Evolution

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Dare we suspect you may be a *suspensful drum roll* Heretic?

So, what is the difference between heresy and hearsay?

D.

Note to self: avoid logging on while bordering on diabetic coma. Must. Eat. Pizza.

 

[heretic888]

So, what is the difference between heresy and hearsay?

A syllable.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk. :boing2:

 

[qizmoduis]

Lotta good points that some people have made. A lil' something I'd like to add...

One of the most amazingly humorous aspect of discussions like these is that the proponents of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and so forth have a tendency to try and get everyone else to believe that the validity of the Theory of Evolution is actually hotly debated in scientific circles.

This might be a shock to some of you, but scientists aren't actually debating whether evolution happens or not. No more than they are debating as to whether cells exist or not. The Theory of Evolution and the Cell Theory have pretty much equal empirical support, all things considered.

My college biology professor put it like this a few years back:

- Student: "So, did they ever figure out that evolution thing?? Do we know if people came from monkeys or whatnot??"
- Prof: *chuckles* "Yes, we 'figured it out'. Evolution is, for the most part, pretty much settled. The only people still debating the theory are in religious circles --- not scientific ones."

She made a pretty good, and this tells us leagues about the Evolution vs Creation debates as a whole --- scientists don't actually debate this stuff. Conservative religous leaders do. Surprise, surprise.

And, of course, what is the typical religious response to science's apparent apathy towards these discussion: that there is some kind of "godless atheistic conspiracy" among scientists to disprove God --- which, I gotta say t'punk, isn't exactly leagues away from some of the stuff you've been alluding to.

But, hey, for all you guys know I could be part of that atheistic cabal to, bent on destroying your precious religion. Conspiracy!!

Your exactly right. Scientists of all stripes and disciplines do not debate evolution. They do, however, delight in arguing about various details. This is the part of science that creationists cannot accept. They want SCIENCE (as a monolith) to have THE ANSWER, right now, because that's how they, themselves, think. To them, knowledge doesn't come about through observation, research, experimentation, etc., but rather through revelation. This idea of knowledge through revelation is why creationism has such purchase among those without a decent education in science. To them, knowledge comes from a book. Through revelation. Since they don't understand science, anything can be scientific, so long as someone in authority says it's scientific.

One of the most amazing and annoying attitudes you can get from a creationist is the assumption that, since scientists make mistakes, everything they've ever done was mistaken. Or since science doesn't know the answer to something right now, then it never will. Ignorant attitude, yes, but prevalent among creationists.

 

[heretic888]

I agree with quizmodius, but have two issues...

This is the part of science that creationists cannot accept. They want SCIENCE (as a monolith) to have THE ANSWER, right now, because that's how they, themselves, think.

I agree completely. This is very similar among developmental psychology with the dilineation between concrete-operational and formal-operational modes of thought (or whichever labels you prefer for these consciousness structures). A little Piaget, anyone??

In any event, we tend to see these consciousness structures emergy collectively among humanity on a historical scale, as well. Concrete-operational thinking (or role/rule mode), which historically was typified by mythic-membership, sociocentrism, and concrete-literal beliefs (usually mythic-fundamentalist), seemed to have more or less collectively emerged some 5 to 6 thousand years ago --- along with the rise of heavily patriarchal religion, predominantly agrarian (as opposed to horticultural) forms of subsistence, and powerful empire-states revolving around rigid rules, laws, and hierarchies. All of these qualities are somewhat indicative of modern conop, as well.

Coincidentally, the period in time in which mythic-membership first emerged on a grand scale --- 5 to 6 thousand years ago --- is just around the time that creationists claim the earth was created. Coincidence?? I think not.

Formal-operational thought, however, is collectively a more modern phenomena. It first emerged on a grand scale with the Renaissance (with smaller pockets found in some parts of ancient Greece), of course, and really flowered with our Western "Enlightenment" --- the Age of Reason. Thus, formop really began showing up in humans some 300 to 400 years ago. Along with it came the likes of humanistic philosophy, liberal democracies, an emphasis on egalitarianism of various sorts, capitalism (i.e., the middle class), and industrial technology. Slavery was abolished, two revolutions occured (American and French), theocracies took a blow, and rational-empiricism (i.e., scientific process) gained prominence.

This all probably sounds familiar. Which isn't too surprising, as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

But, is any of this really relevant?? Eh, maybe not --- but it is interesting nonethless. :asian:

To them, knowledge doesn't come about through observation, research, experimentation, etc., but rather through revelation. This idea of knowledge through revelation is why creationism has such purchase among those without a decent education in science. To them, knowledge comes from a book. Through revelation.

