Teaching evolution -- or not?

December 31, 2005

****

My pet version of the origin of life is this: Ages ago, a group of space travelers happened by our solar system at a time they were due for a routine dumping of the bio-waste from their lavatories. Some of this waste sailed by the earth, was drawn into our field of gravity, and splattered into a nice warm marsh. One thing led to another. Next thing you know, we have Richard Nixon and Anna Nicole Smith.

Funny you ( or I should say "Ken's" resulting creation of the universe causing you to do so ) should mention that. Kilgore Trout (or was it Kurt Vonnegut?) wrote a science fiction novel where, amoungst other various goings on, that was purportedly how life started on Earth.

Hhmmm...could explain a lot I see happening in the world around me, particularly concerning the design and function of certain governments and snack foods.

December 31, 2005

I'm glad everyone enjoyed a little bit of comedic relief but before you threw it away I'm sure you noticed (but chose not to comment on) the not-so-subtle point that often accompanies a joke.

If anything can be true or factual (even for an individual) based on faith alone then nothing can really be true in any meaningful sense of the word.

That certainly does pose a problem, doesn't it? Because of this, I suppose I have to believe in your "epiphany," and that Ken created the universe, except for George Bush, on November 12. Or do I?

Is the problem you and others have posed: the difficulty of separating subjective revelations that may be true from those that may be false, really an argument against the truth of any given subjective revelation, or are you just complaining that it's too hard to tell the difference?

I don't think you're being very good scientists if you deny a possible reality because it may be difficult to prove. For example, scientists currently need black matter in order to make sense of the universe, so they posit black matter. Your approach would be to say, "black matter makes this whole thing too complicated, so let's just go back to Newtonian physics, since that is so much more logical."

There are ways of seeking the truth of subjective experiences: years and years of different audiences enjoying Mozart have led to the conclusion that he must have been a truly wonderful composer. A spiritual experience of having an epiphany that offers a glimpse into some aspect of God by many people of all faiths or no recognized faith, of all walks of life, of all levels of intelligence, should lead more credibility to that experience than the belief that Ken created the universe on November 12.

December 31, 2005

Funny you ( or I should say "Ken's" resulting creation of the universe causing you to do so ) should mention that. Kilgore Trout (or was it Kurt Vonnegut?) wrote a science fiction novel where, amoungst other various goings on, that was purportedly how life started on Earth.

Wow, that's great! I'd forgotten where that came from! I read "Venus on the Half-Shell" probably thirty years ago. Vonnegut is sort of a hero of mine (along with Twain) for reasons that kind of relate to this thread.

By the way, I should have hastened to mention that I'm quite sure that I, and all fellow Beemer sporting riders, came from a MUCH better pond - maybe the one that Ken O/C designed!

Hhmmm...could explain a lot I see happening in the world around me, particularly concerning the design and function of certain governments and snack foods.

Ain't it the truth!!

December 31, 2005

I don't think you're being very good scientists if you deny a possible reality because it may be difficult to prove.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said but I'll say it again... properly conducted science does not deny a possible reality because it may be difficult to prove. There may be an evaluation that a given prospect is highly unlikely due to a lack of evidence, but that is a very different thing than a denial of even a possibility.

Anyway, I agree with you that any belief system that denies even the possibility of an alternate outcome would be a poor one indeed. As a demonstration, I would be willing to state that in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence at least a possibility remains that God exists. Would you in turn be willing to state that there is a possibility that God does not exist?

December 31, 2005

So you didn't invent the internet?

No, but I invented Al Gore.

December 31, 2005

how to apply reason, evidence, and logic,

What a novel idea. If you allow this, what happens to control? People thinking for themselves? Many were burned at the stake and worse for this idea. Imagine thinking on your own I'm flabbergasted.

December 31, 2005

Wow, that's great! I'd forgotten where that came from! I read "Venus on the Half-Shell" probably thirty years ago. Vonnegut is sort of a hero of mine...

YYeess...Finally; I could remember the whole plot and story, even the cover, but couldn't remember the title (I was thinking Vonnegut, but wasn't sure).

Funny how the memory works (or doesn't, it this case).

By the way, I should have hastened to mention that I'm quite sure that I, and all fellow Beemer sporting riders, came from a MUCH better pond - maybe the one that Ken O/C designed!

December 31, 2005

FWIW, I didn't take smiller's "punch line," nor anyone's enjoyment of it, as intended to be at your expense,

Certainly not and the thought that at anyone might take it that way never even occurred to me. Apologies to anyone who did.

