Stirring the pot - creation vs. evolutionism

No Such Agency

New member
Originally posted by dauber22
I believe that \"scientists\" that only believe other scientists are just as dogmatic and closed-minded as \"religionists\" that only believe religious teachings.
Hey, I trust scientists\' expert opinions on religion as much as I respect theologians\' expert opinions on science ;)
And to say that everything science asserts can be proven without a doubt is absurd.
Just a reminder about science - nothing we assert can be proven - only disproven! No matter how much \"proof\" we have of any theory, there\'s always the possibility that we will find something tomorrow that will turn it all upside down :O
I don\'t think you can dismiss all people of faith based solely on the rantings of televangelists.
Fear not, I know few who do. All the suicide bombers in the world can not convince me that every person of faith is a murderer, and all the \"creation scientists\" can not convince me that every person of faith is against actual science. That would be a faulty conclusion drawn from a biased data set :)
 

Mosch

Active member
Orginal gepostet von Rodnik
@mosch

So now please let us agree that theory is a well defined term and needs a lot less discussion than the actual topic, creationism and its relation to evolution

A guess, no matter how educated/informed/etc, is still a just a guess.

So, how about we \"agree to disagree\" and move on?...:D

You can forget about that, mister, I don\'t work that way :D
In fact we don\'t disagree all that much. I say a theroy is a model. It is conceived through an educated guess and is altered depending on the observations. The model is made to fit the world.
Religion has a model that is conceived through pure, sometimes random, guesses with no basis. The model can not be altered without changing the religion so the world is made to fit the model.

This is the difference, at least the way I always saw it. A theory might start as a guess, but it is in no way a random idea.
 

funnymouth

Active member
Originally posted by johnboyjjb
Creationists need micro-evolution. Without it, Noah would never have been able to get every breed of dog on the ark. Instead he only needed 2.


well, as a self described evolutionary biologist, i must say, there is no difference, or if there is one, its only semantic. the mechanism for \"micro\" and macro\" evolution is the same - a change in the genetic code. depending on the nature of the phenotypic trait it might change slowly (say a polygenic trait) or abrupt (e.g. a hox gene mutation resulting in extra limbs). if you accept \"micro evolution\" you are accepting evolution itself because its mechanisms (selection / drift) are the same, and any distinction between the two is an arbitrary designation based on what is \"more different\" or \"less different\" to our peception. at the molecular level, its all the same. a \"small\" change, or a \"big\" change is still a change.
 

MarkusTay

New member
Actually, the way I hear it, we\'re just a big reality show for the rest of the universe.

And we\'re about to be cancelled.... :eek:
 

paintingploddy

New member
Hawaii isn\'t a good example, I can happily argue that took atime scale beyond the biblical. There are hundreds of similar features dotted under the Pacific.

7 miles of coast doesn\'t compare with the Grand Canyon - doesn\'t cut it.

A single eruption of Mt St Helens doesn\'t do it. ot compared with the geology of Western Victoria or the Deccan region of India.

Your point is taken with the floods. Accepting then Arizona farmers see floods regularly enough to be worried about them, why is it so much to believe the floods have occurred periodically assisting with causing the Canyon. Are you saying there are accounts of water flowing the other way down the canyon away from the Pacific?
 

philologus

Subgenius
Originally posted by MarkusTay
Actually, the way I hear it, we\'re just a big reality show for the rest of the universe.

And we\'re about to be cancelled.... :eek:


Markus! Welcome back, long time no post!
 

Rodnik

New member
@Mosch

You can forget about that, mister, I don\'t work that way
In fact we don\'t disagree all that much. I say a theroy is a model. It is conceived through an educated guess and is altered depending on the observations. The model is made to fit the world.
Religion has a model that is conceived through pure, sometimes random, guesses with no basis. The model can not be altered without changing the religion so the world is made to fit the model.

And you\'re right, we\'re probably not disagreeing all that much. :D

The challenge that I have with your stance is around the question of credibility. In that you\'ve alluded to the fact that scientific theory would be more credible than a religious belief.

