I too have found that in multiple fields of life... a certain degree of nihilism... does notably help.
And thanks for reminding me of Delenn's quotation. I had my signature all wrong! :rolleyes: :eek: Getting my signature right is something where nihilism cannot be afforded. :D
(I prefer a version of her quotation which does not originate from the series, but some tiny matchbox-sized and ten-seconds-long video clip, long ago dowloaded with a highly advanced 486. :D )
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]I
You ask for an example. I request that you re-read my post *above* your request. For crying out loud, it *contains* an example of how to produce/observe evolution in laboratory!
[/B][/QUOTE]
all of which are examples of micro-evolution, same thing as birds feathers changing from brown to white depending on their envoroment. Or humans getting a darker complextion in more tropical enviroments.
However, no matter how many thousands of generations you watch, they are still the same species. With your bacteria it is still the same species of bacteria, it built an immunity to the antibody, yet it is still the same species of bacteria, not a new one.
Biggles: Yes, I have read the post, such as RC's. Theres a difference between explaining explaining how science fact doesn't exist vs. what teachers in most American schools tell you. 3rd graders arn't going to be taught that there is no science fact, rather they will be told that science is based on fact, and that evolution is science.
Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.
Back in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species, he split the scientific community in two, one side creationism, the other evolution. Each side working dilligently to prove their side is right.
more then 100 years later that battle in the scientific community still rages, we have a MUCH better understanding of life, both sides have found ALOT of evidence to support their claims, yet it is still 50/50. There are two theories, both have much scientific evidence to support the claims, neither has been proven false.
As such, both should appear this way in the classroom. If only one is going to be taught, it should be made loud an clear that it has not been proven, as that sticker did.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]all of which are examples of micro-evolution, same thing as birds feathers changing from brown to white depending on their envoroment. Or humans getting a darker complextion in more tropical enviroments.
However, no matter how many thousands of generations you watch, they are still the same species. With your bacteria it is still the same species of bacteria, it built an immunity to the antibody, yet it is still the same species of bacteria, not a new one. [/b][/quote]
Actually, if you watch enough generations, the changes build up to the point where you do have a different species. Species arn't defined based on it being a bacteria, or having feathers. If enough traits are different it is a different species. The number of generations that can occur in 4 billion years is certainly large enough to accumulate enough change, such as fins to legs, or toes to fingers, or light-sensitive clumps of cells to eyes.
[quote][b]Biggles: Yes, I have read the post, such as RC's. Theres a difference between explaining explaining how science fact doesn't exist vs. what teachers in most American schools tell you. 3rd graders arn't going to be taught that there is no science fact, rather they will be told that science is based on fact, and that evolution is science. [/b][/quote]
You still haven't provided evidence of this, as Sanfam said you should. It's a huge claim to make. As I recall, you were homeschooled, which would mean you never went to "most American schools" and experienced precisely how they teach evolution. I bet even those people here who weren't homeschooled didn't go to "most American schools". They most likely went to one or two (or three, I don't know how many levels of school you have in the US).
[quote][b]Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.
Back in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species, he split the scientific community in two, one side creationism, the other evolution. Each side working dilligently to prove their side is right.
more then 100 years later that battle in the scientific community still rages, we have a MUCH better understanding of life, both sides have found ALOT of evidence to support their claims, yet it is still 50/50. There are two theories, both have much scientific evidence to support the claims, neither has been proven false.
As such, both should appear this way in the classroom. If only one is going to be taught, it should be made loud an clear that it has not been proven, as that sticker did. [/B][/QUOTE]
Scientists have given as much evidence to support creationism as evolution? It's still 50/50? Where did all that evidence go then? Why are biologists so much in favour of the Theory of Evolution when there is supposedly so much evidence for Creationism?
It should be noted that when evolution started being thrown around by various people (Darwin wasn't the first) biology was still a fairly young science, so there weren't well-established theories on where life came from and a huge crowd of established biologists.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It lacks evidence and testability. It is a hypothesis at best, and as mentioned earlier a hypothesis without evidence gets chucked out. It should not be taught in science.
In my opinion much of this thread has become a series of ad hominim attacks against religion.
People whine and cry about how many people have died in the name of faith yet forget.
In the 20th century more people died in the name of [I]SCIENCE[/I] then have probably lived for most of the history of the planet.
The theories of marx as implemented in Lennist and Maoist thoughts have claimed the lives of about a [I]100 million [/I] people. For ideological beliefs that were grounded in atheism, and "science"
Frankly I hold science in no higher esteme then religion, in fact, even less, because quite the opposit of providing an understanding of humanity and a bright future, it can just as easily itself become a dark and twisted thing.
Science is no panacia for the human condition, it has no power to show us the truth which religion can provide, and that truth is, what is the proper way for one man to treat another.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
I have a hard time understanding how you could possibly combine science and theories like marxism. Marxism is a POLITICAL theory, not a SCIENTIFIC threory. They are quite different.
However I cannot argue that science is free of killing. After all, it was science that developed nuclear weapons, machine guns, chemical weapons, and hundreds of other destructive devices.
In counterpoint, it is science that has developed thousands of medical advances that have saved far more lives then the military uses have killed.
You will never hear real biologists talk about micro or macro evolution. Part of the beuty of evolutionary theory is that the same mechanisms describe both, it is simply just a matter of time scale. Populations will only evolve by change in environment or geological seperation. Form what i have read this WAS DONE IN LAB. However I do not have the study to cite.
Natural Selection will shallow the gene pool and will not cause speciation (or macroevolution for the uneducated) unless the population is seperated.
A#, being an education major and involved in the education system that science is not taught in that manner, unless the teacher is crap. If that is the case it is the fault of the education system, not science in and of itself. Besides evolution shouldn't be taught in the third grade, if the student is lucky enough to get any kind of science education at all. Elementary teachers are scared of the subject.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]A#, being an education major and involved in the education system that science is not taught in that manner, unless the teacher is crap. If that is the case it is the fault of the education system, not science in and of itself. Besides evolution shouldn't be taught in the third grade, if the student is lucky enough to get any kind of science education at all. Elementary teachers are scared of the subject. [/B][/QUOTE]
I believe A% was homeschooled.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
When is 3rd grade? I could hazard a guess that it would be around 7 years old, ie the 3rd year of school. If that's the case, then holy shit those are some damn bright students, being taught the complexities of evolution at that age.
In the US: Grade = Age at start of year - 5
therefor: Age = Grade + 5
hence: 8 = 5 + 3
At that time they should be learning THE basics of scientific method and some factoids.
Minor but related tangent:
We have never seen a magnetic field
We have never seen an electron
Magnatism and atoms are theories yet i don't hear crationists ask about them.
There is a very good reason why a class on evolution is a 400 level class; it takes a great deal of knowledge of genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, geology, etc to know the finer details.
I have YET to see any other model that accounts for what is observed in nature.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.[/B][/QUOTE]Then why don't you demand teaching of all religions equally to everyone in schools?
It might even do some good... or does anyone know when beliefs of buddhism has been used as reason to declare "holy war" against those who do not agree with your policy?
In this case of religious fundamentalists attacking evolution it's all about power and control, like it has been always.
Religion gives "believers" and self-proclaimed "messengers of god" position above others and while evolution is against basic beliefs of religion it also attacks against that power to say other people what to do/how to think.