No harm done here, Seth. If I hadn't been kind of cranky last night it would have sailed right on by. And I did get the included point.

MattS said:

Religion is an administrative structure; spirituality simply a feeling which religion attaches itself to and gives (or takes) meaning, power and direction.

Damn! I wish I'd said it that way. I mentioned in passing how long it has been since I went to church. The dichotomy between religion and spirituality is why.

Unfortunately, religion is necessary, for it is how we pass along faith - no, wait; I'm not even going there.

Pilgrim

December 31, 2005

I don't think you're being very good scientists if you deny a possible reality because it may be difficult to prove.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said but I'll say it again... properly conducted science does not deny a possible reality because it may be difficult to prove. There may be an evaluation that a given prospect is highly unlikely due to a lack of evidence, but that is a very different thing than a denial of even a possibility.

Anyway, I agree with you that any belief system that denies even the possibility of an alternate outcome would be a poor one indeed. As a demonstration, I would be willing to state that in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence at least a possibility remains that God exists. Would you in turn be willing to state that there is a possibility that God does not exist?

Sure. Maybe he doesn't. But I think so.

Evidence for his existence? Why, intelligent design, of course.

Pilgrim

December 31, 2005

Would you in turn be willing to state that there is a possibility that God does not exist?

A certain level of doubt is certainly a part of my belief system. Interestingly, even Mother Teresa had her doubts. Her letters indicate that at times she felt no contact with God whatsoever. At other times, of course, her faith was quite strong. Such doubts are expressed back to the times of Jesus (Peter's denials and Thomas's doubts). Even Jesus on the cross may have doubted, depending on how you interpret his words. How many things are there in life that we are absolutely sure of? Maybe that is just part of the human condition.

December 31, 2005

Sure. Maybe he doesn't. But I think so.

A certain level of doubt is certainly a part of my belief system.

Darn! Neither of you are going to fall into my trap. You guys are pretty sharp, I should have known better. But it seems that we are not very far apart after all... it's just that I'm pretty sure that God doesn't exist and you're pretty sure that he does.

But I have to say that your views differ significantly from the majority of those I've met with a faith-based belief system, most of whom would certainly not be willing to state that there was any possibility whatsoever that God did not exist. And that's what's so unarguably flawed about the typical faith vs. science argument. Believers know that God exists without any possible alternative, and then when they feel that science posits differently they criticize science as being flawed because... because... it denies other possibilities. And they wonder why they are not taken seriously?

Anyway, great discussion. I think we're all getting a little tapped out so before it dies away I'll say thanks to all the participants. It's a rare treat to get to discuss a topic like this in a mature and intellectual atmosphere and it's been fun.

January 1, 2006

Sure. Maybe he doesn't. But I think so.

A certain level of doubt is certainly a part of my belief system.

Darn! Neither of you are going to fall into my trap. You guys are pretty sharp, I should have known better. But it seems that we are not very far apart after all... it's just that I'm pretty sure that God doesn't exist and you're pretty sure that he does.

But I have to say that your views differ significantly from the majority of those I've met with a faith-based belief system, most of whom would certainly not be willing to state that there was any possibility whatsoever that God did not exist. And that's what's so unarguably flawed about the typical faith vs. science argument. Believers know that God exists without any possible alternative, and then when they feel that science posits differently they criticize science as being flawed because... because... it denies other possibilities. And they wonder why they are not taken seriously?

Anyway, great discussion. I think we're all getting a little tapped out so before it dies away I'll say thanks to all the participants. It's a rare treat to get to discuss a topic like this in a mature and intellectual atmosphere and it's been fun.

Anybody that sure of something probably is afraid of what he'll find out if he gives it any thought.

Pilgrim

January 1, 2006

Ahahahahah

Google injected the following ad into the email thread of this conversation in my inbox -

Hell Does Not Exist - bible-truths.com - And you can prove it. Get the facts See for yourself - The big Hell lie

I thought it was funny as hell!

--sam

January 1, 2006

Google injected the following ad into the email thread of this conversation in my inbox -

Yes, someone else had this mistaken impression as well but was quickly corrected by L. Ray: 'You did not come to my site by accident, I will guarantee you that. So let's see where God directs you from here.'

Google = God? Hmmm....

January 4, 2006

Well, it's finally over.

January 4, 2006

No Jamie, it's not over -- yet -- a planned new thread will test the moderators' wisdom and discernment --

January 4, 2006

No Jamie, it's not over -- yet -- a planned new thread will test the moderators' wisdom and discernment --

Ok, where's the emoticon that rubs it's hands together in eager

anticipation!!! I love a good debate!