I don\'t feel this is the case, as Religion addresses some of the tougher philosophical questions and answers in the world. And philosophy, although it doesn\'t concern itself with theories, per se--is a defined method of discovery. Philosophical investigations do not make assumptions for no reasons----and are generally reasonable observations and conclusions--\"Thou shalt not kill\", for example---is readily accepted as an ethical answer in modern society; however--it\'s probably not needed to ensure the propagation of the species, considering the rapid pace at which humans bear offspring. But still, we consider it \"ethically\" wrong. From a purely scientific standpoint, it could potentially make more sense to:
a: Genetically engineer humans to their most survivable form.
b: Control the population to a sustainable level.

But, would it be \"right\" to do that?
And who answers that question of what is \"right\"?
The answers to philosophical/ethical questions stem from beliefs---which is the foundation of religion---a system of common beliefs held by a group of people.
And whether a person believes in a God or gods---they will, by and large, get their system of beliefs from something that originated from a certain pantheon that did address the question of \"What is our philosophy?\"

And what you\'re saying is that the answer to this question is completely random, contrived through pure guesses, and is unsubstantiated.
And I don\'t agree. :D
 

johnboyjjb

Active member
Originally posted by paintingploddyYour point is taken with the floods. Accepting then Arizona farmers see floods regularly enough to be worried about them, why is it so much to believe the floods have occurred periodically assisting with causing the Canyon. Are you saying there are accounts of water flowing the other way down the canyon away from the Pacific?
The point is that Arizona farmers don\'t see floods. All the water is gone to the ocean. The flood plain has dried up. And all the rivers flowing into the Colorado flow away from the Pacific until they hit the Colorado.
 

treide

New member
Originally posted by johnboyjjb
The point is that Arizona farmers don\'t see floods. All the water is gone to the ocean. The flood plain has dried up. And all the rivers flowing into the Colorado flow away from the Pacific until they hit the Colorado. [/quote]

Really, I am not on a mission to disagree with everything you say, but Arizona does see a fair amount of flooding during the monsoon season (we\'re in it right now, actually). There usually are significant damages from flood erosion and at least a few drowning deaths each year. Not being a geologist, I can\'t comment on whether that would account for the geologic formations of the Grand Canyon. My guess is that seasonal floods on the scale we see currently would not be enough.
 

johnboyjjb

Active member
Really, my folks live in Apache Junction and haven\'t made comments about any flooding. They are old and go to a lot of garage sale flea market type stuff so you\'d think I would have heard my dad complain about flooding. I didn\'t know you guys had floods.
 

skeeve

Member
Originally posted by Rodnik

I don\'t feel this is the case, as Religion addresses some of the tougher philosophical questions and answers in the world.
Science addresses the same questions yet initial assumptions are different. For example they don\'t include burning on the stake those who disagree.
Philosophical investigations do not make assumptions for no reasons----and are generally reasonable observations and conclusions--\"Thou shalt not kill\", for example---is readily accepted as an ethical answer in modern society
In modern societies that were build around Judae-Christian set of initial assumption. This \"modern\" society exists as such for about 200 years. Even in the beginning of 19th centuries duels to the death were common and all participants were absolutely sure that they are devoted Christians. People who burned thousands on the stake also believed themselves to be devoted Christians. The point here is that so called \"universal\" values are not so universal and were rejected/modified by the very people who were supposed to uphold them.