Woot ---- now, hold on a second. I would differentiate between the likes of "blind faith" with that of "revelation". Now, granted, sometimes (in fact, probably most of the time) the people that claim to have received a "revelation" are really just going on blind faith devoid of any real experience. But, I definately feel that transcendental illuminations of various sorts do happen --- I just would disassociate them with the baggage many conservative religious types try and lump them with.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, David, perhaps the thing to do would be to simply discuss the issues and ideas and evidences and leave off passing judgments--at least, judgments you seem to need to write down and ship out--on people. I find it offensive, and I suspect you do too.

I'll take care of my own development, psychological, spiritual and otherwise, thank you.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, David, perhaps the thing to do would be to simply discuss the issues and ideas and evidences and leave off passing judgments--at least, judgments you seem to need to write down and ship out--on people. I find it offensive, and I suspect you do too.

I'll take care of my own development, psychological, spiritual and otherwise, thank you.

Being a bit harsh, don't you think?

 

[arnisador]

One of the most amazingly humorous aspect of discussions like these is that the proponents of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and so forth have a tendency to try and get everyone else to believe that the validity of the Theory of Evolution is actually hotly debated in scientific circles.

Yes. It's the same tactic the Tobacco Institute used to use--anyone else remember their lawyer appearing on Nightline and talking about the "controversy" and "debate" over the health effects of smoking? It's the same here--pretending that the scientific community is debating something more than the smaller details of what is overall a fully accepted theory.

Scientific inquiry is a process--like making sausages, perhaps not everyone should watch it!

 

[Cruentus]

Yes. It's the same tactic the Tobacco Institute used to use--anyone else remember their lawyer appearing on Nightline and talking about the "controversy" and "debate" over the health effects of smoking? It's the same here--pretending that the scientific community is debating something more than the smaller details of what is overall a fully accepted theory.

Scientific inquiry is a process--like making sausages, perhaps not everyone should watch it!

So...are you saying we should hide the sausage? You would say that arnisidor!

:roflmao:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Well, David, perhaps the thing to do would be to simply discuss the issues and ideas and evidences and leave off passing judgments--at least, judgments you seem to need to write down and ship out--on people. I find it offensive, and I suspect you do too.

I'll take care of my own development, psychological, spiritual and otherwise, thank you.

No, Robert, I don't think. I believe (and not blindly) that both change, as well as the optimum exchange of information, takes place in the context of a relationship. Pure logic is devoid of this realm of human interaction; the Chinese assertion (and therefore NOT scientific or rational) that the part can only be understood in relationship to the whole. I don't log on purely for the fun of argumentation and debate, but also for the pleasure of enjoyable interaction, and the simple social pleasure of getting to know someone ot the limited extent such media allows.

Consistently, you've referenced in posts that people making comments about you know nothin about you. In one post, I specifically invited you to share with us a bit about what your core views were, and started by disclosure on my part. You never replied. I'm sure you have your reasons, and events such as these -- in the light of apparently hostile undertones in your posts -- gives the appearence of an unpleasant person to dialogue with. I have yet to see you stick to just the issues and ideas and evidences, without a bit-o-mudslinging on yer own part. Does superior logic require color commentary?

If all you want is to argue, I'll just stay clear. I, personally, logon as an avocation, partly to enjoy the connection and exchanges of personalities. Nice ones. And I'm even willing to bet you are a genuinely caring person to the people in your immediate circle, which makes your online demeanor all the more puzzling.

My offer, and the reason I cajole you, remains. I would like to "meet" the person Robert, and not just the excellent critical thinking online persona.

Simpler joys in life than being right...among them? Tossin' back a couple beers with an acquaintence, and arguing in person. But you gotta get to know the person first, and they gotta be willing to. I've no interest in guiding your personal or transpersonal development. I've an interest in meeting the man behind the mind, and you remain intellectually aloof. So it is, and so, I suspect, it will be. Self-disclosure is risk, and not for all.

As for judgement...doesn't one, critically, have to judge to discriminate between P, and Not P? Can you say, with all internal honesty, that you've avoided being judgemental in your posts regarding issues, ideas, and evidence?

All pomposity, etc., aside, I really do look forward to meeting you sometime. You write some brilliant points, and I'm sure I would enjoy the person from which the knowledge has emerged.

Dave.

 

[Cruentus]

Dave,

I can't help but be suspicious with that last post. Do you really want to get to know Robert because you admire him, or because you want to get more personal info about him so you can attack his persona online?

Sorry to ask, but I only wonder because all that could have written in a PM.

 

[loki09789]

Dave,

I can't help but be suspicious with that last post. Do you really want to get to know Robert because you admire him, or because you want to get more personal info about him so you can attack his persona online?

Sorry to ask, but I only wonder because all that could have written in a PM.

