Evolution vs Creationism

[evo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcTy7EWlc_c

 

[Djevv]

I don't believe in a creator, because there is no evidence for one. Your evidence is based on subjective feelings, which is all well and good, but given the frailties of human perception, I would be skeptical. I loathe the premise that we are good and moral for some greater reward in the afterlife. It cheapens the whole concept of altruism and the fact that you are doing good for good's sake. So your belief and assertion that humans are exceptional has no basis in anything outside of your subjective experience.

Ultimately it is us that study the bacteria not visa-versa. I still say it is our inner life that is remarkable, an assertion I think that is well evidenced. Not to say other animals are not, but it think we definitely are of a different type of thing from animals. I've tried to explain why I think this and why it is beneficial without any substantial response. I also haven't really understood why you think such ideas are dangerous. I don't think I have said much about altruism the afterlife or rewards so I'm not sure why you mention this.

There will always be Dr Pianka's, regardless of one's faith or lack thereof. We could have a slanging match pointing out the evils of the righteous and the atheists. It won't achieve anything though, except to demonstrate that humans are capable of inflicting great pain and suffering on other humans, regardless of beliefs. I am not sure how this supports your argument.

Well Pianka is an evolutionary ecologist who uses his beliefs about animals and humans being on the same level to justify his cavalier disregard of the value of human life. I simply gave this as an example of how this belief might be dangerous. I don't know his religious beliefs.

Where did I say that we are no better than nitrogen-fixing bacteria? I said that biochemically we are mundane in comparison. I also said that humans have interesting adaptations in the area of cognition. My point being, that there isn't anything more exceptional about humans, than there is for any species that you wish to look at in detail. The fact that we are human often skews that view.

OK yes the fact that I am human and appreciate my life, liberty, friendships and family might skew my perception. Your field of study and passion might be skewing yours, who knows. OK it did seem to me that you did say we were on the same level as a nitrogen fixing bacterium. Sorry if I got you wrong. Every time I have good quality beefsteak or delicious legumes, I give thanks for them .

Of course it is a preconceived idea! ID was developed to shoehorn creationism back into the science classroom. It was not the product of an appraisal of the evidence and the development of the most likely hypothesis. Natural processes? Like evolution and its mechanisms? Those are theories that were developed based on numerous lines of evidence. They have remarkable explanatory and predictive power, the sign of a good scientific theory. ID has neither of these.

OK I do think evolution is a good theory that explains a lot but I think modern ideas about ID are interesting and I would be interested to see where they go. I also think there are a lot of preconceived ideas in academia about why ID cannot possibly be science.

Ah, the 'complex' argument. It is SO complex, so Goddunnit? DNA is actually not as complex as you might think. I have spent the past 15 years studying it. We are constantly learning more about how it evolves and functions, but the fundamentals aren't that hard to grasp. We know how DNA mutates, we know how information can increase within genomes and we know how natural selection and genetic drift act upon this variation within the population. It isn't a real mystery.

I was surprised to see you use the Hoyle argument, considering the history of our discussions on these boards. A basic understanding of natural selection reveals the flaw in that argument. There is NOTHING random about natural selection. It acts upon the random variation within populations, but natural selection is the opposite of random. It selects what works and improves upon it over geological timescales. The 747 argument is a tired, lazy argument that reveals the ignorance of Hoyle onthe basics of evolutionary theory. A theory so elegant and simple that my 6 year old understands it and can see the problem with such an inane argument.

Natural selection is random environmental changes acting on random mutations and it is not random? I think you are underselling the complexity of DNA. I'm not so sure that it is well understood either. DNA is the control mechanism which puts together all the wonderful biochemistry we have talked about in the cell. It also regulates the function of each cell type in a multicellular organism as well as being coordinated with the whole. Astonishing! I think complex and specifically complex covers it pretty well.

 

[Djevv]

Philosophy is Greek for the love of knowledge. Science is latin for knowledge. Philosophy is the love of science. QED.

In addition, if we need a higher power to be good to other people that, to me shows a pretty severe failing. Be good to other people because it sucks if you don't.