From evolutionary point of view 10 commandments have enormous adaptive value - they ensure stability of the group by defining member\'s identity of this group. As for
; however--it\'s probably not needed to ensure the propagation of the species, considering the rapid pace at which humans bear offspring.
you can\'t be more wrong then this. NOW, yes, with all modern medicine (or actually with very simple concept of antiseptic). Do you know what was the women childbirth mortality in precontraceptive societies? Insane, in certain areas up to 50% of first births were lethal (trying to do it at 13-14 tends to it to you). Back then the death of mother effectively ensured the death of the child and all this is without even considering infant mortality.
In order to actually ensure population growth you need more then 2 kids per couple that survived to sexual maturity. Population growth of humans used to be very slow
But still, we consider it \"ethically\" wrong.
We, and now. Number of opposite examples exist- girl infanticide in Asia - tolerated by population even now despite efforts from the state
From a purely scientific standpoint, it could potentially make more sense to:
a: Genetically engineer humans to their most survivable form.
We are so far from even remote possibility of this that it is pointless to discuss. Besides, as I mentioned on several occasions \"most survivable form\" is most survivable NOW at current conditions. By excessive re engineering you might create highly specialized organism that become deadlocked in changing environment or you will start vicious circle of perpetual \"adjustments\" - extremely unadaptive.
b: Control the population to a sustainable level.
That would make sense if you can convince people on a personal level that kids are bad - you are going against one of the basic \"species imperatives\". Even totalitarian states were only partially successful
The answers to philosophical/ethical questions stem from beliefs---which is the foundation of religion---a system of common beliefs held by a group of people.
Which is highly adaptive for the group in question. I can give you hundreds of examples why but I think you can do it yourself :) Common believes improve group cohesion and its ability to withstand pressure from outside the group.
And whether a person believes in a God or gods---they will, by and large, get their system of beliefs from something that originated from a certain pantheon that did address the question of \"What is our philosophy?\"
This is actually bring us to the question about how \"common philosophies\" become common. Notice, that \"bad philosophies\" do not survive for long because it the end of the day they drastically affect the stability of society in the very negative way. Look at political history of 20th century it is close enough and provide ample examples.
 

Trevor

Brushlicker and Freak!
\"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.\"

Given this sort of definition its impossible to argue against evolution. This is an undoubted fact. But that dosn\'t mean God(s)/aliens or whatever couldn\'t have started the ball rolling.


I think the problem comes down to this: religous beliefs are unassailable, because people will hold onto them in the face of overwhelming evidence.

This has led to \'evolutionists\' becoming like the creationists in supporting evolution, and I think this has done a lot of harm to evolutionary theory. It doesn\'t help that most people really don\'t understand evolution, I\'m a scientist and I\'ve studied it and I know I don\'t understand it very well. Its not very suprising that joe bloggs would get confused.

Science is based on a set of incomplete information, scientists then develop ideas to explain what they see, but at any point new information may come along that will change things.

Some disciplines tend to be less variable than others, physics for example tends to give repeatable results, which means you can develop Laws.

Biology on the other hand tends to be more variable, this is often because what you are investigating involves massively more variables than adding two chemicals to each other.

If you think about evolution we are talking about a truly astronomical number of variables, you have all the alleles, all the different ways they can combine, you have genetic and environmental differences that act over the whole life of the organism to determine who it mates with and how many offsring it has, you have other organisms that affect this organism, eg by trying to eat it, then take all these things and multiply them by the number of individuals of that species and then multiply that by how long that species has been about (often millions of years) and you have a truly astronomically complex system, is it really ANY wonder that we don\'t fully understand it?

As soon as we can quantify all those variables then we will be able to develop a Law of evolution, until then I would say the theory holds up remarkably well.


However, some areas are more unclear, natural selection, for example, cannot be scientifically tested using a falsificationist approach, because it predicts all possible outcomes ie
1) species stay the same
2) species change
3) species become extinct

Which is completely useless to a falsificationist scientist and puts all such \'science\' into the same realm as the creationists, ie an untestable belief. Well, you can believe whatever you like, but it doesn\'t make it true.

What gets me are the crackpots that literally believe things like creationism and Noahs ark. Two of every animal? How did he feed them? What about parasites? Was each animal carrying exactly 2 of every one of its parasites? What about tropical and arctic species? How did he keep them warm/cold? What about Australian species? How did they get to the ark? Strange Noah didn\'t remark on how odd it was to have egg laying mammals, or that God was clearly taking the piss with the duck billed platypuss.

Strikes me that these people just can\'t be bothered, or don\'t want to think for themselves.
 

Rodnik

New member
Science addresses the same questions yet initial assumptions are different. For example they don\'t include burning on the stake those who disagree.
But science/scientist do openly criticize other scientist who don\'t agree with the common view-----that could equate to a public thrashing---and sometimes might include attempts to discredit. Not for scientific reasons, but for personal reasons, mind you. I can certainly cite examples here, but I think you know this without me pointing out the specifics.


