Evolution Vs Creationism

[heretic888]

So the invention of the internet means we are more complex thinkers. Thats a crock.

Actually, no its not. The notion of a holistic informational network (even if its reductionistic/materialistic) is, within its own line of development, extremely advanced.

In any event, you seem to be talking about the notion of cultural evolution --- which is something of a different subject altogether. Yes, a postindustrial/multicultural society is more "advanced" than a group of hunter-gatherers. That doesn't necessarily mean either is "better", though.

We have a complex society so people can think as little or as much as they want.

Its called "pluralism". Something the Inuit in question, which like similar societies are extremely ethnocentric, do not possess.

the less advanced a society the more advanced its language must be to insure survival.

*chuckles* This is a new one to me. Maybe you should provide your hypothesis to the anthropological community and see what they think.

Secondly, when I refer to cave men I am talking about homo sapiens, not some ape like creature the scientific community names as early man yet finds out later that a group like the Neandrathal actualy coexisted with homosapiens.

Then you are using a definition of "cave men" that only you subscribe to.

That little thing called the agriculteral revolution was less nutricious(sp) than what people ate before and life spans decreased and disease actualy increased.

*chuckles* Sources, please.

And I see you are suggesting they had no knowledge of medicinal herbs.

Not compared to later societies, no.

You know I took a cultural anthropology course

Good for you. I took a chemistry class, that must mean I'm an expert chemist now.

All your physical stuff is purly theory and not fact.

Ummm.... there are no "facts" in science.

The Inuit are about as close to cave men as we have right now and I doubt the northern peoples lived much differently back then.

These are both assumptions based on your personal opinions, without any empirical evidence to back them up.

Since this a Martial arts web site I'll bet the Martial arts were studied very carefully as well; but, the Daruma story is what everyone likes to go with. I think its happened over and over again through out the Milinea.

What?! :mst:

Ummmm..... laterz.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by MisterMike
That's obviously debateable. But both schools of thought are just that, beliefs. But we know which one is taught in schools.

Actually no. There's no debate whatsoever. Creationism is a set of beliefs. Evolution is a fact and is supported by centuries of observations and experimentation. The Theory of Evolution is our attempt to explain how evolution happened, and is constantly being revised and adjusted based on continued observation and experimentation. There is no debate. This whole argument is a political, not scientific one. The folks pushing creationism are doing it because they want the government teaching their religion to everyone's children. They do not accept the responsibility of teaching their own religion on a personal level.

See www.talkorigins.org

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
The fundamental elements religion cannot be tested and therefore can never be science. Science, although it requires an amount of faith, is testable and falsifyable.

If you don't like something, go out and find the evidence against it. If you can't it doesn't matter if you don't like it, the theory stands no matter how unpalatable it is.

Which brings me to the concept of scientific creationism. Totally untestable. Every mechanism we see that could cause evolution has a theory which lays out a natural mechanism. Postulating that these natural mechanisms are the work of God's creation is a null statement as far as science is concerned.

Besides, supposing that the above statement is true and that God is "sentient and good" there are alot of things in which God could be called into account. One being the Permian extinction. 90% of all life vanished from the face of the Earth. Doesn't sound like good to me...(there are some logical problems with this thought, but I'll throw it in and see what happens.)

Uh-uh. Science requires no faith. It either works or it doesn't, regardless of belief. If you jump off a cliff, you'll fall, whether you belive in gravity or not. The rest of what you said I'd agree with.

"But wait - we don't know how gravity works yet, therefore science is wrong!!"

Me: How does gravity work?
Scientist: We don't know yet, but we're working on it. We've got a few ideas that we're playing around with and trying to verify or falsify.
Creationist: Goddidit! Give me money so I can pass a law to force schools to stop teaching the atheistic-satanic eeevilution to our poor defenseless children.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Actually no. There's no debate whatsoever. Creationism is a set of beliefs. Evolution is a fact and is supported by centuries of observations and experimentation. The Theory of Evolution is our attempt to explain how evolution happened, and is constantly being revised and adjusted based on continued observation and experimentation. There is no debate. This whole argument is a political, not scientific one. The folks pushing creationism are doing it because they want the government teaching their religion to everyone's children. They do not accept the responsibility of teaching their own religion on a personal level.

