned on me that most people refuse to have friendly open discussion on this topic. But I started this, so here I go.
@Q
What in movies has made you superstitious?
@Robert Muir
Variation within a species has always been around. What scientifically justifies a jump between species? This has never been observed IMHO. Few fossils have been found that truly support this claim. A lot could have resulted from “the flood” and you just need to look to today to realize mass quantities of species are going extinct every day. According to science, dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, but they have found preserved dinosaur blood vessels?
@AlexOliver
I respect your decision, but remember that the truth might not be in a realm of our possible:) FSM might come down an serve breakfast!
@Jacob
I like that quote as well.
Gravity and the second law of thermodynamics can be readily observed today. In the physical world I don’t think there is any room for debate. Anyone not believing can be told to walk off a bridge and will learn these laws are true (unless the FSM comes and saves them:)). IMHO the fossil record is greatly lacking the vast evidence to prove what should be overwhelmingly abundant examples of the in between species. The few that seem to fit could be an extinct species, the result of a catastrophe, or simply fabricated (it wouldn’t be the first time).
I am surprised you would use “the best explanation of observable facts that the smartest people of the planet have been able to come up with” as a good argument to prove it’s validity. This is like promoting the buy and hold strategy for stocks or that “They” will solve any future energy crisis. I also think the large majority of science HAS to prove evolution to get continued government funding. This is disturbing as how is “some other scientific theory” supposed to emerge if all contrary findings are smothered?
I agree that many do not have the scientific foundation. Please reference me to what should give me that in areas I am lacking. I don’t want you thinking I just like to argue!
@Photoguy
Microevolution is not Macro and all mutations are usually a hindrance if not lethal to the specimen. There has been some interesting stuff done with flies. It is cool that they can splice DNA and make flies with sections of their bodies in the wrong places.
I agree that creationism is not very useful at inspiring research, as it does not prompt people to go out searching for life’s hidden meanings. In this respect, I think the existence of theory of evolution is great.
@ RightClawSouth
I agree that faith can be a bad thing. Just how many wars are fought over different religions? As for no evidence, it could be argued that everything you see is evidence?
I also agree that there will never be anything to prove there is a God, but (cover your eyes if you vomit on mention of religious books) I also think there will never be anything that disproves the Bible. To me that is important because it references things in the future as well.
@Don Emanuel
I think this is true for a lot of church goers. No real belief, just following the crowd.
@RobBennett
I think how the Catholic faith has adopted evolution to be insane, but I am not Catholic and most Christians would not call me a practicing Christian because I like to down a few…too many:) As for evolution standing heavy scrutiny, I don’t even understand why our schools waste the time teaching evolution or intelligent design when neither can be confirmed.
I love the science in your path analogy. I think this is huge in how we all see things.
@csdx
Infinite degradation is what is observed in observable evolution. It is my understanding that viruses usually change in this manner (degradation, taking away from the DNA). This is true for all other observed evolution. I don’t know how degradation of genes turned into enhanced genes being passed along.
I follow the “who designed god” argument, but doesn’t the supernatural beyond comprehension “I am that I am” of God imply that we do not fathom His being and that it is eternal? I guess that is one of my problems with evolution. It requires a person to believe in the eternal or that something happened spontaneously, which in my opinion is not greatly different from belief in God. Infinium, the timeline for evolution:)
I don’t think Newton was wrong, it just doesn’t apply to quantum physics…almost like another dimension. I agree there is no reason to stop searching for other theories beyond evolution or hand waving god did it. I hope I don’t seem too smug, but we all know teachers do not know everything, and we should not be scolded either for pointing it out occasionally. Otherwise, people learn false information.
Looking to believers is a sure way to never believe in God. I started this post while enjoying a few brews and personally have not religiously (pun intended) gone to church for about 14 years. I almost decided not to respond to anyone because it dawned on me that most people refuse to have friendly open discussion on this topic. But I started this, so here I go.
@Q
What in movies has made you superstitious?
