SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??
- Thread starter BuNdi
- Start date
Kenneth R.
Cináed
No, I don't think education has any credit. I don't think institutions make people smart.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
The problem with this argument, although I do agree with what you're trying to get at, is that it does not work to translate a dolphin biology to explain human evolution. Species evolve differently, and showing a current species for comparison just illustrates genetic diversity. You don't really present a previous human state.
That said, I think the massive problem with the intelligent design argument (I just read Darwin's Black Box, it was sitting on the shelf in my girlfriend's apartment- interesting biology, worst philosophy/argument ever) is that although it does a great job debunking Darwinian evolution, it erroneously assumes that because Darwinian evolution is false, intelligent design is true. There is no consideration for other, more likely forms of evolution. It debunks a theory that's already centuries out of date. Darwin was a smart guy and set the groundwork, but biochemists have come a long way since then.
Like I said before, (and now here's my opinion) I'm a Christian who also believes evolution is true.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
I used to work with this chick who was in all AP classes (advanced placement... dunno if they're called different shit elsewhere) in high school, got almost straight A's, studdied her ass off and all that, got into a pretty good college, etc. etc. However, when I would tell her to do something or try to explain to her the problem with her till (which was always off balance at the end of the day), she just looked at me with a deer in the headlights look. This broad was book smart for sure, but had no idea how to apply her knowledge to real life situations. It was all regurgitation that go ther through.
I know, High School is not great education, especially in the states, but i'm just saying it illustrates the point of the difference between book/institutional smarts (the ability to memorize and repeat information) and actually being intelligent (the application of your knowledge and the ability to think critically about a subject).
I know, High School is not great education, especially in the states, but i'm just saying it illustrates the point of the difference between book/institutional smarts (the ability to memorize and repeat information) and actually being intelligent (the application of your knowledge and the ability to think critically about a subject).
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Precisely. And a simple conversation easily distinguishes the two. I'm going to sound like a prick when I say this, but for example- a lot of people pick on my vocabulary here. I don't and never have owned a thesaurus. I just read a lot of books. Not saying that makes me a genius, but it helps me be articulate. I think intelligence, like you said, is something that shows itself. Even mentally disabled people can be very intelligent, given the right topic. My respect is earned by showing me, not telling me, how smart one is. Some here have.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
And ken, i'm pretty much the opposite of you haha. I have a decent vocabulary, but i don't use it. I use a lot of "fuckin' motherfucker" to express my irritation, lots of swear words that many will deem to be "unintelligent". Doesn't really matter to me. I never did well in school or any of the many things that people will equate with intelligence, but that really doesn't mean much to me. I don't need to impress the cork-sniffing douchebags who use pseudo-intellectual babble to make themselves feel superior. I want to talk to people who are interesting to me, get their knowledge and share experiences. I'm sure many people who meet me think i'm dumb as shit, but really i just don't care.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Lol, see that's the thing though. You're one of the ones I think are intelligent around here. School doesn't mean anything these days. I've seen some incredibly stupid Grad students.
noble savage
Member
Yeah, I understand what your saying. I'm searching for more information on the development of human blood clotting systems, but most of it is way over my head (Or not enough information.) What I do comprehend though is the butt of this argument lies in the fact that humans have traceable ancestry to these of animals and the chemicals serve other purposes besides clotting. I guess the only way to actually find out how applicable it is to humans, is to remove the chemicals and do a test. Which I'm sure as hell not signing up for.
Also, there is no doubt that evolution, and many other scientific theories for that matter, need more work. I think people should work towards gathering facts and seeing where it takes them. Not the opposite.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Gathering facts towards understanding a truth, whatever that may be. Yes.
Traceable ancestry is different though. Still, even if we have a common ancestor, we could evolve differently. In fact, it's self apparent that we did. So that really doesn't explain our evolution. It's quite difficult to show evolutionary steps for certain systems. To me that just says we don't have enough information - yet.
Traceable ancestry is different though. Still, even if we have a common ancestor, we could evolve differently. In fact, it's self apparent that we did. So that really doesn't explain our evolution. It's quite difficult to show evolutionary steps for certain systems. To me that just says we don't have enough information - yet.
So, do you think the evolution process was sort of "guided" by God? Or do you think God just made the first bits and it evolution carried it on from there?
Just curious is all.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
There's possibility for either one. We don't know enough about evolution for me to come to any conclusion.
What I know is, from my research, Darwinian (ie, always gradual) evolution seems to work in many but not all cases. So it isn't entirely true. Intelligent design, as a theory presented as alternative to darwinian evolution, insufficiently debunks darwinian evolution without presenting any substantial evidence that intelligent design is the only other alternative. I find that while I agree with the basic premise of intelligent design, the mechanism of argument is incredibly flawed.