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives."
-Robert A. Heinlein
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]all of which are examples of micro-evolution, same thing as birds feathers changing from brown to white depending on their envoroment.[/QUOTE]
If you expect macro-evolution in five days... you are expecting too much. Because that is how long it takes... for bacteria to swap a few plasmide chromosomes, and develop resistance.
If you cannot muster the patience to observe the apple/hawthorne flies continue their split towards becoming separate species... then go breed fruit flies, select them artificially... and you *will* have incompatible fruit flies (who cannot and will not mate) in approximately a year.
You *can* create a new species in a year, even if it's not a viable natural species.
[quote]Or humans getting a darker complextion in more tropical enviroments.[/quote]
I fear you are misunderstanding something. When I get a darker complexion, my genes remain the same.
When bacteria develop resistance, they undergo a genetic change -- equivalent in magnitude to my 20th-order grandparents having set up living in a microwave.
[quote]However, no matter how many thousands of generations you watch, they are still the same species.
--------
With your bacteria it is still the same species of bacteria, it built an immunity to the antibody, yet it is still the same species of bacteria, not a new one.
[/quote]
Define a species for bacteria -- they don't reproduce sexually, and are hence outside the strict definition of species (being able to produce common offspring).
Bacterial species are generally defined (and kept in place) by the existence of specific host environments favourable to them (and ecological niches like food substances inside those). When those change slowly, bacteria generally go along. A bacterial species going extinct is probably fairly rare (and mostly occurs to specialist bacteria who accept only a single host environment).
[i](Sidenote: when change is too fast, their local population generally gets bumped out of the micro-environment concerned -- replaced by competing bacteria already adapted to take advantage of the situation. However, having adapted to such a lifestyle... when that happens, they generally manage to form sleeping spores, of which a sufficient number ends up in another favourable environment, where their active life can continue.)[/i]
So... what if I didn't play with antibiotics... but started playing with their food substrate? What if I separated the population in two... and started giving one of them slowly increasing degrees of another food substrate?
Soon enough, if their metabolism contained *any* gene which mutation can reshape to feed on the new substrate... the population I subjected to change would start evolving to fit their new food. Those less prepared would retreat with the old food... those more prepared would advance onto the border, and eventually onto the new food.
When the latter, having lived on the new food for several months... would be suddenly placed back on their old food, most would perish. From the viewpoint of survival in a specific environment, they would have become a different species, ill adapted to live where they previously flourished.
** It has actually been noticed that, for situations where environment becomes consistently stressful (adaptation is called for) some kinds of bacteria have regulatory genes... which increase the probability of mutations, and reduce the rate of correcting them (allowing to try more options faster).
[quote]Theres a difference between explaining explaining how science fact doesn't exist vs. what teachers in most American schools tell you.[/quote]
Never went into American school, therefore cannot tell.
[quote]Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught.[/quote]
Back your words.
Explain using creationism how HIV adapted to infecting humans... why apple and hawthorne flies are splitting up... why you can breed reproductively incompatible fruit flies in a mere year.
As you see... creationism does not offer practical solutions to practical problems. It no longer belongs in biology -- perhaps only the history of biology, and perhaps to religious studies.
If you want to synthesize a precious substance from a rare plant, by implanting a gene from the plant in commonly growable bacteria... creationism does not step in to help you.
Understanding of how evolution works... does help you. You will require knowledge about genes, how they are inaccurately copied, how two genes can be paired together (one of the beneficial property, another of resistance), how bacteria exchange choromosomes... and how lack of particular genes (those paired up with resistance) can be selected against to get a bacterial population which actually produces the chemical you want.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
...or does anyone know when beliefs of buddhism has been used as reason to declare "holy war" against those who do not agree with your policy?[/QUOTE]
To my knowledge, it has never occurred on the scale of "war"... but smaller instances of religious violence have occurred among Buddhists too. I have forgotten where it occurred, but one recent incident involved beating some Christian priest, and setting fire to a church.
On big scale however... Buddhism does appear a less confrontational religion. Probably because their beliefs don't include such polarized concepts like "heaven", "hell", "saving souls" or "judgement" -- merely a slow passage towards greater enlightenment.
Such a viewpoint may easily cause them to fret less, and decrease the likeliness of them trying to invasively spread their beliefs "no matter what"... but they too have slipped. Every ideology can be bent for harmful purpose.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[BWhy don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you want to teach both of those because you believe none of them have evidence, then all of the theories around how the universe and humanity began must have an equal right of being taught. Including Hindu creationism, Asatru creationism etc. etc.
The fact (yes fact) is that [i]most[/i] christians and [i]most[/i] of the rest of us believe in evolution. Thats a focal point of [i]most[/i] faiths on the globe. Now, I wont state why, it has already been explored in this thread, and I myself think its quite obvious, but [i]most[/i] religions also aknowledge the evolution.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]
Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substantiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.[/B][/QUOTE]
They do not have to teach the other, if they are required to teach the creation [i]story[/i], and you will find many Christians do consider that part of the bible to be allegory, then educators must also teach the creation stories of other world religions. The Judeo-Christian version of creation is a religious construct and, when taught, should be presented in the context of a comparative religious class.
[quote][b]Back in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species, he split the scientific community in two, one side creationism, the other evolution. Each side working diligently to prove their side is right.
more then 100 years later that battle in the scientific community still rages, we have a MUCH better understanding of life, both sides have found ALOT of evidence to support their claims, yet it is still 50/50. There are two theories, both have much scientific evidence to support the claims, neither has been proven false.
As such, both should appear this way in the classroom. If only one is going to be taught, it should be made loud a clear that it has not been proven, as that sticker did. [/B][/QUOTE]
Being an active Christian and having seen many presentations by those who believe creation to be as stated in the Bible, I have found that your assertion is [i]not[/i] true. A significant portion of the non-biblical based evidence that creationists present are simply exceptions, which in turn they claim, invalidates the whole theory. A significant bulk of the arguments supporting creation is not evidence presented in support of that hypothesis, but just pointing out where evolution is has problems, which by any logical reasoning is not the correct way to support an argument.
I believe many of these arguments stem not from a belief that the Bible is a perfect text, but mans inability to imagine a history that is much longer than a few thousand years, people have a very hard time wrapping there mind around a process which takes millions upon millions of years. We then default to what seems a simpler, more tangible line of reasoning that God created the earth in 6 days, and that we all can trace our lineage back to Adam and Eve.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]I have a hard time understanding how you could possibly combine science and theories like marxism. Marxism is a POLITICAL theory, not a SCIENTIFIC threory. They are quite different.
However I cannot argue that science is free of killing. After all, it was science that developed nuclear weapons, machine guns, chemical weapons, and hundreds of other destructive devices.
In counterpoint, it is science that has developed thousands of medical advances that have saved far more lives then the military uses have killed.
In the end science more then justifies itself.
--RC [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually your last point isnt quite true, yes, millions of lives have been saved by medical science in the past 150 years. However if you look at the deathtoll that military technology and science has racked up in the past 150 years, your in for a rather grusome toll.