Demons in posts again, Paul? You CAN help being suspicious, on the Religious based discussions the topic of free will comes up, that is why I say you have chosen to remain suspicious. This could have been a PM too, but honestly why even comment when it isn't directed at you. Let me say this up front: I AM speaking up for Dave here this time AND a plea for some reasonable thought on your part.

Dave has openly apologized to me when he suspected that his postings could have been misinterpretted as personal attack. He has generally been polite and informative. We all slip, but that is human. I don't remember the author but there is a quote that goes something like: We don't see others as they are but as WE are.....

I am conscious of the fact that since I have stuck my nose in this uninvited I am being ironic, but as a contributing member of the MT forum, and in light of the 'media' discussion, are you just stirring the pot to increase subscription/viewings with such comments or are you trying to sincerely question Dave's integrity?

I fully expect a comment, but I have said my piece on this.

 

[Cruentus]

Paul M.,

Are YOU seeing Demons again? I have liked some of Dr. Dave's posts before, and I have told him so. But, in this case, I just asked him a question because the post seemed odd to me; and his post was public, so I asked publically. I haven't accused him of anything, I just asked a question, and explained why it seemed wierd to me. Your making something into a big deal that isn't. Now, do we even need to get into the irony that by you accusing me of butting my nose in where it doesn't belong, you've just possibly butted your nose in where it doesn't belong? Naw, probabily not.

So, are you seeing demons, or just being an @$$hole? (or am I seeing demons by possibly thinking that you might be just being an @$$hole? )

Paul Janulis
Wondering "what the F?" :idunno:

 

[heretic888]

Pure logic is devoid of this realm of human interaction; the Chinese assertion (and therefore NOT scientific or rational) that the part can only be understood in relationship to the whole.

Errrr..... might wanna re-evaluate your statement there.

Holism, process theory, dialectic theory, and what is sometimes called vision-logic and network-logic do indeed attempt to take the context of a part's existence to better understand it. Its actually pretty popular among various sciences and disciplines right now in the West (even though it is still understood in very materialistic terms), and is indeed very "rational" and "scientific". Hell, its the entire basis for most postmodern philosophy.

Outside of philosophical documents by the likes of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, you're not gonna find most of these sentiments in typical "Chinese" thought (although Western romanticism may have you think otherwise). Traditional "Chinese" thought is often very tribalistic and totemistic, more akin to pre-operational thought than network-logic.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I don't post an e-mail address, because I do not care to receive endless personal attacks, a decision that seems eminently rational in view of some of the nonsense about other people (including myself) I've read on these pages.

As for my core values, well, I believe I'm pretty much made them as clear as is necessary. Do I ever reflect on my words and ideas? Why no, not at all. Us intellectual types never do...but we do, from time to time, wonder why the heck it is that people seem to think that they have a lock on the world's total supply of moral behavior. Personally, I keep running tabs of my assorted and extensive screwups.

If my writing has developed more of an edge, well, what I'm willing to say is that I've decided enough with trying to be entirely polite and reasonable and educational in the face of some pretty mean-spirited attacks. In other words, I get a little sick of being told (and check the posts, if you think I'm exaggerating) that I hated my country, or was too limp-wristed to deal with reality, or was going to burn forever in everlasting fire, or was helping terrorists, and the whole litany of stupidities with which way too many people, these days, confront anybody and everything that is different from them. To me, the interesting thing is that a more aggressive style has actually elicited FEWER such remarks...which makes me realize, of course, that these forums have a lot to do with variations on the theme of wienie-waggling anyway.

As for evolution, I continue to think that the right-wing and fundamentalist repsonse is really misplaced anger about capitalism and cultural change.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I don't post an e-mail address, because I do not care to receive endless personal attacks, a decision that seems eminently rational in view of some of the nonsense about other people (including myself) I've read on these pages.

As for my core values, well, I believe I'm pretty much made them as clear as is necessary. Do I ever reflect on my words and ideas? Why no, not at all. Us intellectual types never do...but we do, from time to time, wonder why the heck it is that people seem to think that they have a lock on the world's total supply of moral behavior. Personally, I keep running tabs of my assorted and extensive screwups.

If my writing has developed more of an edge, well, what I'm willing to say is that I've decided enough with trying to be entirely polite and reasonable and educational in the face of some pretty mean-spirited attacks. In other words, I get a little sick of being told (and check the posts, if you think I'm exaggerating) that I hated my country, or was too limp-wristed to deal with reality, or was going to burn forever in everlasting fire, or was helping terrorists, and the whole litany of stupidities with which way too many people, these days, confront anybody and everything that is different from them. To me, the interesting thing is that a more aggressive style has actually elicited FEWER such remarks...which makes me realize, of course, that these forums have a lot to do with variations on the theme of wienie-waggling anyway.