@Robert Muir
Variation within a species has always been around. What scientifically justifies a jump between species? This has never been observed IMHO. Few fossils have been found that truly support this claim. A lot could have resulted from “the flood” and you just need to look to today to realize mass quantities of species are going extinct every day. According to science, dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, but they have found preserved dinosaur blood vessels?
@AlexOliver
I respect your decision, but remember that the truth might not be in a realm of our possible:) FSM might come down an serve breakfast!
@Jacob
I like that quote as well.
Gravity and the second law of thermodynamics can be readily observed today. In the physical world I don’t think there is any room for debate. Anyone not believing can be told to walk off a bridge and will learn these laws are true (unless the FSM comes and saves them:)). IMHO the fossil record is greatly lacking the vast evidence to prove what should be overwhelmingly abundant examples of the in between species. The few that seem to fit could be an extinct species, the result of a catastrophe, or simply fabricated (it wouldn’t be the first time).
I am surprised you would use “the best explanation of observable facts that the smartest people of the planet have been able to come up with” as a good argument to prove it’s validity. This is like promoting the buy and hold strategy for stocks or that “They” will solve any future energy crisis. I also think the large majority of science HAS to prove evolution to get continued government funding. This is disturbing as how is “some other scientific theory” supposed to emerge if all contrary findings are smothered?
I agree that many do not have the scientific foundation. Please reference me to what should give me that in areas I am lacking. I don’t want you thinking I just like to argue!
@Photoguy
Microevolution is not Macro and all mutations are usually a hindrance if not lethal to the specimen. There has been some interesting stuff done with flies. It is cool that they can splice DNA and make flies with sections of their bodies in the wrong places.
I agree that creationism is not very useful at inspiring research, as it does not prompt people to go out searching for life’s hidden meanings. In this respect, I think the existence of theory of evolution is great.
@ RightClawSouth
I agree that faith can be a bad thing. Just how many wars are fought over different religions? As for no evidence, it could be argued that everything you see is evidence?
I also agree that there will never be anything to prove there is a God, but (cover your eyes if you vomit on mention of religious books) I also think there will never be anything that disproves the Bible. To me that is important because it references things in the future as well.
@Don Emanuel
I think this is true for a lot of church goers. No real belief, just following the crowd.
@RobBennett
I think how the Catholic faith has adopted evolution to be insane, but I am not Catholic and most Christians would not call me a practicing Christian because I like to down a few…too many:) As for evolution standing heavy scrutiny, I don’t even understand why our schools waste the time teaching evolution or intelligent design when neither can be confirmed.
I love the science in your path analogy. I think this is huge in how we all see things.
@csdx
Infinite degradation is what is observed in observable evolution. It is my understanding that viruses usually change in this manner (degradation, taking away from the DNA). This is true for all other observed evolution. I don’t know how degradation of genes turned into enhanced genes being passed along.
I follow the “who designed god” argument, but doesn’t the supernatural beyond comprehension “I am that I am” of God imply that we do not fathom His being and that it is eternal? I guess that is one of my problems with evolution. It requires a person to believe in the eternal or that something happened spontaneously, which in my opinion is not greatly different from belief in God. Infinium, the timeline for evolution:)
I don’t think Newton was wrong, it just doesn’t apply to quantum physics…almost like another dimension. I agree there is no reason to stop searching for other theories beyond evolution or hand waving god did it. I hope I don’t seem too smug, but we all know teachers do not know everything, and we should not be scolded either for pointing it out occasionally. Otherwise, people learn false information.
Hi TheDude,
I like you and hope you won't feel offended by what I write below.
I'm an agnostic. I can't exclude the possibility of a god existing, but it seems highly unlikely to me. I don't have much hope of finding a way to disprove or prove his existance. But if he exists, he seems to be very good at hiding.
In thousands of years nobody has come up with a way to verify the existance of any gods. Many have tried, but as far as I know no attempt has become known as a clear winner.
Sure, most of the Earth's inhabitants are religious. But the popularity of a belief doesn't prove its correctness (otherwise the herd would always be on the right side of the trade on the stock market).