WWII killed on order of 50 million people, WWI adds in another 10, other conflicts around the globe toss in the 20th century toss in another 100 million plus, the total is probably closer to 150 million. If you realize that most people didnt have access to real medical care till after 1900 or so, and in asia not till after WWII, things start looking rather stark
Back to your original point. You are making an artificial and arbitrary delination. You have establshed that only the "physical sciences" are TRUE science. Which isnt actually very correct. Just because Marxs theories cover human behavior does not make them any less scientific then theories covering atomic and sub atomic motion.
In fact when one looks at the implication of Heisenburgs uncertainty principle, verses theories explaing human behavior, it seems the human behavior theories should be a bit easier :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]However I cannot argue that science is free of killing. After all, it was science that developed nuclear weapons, machine guns, chemical weapons, and hundreds of other destructive devices.[/B][/QUOTE]Well... actually it isn't science itself. It's just to what purpose science is used.
"Religions that teach brotherly love have been used as an excuse for persecution, and our profoundest scientific insight is made into a means of mass destruction."
-Bertrand Russell
I recall reading one statistic which stated that not quite half of the united states believe in a literal genisis creation. Google isn't showing me anything to cite... I think I'm losing my research touch
I think God started the whole thing, and made it self sustaining (including the concept of Evolution), and is now sitting back just laughing his rear end off!
I mean really, why would God need to continually expend energy creating something. Once made he would just put it in motion.
;)
If one takes Genesis literally, there is a creation, then a refinement of that creation in a period called 7 Days.
It's interesting to note all the correlations bewteen the symbols of the story and what astronomers and cosmologists explain about the beginnings of the Universe and our Solar System. Then the stages of life upon the face of the Earth, culminating in the formation of Man. (Maybe the Aliens modified the apes along the way...)
I REALLY think there is a lot more time that is unaccounted for in this book. Especially in the first two sentences...
;)
Also, I really can't escape the problematic issues with simple cultures who have accurate knowledge of things like stars (Dogmen and Sirius comes to mind here for example) and other things they couldn't possible have come to know. Where the hell did they get it from?
Ok, so maybe a past High Culture that existed prior to the catastrophic end of the Ice Age had the knowledge and spread it around the world via it's remnants. Ok, where'd they get it?
I keep coming back to an "Inside Trader" who shared the knowledge first somewhere along the line.
Was it (a) God,
was it space aliens who visit occasionally,
or maybe a time traveler who pops in and out of the time curve to tweek things (this opens up yet even more problems, such as finding thousands of years old clock mechanisms that rival todays mechanical works, jewelry encased in Coal blocks from the age of the dinosaurs, etc)
As time goes on I suspect a very large foul being perpetrated on Earth and human history...
All this stuff about "evolution is just a theory" stems from ignorance (and I'm being very polite and mild in saying that!) about how science really works.
Yeah, we all get in basic education this neat story about science going from observation to hypothesis to theory to law... that's an oversimplification.
I'm a scientist and I can surely tell you that's nonsense (again, that's a mild way of putting it), and no serious philosopher of science (or scientist) would ever say that's how it works.
In fact many research projects start with a hypothesis or theory that is used to think of what experiments (observation) can be used to prove it. And no scientists ever uses the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" in such a clearly defined way. Colloquially I have heard (and used myself) the phrase "my theory is..." when according to that oversimplified definition of the scientific method we should have said "my hypothesis is..."
In fact I'd venture to say that there ain't such thing as a clearly defined "scientific method"
Very few things in science can be called "law" so way too many theories have the weight of law without the possibility of they becoming that.
You have to understand that when something is called a "law" of science it is usally something quantifiable that can be calculated and predicted by a mathematical model.
For example: would you say that biology itself is not science?
Compare to physics and chemistry where you have the laws of thermodynamics, and many other minor laws. Biology can not have such "laws" because it deals with many non-quantifiable items and with phenomena that aren't as easy to circumscribe to a mathematical model.
There is no "law" saying that DNA encodes genetic information, there is no "law" describing how cell division works or how reproduction works, or how ecological communities interact.
And just because there aren't "laws" are you gonna say "that ain't science"?
Actually if just because something isn't a law it isn't science and it shouldn't be considered "fact" then you should stop reading and typing, because computer science (that little science in which all the computers and internet is based) doesn't have "laws" (sorry, "Moore's law" ain't nothing but a lucky guess based on observation;)), and since it ain't based on laws it ain't fact and thus your computer and the internet are just fictions and should you stop believing in them they'd cease to exist... which actually means that all these posts shouldn't exist!!:D
Science can have theories that are not mathematical (thus they aren't called "laws") but still hold true.
And evolution is a prime example of that.
To go further against the anti-evolutionist movement:
One of the initial objections (in the times of Darwin) was "where are the intermediate fossils" (the missing links), that is one question that has been answered many, many, many times, and as more and more and more and more paleontology digs are made even more "missing links" are found.
Another objection: "they eye is too complex to be a product of evolution." NO, it isn't, look at this page of a NOVA program.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html[/url] (there's a quicktime video if you don't want to just read it)
The origin of life is not a necessary part of a theory of evolution. That objection has nothing to do with this discussion.
Evolution is about life changing to adapt and those with the better adaptations surviving and giving those adaptations as inheritance to their descendants.
It doesn't matter how that life started, just how it changes.
Your objection that "we haven't observed macro-evolution" will sooner or later go the way of the eye and "missing link" objections: observation will prove you wrong. Even now there is evolution being observed, in AIDS patients HIV becomes resistant to drugs since that virus has a very high mutation rate.
We are also observing evolution in bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant (a problem partly caused by misuse and abuse of antibiotics).
And no, sorry, creationism is NOT science, it doesn't matter if you call it "creation science" or "intelligent design."
In fact creationism ignores and denies many basic facts of science, not only evolution, and not just in biology.
We know from geology that continents drift, it is observable, it is fact (and everytime there's an earthquake it's proof that tectonic plates are moving).
We know from Chemistry and Physics that radioactive atoms decay. Carbon-13 and Uranium and other radioisotopes decay in known ways, and thus we can use "atomic clocks" to say with certainty that the Earth was formed around 4 million years ago.
We know from Astrophysics that the Universe is expanding and working out from observation we can deduce that such expansion started around 15 thousand million years ago.
We know from Physics that light travels at a constant speed, so we know that when we look at galaxies a thousand million light-years away that it took that many million years for that light to reach us.
We know many things from many branches of science, but none of those sciences and none of those things say that creationism has any validity.
Creationism is at its very core anti-scientific.
And you are completely wrong to say that Darwin split the scientific community in two. If anything it split some segments of the fundamentalist view of religion into denying science.
Frankly as a researcher (a chemist) I consider those scientists that are creationists and/or that support "intelligent design" an embarrassment.
And as a Catholic I do consider one of the proponents of intelligent design (a biochemist, I forget his name) an embarrassment to my faith too.
Because, see, Catholicism does not deny evolution, and is not at odds with it.
It's only certain fragments of fundamentalist Christianism that mantain that evolution is against religion.
And as man of Faith I feel some sorrow for those Christians that insist that creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible is part of their religion. That is too much belief and too little Faith.
If you want to say that you believe in creationism as a matter of faith go ahead, just don't say that creationism is science.
Another point you should know:
The USA may be the only country in the whole world where creationists have enough influence for their insistent battle against evolution to be an issue.
