1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US school's new challenge to Darwin

Discussion in 'Serious' started by acrimonious, 9 Feb 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Splynncryth

    Splynncryth 0x665E3FF6,0x46CC,...

    Joined:
    31 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    18
    Monkeys will not turn into humans, their DNA does not have the predisposition. Barraning and great ecological change such as atmospheric content, climate changes, current safe habitates becomming too dangers, ect, there is no inputous for change, nothing to filter for a specific trait from the gene pool.

    As for the rise of species, it happens on a generational scale, taking hunderds of thousands of generations for a trait to go from supressed to expressed (not the same as dominant and recessive genes). Consider recorded history and the number of generations we can count. That is not enough time to see any major shifts. Plauges, war, andother factors have filtered some genetic traits though. It has been been demonstraed among some European populations that there is a much higer rate of a specific gene in their population than in the others of the world. This gene allows these people to be more resistant to infection than those lacking this trait. The areas where this trait is higer than average are regions ravaged by the varous plauges that moved through Europe.

    To complicate matters, human morality has slowed natural selection. As we develped civilization and moral codes, we have nullified some of the rules of natural selection, or at least, taken the edge off. Intraspecies violence is one way many creatures on Earth prevent an undesired trait from ever entering the gene pool. Another fo pach animals, is to cast the undesirable out. It should be prettey evident how laws that punish acts such as assault, murder, discrimination, and such go against some strategies to weed out the 'undesireables'. But not all rules of natural selection have fallen by the wayside, and the emotionally diven youth illustrate that human beings still have some of this etched into their bones, consider youth gangs and crime.
    Adults are not frr of all natural selection tendancies either, the focus just shifts to the passive rules. In this case, it all about sexual attraction.
    The next time you find somone attractive (in a 'reprodutive' way) consider what the traits are that you are attracted to, and start thinking of those traits in terms of offspring, either in terms of fertility or rearing. The exception to this may be homosexuality. Frome the purely evolutionary point of view, this does not make sence, untill you consider how civilization has changed the rules.
    Back to the idea of selecting desirable traits for offspring, consider one huge difference between mankind and animals, money, and the way it has allowed for prefessions. No longer does every member of the species need to know how to do somthing like forage, or hunt to survive. All a person needs to do to eat now is make mone, and shovel the food into his ot her mouth. So it is not prowess in foraing or hunting that is important. But physical prowss is still very important to human beings. Why are we willing to pay professional athletes so much money? Why reward them this greatly? When was the last time you heard of somone making an 8 figure paycheck for being able to solve the same equation or problem over and over (just under different conditions)? So we desire physical prowess (certainly paints a bleak picture for education) and reward it. Because of the role money plays, and the athlete's 'ability' to aquire a lot of it, physical prowess becomes an important trait because it implies the ability to provide.
    Ojnce again, human physcology is much more complex, but these overtones do manifest themselves.
    The moral of the story is th look long and hard at yorself and how you interact with other people. Ask yourself why you are behaving the way you are. This is not a thing many people can do though.
     
  2. f U z ! o N

    f U z ! o N What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    remember though it is not individuals that evolve its populations that evolve
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,584
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    The problem with debates like this (and why I have stopped contributing) is that just because people have learnt about Darwinism in High School, and (perhaps) read a few books like Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (and misunderstood it), they now think they know about Evolutionism and can point out flaws in its theory. People think they understand how it works, but they don't. They think they see flaws, but all they see is gaps in their own knowledge and understanding.
     
  4. f U z ! o N

    f U z ! o N What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    i so agree with you. i learn what i can as time goes on. to fully argue for something you need to understand it.
     
  5. Splynncryth

    Splynncryth 0x665E3FF6,0x46CC,...

    Joined:
    31 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    18
    I just find find the extreme narrow minded views annoying. Some of the greatest scientists have had no lack of faith, Einstein is one example that comes to mind simply due to the sheer volume of his quotes affirming his faith.
    Looking back, it seems that American society has been working up the nerve to pull somthing like this for quite a while. It seems that the attacks of September 11th finally unhinged the public. It seems that in responce to one religon can justify such behavior, then religon can justify an equally savage responce.
    At least, this 'Christian fundamentalism' seems to have taken widespread root after the attacks.
     
  6. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    science is reproducable, religion is not. i can tell you an acid and a base will form CO2 and H2O, there is no way to prove that so-and-so's wife turned to salt (i honestly don't remember her name) other than taking the bibles word as truth.

    we used to think the earth was flat, then new evidence proved us wrong and we changed our views to the new information, ok, there was some resistance, but it was mostly from the church. most fundies (bible-thumpers) will ignore you no matter what proof you have, since what could more correct, satillite images of the earth, or a book written 2000 years ago by people who never went to school? obviously the sinners must be stoned. (to death, no bong hits please)
     
  7. f U z ! o N

    f U z ! o N What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes i used to be caught up in religious fundamentalism so i know what you mean monster. on a christian forum im on in the creation/evolution forum they ignore every single bit of evidence thrown at them. its very annoying but then again i guess believing in evolution makes you a dirty heathen sinner LOL.
     
  8. J-Pepper

    J-Pepper Minimodder

    Joined:
    20 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    A lot of very good views and arguments by both sides... i'm an agnostic and a scientist, thus I believe that the theory of evolution is the most likely scenario for our being but doesn't preclude other theories that may hold a more popular and more viable alternative in a faslifiable scientific sense.

    The problem with Intelligent Design (or Creationism as personally, I don't see much of a difference) is that I don't think it is even a contender for being a scientific theory on the same level as Evolution. You can't prove ID, but crucially you can dissprove it either.