January 4, 2006

What a great thread -- and not yet dead!

As for the general discussion of "epiphanies" one might consider:

If you meet one person whose life was radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in his left tennis shoe, well, that's "nice for him/her."

If you meet hundreds of millions of people who have had their lives radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in their left tennis shoes -- it might suggest that the "stewed tomato effect" is worthy of some study and consideration.

Except, of course, for David who would consider that anecdotal!

January 4, 2006

What a great thread -- and not yet dead!

As for the general discussion of "epiphanies" one might consider:

If you meet one person whose life was radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in his left tennis shoe, well, that's "nice for him/her."

If you meet hundreds of millions of people who have had their lives radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in their left tennis shoes -- it might suggest that the "stewed tomato effect" is worthy of some study and consideration.

Except, of course, for David who would consider that anecdotal!

No, I'd license it and then sell it as "Peripatetic Tomato Soup: For Those in the Ten Step Program."

January 4, 2006

If you meet hundreds of millions of people who have had their lives radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in their left tennis shoes -- it might suggest that the "stewed tomato effect" is worthy of some study and consideration. Except, of course, for David who would consider that anecdotal!

And he'd be right of course because if you are going to depend on that logic you also need to account for those whose life was improved by putting the tomato in their right shoe, not to mention those who derived benefit without any tomato at all.

January 4, 2006

...not to mention those who derived benefit without any tomato at all.

Or those who found the tomato of no benefit in either shoe and have since joined support groups exploring alternative vegetables.

January 4, 2006

What a great thread -- and not yet dead!
If you meet hundreds of millions of people who have had their lives radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in their left tennis shoes -- it might suggest that the "stewed tomato effect" is worthy of some study and consideration.

Well, think this over.

If for some reason hundreds of millions of people decided to put a tomato in their left shoe and then found their lives radically changed, wouldn't the "why" of the phenomenon be worth trying to figure out? Not just why were their lives changed, but what led them to do it in the first place.

Pilgrim

January 4, 2006

And as long as the moderators have gone to take a nap and this thread is wandering . . .

Does anyone out there know if (and I'm sure the answer must be "yes") science has hooked an EEG (or whatever the machine is that observes brain activity) up to a patient in the process of death? Right through the final good-bye?

The brain activity patterns would be interesting to science, I'd think.

Pilgrim

January 4, 2006

Enough with the tomatoes, you don't even know how to pronounce the word properly!

I watched an interesting program on Discovery HD last night called Miracle Planet, they say that a creature like this one is the ancestor of today's mammals (suggestion confirmed by several respectable web sites I've visited since)

It's a synapsid called Dimetrodon, not actually a reptile or a mammal though almost, it's not on the direct path to mammals but the one they modelled on the program looked similar (smaller fin). Mammalia are the only branch of synapsids still in existance. Their model of the pre-dinosaur in existance at the same time was a smaller lizard like creature but they didn't name it.

January 4, 2006

And, in...

Local News About I.D.

January 4, 2006

And, in...

Local News About I.D.

Being held at the 'Gaylord Entertainment Center'..?

January 4, 2006

Being held at the 'Gaylord Entertainment Center'..?

They are the folks who own the Opryland Hotels, and bought the naming rights to that venue.

January 4, 2006

And, in...

Local News About I.D.

So now I'm posting to forums on the Tennessean - where will it end?

January 4, 2006

Did you see the poll with 700+ responses?

http://poll.tennessean.com/pollgadget/cgi-bin/poll.pl?view=20060104_Origin

January 4, 2006

Yes and I voted "There is no way to tell", the question was innapropriate though since the creation of the universe and evolution are not necessarily connected, as I said in the TN forum even if a supernatural being created the universe that doesn't eliminate evolution as a possibility for the development of species.

January 4, 2006

even if a supernatural being created the universe that doesn't eliminate evolution as a possibility for the development of species.

No, but a strict and literal reading of Genesis does... and I think therein lies the real problem the ID theorists have with evolution (but seem hesitant to admit it.)

January 4, 2006

I don't think these quotes are necessarily incompatible with the theory of evolution

"I believe the entire universe exists to display the greatness of the glory of God's grace"

"God's design from the beginning was to display maximally his grace"

"Everything is made to display the glory of the grace of God."

if your belief is that G-d is the force behind the universe being the way it is. But that belief doesn't seem to have any relevance to, or place in, a science curriculum.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I would want to fly in an airplane designed by this guy:

Dan Souther, 21, a junior at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, agreed, saying, "Coming from Georgia Tech, it's a very scientific community where we talk a lot about systems and formulas, but God is not strapped in by those."