What I know is, from my research, Darwinian (ie, always gradual) evolution seems to work in many but not all cases. So it isn't entirely true. Intelligent design, as a theory presented as alternative to darwinian evolution, insufficiently debunks darwinian evolution without presenting any substantial evidence that intelligent design is the only other alternative. I find that while I agree with the basic premise of intelligent design, the mechanism of argument is incredibly flawed.
noble savage
Member
Most of the coolest people I have ever met only had a high school education. Although I am continuing my education, I have just as much respect for people who don't. My uncle is the best example. He never did anything past high school, but runs a very successful business. He is also the only person to ever make me laugh so hard that I puked.
I'm 100% more comfortable being around people like yourself. Those who can take a joke and laugh about it as opposed to someone who is super intelligent and doesn't comprehend humor (I have a friend like this, but he is still cool. I spent an entire day trying to get him to swear. To no avail.
) I get along with really quick.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
Yeah, i'm definitely not the most intelligent in the realms of multivariable calculus or advanced physics, but generally i can understand concepts behind things pretty easily. Whether it's something from an "educated" person and their explanation to theological debates such as this one, i can understand the basics of the concepts. Personally, i think the understanding of why is much more importand than the fact that it is the truth. For example, in a complex math equation it's far more important to understand the componants of a formula and why they have to be there to make the formula consistent than just knowing you can plug numbers in there and get an answer.
Not everyone is going to agree with me on this, but the "why" is always much deeper knowledge than the fact that it is so. To tie this back into the conversation, this doesn't mean you have to work through the "why" to get to the conclusion on your own for everything in life. If someone else has explained the "why" and it makes sense to the conclusion to the point where you can't dispute it, it's proven. Hence, understanding why things are the way they are is more important than the fact that they are.
This ties into the discussion further because often times in debates such as this, religious folks will explain the "why" with God, and only cite the bible to back their beliefs under the assumption that it's true. And please, understand that there's nothing wrong with that, but unless you have faith, that's not an answer. Personally, I see a lot of what Christians take as "god's work" to be something more. Most Christians are satisfied stopping there because it's convenient and it fits into their beliefs. Like the discussion about evolution, people should be looking for the facts regardless of if the facts support their beliefs or not. Science goes wrong when someone is looking at a problem and only trying to make it fit the solution they believe. And driected at Moliti, that's why there's absolutely nothing wrong with being agnostic. It's not a weakness to say you don't know and have the ability to look at things objectively, which is something that you sacrifice once you declair a set belief.
Not everyone is going to agree with me on this, but the "why" is always much deeper knowledge than the fact that it is so. To tie this back into the conversation, this doesn't mean you have to work through the "why" to get to the conclusion on your own for everything in life. If someone else has explained the "why" and it makes sense to the conclusion to the point where you can't dispute it, it's proven. Hence, understanding why things are the way they are is more important than the fact that they are.
This ties into the discussion further because often times in debates such as this, religious folks will explain the "why" with God, and only cite the bible to back their beliefs under the assumption that it's true. And please, understand that there's nothing wrong with that, but unless you have faith, that's not an answer. Personally, I see a lot of what Christians take as "god's work" to be something more. Most Christians are satisfied stopping there because it's convenient and it fits into their beliefs. Like the discussion about evolution, people should be looking for the facts regardless of if the facts support their beliefs or not. Science goes wrong when someone is looking at a problem and only trying to make it fit the solution they believe. And driected at Moliti, that's why there's absolutely nothing wrong with being agnostic. It's not a weakness to say you don't know and have the ability to look at things objectively, which is something that you sacrifice once you declair a set belief.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
noble savage
Member
I have been curious about this for a long time, so I guess this would be directed to Ken or anyone else who is religious and opposes or accepts evolution.
Why do you think there is such a vehement hatred/denial of evolution in the religious community? Especially here in America. Do many feel that when you except it, you automatically become an Atheist and loose your morality or something? The evidence in support of evolution is really overwhelming, but it seems that that doesn't matter to many. Is there deeper reasoning behind this?
Why do you think there is such a vehement hatred/denial of evolution in the religious community? Especially here in America. Do many feel that when you except it, you automatically become an Atheist and loose your morality or something? The evidence in support of evolution is really overwhelming, but it seems that that doesn't matter to many. Is there deeper reasoning behind this?
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
As a non-christian, i think it comes from the fact that the bible blatantly states that God created man in his own image and created Adam and Eve. To say this is not the case shows a flaw at the very base of their belief system, thus possibly discrediting a good portion of what is in there. Many highly religious people seem to be averse to anything that questions their beliefs... just another thing that never worked for me and religion.
Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone.
Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
This is going to have to be short since I have to go to work. I'll go into detail later.
One problem creationists see lies in their misunderstanding of evolution. Creationism deals with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the progression of it. They aren't mutually exclusive, and this is the single biggest fallacy most fall for.