    That's what it demoninates to for me.
    The Theory of Evolution is backed up by evidence to try to prove that the evolution is the most likely cause of our being, whereas Intelligent Design is just pure theory (iirc.. it's not even a proper theory yet... just hypothesis) without a single piece of verifiable evidence to prove or dissprove it's existance.

    Going on further on a (rather extreme) example... I could say that humans grew on trees and claim it as on an equal footing with the Theory of Evolution, if I had eneough support... I really could... now that's scary o_O
     
  9. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,584
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    Moreover, science states that a hypothesis is only accepted when it has withstood attempts at disproving it. It works a posteriori: by experience only. If it has not been tested in this way, it is a nice theory, but it is not (yet) accepted as "true".

    However Intelligent Design assumes its hypothesis to be "true" a priori, and then seeks proof (irreducible complexity) to confirm it (rather than evidence to challenge it). Basically: "we know it to be true, and this proves it is". It is a tautology (circular reasoning).
     
  10. iMaGiNe

    iMaGiNe What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    exactly..!

    so should ID be taught in schools... yes... but not in science class.

    Seems pretty clear cut to me.
     
  11. f U z ! o N

    f U z ! o N What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    if ID were to be taught it needs to be in a philosophy or theology course.
     
  12. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    i'd just like to take a minute and thank f U z ! o N, you used to be so... creationism-y, i'm glad we finally turned you into a heathen sinner like the rest of us.

    classes on proper goat sacrifice are held on tuesdays
     
  13. f U z ! o N

    f U z ! o N What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    well i realized that evolution, science and faith do go hand in hand. its not a battle to except them. im still christian, still have faith in Christ, i just like science too!
     
  14. Splynncryth

    Splynncryth 0x665E3FF6,0x46CC,...

    Joined:
    31 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    18
    The point I was trying to rais before is that evolution does not preclude science, it is still entirly possible to have a creator, he just isn'tMerlin the magican making things pop out of the air. In the end, you return to square 1, faith. My point is that the universe won't come crashing to an end without a creator, the system is well 'engineered' to run long enough for creatures such as ourselves to inhabit it and grow. But tghere is nothing in there that disputes the possibility of a creator, he just isn't a magican, he functions more like an engineer (in the sence of working within the laws of physics to achive some goal).

    Of course, working in thelaws of physics means, again, you need to interpret events though whatever faith you have, and, that is exactly what Christan theology teaches.
     
  15. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,584
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    Absolutely. If there is a God (and just as I can't categorically state that there is, I can't categorically state that there is not) then I think big bang and evolutionism is the way He would go. It is so much more elegant and clever.

    To create a tree is a miracle, but to create a seed that will grow into a tree all by itself is much more mindblowing. To painstakingly create the stars and planets and life thereon is godlike perhaps, but to just set a few basic, simple rules and throw a lot of energy at it and just let the whole thing unfold itself to what it is now, without intervention, is divine. So to speak. :) And frankly, a much more interesting and creative process.

    As I have said before, science and faith deal with two completely different dimensions of the human existence. They do not contradict each other, or prove each other. Both are important human necessities in their own way, but they are two very different things.

    This is another point where ID falls down. It is about trying to prove the existence of God. To its proponents, simply to have faith isn't enough; they want proof. But faith is what it's all about. God is faith. "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary".

    So paradoxically, when I see proponents of ID argue their case, I see people who lack faith. The spiritual crisis is theirs alone. But boy, do they project.
     
    Last edited: 8 Nov 2005
  16. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    It looks like the Catholic Church is finally going on record to agree with you:

    A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

    More here.

    -monkey
     
  17. kickarse

    kickarse What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    0

    I think you hit the nail on the head. While science tries to prove a theory through wysiwg reasoning, religions try to prove most of it by emotional reasoning... There's very little work done on the creationists side for scientific reasoning. And while both feel their that theirs idea's are logical...

    The burmuda triangle of it all is that creationists don't see theoretical evidence as proof and the evolutionists don't see the bible and feeling as proof. It's a loose loose unless one studies both sides subjectively.
     
    Last edited: 8 Nov 2005
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,584
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    The paradox is that both are trying to conceptualise something that is outside their frame of reference. It's like asking a computer how it feels, or asking a human what it is like to be a computer. Let's not try and conceptualise one from the frame of reference of the other. Science is not faith. Faith is not science. They're not supposed to be. Both are equally important, but they are not the same thing.
     
  19. Splynncryth

    Splynncryth 0x665E3FF6,0x46CC,...

    Joined:
    31 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    18
    The thing that irks me the most is the these people have set up religon as a straw man of sorts. Because we live in an age where we are honestly trying to do away with the sins of descrimination in our past, and one's religion has been used as a reason for discrimination in the past, that trying to dispel the fog religon has resulted in those with religous power sreaming discrimination where none is intended.

    Curiously, it is science that provided a concrete reason for doing away with discrimination, something Christianity had been trying to teach for centures but could never get across. Draw your own conclusion from that.
     
  20. Techno-Dann

    Techno-Dann Disgruntled kumquat

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    27
    At the same time, bashing anyone with faith as 'fundies' and 'savages' strikes me as being rather discriminatory, Splynncryth. But, the object here isn't a flame war, so I won't continue.

    The real fight over Intellegent Design is whether there is or isn't a Creator. And, in the end, there's no way that Science can prove or disprove the existance of said Creator. Evolution and Christianity are not totally mutually exclusive, as Nexxo and FUz1on said. There is the possibility that both are true.

    Really, when it comes down to it, whether God used the Big Bang or whether he created it as it is doesn't have any impact on Christianity! Neither way does anything to the basic tenets of the religion, besides give a lot of fodder for argument.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page