See www.talkorigins.org

No. I don't see it that way. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Just as there are geometrical theorems, such as a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

Once something has become accepted enough, or demonstrably proven to be accurate, it is accepted as a proof, or fact. Nobody has proven evolution. There has been a lot of observations, and has since been rammed down our throats in the name of science, but nobody is going to prove the age of the earth or what animals lived there and what they "turned into." They cannot even agree amongst themselves how it all got started. So there is no 1 evolution theory either, just as there are many creation beliefs.

The arguement is also not political, as you would hope it to be. It's a sign of weakness when people have to band together behind a name when they can't feel confident enough with their own beliefs. I have mentioned no political affiliation.

People "pushing" creationism would be different than those teaching it/learning it from friends and family. There are extremists in almost every cause.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Uh-uh. Science requires no faith. It either works or it doesn't, regardless of belief. If you jump off a cliff, you'll fall, whether you belive in gravity or not. The rest of what you said I'd agree with.

"But wait - we don't know how gravity works yet, therefore science is wrong!!"

Me: How does gravity work?
Scientist: We don't know yet, but we're working on it. We've got a few ideas that we're playing around with and trying to verify or falsify.
Creationist: Goddidit! Give me money so I can pass a law to force schools to stop teaching the atheistic-satanic eeevilution to our poor defenseless children.

Ignorance, pure ignorance. You may as well drop off the thread.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by heretic888
There's a reason for that.

The name of the course that is taken is biology, not religion. Thus, you teach biological theories, not religious theology.

Ya, like I didn't know the difference. The problem with your line of thought is that schools cannot offer both classes.

"A mind is like a parachute. It's only usefull when it's open."

 

[heretic888]

Ya, like I didn't know the difference. The problem with your line of thought is that schools cannot offer both classes.

Well, if we're talking about public schools here then the only way it could work is if it was a Comparitive Religion class or the like. Or, an elective.

I never said they couldn't offer both, just not in a biology class.

"A mind is like a parachute. It's only usefull when it's open."

Oooh, that's a good one. *writes it down*

Laterz.

 

[MisterMike]

Well, I can't really take credit for the quote, but if you were a Parker Kenpo student it might have rung a bell. But the I looked in your profile and didn't really see any arts studied..hmm...

 

[rmcrobertson]

I am sorry, Mike, but several of your statements simply aren't correct. Not only is the age of the earth pretty well established, not only is it pretty much as solid as anything in science, but a million years one way or another aren't going to help creationist belief very much.

The problem is this. If you're going to argue the science, then you have to play by the rules of science. You can't pick and choose what you want, just to preserve another belief system. And science is by definition a materialism, which means that God is simply beside the point. Doesn't appear on the radar screen. (One wonders about stealth technology...) "Does God exist?" simply isn't a scientific question, because there's no way to provide the sort of generation-of-hypothesis-and-test-against-material-reality-then-retest pattern of science. Or to paraphrase Sagan et al, the problem is that the beliefs of religion are--by definition--not falsifiable, which means that you cannot test them and prove them wrong by aany meeans whatsoever.

Now religious ways of seeing are, in their way, every bit as good as science. They're simply different. Problem is that some science, and something about the whole approach of science, runs smack into some aspects of religion. Skepticism and testing, for examplee, runs counter to the whole idea of faith.

Personally, I think that science takes the rap for capitalism. By that I mean to say that many religious (and let's be clear--for, "religious," read, "Christian and fundamentalist") people are pissed off (and they probably should be) by many aspects of the modern world. However, their analysis doesn't focus on an economic system that, sorry, as Marx said, makes, "everything solid melt into air," but on scientific theories like evolution. If you listen to, say, Pat Robertson, you'll hear why--it's because his ideology is strongly pro-capitalist, and he doesn't want to examine those premises.

