Evolution?

[Prophet]

Originally posted by evil tendencies

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt. The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind. This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.

I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I start having problems with things when science (the system of measuring measurable quantities) is used to bash religion (which deals with un-measurable quantities). I have an even bigger problem when publicly funded schools use science classes to attack a student\'s religion, rather than sticking to measurable facts and letting parents raise their kids.

I\'m going to have to disagree with your assertion that religion deals only with unmeasurable qualities. Take the Bible for example. The Bible makes statements about cosmology, history, geography, etc. It contains many falsifiable statements. Demonstrating the errors within is only an attack on ignorance. If one claims that one\'s beliefs are true, there should never be fear of scrutiny.

It is not the job of science to tiptoe around peoples beliefs so as to avoid those beliefs being ridiculed. Do we stop teaching psychiatry because it contradicts Scientology\'s claim that there is no such as mental illness and all psychological problems are caused by the parasitic souls of dead aliens? Do we not teach that the surface of the sun is 11,000 degrees because Brigham Young said people live there? Do we not teach the germ theory of disease because the Koran says any body of water wider than three palm-widths is magically clean? Do we not teach geology because some Hindu Holy books claim the earth is hollow? Do we not teach evolution because the Bible says the universe was spoken into existence by an all-powerful, angry Jewish man?

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Prophet
I\'m going to have to disagree with your assertion that religion deals only with unmeasurable qualities. Take the Bible for example. The Bible makes statements about cosmology, history, geography, etc. It contains many falsifiable statements. Demonstrating the errors within is only an attack on ignorance. If one claims that one\'s beliefs are true, there should never be fear of scrutiny.

That\'s the danger for Fundamentalists who claim that Biblical literalism is scientifically defensible. When you insist that the story of (eg.) Noah\'s Ark is literally true, every detail becomes something one can test. Or in short, \"Hey! You got science in my religion!\" Now what happens if some of the things you are claiming clearly contradict observable reality? Suddenly it\'s either the Scriptures, OR reality. That\'s when you start to deny reality, and then whoops! Down the rabbit hole you go.

Most modern Christians, of course, read the Bible as metaphor and need not dive down that rabbit hole...

 

[mattrock]

One of the main reasons this debate will continue to rage on is that on BOTH sides of the aisle, those engaging in the debate refuse to hear the arguments of their opponents and thus frame their own arguments around an ignorant premise.

It\'s been rampant in this thread which is but a microcosm of this debate. I\'VE done it in this thread.

It\'s an inconsequential argument. NSA and I have had it on previous occasions and while I didn\'t change his mind and he didn\'t change mine, I still respect him regardless of his position and believe him to be a highly intelligent individual. I hope he thinks the same of me.

The thing I really hate about debates like this is that they can VERY quickly devolve into snarky bickering and offensive denegration on both sides of the divide. The fact remains, there are highly intelligent people on both sides of the argument who deserve respect and are entitled to their own opinions. Beyond that, draw your own conclusions and leave others out of it.

The most insightful post I\'ve seen in this entire thread is EvilDave\'s last one and it could be voiced in either direction.

 

[No Such Agency]

Your mom.

 

[mattrock]

Your simian ancestors. lol

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt. The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind. This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.

As a person, who has been in this business for a while, science, as opposed to Math does not prove anything. It only provide evidence for or against... evidence that are evaluated based on our CURRENT understanding. Needless to say that Newton in 17-18th century was convinced that light is composed from particles and provided evidence in support; much close to our time all the way till 1944 scientists were convinced that genes are made of proteins and there were plenty of evidence that it might be so.

The point is, that at our CURRENT level of understanding evolution is a convenient framework that allows us tie together what we know NOW. What we will know in 2000 years, I have no idea, but... you can find very few \"universal\" laws or principles that remained unchanged. It takes certain arrogance to claim that a concept that exist and accepted now, will remain universal for ever and ever . As we all know, slavery, for example, was a universally accepted concept, say 2000 years ago.

