Evolution?

[AllTerrainMonkey]

Originally posted by reverend
Science = constantly tested, disputed and peer-reviewed. Also mostly right on many testable areas of life and its development.

Religion = mostly wait for a slight chink in science\'s armour, jump on the error, ignore the fact that that an error has shown up a more viable direction and has actually moved on by a long distance and covered even more ground.

C\'est la vie!

Well, the reason for this kind of behavior is simple. Science is driven by whether ideas are proven or disproven; young bucks know that if they want to get famous quick the easiest way is to disprove long-standing notions, theories are maintained by standing up to intense scrutiny and peer review, etc. However, with religion, it\'s all or nothing. You have a belief system that has varying degrees of being set in stone, and to be a true believer you have to believe that not a single iota is wrong.

For example, it was only in 1992 that the Catholic church finally admitted that it was wrong to condemn Galileo for suggesting science knew more that scripture about how the universe worked. (Links: BBC, New Scientist, and USA Today).

This is a quote from BBC.com in the above linked article.

In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret at the way Galileo had been treated. \"The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world\'s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture,\" he said.

I think it\'s apparent that Christian religions as a whole didn\'t crumble to pieces as more and more of the civilized world came to accept that the Earth wasn\'t the center of the universe. I think it\'s amusing seeing so much opposition to Evolution, as if its validity undermines people\'s faiths, and therefore it has to be wrong or proven wrong at all costs.

 

[Infidel Castro]

That last paragraph is interesting - why indeed be at all scared of evolution? Unless you believe in creation using Genesis as an historic source, be happy that the church has dealt with other matters in the past (like your Galileo example) and just crack on. Why the vehement opposition? Good stuff - I take my hat off to you. :beer:

 

[Prophet]

For fundamentalists, evolution has a very different meaning. To them, everything including the big bang, planet formation, abiogenesis, etc are part of the vast anti-christian conspiracy known as evolution. Evolution is viewed as a religion, and all of its tenants (Big bang, the earth being 4.6 billion years old, abiogenesis, common descent, natural selection) are taken by its followers on faith. Science is the height of human arrogance. Its claims are dogmatic and exist solely to explain away God so that scientists won\'t have to feel guilty about not living \'biblically.\" Any evidence that scientists, often referred to as \"darwinists,\"put forward is viewed with extreme suspicion because all darwinists have an agenda, which is to discredit the Bible, destroy traditional morality, and use lots of drugs and have lots of sex without feeling guilty. This is the Nerd Orgy Theory of Origins.

Walk into any Christian bookstore and you will find dozens of \"science\" books assuring the faithful that the Bible is true, science is the devil, and darwinists want to eat your children, after they get them high and violate them. Evolution was also the excuse the Nazis used to carry out the holocaust.

Evolution is viewed as, in essence, nothing more than an alternative religion, and a hedonistic one that places no value on human life at that.

From a more theological standpoint, if evolution is true, then the Garden of Eden becomes symbolic. There is no original sin, there is no perfect plan, there is no fall of man. If Adam and Eve are symbolic ( A story involving a man named \"Mankind\" and a woman named \"The mother of all things\" symbolic? Shocking!) then how do you fit that in with Adam being included in genealogies in the Bible? Does that make them wrong? The Bible can\'t be wrong!
How do you have a loving, caring God who created a perfect world with us in His image, when very process that got us here was based on chance mutations, and death?

There is a huge fear of the supposed philosophical implications of evolution with the primary issue being: Did a loving creator make me in his image and have a plan for me? ie. does my life have purpose or am I the accidental result of a few billions years of chemical reactions?

Many moderate Christians (a minimum of 30% of American Christians) have no problem accepting evolution, but for the 40-50% of Americans who believe that God made man as is less than 10K years ago, any acceptance of evolution is an acceptance of nihilistic philosophy, devalues humanity, and places all of the Bible into question.

 

[AllTerrainMonkey]

Are the numbers really that high? Most of the Christians I know are able to pretty easily reconcile modern science and their belief systems. The problem might be worse than I thought then.