Personally, I don't get why there's such a big hassle over this. The Catholic Church, for example, has simply gone back to an old argument: God, the Author of all things, has left us two books to study: the Bible, and Nature. Reading them both is part of what we're here for. If the two books appear to contradict one another, that's not God's fault, it's not the Bible, it's not Nature--it's a mark of our limited understanding. Genesis and Darwin, that is, go together perfectly well--we're just too thick to see how.

Budddhism seems to have an even easier time, because Budddhism doesn't postulate that either God or our ape origins are relevant to religious and moral questions--unless we start fetishizing God or the soul or whatever, in which case we'd best be prepared to deal with having our fetishizations exposed as nonsense.

It's just Spencer Tracy slapping the Bible and
Origin of Species," together at the end of "Inherit the Wind," and walking out of the courthouse, is all I'm saying.

Incidentally, it is completely inaccurate to claim that teachers cannot teach both Darwin and the basic theories of religions in schools. I do it all the time...and frankly, I'm at least as appalled by some student's ignorance of their own religions (to say nothing of others!) as I am by their ignorance of Darwin...the ONLY prohibition is that you're not allowed to jam your own beliefs down students' throats...

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Makalakumu]

Gravity, on the quantum level, is not reliable. Sub-atomic particles are completely unaffected at times. Faith in the "law of gravity" masked this little secret. Also, it is theorized that the particle that carries the force of gravity is called the graviton. This has never been tested or observed directly or indirectly. Scientists accept this theory on the "belief" that one day it will be found.

Mike

Evolution is a theory, I agree. The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is quite substantial. There are not multiple theories of evolution, though - unless you count Rupert Sheldrake's! There are multiple theories on the mechanisms that cause evolution. Punctuated equiplibria and natural selection are the two most popular theories. As far as your comments about animals turning into other animals, that is not what evolution describes. Species go extinct and new species arise from the results of environmental pressure. Nothing is turning into anything.

John

 

[MisterMike]

That's all pretty good Robert, from what I could understand of it, but we know science can be wrong because it is made from rules that humans create. Nobody is really going to be able to prove how old this piece of rock is. "Pretty well" and "pretty close" just don't cut it.

But it is taught as undisputeable fact in schools. That's where I disagree, and my only point to be made on this thread.

I find some aspects of science astonishing. For instnace, how things from the largest to the tiniest in this universe all behave the same. By that, I'm referring to the orbit of planets and the orbit of electrons. I'd like to think that through science we could come to realize some incredible universal laws. But I think that it is there for our enjyoment, not to reverse engineer and make clone babies with.

 

[heretic888]

And science is by definition a materialism, which means that God is simply beside the point.

That's not quite true --- at least not the materialistic part. Science is empiricist, but not necessarily reductionist.

Many of the sciences study non-material phenomena (psychology, anthropology, mathematics, sociology, logic, etc etc...) but are completely valid. And even the "hard sciences" use incredibly non-material tools and functions for study, unless you're going to show me the square root of -1 in the "real" world out there.

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert

Actually the flow of energy in biological systems very much mimics the flow of money in economic systems. The equations that describe these phenomena are nearly identical. With that being said, what do you think about the thought that capitolism is evolutionary in that it ascribes to the concept of "survival of the fittest?"

 

[Makalakumu]

It is theorized that the square root of -1 describes numbers in parellel universes. In Young's double slit experiment, when you allow one photon at a time pass randomly through the slits, you would think you'd get only two spectral lines. Instead, you get an entire diffractive pattern. This phenomenon has been described as both the particle and wave nature of a photon. It is theorized that this phenomenon is only possible from the interaction of photons from parellel universes. Imaginary numbers help describe this theory.

 

[heretic888]

That's all pretty good Robert, from what I could understand of it, but we know science can be wrong because it is made from rules that humans create.

That's a completely irrational justification. That would be like saying "this psychological test studying the psyches of pregnant women is inherently questionable because it was designed by a man". That kind of argument is absurd. Look at the test itself, and not the person that made it.