In modern societies that were build around Judae-Christian set of initial assumption. This \"modern\" society exists as such for about 200 years. Even in the beginning of 19th centuries duels to the death were common and all participants were absolutely sure that they are devoted Christians. People who burned thousands on the stake also believed themselves to be devoted Christians. The point here is that so called \"universal\" values are not so universal and were rejected/modified by the very people who were supposed to uphold them.

My point made for me. Religion can modify itself through observation without modifying the basic beliefs of the religion....much like scientists establish theories.

you can\'t be more wrong then this. NOW, yes, with all modern medicine (or actually with very simple concept of antiseptic). Do you know what was the women childbirth mortality in precontraceptive societies?

We don\'t live in a precontraceptive society, do we? I\'m talking now. A simple examination of population growth statistics will demonstrate that we are propagating--and are VERY effective at it.


We, and now. Number of opposite examples exist- girl infanticide in Asia - tolerated by population even now despite efforts from the state
We\'re not talking about exceptions.

We are so far from even remote possibility of this that it is pointless to discuss. Besides, as I mentioned on several occasions \"most survivable form\" is most survivable NOW at current conditions. By excessive re engineering you might create highly specialized organism that become deadlocked in changing environment or you will start vicious circle of perpetual \"adjustments\" - extremely unadaptive.

And I understand this---but my point is this IS a current point of contention. Stem cell research, for example. Scientific progress is slowed for the sake of ethics. That\'s my point.

That would make sense if you can convince people on a personal level that kids are bad - you are going against one of the basic \"species imperatives\". Even totalitarian states were only partially successful
Absolutely, but my point made for me. It would require the need for scientific advancement to overcome an inherent belief.

Which is highly adaptive for the group in question. I can give you hundreds of examples why but I think you can do it yourself :) Common believes improve group cohesion and its ability to withstand pressure from outside the group. This is actually bring us to the question about how \"common philosophies\" become common. Notice, that \"bad philosophies\" do not survive for long because it the end of the day they drastically affect the stability of society in the very negative way. Look at political history of 20th century it is close enough and provide ample examples.

And that\'s my point again---Group beliefs can adapt through observation, without the need to change the inherent spirit of those beliefs.

The original point of contention to which my post was directed----Is scientific theory more credible than group/religious belief?
The context is different, yes. The explanations of phenomena are potentially different, yes. The manner in which beliefs are adapted is different. But, the changes in that behavior are NOT completely random and do, by and large, have a basis on observation (inside the context of that set of beliefs).
 

Evil Dave

New member
Originally posted by Rodnik


And I understand this---but my point is this IS a current point of contention. Stem cell research, for example. Scientific progress is slowed for the sake of ethics. That\'s my point.

A point of contention, this is only partially true. It is a good political meme, though.
Easy to provoke outrage. \"Why we can cure Parkison\'s, Blindness, deafness, male pattern balding, and obesity, but the mean old administration won\'t let us.\" :rolleyes:
Stem cell research is being done and we have medical techniques already in use from stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research, however, has restrictions in order to get Federal funding, as long as they stay within those bounds they get Federal funding.

Now, you might think these restrictions, are hampering the research, au contraire, these restrictions can be bypassed simply by going to State funding, or funding by Private Corporations, or Private Citizens.
Most in the field researchers prefer these as there is a hell of a lot less paperwork , however,there is a problem with these sources in that they generally want results to continue funding you. No result, no funding.
In fact, if they had real results, you could bet your ass that a corporation would pick up the tab immediately. Pfizer Pharmaceutical\'s, anyone?
Sure Federal funding lets you have cushier offices, nicer paychecks, but it is not a necessity. Since it is not a necessity, and the corporations aren\'t picking up the tabs, it seems to someone used to how funding works, that the lack of federal funding is merely an excuse.

It seems to a lot of us younger researchers that the large federal grants are going to those who can promise the most, results or not. Promise the sun, the moon, the stars, just get the funding. Death and destruction in 10 years if we don\'t do something right now, oh, and we need funding to do it. (Funny, how that one comes up every 20 years or so.)