The formula says the wing will fall off, but if you just ask G-d, he'll overrule that and hold it together

January 4, 2006

The formula says the wing will fall off, but if you just ask G-d, he'll overrule that and hold it together

I think that's a very commonly held belief. (Hence the expression "on a wing and a prayer")

January 4, 2006

I think that's a very commonly held belief. (Hence the expression "on a wing and a prayer")

OK, I'll take the wing, you take the prayer...

January 4, 2006

I think that's a very commonly held belief. (Hence the expression "on a wing and a prayer")

OK, I'll take the wing, you take the prayer...

No thanks, as an atheist that wouldn't be wise

January 4, 2006

Did you see the poll with 700+ responses?

Of course, these are the same people about whom it is said, in the article about the new Tennessee license plate design, replacing the current one with the outline of the state with a half-sun rising (setting?) above it, that

Older people who fought or had loved ones fight in World War II didn't like that the sun reminded them of the Japanese flag of that time, one clerk said.

Yeah, that green Tennessee and yellow sun shore do look like that Japanese battle flag!

Wonder if they felt the same way about the Grateful-Deadish Kentucky plate?

January 4, 2006

The formula says the wing will fall off, but if you just ask G-d, he'll overrule that and hold it together

The Bible also says (and I'm paraphrasing a bit here) "Don't be a dumbass."

January 4, 2006

The formula says the wing will fall off, but if you just ask G-d, he'll overrule that and hold it together

The Bible also says (and I'm paraphrasing a bit here) "Don't be a dumbass."

Thats good

Larry

January 5, 2006

What a great thread -- and not yet dead!
If you meet hundreds of millions of people who have had their lives radically changed for the better by putting a stewed tomato in their left tennis shoes -- it might suggest that the "stewed tomato effect" is worthy of some study and consideration.

Well, think this over.

If for some reason hundreds of millions of people decided to put a tomato in their left shoe and then found their lives radically changed, wouldn't the "why" of the phenomenon be worth trying to figure out? Not just why were their lives changed, but what led them to do it in the first place.

Pilgrim

Of course! That's why we have psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and yes, theology!

However, as to the premise that beliefs should be given weight if large numbers of people hold them and find them useful, consider that:

Almost everybody used to believe that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. They were greatly comforted by their belief that the earth was the center of the universe, having been made so by God.

Was that belief either true or ultimately useful to mankind?

Incidentally, it took the Vatican three hundred and fifty-nine years to acknowledge that Galileo’s “theory” had merit. (A wonderful account of Galileo’s life, and the travails of his daughters, is in “Galileo’s Daughter” by Dava Sobel)

Apparently a very large number of middle-eastern Muslims were told in their Mosques, and therefore believe still, that Allah destroyed a space shuttle over Texas (specifically, over Palestine, Texas) as a rebuke to President Bush, whom they see as an infidel. Presumably these believers take comfort and cheer in thinking that Allah showed his power in this way.

Presumably also, no one reading this considers that belief to be true.

The ID promoters, (the ones in public dispute, not mere agnostics) just like the “Holy Inquisition” that locked up Galileo, seek to obfuscate testable and verifiable discoveries which have great explanatory power and great potential for use in the betterment of humanity. It looks to me like the underlying motivations are the same, too – a justified fear that the spread of science will undermine dearly held worldviews and beliefs.

More than a few current day American Christians (like many readers of the “Left Behind” books and some of my own relatives) believe that we’re in the “end times,” and that an upcoming nuclear war in the middle east will fulfill prophecy to bring about the second coming of Christ. Needless to say, they’re looking forward to the war and the subsequent “Rapture.” They organize their lives, and plan their futures, around this belief. If by any chance they’re mistaken, I think there might be some unfortunate consequences along the way.

It looks to me like some beliefs (spontaneously generated or otherwise), especially those unsupported by objective evidence, are not necessarily beneficial, no matter how many people believe in them, and no matter how much comfort they provide.

On the other “foot,” stewed tomatoes are said (as of today) to contain considerable amounts of lycopene, a very helpful nutrient, especially, if I’m not mistaken, for men. So I’m going to eat lots of red sauces, but think I’ll hold off for more evidence before adding any to my Oxtars.