Nobody is really going to be able to prove how old this piece of rock is. "Pretty well" and "pretty close" just don't cut it.

Not to you, maybe. But your viewpoint sounds incredibly black-and-white on the matter. There is a reason why we have probabilities and likelihoods in science.

I would say knowing how old that rock is within a 98.9% certainty level is "good enough".

But it is taught as undisputeable fact in schools. That's where I disagree, and my only point to be made on this thread.

That's funny, because I was taught that "facts", per se, do not exist in science. Although, I can understand how certain individuals might regard certain theories as "facts"...

I find some aspects of science astonishing. For instnace, how things from the largest to the tiniest in this universe all behave the same. By that, I'm referring to the orbit of planets and the orbit of electrons. I'd like to think that through science we could come to realize some incredible universal laws. But I think that it is there for our enjyoment, not to reverse engineer and make clone babies with.

Science is there to do whatever with it the individual chooses. Its there to discover new possibilities and make discoveries. Some are good, some are bad. Science itself, however, is neutral.

Actually the flow of energy in biological systems very much mimics the flow of money in economic systems. The equations that describe these phenomena are nearly identical. With that being said, what do you think about the thought that capitolism is evolutionary in that it ascribes to the concept of "survival of the fittest?"

I don't think that "survival of the fittest" bit applies to either biology or economics, considering a sociologist was the one that coined the phrase.

If capitalism was so "Darwinian" then why are there establishments within capitalistic societies intended to benefit the disenfranchised... including social security, medicare, welfare, etc etc??

Imaginary numbers help describe this theory.

Thus a non-material phenomena (mathematical imaginary number) helps find out information about a material phenomena (a particular field of physics). Very interesting.

 

[michaeledward]

It's a sign of weakness when people have to band together behind a name when they can't feel confident enough with their own beliefs.

Like people who hide behind the name Jesus?

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by MisterMike
No. I don't see it that way. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Just as there are geometrical theorems, such as a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

How you see it isn't actually relevant to the issue. Evolution is an observed fact. You really need to read up on this if you want to discuss it in the same terms that are generally used by the scientific community. This is, after all, a science issue.

Once something has become accepted enough, or demonstrably proven to be accurate, it is accepted as a proof, or fact.

That is correct. Thus, we have evolution.

Nobody has proven evolution. There has been a lot of observations, and has since been rammed down our throats in the name of science, but nobody is going to prove the age of the earth or what animals lived there and what they "turned into." They cannot even agree amongst themselves how it all got started. So there is no 1 evolution theory either, just as there are many creation beliefs.

Nope. See www.talkorigins.org for a much better list of information than I could ever hope to present.

The arguement is also not political, as you would hope it to be. It's a sign of weakness when people have to band together behind a name when they can't feel confident enough with their own beliefs. I have mentioned no political affiliation.

Oh, but the argument IS political. You see, since creationists have no science to back their claims, their only option is to try to change education through the political process. You only need to read the news to see that this is exactly what is happening right now. Our science textbooks are being turned into useless piles of woodpulp so that the book companies can sell them in Texas. Every state in the union has multiple lawsuits brought yearly because some self-righteous or stealth-funded creationists has his/her panties in a twist when their kid brings home a book about dinosaurs. Half of the states currently have ICR or Discovery Institute hired teams of lobbyists trying to push legislation that would open the door to teaching creationism instead of evolution in science class. Yes, this is definitely a political, not scientific argument.

Ignorance, pure ignorance. You may as well drop off the thread.

Heh. Again, you really need to read up on what's REALLY happening with this issue. There are volumes upon volumes of dialogue that read exactly as I wrote, without the satirical aspect, of course.

 

[Nightingale]

I thinks some people here are misinterpreting the word "theory" in a scientific context.

In science, something must continue to be called a theory unless it is actually WITNESSED by a scientist and recorded. Then, it becomes a law. This is why we have a law of motion and a theory of relativity.