Ok Touché CT. I'll keep that in mind. Philosophy, however goes beyond science in its modern purely quantitative form.

Panthers strawmen can be quite effective is all I can say to the second part. I think you'll find that is his mischaracterization of my position.

 

[Djevv]

I'm reminded also of fractal theory which shows that simple algorithms applied in natural settings lead to patterns of great complexity and beauty simply through iteration and repetition.

I think that this, although a fascinating area of study, is not what ID is about. In ID a message, code or object is complex and specified meaning it has both complexity and meaning or purpose. A fractal has complexity only. Point is life has a lot of complex specified information as I understand it. It does no doubt about it. Are evolutionary mechanisms sufficient to explain it I think is a fair question, and what specific evidence proves this?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The scientific method is taught as well as the theory in all the different areas of science. I'm not sure what confusing faith and reason means. God can occasionally be mentioned in the science classroom (usually by the students) depending on what subject is being taught - but only very occasionally.

It is mostly the faithful who posit creation as reasonable. Or those who wish to focus on philosophy rather than science. That is why I say that it is faith that drives the compulsion to discuss creation in a science class and not reason.

Isn't atheism a religious position with no place in the science classroom? That is what I think. Are you saying it should be promoted? As for my position on YEC I've made that clear in previous posts.
yes they make testable claims. Their claims about evidences for a young earth can be tested, I've done it myself. So have talk.origins, as well as many others. They have their own peer-reviewed publications. So yes they do do research. But with AIG they basically say they do science as a ministry, not as true research, doesn't make their science wrong, but it's hard to escape claims of bias and fudging.

No atheism is not a religious position and no I didn't advocate for the teaching of atheism in a science class (I can't even imagine what that might look like).

The complex systems have to be explained somehow. ID is a possible explanation. I don't see why it is scientifically invalid to attempt to test for that possibility? Whatever else you might say about Man scientifically he is certainly at the top of the food chain. How did he get there?

There might be many possible explanations but to teach the one with that relys on faith in a science class is a perversion and it is frankly beside the point. To look for a "first cause" is an interesting philosophical diversion.

 

[Azza]

But the idea still begs the question as to what point hominids got a soul. A female didn't just suddenly give birth to the first homo sapiens sapiens that had a soul, distinct from all previous hominids that weren't humans and so didn't. The evolution of humans was a gradual process. When did the soul suddenly get involved?

Hi Djevv. I notice you didn't express an opinion on this.

 

[Azza]

Natural selection is random environmental changes acting on random mutations and it is not random?

Your philosophical approach is undermining your understanding here. You see humans as a culmination that evolution/ID was aiming at, so find it hard to understand that mutations and your random events may have resulted in that endpoint.

In reality humans and all other organisms are just a continuum in a dynamic system. There is no culmination. It's all a mesh of organisms being worked on by natural selection to fit within the biosphere. Survivability at a particular point in time is the only endpoint.

 

[evo]

You see humans as a culmination that evolution/ID was aiming at, so find it hard to understand that mutations and your random events may have resulted in that endpoint.

After studying philosophy and comparative religion for quite a few years now I've come to the conclusion that is the one thing that really separates the religious from the non religious, in the west at least. The religious see teleological causes in everything; "purpose". The non-religious don't. They can accept that things or processes can just arise over time without some final cause in mind.

Interestingly many of the eastern religions, particularly Taoism and Zen buddhism also accept that there isn't final goals to things as well. They just see the world as one big flux. Hence why theories such as evolution doesn't bother them. It seems entirely natural and in keeping with their philosophy.

 

[AngryAnt]

Interestingly many of the eastern religions, particularly Taoism and Zen buddhism also accept that there isn't final goals to things as well. They just see the world as one big flux. Hence why theories such as evolution doesn't bother them. It seems entirely natural and in keeping with their philosophy.

The Buddha also saw striving for an understanding of "creation" as a distraction. There is no meaning in trying to understand ourselves in the context of how we were "created", what is important is how we live our lives now.