Any other country if they were to try to insert creationism into science teaching they'd be laughed off after being laughed at.
Which is seriously baffling consider that one of the most antiscientific attitudes has so much weight and wastes so much time and resources in the one country that has advanced and profitted the most from actual science research.
If you want to teach creation stories in the same equal footing as evolution then all creation histories should be admitted, not only the judeo-christian-muslim view embedded in the book of Genesis.
Let's have also teaching of the Creation Myths of the Greek, of the Maya, of the Egyptian, of the Hindu, of the Native American... and of Babylon too.:)
Oh I so wish I had been taught the creation myths of the babylonians, it might have given me a better understanding of some themes of B5.
So yes, let's have all those creation myths taught together with the scientific theories, who knows, maybe more people will be drawn into watching B5 after knowing it had some inspiration from the Babylonian Myths! :D:D:D
Seriously, if anyone can find any example where people in any other country have had creationism interfering with science education please provide a link. My hypothesis on that would be that whatever group pushed for it was associated with a fundamentalist Christian group from the USA.
Creationism is a matter of religion, I'm glad it has always been (in the end) striken from the textbooks.
As for the point that many people have "died in the name of science" I completely disagree.
Science is a tool. You can misuse it to kill, or you can well-use it to kill benefitially (antibiotics, vaccines, parasite killing, etc.).
When people are killed with a gun you don't say that "they were killed in the name of guns" so to me it doesn't make sense that when technological developments based in science are used to kill you would say that people were "killed in the name of science."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]We know from Chemistry and Physics that radioactive atoms decay. Carbon-13 and Uranium and other radioisotopes decay in known ways, and thus we can use "atomic clocks" to say with certainty that the Earth was formed around 4 million years ago. [/B][/QUOTE]
You meant 4 Thousand Million years ago right... ;)
I've heard that many believe the Universe to be about 15 Billion years old from the time of the Big Bang, and our Solar System to be right at about 4.5 Billion.
As for Babylonian creation myths, they were extensions of Sumerian works were they not?
A good author on that subject is Zacheria Sitchin (SP?). After reading all his works though, I have only seen the case for the history of our Solar System, not the rest of the Universe.
Certainly makes a case for past civilizations and visitors from beyond Earth if any of it is to be believed.
Anyway... :)
I believe that there is a God, that he created the universe. I also believe that after that initial creation he let things run on their path, including evolution. I don't believe evolution is anti faith, and like you I believe the majority of the US Christian faith is brain dead for the most part. It certainly doesn't resemble the apostolic period of Christians and their practices.
;)
But I could go on with so much more as I'm sure you could as well.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
As I recall, scientists recently put the age of the universe at between 13.1 and 13.3 thousand million years. (I could be wrong about the number after the point, but I'm fairly certain the gap between the lower and upper bounds was .2 thousand million years.)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Certainly makes a case for past civilizations and visitors from beyond Earth if any of it is to be believed.
Anyway... :)
I believe that there is a God, that he created the universe. I also believe that after that initial creation he let things run on their path, including evolution. I don't believe evolution is anti faith, and like you I believe the majority of the US Christian faith is brain dead for the most part. It certainly doesn't resemble the apostolic period of Christians and their practices.
;)
But I could go on with so much more as I'm sure you could as well. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually I love to challenge my Christian friends with your above hypothesis, especially those of the "evangelical" ilk (I'm using the modern political term, not true evangelical). My question is that if we as humanity were to find, with conclusive proof, that as a species, we were placed here by some alien race or brethren, how would it affect their faith? Most just deny it as a possibility, usually quoting the bible in the process, but some find the question intriguing, and a few state what I feel. That it would have little effect on their faith, and may even view it as further confirmation of their beliefs. The unlikely event that we are actually the progeny of aliens makes it no less likely that God created the universe, or even that Jesus is the son of God, and if there are similar belief structures within that alien society, it would be further confirmation that there is a creator.
BTW Jack, its fun to talk to an intelligent Christian (please forgive me if I am making an incorrect conclusion here). I wish you were in my neck of the woods; it'd be fun to join you for a cup of coffee and discuss theology.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]In fact creationism ignores and denies many basic facts of science, not only evolution, and not just in biology.
Creationism is at its very core anti-scientific.
[/B][/QUOTE]Just like so many other self proclaimed prophets saying my way is only right way, I/we are above others bla bla bla...
Hitler's nazi Germany is extreme example of that.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
Well... more like blind&deaf.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]...and like you I believe the majority of the US Christian faith is brain dead for the most part.[/B][/QUOTE]That isn't any new fashion trend...
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."
-Albert Einstein
"The great danger of conversion in all ages has been that when the religion of the high mind is offered to the lower mind, the lower mind, feeling its fascination without understanding it, and being incapable of rising to it, drags it down to its level by degrading it."
-George Bernard Shaw
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
-George Bernard Shaw
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism..."
-Albert Einstein
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Quite the Quotemaster, arn't you, E.T? :D
Anyway, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) told us the universe is 13.7 thousand million years old, to within 1% accuracy.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]BTW Jack, its fun to talk to an intelligent Christian (please forgive me if I am making an incorrect conclusion here). I wish you were in my neck of the woods; it'd be fun to join you for a cup of coffee and discuss theology.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
Well I'm afraid only God and history will tell whether I am an intelligent Christian or not... :D
As for being in your neck of the woods, how is Northern Tennessee? :D
I'm hoping to be around those parts by June.
In any case, I have been accused of living in a dichotomy (SP?) where the person accusing claimed that the two directions are mutually exclusive. That was his interpretation or opinion. I err on the side of all faults deriving from bad interpretation, incomplete information, ego, all the above.
I don't see error in the Bible text, I see text that was written for a specific purpose, not as a history book of the Earth, Universe, or Mankind, but as a book from the maker to bring his children back to him.
I'll tell you one thing. If we are modified creatures from apes (by aliens) or if we were created genetically from the same, it gives new meaning to the "Blood of Christ" concept. These very same creatures wish to free us from our terminal physical shell, and give us a longer lasting one in trade for faith in their wisdom.
My personal belief is that the universe is FULL of sentient life of all kinds, but that there is a God who is above all of this even. Some of these follow him and some don't. Devils, imps, elves, what have you are the aliens of the past ages, just as the angels are probably.
As in all things, when something exists, it can be a tool for good, or a tool for evil.
I even have come to the conclusion that our future really will involve an evolutionary changeover from physical matter to purely energy.
After all, Einstein showed us that everything is energy anyway, of one form or another...
Northern TN eh? That's about 3 1/2 hours from here. Are you moving or just visiting?
[quote]In any case, I have been accused of living in a dichotomy (SP?) where the person accusing claimed that the two directions are mutually exclusive. That was his interpretation or opinion. I err on the side of all faults deriving from bad interpretation, incomplete information, ego, all the above.[/quote]
I don't believe there is any dichotomy in your reasoning, to me it sounds thoughtful and logical.