So just because the Federal government may not be picking up the tab, doesn\'t mean that they cannot get funding (point in fact, wasn\'t it New York that set aside $240 billion for state sponsored stem cell research?), it means they aren\'t getting results.

Take this from someone who works at the only Synchrotron ring in the world to be run at the state level, on less than $5 million a year. A feat that all the major physicists said could not be done, that we absolutely needed Federal funding or we could not function. We\'ve been in operation for over 15 years. (Hmmm...Funny, the average estimated lifespan of federally operated synchrotron rings is 10 years before a major rebuild is necessary, which of course requires....You got it, more funding.) We found a way, and are contributing to the discovery of a technology that if utilized at only a fraction of what is theorized will change all of mankind, including making stem cell research moot...Nanotech.
 

skeeve

Member
However, some areas are more unclear, natural selection, for example, cannot be scientifically tested using a falsificationist approach, because it predicts all possible outcomes ie
1) species stay the same
2) species change
3) species become extinct

Which is completely useless to a falsificationist scientist and puts all such \'science\' into the same realm as the creationists, ie an untestable belief. Well, you can believe whatever you like, but it doesn\'t make it true.

Well, incorrectly stated hypothesis cannot be tested indeed. Natural selection doesn\'t make prediction about \"species\". It is only concerned with the effect of specific selective pressure on fitness of given group of organism. And this is easy to test. Allele frequencies are easily measurable variable. You can create controlled selective pressure. Experiments like these were done many times.

Often you cannot predict in what way a specific group of organisms would respond to a specific selective pressure but natural selection is not supposed to do this. Many biochemical deficiencies can be compensated in more then one way - the outcome will be the same though - compensation of selective pressure in the direction increasing population fitness.

As for speciation. We would be happy to test this problem is that it takes loooong time, and theory of evolution was formulated only about 160 years ago
 

treide

New member
Originally posted by johnboyjjb
Really, my folks live in Apache Junction and haven\'t made comments about any flooding. They are old and go to a lot of garage sale flea market type stuff so you\'d think I would have heard my dad complain about flooding. I didn\'t know you guys had floods.

They must not watch the local news much, I guess. A few examples:

http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO58533/
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2005-08-10-arizona-floods_x.htm
http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0723sr-floodwarning0723.html

This one has nice pictures.

http://az.water.usgs.gov/azhydroconditions/2004flood.htm

Apache Junction flooding (3rd article down)
http://www.ajnews.com/archives/091806/index.html
 

paintingploddy

New member
I find what you say strange about flooding. People generally don\'t worry about something unless they know there is a very good chance of it occurring. Point is most occasions of a catastrophic flood (Mediterrainean Sea, Black sea, even Port Phillip bay) have been catastrophic events where drainage hasn\'t been total. Just because there is a flood plain upstream doesn\'t negate the formation of the canyon through millions of years of erosion particularly if the conditions vary.
 

Rodnik

New member
@Evil Dave

A point of contention, this is only partially true.

There\'s no such thing as \"partial\" contention....of course, there can be varying degrees---but it\'s still contention. A meme is just the idea that propagates---or, in other words, the point to be contended.
So, the question would be \"Why does the meme exist?\"
Because some portion of the population believes that stem cell research is \"wrong\".

You can certainly get around opponents by taking avenues through proponents. Fairly common practice when any manner of opposition is faced. But getting around it wasn\'t the point---the fact that contention exists was.


So just because the Federal government may not be picking up the tab, doesn\'t mean that they cannot get funding (point in fact, wasn\'t it New York that set aside $240 billion for state sponsored stem cell research?), it means they aren\'t getting results.

But would it progress faster if all states and the fed provided funding or more funding?---most certainly. I wasn\'t saying there weren\'t proponents to the research---I said contention--which means there are people on both sides.



Take this from someone who works at the only Synchrotron ring in the world to be run at the state level, on less than $5 million a year

And you guys should be commended---but, if you had more money could you do more?
The answer, I\'m sure, is \"yes\".
So the lack of funding, in your case, would be a hindrance---however slight you may consider it.
 
Back To Top
Top