In a famous story, a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that the Buddha explain the origin of the universe before he would become a disciple of the Buddha. Then the Buddha said that he would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's immediate problem was his own suffering and his task was to liberate himself from the present state of affairs. To illustrate this, the Buddha related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he was told who shot the arrow, what he looks like, the kind of wood the arrow was made of and so on. The Buddha said that before the man could learn such information, he would be dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to be enlightened, not to speculate about the metaphysical. Thus, the Buddha's teachings centre around mankind and emphasises the methods by which he can liberate himself.

 

[Azza]

After studying philosophy and comparative religion for quite a few years now I've come to the conclusion that is the one thing that really separates the religious from the non religious, in the west at least. The religious see teleological causes in everything; "purpose". The non-religious don't. They can accept that things or processes can just arise over time without some final cause in mind.

I think a lot of non-biologist lay people have the same misconception.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I think that this, although a fascinating area of study, is not what ID is about. In ID a message, code or object is complex and specified meaning it has both complexity and meaning or purpose. A fractal has complexity only. Point is life has a lot of complex specified information as I understand it. It does no doubt about it. Are evolutionary mechanisms sufficient to explain it I think is a fair question, and what specific evidence proves this?

The idea that there is a point or purpose is far from obvious and is really metaphysics which is certainly not scientific.

 

[AngryAnt]

Natural selection is random environmental changes acting on random mutations and it is not random? I think you are underselling the complexity of DNA. I'm not so sure that it is well understood either. DNA is the control mechanism which puts together all the wonderful biochemistry we have talked about in the cell. It also regulates the function of each cell type in a multicellular organism as well as being coordinated with the whole. Astonishing! I think complex and specifically complex covers it pretty well.

Why do you say environmental changes are random? They have causations and so are not random. Mutations can be "random" but the successful ones are then selected by being more beneficial in the environment, and through selection of mates - both of these are processes that are absolutely not random.

These processes describe perfectly the complexity found in DNA.

 

[Azza]

A few Buddhist/Buddhistic quotes that seem apt

"Zen recognises that our Nature is one with objective Nature, not in a mathematical sense, but in the sense that Nature lives in us and we in Nature".

"Each thing is preaching the law incessantly, but this thing is not different from the law itself."

"life is one and indivisible, although it's ever changing forms are innumerable and perishable."

 

[This Is Anfield]

A few Buddhist/Buddhistic quotes that seem apt

"Zen recognises that our Nature is one with objective Nature, not in a mathematical sense, but in the sense that Nature lives in us and we in Nature".

"Each thing is preaching the law incessantly, but this thing is not different from the law itself."

"life is one and indivisible, although it's ever changing forms are innumerable and perishable."

Does that loosely translate to "*smile* happens"?

 

[Azza]

Does that loosely translate to "sh!t happens"?

What is sh!t?

8-

 

[This Is Anfield]

What is sh!t?

8-

Life, in it's innumerable & perishable ever changing forms!

8-

 

[Azza]

Life, in it's innumerable & perishable ever changing forms!

8-

:hihi

 

[poppa x]

Since the world became smaller due to fast air travel, and as populations move around the globe, it's not inconceivable that within several thousand years there will be no black or white people or any other colour. We'll all be similar and that is evolution in action.
We see it happening (slowly) in Australia at present. My kids are half chinese (wife's side) and half Anglo (my side).

Just a thought.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Since the world became smaller due to fast air travel, and as populations move around the globe, it's not inconceivable that within several thousand years there will be no black or white people or any other colour. We'll all be similar and that is evolution in action.
We see it happening (slowly) in Australia at present. My kids are half chinese (wife's side) and half Anglo (my side).

Just a thought.

Blue Mink - Melting Pot.

 

[evo]

Since the world became smaller due to fast air travel, and as populations move around the globe, it's not inconceivable that within several thousand years there will be no black or white people or any other colour. We'll all be similar and that is evolution in action.
We see it happening (slowly) in Australia at present. My kids are half chinese (wife's side) and half Anglo (my side).

Just a thought.

Seems plausible.

Many half caste people are fairly attractive.