Another thing that amazes me, and you alluded to this in an earlier post, is how we, as modern day Christians ( or any other faith for that matter), cling so tightly to our traditions and practices as if they have been that way since the dawn of time. People do not seem to realize that religion by its very nature is a fluid, ever evolving construct. As an example, the modern day view of hell as physical place of fire and brimstone was only created in the last 1000 years, where as the in the old Hebrew faith hell wasn't a place rather a lack of God. Another example is how we interpert the book of Revelations, which people seem to forget, was written for the Christians of John's day, and to a certain extent should be studied in that context.
if God created the universe, does it not also stand to reason that he would have made things in a partially decayed state? Thus rendering the results we get through Carbon dating?
Comments
And thanks for reminding me of Delenn's quotation. I had my signature all wrong! :rolleyes: :eek: Getting my signature right is something where nihilism cannot be afforded. :D
(I prefer a version of her quotation which does not originate from the series, but some tiny matchbox-sized and ten-seconds-long video clip, long ago dowloaded with a highly advanced 486. :D )
[B]I
You ask for an example. I request that you re-read my post *above* your request. For crying out loud, it *contains* an example of how to produce/observe evolution in laboratory!
[/B][/QUOTE]
all of which are examples of micro-evolution, same thing as birds feathers changing from brown to white depending on their envoroment. Or humans getting a darker complextion in more tropical enviroments.
However, no matter how many thousands of generations you watch, they are still the same species. With your bacteria it is still the same species of bacteria, it built an immunity to the antibody, yet it is still the same species of bacteria, not a new one.
Biggles: Yes, I have read the post, such as RC's. Theres a difference between explaining explaining how science fact doesn't exist vs. what teachers in most American schools tell you. 3rd graders arn't going to be taught that there is no science fact, rather they will be told that science is based on fact, and that evolution is science.
Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.
Back in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species, he split the scientific community in two, one side creationism, the other evolution. Each side working dilligently to prove their side is right.
more then 100 years later that battle in the scientific community still rages, we have a MUCH better understanding of life, both sides have found ALOT of evidence to support their claims, yet it is still 50/50. There are two theories, both have much scientific evidence to support the claims, neither has been proven false.
As such, both should appear this way in the classroom. If only one is going to be taught, it should be made loud an clear that it has not been proven, as that sticker did.
[B]all of which are examples of micro-evolution, same thing as birds feathers changing from brown to white depending on their envoroment. Or humans getting a darker complextion in more tropical enviroments.
However, no matter how many thousands of generations you watch, they are still the same species. With your bacteria it is still the same species of bacteria, it built an immunity to the antibody, yet it is still the same species of bacteria, not a new one. [/b][/quote]
Actually, if you watch enough generations, the changes build up to the point where you do have a different species. Species arn't defined based on it being a bacteria, or having feathers. If enough traits are different it is a different species. The number of generations that can occur in 4 billion years is certainly large enough to accumulate enough change, such as fins to legs, or toes to fingers, or light-sensitive clumps of cells to eyes.
[quote][b]Biggles: Yes, I have read the post, such as RC's. Theres a difference between explaining explaining how science fact doesn't exist vs. what teachers in most American schools tell you. 3rd graders arn't going to be taught that there is no science fact, rather they will be told that science is based on fact, and that evolution is science. [/b][/quote]
You still haven't provided evidence of this, as Sanfam said you should. It's a huge claim to make. As I recall, you were homeschooled, which would mean you never went to "most American schools" and experienced precisely how they teach evolution. I bet even those people here who weren't homeschooled didn't go to "most American schools". They most likely went to one or two (or three, I don't know how many levels of school you have in the US).
[quote][b]Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.
Back in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species, he split the scientific community in two, one side creationism, the other evolution. Each side working dilligently to prove their side is right.
more then 100 years later that battle in the scientific community still rages, we have a MUCH better understanding of life, both sides have found ALOT of evidence to support their claims, yet it is still 50/50. There are two theories, both have much scientific evidence to support the claims, neither has been proven false.
As such, both should appear this way in the classroom. If only one is going to be taught, it should be made loud an clear that it has not been proven, as that sticker did. [/B][/QUOTE]
Scientists have given as much evidence to support creationism as evolution? It's still 50/50? Where did all that evidence go then? Why are biologists so much in favour of the Theory of Evolution when there is supposedly so much evidence for Creationism?
It should be noted that when evolution started being thrown around by various people (Darwin wasn't the first) biology was still a fairly young science, so there weren't well-established theories on where life came from and a huge crowd of established biologists.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It lacks evidence and testability. It is a hypothesis at best, and as mentioned earlier a hypothesis without evidence gets chucked out. It should not be taught in science.
People whine and cry about how many people have died in the name of faith yet forget.
In the 20th century more people died in the name of [I]SCIENCE[/I] then have probably lived for most of the history of the planet.
The theories of marx as implemented in Lennist and Maoist thoughts have claimed the lives of about a [I]100 million [/I] people. For ideological beliefs that were grounded in atheism, and "science"
Frankly I hold science in no higher esteme then religion, in fact, even less, because quite the opposit of providing an understanding of humanity and a bright future, it can just as easily itself become a dark and twisted thing.
Science is no panacia for the human condition, it has no power to show us the truth which religion can provide, and that truth is, what is the proper way for one man to treat another.
However I cannot argue that science is free of killing. After all, it was science that developed nuclear weapons, machine guns, chemical weapons, and hundreds of other destructive devices.
In counterpoint, it is science that has developed thousands of medical advances that have saved far more lives then the military uses have killed.
In the end science more then justifies itself.
--RC
Natural Selection will shallow the gene pool and will not cause speciation (or macroevolution for the uneducated) unless the population is seperated.
A#, being an education major and involved in the education system that science is not taught in that manner, unless the teacher is crap. If that is the case it is the fault of the education system, not science in and of itself. Besides evolution shouldn't be taught in the third grade, if the student is lucky enough to get any kind of science education at all. Elementary teachers are scared of the subject.
[B]A#, being an education major and involved in the education system that science is not taught in that manner, unless the teacher is crap. If that is the case it is the fault of the education system, not science in and of itself. Besides evolution shouldn't be taught in the third grade, if the student is lucky enough to get any kind of science education at all. Elementary teachers are scared of the subject. [/B][/QUOTE]
I believe A% was homeschooled.
therefor: Age = Grade + 5
hence: 8 = 5 + 3
At that time they should be learning THE basics of scientific method and some factoids.
Minor but related tangent:
We have never seen a magnetic field
We have never seen an electron
Magnatism and atoms are theories yet i don't hear crationists ask about them.
There is a very good reason why a class on evolution is a 400 level class; it takes a great deal of knowledge of genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, geology, etc to know the finer details.
I have YET to see any other model that accounts for what is observed in nature.
Science tells me how...
Faith tells me why...
I think the two can co-exist, whether it's christian faith, muslim, buhdist, whatever.
Faith helps one to cope with the amount of questions, and lack of answers...
:D
I'm highly skeptical of Western interpretation of Biblical text anyways... :p
[B]Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.[/B][/QUOTE]Then why don't you demand teaching of all religions equally to everyone in schools?
It might even do some good... or does anyone know when beliefs of buddhism has been used as reason to declare "holy war" against those who do not agree with your policy?
In this case of religious fundamentalists attacking evolution it's all about power and control, like it has been always.
Religion gives "believers" and self-proclaimed "messengers of god" position above others and while evolution is against basic beliefs of religion it also attacks against that power to say other people what to do/how to think.
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives."