Another one is like Zach said, some creationists are elitists. They have a problem thinking that Mankind evolved out of primates, even if it was God's plan all along.
And yet another potential snag is that Genesis states that God took 6 days to create everything. (Days, as mentioned, can translate differently.) For literal creationists, 6 days is in stark contradition to darwinian gradual evolution over eons. For them, it's admitting that the bible is wrong.
I don't see these problems. In my opinion, again evolution, while not yet fully understood, is observable on a micro scale, and can explain satisfactorily the progression of some species. It's a work in progress. It does not cover the origin of life, and doesn't intend to. So I can believe in evolution and creation. Furthermore, the concept of days (among other things, note that the general ordering of creation matches the supposed evolution of eons) --the concept of days can vary. A day can mean our defined 24 hours. A day on Mercury is different. A day on Pluto is different. A day depends on the rotation speed of the body. It also depends on how many stars are present. In a binary system, one rotation might coincide with two "days". Furthermore, this is all assuming that we are defining "day" according to orbiting planets. What a "day" is for God, we are only assuming. Whatever his "day" is, it apparently took 6 of them to create the Earth and the Universe.
Much more detail later. There are a few refutes to this position which I will also address.
One problem creationists see lies in their misunderstanding of evolution. Creationism deals with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the progression of it. They aren't mutually exclusive, and this is the single biggest fallacy most fall for.
Another one is like Zach said, some creationists are elitists. They have a problem thinking that Mankind evolved out of primates, even if it was God's plan all along.
And yet another potential snag is that Genesis states that God took 6 days to create everything. (Days, as mentioned, can translate differently.) For literal creationists, 6 days is in stark contradition to darwinian gradual evolution over eons. For them, it's admitting that the bible is wrong.
I don't see these problems. In my opinion, again evolution, while not yet fully understood, is observable on a micro scale, and can explain satisfactorily the progression of some species. It's a work in progress. It does not cover the origin of life, and doesn't intend to. So I can believe in evolution and creation. Furthermore, the concept of days (among other things, note that the general ordering of creation matches the supposed evolution of eons) --the concept of days can vary. A day can mean our defined 24 hours. A day on Mercury is different. A day on Pluto is different. A day depends on the rotation speed of the body. It also depends on how many stars are present. In a binary system, one rotation might coincide with two "days". Furthermore, this is all assuming that we are defining "day" according to orbiting planets. What a "day" is for God, we are only assuming. Whatever his "day" is, it apparently took 6 of them to create the Earth and the Universe.
Much more detail later. There are a few refutes to this position which I will also address.
noble savage
Member
Lack of understanding of exactly what evolution is does seem to be a big one. I have had some discussions with people who claim evolution states that life was created from rocks. First of all, I don't think that's the case and second of all abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, not evolution. That seems to be a big misconception. I don't know exactly how influential this man is, but it is a good example.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related[/ame]
It seems that if a pastor, preacher or any influential church leader has a false, preconceived notion of evolution, he will spread it to his congregation and they will in turn accept it, most without checking (Or believing!) the facts for themselves. I'm wondering if perhaps this boils down to the idea that people will readily accept the statements of someone who they feel is highly respected and someone who, they feel, would not lie to them. In religion or otherwise. I do it every time I read something on a field of science that I'm not technically well versed in. My reasoning is, I know the rigorous methodology of the scientific community and the peer review process. If they say something is true or false and I don't have the competence to verify it myself, I would bet it is true based on that.
Like I said before, I have heard arguments from people that accepting this means sacrificing morality. The idea that man descended from lower life forms seems to be the most hot button issue of evolution. I'm interested in hearing peoples perspective on this. I know I can't speak for everybody, but learning about our evolutionary history has done nothing but fill me with amazement. And I didn't even start doing drugs and murdering people!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related[/ame]
It seems that if a pastor, preacher or any influential church leader has a false, preconceived notion of evolution, he will spread it to his congregation and they will in turn accept it, most without checking (Or believing!) the facts for themselves. I'm wondering if perhaps this boils down to the idea that people will readily accept the statements of someone who they feel is highly respected and someone who, they feel, would not lie to them. In religion or otherwise. I do it every time I read something on a field of science that I'm not technically well versed in. My reasoning is, I know the rigorous methodology of the scientific community and the peer review process. If they say something is true or false and I don't have the competence to verify it myself, I would bet it is true based on that.
Like I said before, I have heard arguments from people that accepting this means sacrificing morality. The idea that man descended from lower life forms seems to be the most hot button issue of evolution. I'm interested in hearing peoples perspective on this. I know I can't speak for everybody, but learning about our evolutionary history has done nothing but fill me with amazement. And I didn't even start doing drugs and murdering people!