 

[Prophet]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by Prophet
For fundamentalists, evolution has a very different meaning. To them, everything including the big bang, planet formation, abiogenesis, etc are part of the vast anti-christian conspiracy known as evolution. Evolution is viewed as a religion, and all of its tenants (Big bang, the earth being 4.6 billion years old, abiogenesis, common descent, natural selection) are taken by its followers on faith. Science is the height of human arrogance. Its claims are dogmatic and exist solely to explain away God so that scientists won\'t have to feel guilty about not living \'biblically.\" Any evidence that scientists, often referred to as \"darwinists,\"put forward is viewed with extreme suspicion because all darwinists have an agenda, which is to discredit the Bible, destroy traditional morality, and use lots of drugs and have lots of sex without feeling guilty. This is the Nerd Orgy Theory of Origins.

Walk into any Christian bookstore and you will find dozens of \"science\" books assuring the faithful that the Bible is true, science is the devil, and darwinists want to eat your children, after they get them high and violate them. Evolution was also the excuse the Nazis used to carry out the holocaust.

Evolution is viewed as, in essence, nothing more than an alternative religion, and a hedonistic one that places no value on human life at that.

From a more theological standpoint, if evolution is true, then the Garden of Eden becomes symbolic. There is no original sin, there is no perfect plan, there is no fall of man. If Adam and Eve are symbolic ( A story involving a man named \"Mankind\" and a woman named \"The mother of all things\" symbolic? Shocking!) then how do you fit that in with Adam being included in genealogies in the Bible? Does that make them wrong? The Bible can\'t be wrong!
How do you have a loving, caring God who created a perfect world with us in His image, when very process that got us here was based on chance mutations, and death?

There is a huge fear of the supposed philosophical implications of evolution with the primary issue being: Did a loving creator make me in his image and have a plan for me? ie. does my life have purpose or am I the accidental result of a few billions years of chemical reactions?

Many moderate Christians (a minimum of 30% of American Christians) have no problem accepting evolution, but for the 40-50% of Americans who believe that God made man as is less than 10K years ago, any acceptance of evolution is an acceptance of nihilistic philosophy, devalues humanity, and places all of the Bible into question.

A very eloquent summary. Bravo!

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

Originally posted by Prophet
..........Plus you\'re failing to consider that altruism is a product of evolution. It is our very nature to help out one another and to ease the suffering of others. This is behavior that has been observed throughout the animal kingdom.

I\'d like to see some evidence on that. As I\'m more of the opinion that Altruism is am individual product of social attitudes and group conditioning rather than an instinctive behaviour.
However I\'m open to being proved wrong.

I\'ve done a little digging through my articles and so far the primary name Ithat keeps coming up is Edward O. Wilson, but with info only regarding primate behavior. I know I\'ve heard of experiments on altruism done on rabbits and mice too, but those may have been in interviews and I unfortunately haven\'t been able to find the references.

I\'ll post them when I dig them all up.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by No Such Agency
I refuse to use the term \"evolutionists\" since it\'s the same as saying \"gravityists\"

lol, snap!

interesting convo.

in my years teaching evolution labs at the university i have encountered many students who were intimidated by the term evolution, and on occasion i have had them approach me to ask about the conflict of their faith and the science of evolution.

my response typically consisted of a \" there is no explicit conflict\" speech (my honest belief). that typically goes over well sometimes, sometimes not so well. most of the students who ask come to me with a preconceived notion that im going to refute their belief system -> in truth the idea is just a new one to them, something they haven\'t been exposed to. when we discuss it civily, and without contempt the fear of the unknown dissipates.

 

[vincenti]

THE TRUTH

I believe in the \"BIG PONG \"theory.
There is something rotten in the state of this part of the universe.)
I used to believe in the \"BIG STINK \" theory, but that was to radical for me in the end.
Also Derek Thinagen who came up with the whole concept was latter discredited as he owned an air freshner company.

No I am a ardent \" ODOURIST\" now.

All life,plant ,animal and human evolved over billions of years from a very ,very Bad smell.
One of the most obvious proofs that this is the true origin of man is that the moment we die we start to smell.Give it a few days and it can get quite potent.

No Siree, we definately transmogrified into the extremely complex beings we are now, thru that initial WHIFF !

What other answer could there possibly be to all the wonders, diversities and glories we find ourselves randomly slap bang in the middle of. ? ???