-Robert A. Heinlein
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html[/url]
[B]all of which are examples of micro-evolution, same thing as birds feathers changing from brown to white depending on their envoroment.[/QUOTE]
If you expect macro-evolution in five days... you are expecting too much. Because that is how long it takes... for bacteria to swap a few plasmide chromosomes, and develop resistance.
If you cannot muster the patience to observe the apple/hawthorne flies continue their split towards becoming separate species... then go breed fruit flies, select them artificially... and you *will* have incompatible fruit flies (who cannot and will not mate) in approximately a year.
You *can* create a new species in a year, even if it's not a viable natural species.
[quote]Or humans getting a darker complextion in more tropical enviroments.[/quote]
I fear you are misunderstanding something. When I get a darker complexion, my genes remain the same.
When bacteria develop resistance, they undergo a genetic change -- equivalent in magnitude to my 20th-order grandparents having set up living in a microwave.
[quote]However, no matter how many thousands of generations you watch, they are still the same species.
--------
With your bacteria it is still the same species of bacteria, it built an immunity to the antibody, yet it is still the same species of bacteria, not a new one.
[/quote]
Define a species for bacteria -- they don't reproduce sexually, and are hence outside the strict definition of species (being able to produce common offspring).
Bacterial species are generally defined (and kept in place) by the existence of specific host environments favourable to them (and ecological niches like food substances inside those). When those change slowly, bacteria generally go along. A bacterial species going extinct is probably fairly rare (and mostly occurs to specialist bacteria who accept only a single host environment).
[i](Sidenote: when change is too fast, their local population generally gets bumped out of the micro-environment concerned -- replaced by competing bacteria already adapted to take advantage of the situation. However, having adapted to such a lifestyle... when that happens, they generally manage to form sleeping spores, of which a sufficient number ends up in another favourable environment, where their active life can continue.)[/i]
So... what if I didn't play with antibiotics... but started playing with their food substrate? What if I separated the population in two... and started giving one of them slowly increasing degrees of another food substrate?
Soon enough, if their metabolism contained *any* gene which mutation can reshape to feed on the new substrate... the population I subjected to change would start evolving to fit their new food. Those less prepared would retreat with the old food... those more prepared would advance onto the border, and eventually onto the new food.
When the latter, having lived on the new food for several months... would be suddenly placed back on their old food, most would perish. From the viewpoint of survival in a specific environment, they would have become a different species, ill adapted to live where they previously flourished.
** It has actually been noticed that, for situations where environment becomes consistently stressful (adaptation is called for) some kinds of bacteria have regulatory genes... which increase the probability of mutations, and reduce the rate of correcting them (allowing to try more options faster).
[quote]Theres a difference between explaining explaining how science fact doesn't exist vs. what teachers in most American schools tell you.[/quote]
Never went into American school, therefore cannot tell.
[quote]Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught.[/quote]
Back your words.
Explain using creationism how HIV adapted to infecting humans... why apple and hawthorne flies are splitting up... why you can breed reproductively incompatible fruit flies in a mere year.
As you see... creationism does not offer practical solutions to practical problems. It no longer belongs in biology -- perhaps only the history of biology, and perhaps to religious studies.
If you want to synthesize a precious substance from a rare plant, by implanting a gene from the plant in commonly growable bacteria... creationism does not step in to help you.
Understanding of how evolution works... does help you. You will require knowledge about genes, how they are inaccurately copied, how two genes can be paired together (one of the beneficial property, another of resistance), how bacteria exchange choromosomes... and how lack of particular genes (those paired up with resistance) can be selected against to get a bacterial population which actually produces the chemical you want.
...or does anyone know when beliefs of buddhism has been used as reason to declare "holy war" against those who do not agree with your policy?[/QUOTE]
To my knowledge, it has never occurred on the scale of "war"... but smaller instances of religious violence have occurred among Buddhists too. I have forgotten where it occurred, but one recent incident involved beating some Christian priest, and setting fire to a church.
On big scale however... Buddhism does appear a less confrontational religion. Probably because their beliefs don't include such polarized concepts like "heaven", "hell", "saving souls" or "judgement" -- merely a slow passage towards greater enlightenment.
Such a viewpoint may easily cause them to fret less, and decrease the likeliness of them trying to invasively spread their beliefs "no matter what"... but they too have slipped. Every ideology can be bent for harmful purpose.
[BWhy don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substansiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you want to teach both of those because you believe none of them have evidence, then all of the theories around how the universe and humanity began must have an equal right of being taught. Including Hindu creationism, Asatru creationism etc. etc.
The fact (yes fact) is that [i]most[/i] christians and [i]most[/i] of the rest of us believe in evolution. Thats a focal point of [i]most[/i] faiths on the globe. Now, I wont state why, it has already been explored in this thread, and I myself think its quite obvious, but [i]most[/i] religions also aknowledge the evolution.
[B]
Why don't I have a problem with Creationism being taught E.T.?
I DO. Because neither Evolution nor Creationism has one scrap of evidence more then the other to substantiate it, however ONLY evolution is taught. If they teach one, they have to teach the other, as both have an equal chance of being true to the scientific community.[/B][/QUOTE]
They do not have to teach the other, if they are required to teach the creation [i]story[/i], and you will find many Christians do consider that part of the bible to be allegory, then educators must also teach the creation stories of other world religions. The Judeo-Christian version of creation is a religious construct and, when taught, should be presented in the context of a comparative religious class.
[quote][b]Back in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species, he split the scientific community in two, one side creationism, the other evolution. Each side working diligently to prove their side is right.
more then 100 years later that battle in the scientific community still rages, we have a MUCH better understanding of life, both sides have found ALOT of evidence to support their claims, yet it is still 50/50. There are two theories, both have much scientific evidence to support the claims, neither has been proven false.
As such, both should appear this way in the classroom. If only one is going to be taught, it should be made loud a clear that it has not been proven, as that sticker did. [/B][/QUOTE]
Being an active Christian and having seen many presentations by those who believe creation to be as stated in the Bible, I have found that your assertion is [i]not[/i] true. A significant portion of the non-biblical based evidence that creationists present are simply exceptions, which in turn they claim, invalidates the whole theory. A significant bulk of the arguments supporting creation is not evidence presented in support of that hypothesis, but just pointing out where evolution is has problems, which by any logical reasoning is not the correct way to support an argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe many of these arguments stem not from a belief that the Bible is a perfect text, but mans inability to imagine a history that is much longer than a few thousand years, people have a very hard time wrapping there mind around a process which takes millions upon millions of years. We then default to what seems a simpler, more tangible line of reasoning that God created the earth in 6 days, and that we all can trace our lineage back to Adam and Eve.
Jake
[B]I have a hard time understanding how you could possibly combine science and theories like marxism. Marxism is a POLITICAL theory, not a SCIENTIFIC threory. They are quite different.
However I cannot argue that science is free of killing. After all, it was science that developed nuclear weapons, machine guns, chemical weapons, and hundreds of other destructive devices.
In counterpoint, it is science that has developed thousands of medical advances that have saved far more lives then the military uses have killed.
In the end science more then justifies itself.
--RC [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually your last point isnt quite true, yes, millions of lives have been saved by medical science in the past 150 years. However if you look at the deathtoll that military technology and science has racked up in the past 150 years, your in for a rather grusome toll.