January 5, 2006

wouldn't the "why" of the phenomenon be worth trying to figure out

More like "the Who" but since we appear to be singing off similar sheet music, I suspect you know that!

January 5, 2006

Almost everybody used to believe that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth

You missed the operative words, "lives radically changed for the better." I was very careful with my language. Now, if truly "postmodern" you'll say "one person's better is as good as any other" and then go on to talk about warring metanaratives like a good postmodernist ought. So, unless there would be some ground for discussing what "better" might mean... well.... today we even have to hubris to pretend to not know what "is" is.

All of this just returns, with startling circularity, to the endless tail-chasing that is the fruit of trying to inject meaning into a time-plus-chance-plus-nothing origin.

As a side note, I'll be glad to acknowledge the death and destruction rightly attributable to "religion" when it was operating as "government" in times past (as frequently mentioned in this tread), if the secularist will be willing to acknowledge the death and destruction of the 20th century perpetrated in the name of secular, and quite god-absent ideologies. One of which was based upon Darwinian logic. The head count doesn't even compare. Both are a tribute to what lies within, rather than what one "justifies evil upon."

January 5, 2006

All of this just returns, with startling circularity, to the endless tail-chasing that is the fruit of trying to inject meaning into a time-plus-chance-plus-nothing origin.

Then why do you persist in trying to do so?

January 7, 2006

Then why do you persist in trying to do so?

Actually, I don't, but I'll bite anyway!

Because, I'm coming to understand / believe along with Gerald Schroeder (actually "because of" he and others) that the substrate of the universe is jolly well likely to turn out to be information. And because it is harder to believe that star dust became alive and likes to ride motorcycles, than it is to believe that the physics of motorcycling are no accident. I believe that the scientific community is in for some large surprises in the next 50 years or so. Surprises that will challenge the seemingly clean boundary between "hard science" and philosophy, epistemology, and even what today might be called supra-naturality.

I also find it hard to believe the pseudo-scientific attribution of the "meaning-ness" of things like love, beauty, honor, and integrity to the enhancement of survival chances for human kind. Where is the "evidence" for such speculation? I find statements like that as preposterous as those who find "faith statements" preposterous. Both are absolutely outside the boundary of scientific study -- at its current and historical ability level. Those statement are assumptions that are made reasoning backward from an unproven end point, then used to support the veracity of the end point. Duh? I hardly call that science. That's why I've been somewhat strident about the issue of "ultimacy" in previous posts. Everyone has something that is "ultimate" upon which they sacrifice brute logic for their own preferences. Which is fine by the way, as long as it isn't denied.

I wish I was a little younger so that I'd get to watch the fields of microbiology, and particle physics mature.

January 7, 2006

I also find it hard to believe the pseudo-scientific attribution of the "meaning-ness" of things like love, beauty, honor, and integrity to the enhancement of survival chances for human kind. Where is the "evidence" for such speculation?

Not exactly pseudo-scientific, but certainly a hypothesis without proof AFAIK. All the things you mention are emotions, states of mind, and complexes of values. It is easy for me to see how each could contribute to group survival in any social setting, including the most "primitive." Thus I infer that these, like our physical forms, arose through the evolutionary process. ID aside, where else could they have come from?

I will add to the list a predilection to religious faith, a need for "strong" leaders, and the need to project our own darker imaginings onto those "outside the tribe."

January 8, 2006

I wish I was a little younger so that I'd get to watch the fields of microbiology, and particle physics mature.

If you believe in reincarnaction you may just get your wish, unless you come back as a cock roach or something similar.

Sign In

Teaching evolution -- or not?

Recommended Posts

Jerry_75_Guy

Link to comment

Dave McReynolds

Link to comment

sideways

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

Ken/OC

Link to comment

lexxol

Link to comment

Jerry_75_Guy

Link to comment

Pilgrim

Link to comment

Pilgrim

Link to comment

Dave McReynolds

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

Pilgrim

Link to comment

sgendler

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

KMG_365

Link to comment

Ken/OC

Link to comment

Jerry_75_Guy

Link to comment

Couchrocket

Link to comment

David

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

Ken/OC

Link to comment

Pilgrim

Link to comment

Pilgrim

Link to comment

Bob Palin

Link to comment

David

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

David

Link to comment

Bob Palin

Link to comment

David

Link to comment

Bob Palin

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

DavidEBSmith

Link to comment

Bob Palin

Link to comment

smiller

Link to comment

Bob Palin

Link to comment

DavidEBSmith

Link to comment

russell_bynum

Link to comment

Whip

Link to comment

sideways