As for evolution, I continue to think that the right-wing and fundamentalist repsonse is really misplaced anger about capitalism and cultural change.

Not a bad post Robert.

Could you also apply this to me. :asian: By apologizing and then making it out that if I do nto agree with you then I am some how either sick in the head or really uneducated, or just plain stupid. You have been much better with me recently, yet for a while you were making broad statements and assumptions about me.

Thank You and no disrepect or hidden agenda, for I do like this post.
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I don't post an e-mail address, because I do not care to receive endless personal attacks

I can appreciate that. But, can't people Private Message you here? That way they can talk to you personally without you having to put up your personal e-mail or information up for attacks. What-er-u-think?

 

[Cruentus]

btw, I liked your post too. Also, I agree that wennie waggling plays a huge role in these forums :lol: :rofl: .

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Paul:

Genuinely interested; not looking for ammo. Bit-o-disclosure: most of my friends and acquaintences have either passed away, moved away, or I've moved away from them. As a martial artist with a mind, I'm sure you can appreciate the difficulty in finding persons of like mind, and mental horsepower. Granted, I'm nowhere near a mental giant, but I have made an investment in time and energy to be (hopefully) well-rounded as a person.

I am infinitely intrigued by what I do not know, and consider it much more vast than what I do, and I make a fairly concerted effort to be well read and open minded. When I am introduced to information that's new to me, I like to learn about it so I can come back to the conversation with some informed perspective. Robert continually introduces ideas from authors I've not read, etc.

Kenpo, philosophy, and emerging frontiers in the development of science are among my favorite issues of exploration. I even like a good round of friendly debate, and get a chuckle out of being handed my hat because I couldn't find a way to make my argument, or unmake theirs.

As such, I've made most of my social acquaintences in the dojo. As you all know, the crowd in a dojo can vary widely, from educated, insightful & quick-minded, to dumb as a bag of hammers. If not in the dojo, where might one go to dialogue with people with gifted minds, about such things as kenpo, philosophy, and emerging science?

If I understand correctly, Robert & Billy are afficianados under the tutelage of Mr. Tatum. Unless they are available during the pre-dawn hours when insomnia strikes, I'll never get the opportunity to meet them in person, establish some type of rapport, and learn about their experiences of their training. That leaves online.

My previous fencing with Robert are some of the things I've regretted about my behavior on the fora, as it's set a tone such that I'm not sure how to engage in some of these conversations without seeming confrontational. I'd rather be inclusive, then exclusive. Crunchy granola, perhaps. But having been to waay to many funerals of late, and not enough parties, I'd rather err on the side of trying to get to know someone and appreciating lifes potential through their perspectives, than hash out minutae in a way that drives a potential kindred spirit further and further away.

I'll likely never meet Robert, which I count as a bummer and not a blessing, as I'm sure he's a kick to sit back and shoot the shyte with about the headlines; probably has well-informed perspectives to offer that have never even occurred to me, or spins on previous perspectives that signigicantly shift their meaning.

Yes, this might have been more appropriate in a PM. However, I had been a sarcastic a$$ to Robert with no good provocation, publicly, and as such owed him an apology/olive branch, publicly.

Dave :asian:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Errrr..... might wanna re-evaluate your statement there.

Holism, process theory, dialectic theory, and what is sometimes called vision-logic and network-logic do indeed attempt to take the context of a part's existence to better understand it. Its actually pretty popular among various sciences and disciplines right now in the West (even though it is still understood in very materialistic terms), and is indeed very "rational" and "scientific". Hell, its the entire basis for most postmodern philosophy.

Outside of philosophical documents by the likes of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, you're not gonna find most of these sentiments in typical "Chinese" thought (although Western romanticism may have you think otherwise). Traditional "Chinese" thought is often very tribalistic and totemistic, more akin to pre-operational thought than network-logic.

Laterz.

Yep. I was vaguely aware of that, but could not have phrased it quite as well. Working in the medical community, I see Western scientific thought mostly represented through seeking direct causal relationships..."This bug caused that illness; this organic materia caused that genetic mutation", etc. When I start asking patients about cravings for sweet or salty foods, palpating for thready pulses, or evaluating tongue color in an ortho's medical office, I get some pretty odd looks.

D.

 

[Cryozombie]

Paul:


Yes, this might have been more appropriate in a PM. However, I had been a sarcastic a$$ to Robert with no good provocation, publicly, and as such owed him an apology/olive branch, publicly.

Dave :asian:

You have to bear in mind, also, that he, for whatever reason, :idunno: doesnt accept PMs.

SO, that pretty much leaves anything that needs (?) to be said to being said openly to everyone.