GOD BLESS ........V

 

[Dragonsreach]

Well seeing as you were once a PONGO it\'s understandable you would subscribe to that theory.

 

[vincenti]

For the young and unanitiated......\"everywere the Army goes , the Pong goes \"

 

[Aliengod3]

If \"God\" is so loving then explain the Old Testament.

 

[freakinacage]

and why did he change his mind?

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by freakinacage
and why did he change his mind?

Simple, in the Old Testament, God is a jerk because his girfriend Asherah had just left him for Ba\'al. In the new testament God is mellow, because fatherhood changes a guy.

 

[Aliengod3]

For anyone interested there is a band called The Residents and they created an album inspired by stories from the Old Testament. The name of the album is Wormwood. It is an excellent album and the artwork for the CD is great as well. Look it up at www.residents.com

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Prophet

Originally posted by freakinacage
and why did he change his mind?

Simple, in the Old Testament, God is a jerk because his girfriend Asherah had just left him for Ba\'al. In the new testament God is mellow, because fatherhood changes a guy.

brilliant

 

[Prophet]

A new article on a study involving altruism in primates:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/chimps-show-altruistic-streak

There\'s an interview with Sam Harris Sept 8, 2006 on The Infidel Guy podcast. I think that\'s where the studies on altruism in mice and rabbits were both mentioned. I haven\'t been able to find any direct references though. I don\'t know if Harris mentions them in his writings.

 

[Dedwrekka]

Personally I\'m less a believer in Evolution than I am a believer that any being capable of making us isn\'t stupid or easy to understand.

Alright, so we know that there are thousands of \"natural laws\" in the universe, some are very specific to minutia of the circumstances, some are very broad and are able to cover vast swaths of creation. Now, with all this similarity in the workings of the universe, a creator decides to take a dump on all of it and create something out of nothing for the sake of doing it... riiiiight...

I follow a bit of Einstein\'s theory on science and religion, in that Science is simply a way of better understanding god. It\'s no mistake that many early scientists, philosophers, soci/psychologists during the renaissance era were members of the clergy. Or that some of the people who bow to belief but continue to ask questions of it are highly praised not just in Christianity, but also in other religions as well.

However, being a mixed religion menial in society I can\'t claim to be an expert on either Science or the Divine.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

The results of random, chaotic assemblages and the elimination of the second law of thermodynamics can have such amazing results................

 

[AllTerrainMonkey]

Actually, biologists readily agree that evolution conforms with the second law of thermodynamics. Take crystalization, for example. If you only look at the crystals and not the process, you\'d assume it violates the second law as well, since here you have spontaneously forming, highly-structured crystals forming from chaotic, unformed liquids. Since large quantities of heat are released when liquids cool, however, the net entropy still is positive, as the heat released increases the entropy surrounding the freezing liquid more than what entropy is lost from the crystals forming. Anyone who\'s taken a thermodynamics class (or suffered through, as the case may be) usually hears about how the second law of thermodynamics is applied incorrectly to biological systems. Thermodynamics only relates to heat and entropy, not just entropy. Biological thermodynamics correctly applies itself to the chemical processes inherent in living matter.

For clarification, all the second law of thermodynamics really states is when two closes systems come into contact with each other, temperature differences will even out between the two of them and that work can be obtained by the pre-equilibrium differences, but loss of heat occurs (in the form of entropy). PV = nRT of course can be used to show that instead of temperature pressure and volume can change as well.

So, if you look at just biological animals and how they are increasing in order, you\'d incorrectly assume that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, but with thermodynamics you always have to define the closed system you\'re using as a reference point. Granted, my thermodynamics is from \'96 or \'97, so I\'m really rusty.

If you truly think evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics, you also have to believe that biology as a whole does as well, otherwise, using the same incorrect viewpoint, cellular matter would go to chaos, and all biological lifeforms would cease. It\'s kinda an all or nothing thing .

As far as chaotic systems go, I suggest you look at the field of emergence, and how it describes and interprets such things as birds flocking and fish schools moving, and how it\'s increasingly finding footholds in other disciplines to show how structures can spontaneously appear from chaotic systems.