 

[treide]

There are still lots of things to be clarified about how \"evolution\" works, so it is a theory that continues to be refined as new information surfaces. The basics of how heredity works have been sorted out though, and to be honest, the amount of evidence that would have to be generated to contradict our current understanding of genetics/evolution would have to be staggering to convince me or I daresay most scientifically-minded individuals that there is a better explanation.

Evolution as a scientific theory has lasted as long as it has with only minor revisions because it holds up under constant scrutiny. Doesn\'t matter whether you are a population geneticist or a molecular geneticist - the principles are still sound.

Earlier someone pointed out that proponents of evolution are in some way intellectually dishonest if they don\'t perform experiments to prove that the findings made by scientists are reproducible. That is ridiculous. If you have pneumonia, are you going to go buy flasks and petri dishes to conduct experiments to prove the germ theory of disease, culture fungi to produce antibiotics, and then purify them so that they are safe to ingest? No, you are going to accept that antibiotics are effective treatments against infections based upon the voluminous research that has been done in the past, and you take your medicine!

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt.

What I have real problems with is statements like that.

It was completely proven that the atom was the smallest particle that you could get and could not be split.

It was proven that cigarettes helped emphazema and asthema sufferers.

Still cannot prove if light is a particle or a wave. You get a big scientific statement: \"It depends.\"

Want some more science?

****

I\'ve been looking for transitional fossils in the record. No one seems to be able to provide them - albet, my data seems somewhat dated.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm

Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:

The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.

 

[treide]

Originally posted by airhead

I\'ve been looking for transitional fossils in the record. No one seems to be able to provide them - albet, my data seems somewhat dated.

Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, and there are plenty of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Also, depending on how you define \"transitional\", all fossils are transitional.

As has previously been pointed out, even if there were no fossils, the molecular evidence for evolution could stand on its own merits.

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by airhead

I\'ve been looking for transitional fossils in the record. No one seems to be able to provide them - albet, my data seems somewhat dated.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Check out the The testimony of Kevin Padian in Kitzmiller v. Dover too. Actually, I\'d do that one first:
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html

 

[DaN]

The world was created by my Uncle Jeff. Last Wednesday.

 

[Wendy]

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt...

Which theory of evolution? There are more than one of them and they are changing all the time...

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by Wendy

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt...

Which theory of evolution? There are more than one of them and they are changing all the time...

Uh, no, there aren\'t. There is one theory. There are specific aspects of the theory which are debated (for example Gould touted his punctuated equilibrium v. Darwin\'s gradualism), but the over-arching theory of common descent and genetic mutation is very well established (unlike my grammar).

 

[junior elf]

I agree that science is what is thought right now and might not be correct for ever but:
1) Some evidences just can not be denied, such as the EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE.
2) I don\'t have a problem when people think other ways than me but I do when science teachers show the children only 1 or 2 facts about evolution and then go about scrutinizing it only so that it doesn\'t contradict with there religion. I\' not saying that they should attack the religion but if they are showing the flaws in the theory of evolution they should do the same for the religion.

 

[Avelorn]

There are a lot of separate issues going on that\'s why the discussion is so confused.

We have the philosophical problem of Gods existance that is rather a question of how it all, the universe, came to be. That discussion is still pretty vivid despite what some say, but I don\'t think much has happened in that area of late. This is not a subject that science or mathematics will ever answer I think as it is bound the the system of logic in this universe and we cannot know if it\'s universal.

Then of course we have the problem of life and how it came to be. There we have a few different theories going on from what I can tell. But as with evolution the co-competing theory is not creationism as it is described in the Genesis.

Evolution is a theory that well is as said very good and convenient at the moment. Of course that is what should be taught in schools... critical thinking is also something that should be taught along with the philosophy of science and sociology of science. I mean we were taught in the elementary school about Rutherford-Bohrs model of the atom which today is not the best representation of what we know about the atom.. but it\'s convenient enough.