Relying on a very old book doesn't prove anything either. (age doesn't make the books in my library any truer)
Nor does the fact that people find comfort in it. (but I recognize it is a very good thing)
So I suppose there's no god.
Evolution theory and natural selection sound logical and plausible to me. I don't know all the details of the debate, but creationism depends on the existence of a god (which for the reasons outlined above seems very unlikely to me) and not on any verifiable facts, and intelligent design seems to be creationism trying to pose as a "scientific theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Some quotes from famous people (quotes prove nothing, but I like quotes):
Jesus' last words on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here.
-- Donald Morgan
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC - AD 65)
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, or of a personal God.
Religion is all bunk."
-- Thomas Edison
When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.
-- Robert Pirsig
Turn over the pages of history and read the damning record of the church's opposition to every advance in every field of science.
-- Upton Sinclair
I support your right to practice your religion and mine to abstain from it. I'm glad there's a separation of church and state. I fear politicians who base public policy on religion, because I fear it's wrong and because it tends to lead to interfering with personal liberties and scientific research.
I like you and hope you won't feel offended by what I write below.
I'm an agnostic. I can't exclude the possibility of a god existing, but it seems highly unlikely to me. I don't have much hope of finding a way to disprove or prove his existance. But if he exists, he seems to be very good at hiding.
In thousands of years nobody has come up with a way to verify the existance of any gods. Many have tried, but as far as I know no attempt has become known as a clear winner.
Sure, most of the Earth's inhabitants are religious. But the popularity of a belief doesn't prove its correctness (otherwise the herd would always be on the right side of the trade on the stock market).
Relying on a very old book doesn't prove anything either. (age doesn't make the books in my library any truer)
Nor does the fact that people find comfort in it. (but I recognize it is a very good thing)
So I suppose there's no god.
Evolution theory and natural selection sound logical and plausible to me. I don't know all the details of the debate, but creationism depends on the existence of a god (which for the reasons outlined above seems very unlikely to me) and not on any verifiable facts, and intelligent design seems to be creationism trying to pose as a "scientific theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Some quotes from famous people (quotes prove nothing, but I like quotes):
Jesus' last words on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here.
-- Donald Morgan
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC - AD 65)
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, or of a personal God.
Religion is all bunk."
-- Thomas Edison
When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.
-- Robert Pirsig
Turn over the pages of history and read the damning record of the church's opposition to every advance in every field of science.
-- Upton Sinclair
I support your right to practice your religion and mine to abstain from it.
I'm glad there's a separation of church and state. I fear politicians who base public policy on religion, because I fear it's wrong and because it tends to lead to interfering with personal liberties and scientific research.@Marius
I like quotes as well, and you are one of my favorite posters! I like you to! As for all posters, don't worry about offending this dude:) There are reasons Jesus had these last words but I won't go into it as this is about evolution rather than religious stuff and whether evolution holds as much water as they teach us. I want to hear peoples "Ah Ha" moments so that I can understand this water holding "truth".
I like quotes as well, and you are one of my favorite posters! I like you to! As for all posters, don't worry about offending this dude:) There are reasons Jesus had these last words but I won't go into it as this is about evolution rather than religious stuff and whether evolution holds as much water as they teach us. I want to hear peoples "Ah Ha" moments so that I can understand this water holding "truth".
Dutch psychologists have just published a new study.
They seem to think the element of randomness in Darwin's Evolution theory may sit less well with some people who don't feel in control of their life. (if I haven't misunderstood; I'm VERY sleepy right now)
Abstract
"A simple reminder of the fact that we do not always control life's outcomes reduced people's belief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This control-threat resulted in a relative preference for theories of life that thwart randomness, either by stressing the role of a controlling God (Intelligent Design) or by presenting the Theory of Evolution in terms of predictable and orderly processes. Moreover, increased preference for Intelligent Design over evolutionary theory disappeared when the latter was framed in terms of an orderly process with inevitable outcomes. Thus, psychological threat enhances belief in God, but only in the absence of other options that help to create order in the world."
(Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, November 2010)
An article with more details on the study:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... decision/1
They seem to think the element of randomness in Darwin's Evolution theory may sit less well with some people who don't feel in control of their life. (if I haven't misunderstood; I'm VERY sleepy right now)
Abstract
"A simple reminder of the fact that we do not always control life's outcomes reduced people's belief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This control-threat resulted in a relative preference for theories of life that thwart randomness, either by stressing the role of a controlling God (Intelligent Design) or by presenting the Theory of Evolution in terms of predictable and orderly processes. Moreover, increased preference for Intelligent Design over evolutionary theory disappeared when the latter was framed in terms of an orderly process with inevitable outcomes. Thus, psychological threat enhances belief in God, but only in the absence of other options that help to create order in the world."
(Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, November 2010)
An article with more details on the study:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... decision/1
@Marius
Ok, but I don't understand what this has to do with the topic beyond that you are implying that I may be prone to dislike randomness in my life and it may sit less well with people who "don't feel in control of their life".
All potentially good points, but how does this relate to affirming evolution? Using random articles that may or may not be bias does not answer questions for or against evolution and does not necessarily apply to everyone referenced in an aritical.
Ok, but I don't understand what this has to do with the topic beyond that you are implying that I may be prone to dislike randomness in my life and it may sit less well with people who "don't feel in control of their life".
All potentially good points, but how does this relate to affirming evolution? Using random articles that may or may not be bias does not answer questions for or against evolution and does not necessarily apply to everyone referenced in an aritical.
@Dude - In general, just the bombardment of shows/movies about the supernatural and perpetually doing things a certain way.
I own a black cat, but I will never walk under a ladder. I always, if possible, put the lid down on the toilet before I flush (don't want my soul to be sucked down, but wait, I am not religious so why do I care???)
I believe and then don't believe in ghosts. I won't open umbrellas inside. I will step on cracks because I am not looking at my feet when I walk. I will toss salt that I spill over my shoulder. If I was not introduced to any of this crap through movies, tvs or other superstitious people over and over again, I probably would(n't) do it.
Just this week, I had an extremely important inspection for work happening. I couldn't remember if eating In N Out (a food chain for those not on the west coast of USA) before my other important inspections at this job site were then followed by success or failure. So I ate it, and then failed the inspection.
Needless to say I will not eat before my next important inspection at this job site.
@Rob - for some reason I (mostly) agree with you.
@Jacob - I always forget you have a PhD. Should call you doc from now on.
@Dude again - Last nite I drank quite a bit (1/4 a bottle of tequila and 4 jager bombs) and apparently fell asleep on the bathroom floor for whatever reason and then climbed into bed with my clothes on, and only remembered it all as a dream and not reality - no point to this, more that it was funny after the fact.
I own a black cat, but I will never walk under a ladder. I always, if possible, put the lid down on the toilet before I flush (don't want my soul to be sucked down, but wait, I am not religious so why do I care???)
I believe and then don't believe in ghosts. I won't open umbrellas inside. I will step on cracks because I am not looking at my feet when I walk. I will toss salt that I spill over my shoulder. If I was not introduced to any of this crap through movies, tvs or other superstitious people over and over again, I probably would(n't) do it.
Just this week, I had an extremely important inspection for work happening. I couldn't remember if eating In N Out (a food chain for those not on the west coast of USA) before my other important inspections at this job site were then followed by success or failure. So I ate it, and then failed the inspection.
Needless to say I will not eat before my next important inspection at this job site.
@Rob - for some reason I (mostly) agree with you.
@Jacob - I always forget you have a PhD. Should call you doc from now on.
@Dude again - Last nite I drank quite a bit (1/4 a bottle of tequila and 4 jager bombs) and apparently fell asleep on the bathroom floor for whatever reason and then climbed into bed with my clothes on, and only remembered it all as a dream and not reality - no point to this, more that it was funny after the fact.