WWII killed on order of 50 million people, WWI adds in another 10, other conflicts around the globe toss in the 20th century toss in another 100 million plus, the total is probably closer to 150 million. If you realize that most people didnt have access to real medical care till after 1900 or so, and in asia not till after WWII, things start looking rather stark
Back to your original point. You are making an artificial and arbitrary delination. You have establshed that only the "physical sciences" are TRUE science. Which isnt actually very correct. Just because Marxs theories cover human behavior does not make them any less scientific then theories covering atomic and sub atomic motion.
In fact when one looks at the implication of Heisenburgs uncertainty principle, verses theories explaing human behavior, it seems the human behavior theories should be a bit easier :D
[B]However I cannot argue that science is free of killing. After all, it was science that developed nuclear weapons, machine guns, chemical weapons, and hundreds of other destructive devices.[/B][/QUOTE]Well... actually it isn't science itself. It's just to what purpose science is used.
"Religions that teach brotherly love have been used as an excuse for persecution, and our profoundest scientific insight is made into a means of mass destruction."
-Bertrand Russell
I mean really, why would God need to continually expend energy creating something. Once made he would just put it in motion.
;)
If one takes Genesis literally, there is a creation, then a refinement of that creation in a period called 7 Days.
It's interesting to note all the correlations bewteen the symbols of the story and what astronomers and cosmologists explain about the beginnings of the Universe and our Solar System. Then the stages of life upon the face of the Earth, culminating in the formation of Man. (Maybe the Aliens modified the apes along the way...)
I REALLY think there is a lot more time that is unaccounted for in this book. Especially in the first two sentences...
;)
Also, I really can't escape the problematic issues with simple cultures who have accurate knowledge of things like stars (Dogmen and Sirius comes to mind here for example) and other things they couldn't possible have come to know. Where the hell did they get it from?
Ok, so maybe a past High Culture that existed prior to the catastrophic end of the Ice Age had the knowledge and spread it around the world via it's remnants. Ok, where'd they get it?
I keep coming back to an "Inside Trader" who shared the knowledge first somewhere along the line.
Was it (a) God,
was it space aliens who visit occasionally,
or maybe a time traveler who pops in and out of the time curve to tweek things (this opens up yet even more problems, such as finding thousands of years old clock mechanisms that rival todays mechanical works, jewelry encased in Coal blocks from the age of the dinosaurs, etc)
As time goes on I suspect a very large foul being perpetrated on Earth and human history...
but maybe I'm just paranoid... :p
All this stuff about "evolution is just a theory" stems from ignorance (and I'm being very polite and mild in saying that!) about how science really works.
Yeah, we all get in basic education this neat story about science going from observation to hypothesis to theory to law... that's an oversimplification.
I'm a scientist and I can surely tell you that's nonsense (again, that's a mild way of putting it), and no serious philosopher of science (or scientist) would ever say that's how it works.
In fact many research projects start with a hypothesis or theory that is used to think of what experiments (observation) can be used to prove it. And no scientists ever uses the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" in such a clearly defined way. Colloquially I have heard (and used myself) the phrase "my theory is..." when according to that oversimplified definition of the scientific method we should have said "my hypothesis is..."
In fact I'd venture to say that there ain't such thing as a clearly defined "scientific method"
Very few things in science can be called "law" so way too many theories have the weight of law without the possibility of they becoming that.
You have to understand that when something is called a "law" of science it is usally something quantifiable that can be calculated and predicted by a mathematical model.
For example: would you say that biology itself is not science?
Compare to physics and chemistry where you have the laws of thermodynamics, and many other minor laws. Biology can not have such "laws" because it deals with many non-quantifiable items and with phenomena that aren't as easy to circumscribe to a mathematical model.
There is no "law" saying that DNA encodes genetic information, there is no "law" describing how cell division works or how reproduction works, or how ecological communities interact.
And just because there aren't "laws" are you gonna say "that ain't science"?
Actually if just because something isn't a law it isn't science and it shouldn't be considered "fact" then you should stop reading and typing, because computer science (that little science in which all the computers and internet is based) doesn't have "laws" (sorry, "Moore's law" ain't nothing but a lucky guess based on observation;)), and since it ain't based on laws it ain't fact and thus your computer and the internet are just fictions and should you stop believing in them they'd cease to exist... which actually means that all these posts shouldn't exist!!:D
Science can have theories that are not mathematical (thus they aren't called "laws") but still hold true.
And evolution is a prime example of that.
To go further against the anti-evolutionist movement:
One of the initial objections (in the times of Darwin) was "where are the intermediate fossils" (the missing links), that is one question that has been answered many, many, many times, and as more and more and more and more paleontology digs are made even more "missing links" are found.
Another objection: "they eye is too complex to be a product of evolution." NO, it isn't, look at this page of a NOVA program.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html[/url] (there's a quicktime video if you don't want to just read it)
The origin of life is not a necessary part of a theory of evolution. That objection has nothing to do with this discussion.
Evolution is about life changing to adapt and those with the better adaptations surviving and giving those adaptations as inheritance to their descendants.
It doesn't matter how that life started, just how it changes.
Your objection that "we haven't observed macro-evolution" will sooner or later go the way of the eye and "missing link" objections: observation will prove you wrong. Even now there is evolution being observed, in AIDS patients HIV becomes resistant to drugs since that virus has a very high mutation rate.
We are also observing evolution in bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant (a problem partly caused by misuse and abuse of antibiotics).
And no, sorry, creationism is NOT science, it doesn't matter if you call it "creation science" or "intelligent design."
In fact creationism ignores and denies many basic facts of science, not only evolution, and not just in biology.
We know from geology that continents drift, it is observable, it is fact (and everytime there's an earthquake it's proof that tectonic plates are moving).
We know from Chemistry and Physics that radioactive atoms decay. Carbon-13 and Uranium and other radioisotopes decay in known ways, and thus we can use "atomic clocks" to say with certainty that the Earth was formed around 4 million years ago.
We know from Astrophysics that the Universe is expanding and working out from observation we can deduce that such expansion started around 15 thousand million years ago.
We know from Physics that light travels at a constant speed, so we know that when we look at galaxies a thousand million light-years away that it took that many million years for that light to reach us.
We know many things from many branches of science, but none of those sciences and none of those things say that creationism has any validity.
Creationism is at its very core anti-scientific.
And you are completely wrong to say that Darwin split the scientific community in two. If anything it split some segments of the fundamentalist view of religion into denying science.
Frankly as a researcher (a chemist) I consider those scientists that are creationists and/or that support "intelligent design" an embarrassment.
And as a Catholic I do consider one of the proponents of intelligent design (a biochemist, I forget his name) an embarrassment to my faith too.
Because, see, Catholicism does not deny evolution, and is not at odds with it.
It's only certain fragments of fundamentalist Christianism that mantain that evolution is against religion.
And as man of Faith I feel some sorrow for those Christians that insist that creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible is part of their religion. That is too much belief and too little Faith.
If you want to say that you believe in creationism as a matter of faith go ahead, just don't say that creationism is science.
Another point you should know:
The USA may be the only country in the whole world where creationists have enough influence for their insistent battle against evolution to be an issue.
Any other country if they were to try to insert creationism into science teaching they'd be laughed off after being laughed at.