Don\'t get hung up on truth criterias, I mean the history lessons in US will look a bit different on certain areas then in Russia and so on. What is taught in school is not the truth per se. However the problematic part is when one area say history tries to answer questions on another area say chemistry. To make another example when Richard Dawkins (Biologist) tries to answer questions about the sociology of Religion and makes the assertion that our religious activity is something different then other activity and in some way more dangerous (bottom line anyway in the Root of all Evil)

The most important lesson philosophically in this debate, to have in the back of ones head is that you can\'t both have your cookie and eat it too. Either you criticise science from a constructivist point of view (that some here have) but then you must be prepared to face the same scrutiny of Religion. Science is only one method of reaching better and better approximations of the reality.

People have spent their entire lives doing research on evolution.. My best friend is right now doing research on the evolution of the spleen. If you are to challenge that theory that is alright but if evolution fails in some regard it doesn\'t mean that creationism as worded in the Bible is true. Because yet so far there has been no evidence that points in that direction. If you want to use your critical thinking you have to point it towards yourself as well.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Avelorn
To make another example when Richard Dawkins (Biologist) tries to answer questions about the sociology of Religion and makes the assertion that our religious activity is something different then other activity and in some way more dangerous (bottom line anyway in the Root of all Evil)

Dawkins is not wrong to suggest that we tend to believe certain things and not others for reasons that can be explored scientifically. However he is quite biased - he is unfriendly to religion and sees it as a sort of social ill that we will hopefully overcome some day. That\'s his right of course, but he makes an easy target for those who suggest ALL scientists have the same agenda (obviously, we don\'t).

If you are to challenge that theory that is alright but if evolution fails in some regard it doesn\'t mean that creationism as worded in the Bible is true.

BINGO. An excellent point I can\'t believe I didn\'t make (I was too busy insulting mattrock\'s mom). Evolution opponents never suggest that Native American creation myths be taught in science class, for example. Of course there is plenty of evidence that people didn\'t literally come from the same parent as beavers and geese - again it\'s a metaphor, not a scientific theory.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt.
Ah the absolute certainty of Youth.

The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind.
An erroneous and somewhat inaccurate statement, as I am an example which refutes that statement. And yes I was brought up within a strongly religious family.



This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.
Would you care to examplify that statement? While Religious Education in the UK was Mandatory while I was at school,I am not sure if it stuill is, plus I am not aware of any program which is specifically aimed at pushing religious thought at a socialogical level. In point of fact the UK is a far more secular society than than the USA.

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe
evoloution is a better theory than somebody making everything in seven days, okay six and rested one day (must have been a council worker lol ) Nah Chris. Couldn\'t have been a Council worker, He\'d have turned up late, disrupted traffic, worked One day, taken two days sick, claimed milage and lunch expenses for five, put in a claim for industrial injuries to his back and still had time to sign on the Dole.

 

[Avelorn]

@NSA

Yeah sure! But that\'s MY AREA as I\'m the sociologist/social psychologist! lol:innocent: he should stay the heck away from using his professor title on things he has a very naive an unsatisfying understanding of!

 

[Wendy]

Originally posted by junior elf
1) Some evidences just can not be denied, such as the EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE.

Actually, I believe they\'ve found that two of them lived at the same time. That model is very outdated - it just takes a looooong time to update textbooks.

Don\'t use Wikipedia as a source. It\'s a very bad one.

 

[junior elf]

Averlorn\'s answer is the end of it, there might be some inaccuracy with the theory of evolution but that doesn\'t mean it\'s wrong because of those very few \"flaws\". But if you look at the story of the bible there is no evidence supporting it.

@DR:1) How do you know I\'m a youth
2) I\'m am not saying you can\'t change, just that it makes it harder.
3) Sorry, formulated that badly, I meant to say that they don\'t talk about the flaws of religion at school and thus making children think that it is all true.