Evolution must remain a theory. It can never be more than a theory simply because our lifetime is not long enough to observe it in action. Theory, when used to describe aspects of science, doesn't just mean "random idea that hasn't been tested"

It is a scientific fact that matter cannot be created and destroyed... only changed.

We have records of creatures that existed long ago. Those creatures are obviously no longer here. We can get an idea of the age of the creatures based on their locations in the fossil record. It is a logical conclusion that today's creatures came from the creatures of long ago, simply because it is completely illogical to believe that the creatures of long ago somehow went *POOF* and new creatures showed up. The world just plain doesn't work like that.

Personally, I believe science has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith has nothing to do with science. Science is about proof. Faith is about belief.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Gravity, on the quantum level, is not reliable. Sub-atomic particles are completely unaffected at times. Faith in the "law of gravity" masked this little secret. Also, it is theorized that the particle that carries the force of gravity is called the graviton. This has never been tested or observed directly or indirectly. Scientists accept this theory on the "belief" that one day it will be found.

Not exactly. The graviton model of particle transportation of gravitational forces isn't a theory as much as it is a hypothesis. It is a model that serves to adequately explain what we see in the behavior of gravity so far, but hasn't been elevated to a theory because of lack of verification. From everything I've read about it so far, it certainly isn't generally accepted among scientists as anything beyond that, pending verification or falsification. But the model WORKS mathematically. Hence, it has some utility. There's definitely plenty of debate about this right now.

Mike

Evolution is a theory, I agree. The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is quite substantial. There are not multiple theories of evolution, though - unless you count Rupert Sheldrake's! There are multiple theories on the mechanisms that cause evolution. Punctuated equiplibria and natural selection are the two most popular theories. As far as your comments about animals turning into other animals, that is not what evolution describes. Species go extinct and new species arise from the results of environmental pressure. Nothing is turning into anything.

John

No, evolution isn't a theory, and Punctuated Equilibrium and Natural Selection do not compete for their place in the mechanisms for evolution. PE is a refinement of natural selection, nothing more. There's certainly some disagreement about how much effect PE has over more gradual development, but that's to be expected.

Your second part is spot on. I always get a kick out of creationists screaming about bacteria growing legs and talking. It just shows that they don't really even understand what they're arguing against.

For the record, evolution is simply this: Change in allele (genes, more or less) frequency in populations over time.
A cat doesn't change into a dog, but it's entirely possible that, over many generations in a particular population of cats, you might eventually encounter environmental pressures that would lead to individual cats with doglike features to have an reproductive advantage over their brethren. What you end up with is cats with doglike features, NOT DOGS. Eventually, with enough changes, it becomes impossible for the new cats to interbreed with the old ones, resulting in a new species.

The creationist understanding of evolution is so wrong and childish, it defies explanation in a supposedly educated socity.

 

[heretic888]

Evolution must remain a theory. It can never be more than a theory simply because our lifetime is not long enough to observe it in action.

Well, this is only half-true. Microevolution has been readily observed firsthand by scientists. Macroevolution, however, has not.

Macroevolution, however, is the form of evolution most creationists are so upset about.

Theory, when used to describe aspects of science, doesn't just mean "random idea that hasn't been tested"

Yes, exactly. :asian:

We have records of creatures that existed long ago. Those creatures are obviously no longer here. We can get an idea of the age of the creatures based on their locations in the fossil record. It is a logical conclusion that today's creatures came from the creatures of long ago, simply because it is completely illogical to believe that the creatures of long ago somehow went *POOF* and new creatures showed up. The world just plain doesn't work like that.

Yup.

During my high school biology classes, they actually showed concrete, specific examples of this. There were slides showing different fossil remains of what is believed to be ancestors of the modern horse. The farther back they went, there was a definite trend in how the leg and hoof composition of the horse creatures was changing. It was a long, gradual change.

Obviously, those "horse ancestors" are no longer around. But the modern horse is.

Likewise, it wasn't just an accident that around the time that homo sapien popped up that homo erectus was beginning to dwindle rapidly.

Laterz.