Which is seriously baffling consider that one of the most antiscientific attitudes has so much weight and wastes so much time and resources in the one country that has advanced and profitted the most from actual science research.
If you want to teach creation stories in the same equal footing as evolution then all creation histories should be admitted, not only the judeo-christian-muslim view embedded in the book of Genesis.
Let's have also teaching of the Creation Myths of the Greek, of the Maya, of the Egyptian, of the Hindu, of the Native American... and of Babylon too.:)
Oh I so wish I had been taught the creation myths of the babylonians, it might have given me a better understanding of some themes of B5.
So yes, let's have all those creation myths taught together with the scientific theories, who knows, maybe more people will be drawn into watching B5 after knowing it had some inspiration from the Babylonian Myths! :D:D:D
Seriously, if anyone can find any example where people in any other country have had creationism interfering with science education please provide a link. My hypothesis on that would be that whatever group pushed for it was associated with a fundamentalist Christian group from the USA.
Creationism is a matter of religion, I'm glad it has always been (in the end) striken from the textbooks.
As for the point that many people have "died in the name of science" I completely disagree.
Science is a tool. You can misuse it to kill, or you can well-use it to kill benefitially (antibiotics, vaccines, parasite killing, etc.).
When people are killed with a gun you don't say that "they were killed in the name of guns" so to me it doesn't make sense that when technological developments based in science are used to kill you would say that people were "killed in the name of science."
[B]We know from Chemistry and Physics that radioactive atoms decay. Carbon-13 and Uranium and other radioisotopes decay in known ways, and thus we can use "atomic clocks" to say with certainty that the Earth was formed around 4 million years ago. [/B][/QUOTE]
You meant 4 Thousand Million years ago right... ;)
I've heard that many believe the Universe to be about 15 Billion years old from the time of the Big Bang, and our Solar System to be right at about 4.5 Billion.
As for Babylonian creation myths, they were extensions of Sumerian works were they not?
A good author on that subject is Zacheria Sitchin (SP?). After reading all his works though, I have only seen the case for the history of our Solar System, not the rest of the Universe.
Certainly makes a case for past civilizations and visitors from beyond Earth if any of it is to be believed.
Anyway... :)
I believe that there is a God, that he created the universe. I also believe that after that initial creation he let things run on their path, including evolution. I don't believe evolution is anti faith, and like you I believe the majority of the US Christian faith is brain dead for the most part. It certainly doesn't resemble the apostolic period of Christians and their practices.
;)
But I could go on with so much more as I'm sure you could as well.
[B]Certainly makes a case for past civilizations and visitors from beyond Earth if any of it is to be believed.
Anyway... :)
I believe that there is a God, that he created the universe. I also believe that after that initial creation he let things run on their path, including evolution. I don't believe evolution is anti faith, and like you I believe the majority of the US Christian faith is brain dead for the most part. It certainly doesn't resemble the apostolic period of Christians and their practices.
;)
But I could go on with so much more as I'm sure you could as well. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually I love to challenge my Christian friends with your above hypothesis, especially those of the "evangelical" ilk (I'm using the modern political term, not true evangelical). My question is that if we as humanity were to find, with conclusive proof, that as a species, we were placed here by some alien race or brethren, how would it affect their faith? Most just deny it as a possibility, usually quoting the bible in the process, but some find the question intriguing, and a few state what I feel. That it would have little effect on their faith, and may even view it as further confirmation of their beliefs. The unlikely event that we are actually the progeny of aliens makes it no less likely that God created the universe, or even that Jesus is the son of God, and if there are similar belief structures within that alien society, it would be further confirmation that there is a creator.
BTW Jack, its fun to talk to an intelligent Christian (please forgive me if I am making an incorrect conclusion here). I wish you were in my neck of the woods; it'd be fun to join you for a cup of coffee and discuss theology.
Jake
[B]In fact creationism ignores and denies many basic facts of science, not only evolution, and not just in biology.
Creationism is at its very core anti-scientific.
[/B][/QUOTE]Just like so many other self proclaimed prophets saying my way is only right way, I/we are above others bla bla bla...
Hitler's nazi Germany is extreme example of that.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
Well... more like blind&deaf.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]...and like you I believe the majority of the US Christian faith is brain dead for the most part.[/B][/QUOTE]That isn't any new fashion trend...
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."
-Albert Einstein
"The great danger of conversion in all ages has been that when the religion of the high mind is offered to the lower mind, the lower mind, feeling its fascination without understanding it, and being incapable of rising to it, drags it down to its level by degrading it."
-George Bernard Shaw
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
-George Bernard Shaw
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism..."
-Albert Einstein
Anyway, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) told us the universe is 13.7 thousand million years old, to within 1% accuracy.
[B]BTW Jack, its fun to talk to an intelligent Christian (please forgive me if I am making an incorrect conclusion here). I wish you were in my neck of the woods; it'd be fun to join you for a cup of coffee and discuss theology.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
Well I'm afraid only God and history will tell whether I am an intelligent Christian or not... :D
As for being in your neck of the woods, how is Northern Tennessee? :D
I'm hoping to be around those parts by June.
In any case, I have been accused of living in a dichotomy (SP?) where the person accusing claimed that the two directions are mutually exclusive. That was his interpretation or opinion. I err on the side of all faults deriving from bad interpretation, incomplete information, ego, all the above.
I don't see error in the Bible text, I see text that was written for a specific purpose, not as a history book of the Earth, Universe, or Mankind, but as a book from the maker to bring his children back to him.
I'll tell you one thing. If we are modified creatures from apes (by aliens) or if we were created genetically from the same, it gives new meaning to the "Blood of Christ" concept. These very same creatures wish to free us from our terminal physical shell, and give us a longer lasting one in trade for faith in their wisdom.
My personal belief is that the universe is FULL of sentient life of all kinds, but that there is a God who is above all of this even. Some of these follow him and some don't. Devils, imps, elves, what have you are the aliens of the past ages, just as the angels are probably.
As in all things, when something exists, it can be a tool for good, or a tool for evil.
I even have come to the conclusion that our future really will involve an evolutionary changeover from physical matter to purely energy.
After all, Einstein showed us that everything is energy anyway, of one form or another...
:)
[quote]In any case, I have been accused of living in a dichotomy (SP?) where the person accusing claimed that the two directions are mutually exclusive. That was his interpretation or opinion. I err on the side of all faults deriving from bad interpretation, incomplete information, ego, all the above.[/quote]
I don't believe there is any dichotomy in your reasoning, to me it sounds thoughtful and logical.
Another thing that amazes me, and you alluded to this in an earlier post, is how we, as modern day Christians ( or any other faith for that matter), cling so tightly to our traditions and practices as if they have been that way since the dawn of time. People do not seem to realize that religion by its very nature is a fluid, ever evolving construct. As an example, the modern day view of hell as physical place of fire and brimstone was only created in the last 1000 years, where as the in the old Hebrew faith hell wasn't a place rather a lack of God. Another example is how we interpert the book of Revelations, which people seem to forget, was written for the Christians of John's day, and to a certain extent should be studied in that context.
Jake
if God created the universe, does it not also stand to reason that he would have made things in a partially decayed state? Thus rendering the results we get through Carbon dating?
just a thought..