The Intelligent Design/Evolution Discussion Thread

[AchrisK]

This something I fear. One of the worst feelings I have ever known is to know conclusively that I was right, yet people did not believe me. It pains me deeply to think that people believe something that is so obviously wrong.

Here are some real poll results about evolution beliefs in America: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847&pg=1. Disheartening.

I can understand that fear, but I doubt that science itself will suffer the inability to continue true research, unless somehow "the church" got to be in power in government like it was at the time of the crusades and whatnot. That's never a good idea. But I don't see the US going that way at all, and certainly not the world.

 

[cookiecutter]

I certainly hope not and tend to agree with you, but then again Stem Cell Research is banned for no good reason.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

BUT WHAT IF WE CREATE A MUTANT VIRUS ZOMBIE GENE???

 

[CAIRATH]

I can understand that fear, but I doubt that science itself will suffer the inability to continue true research, unless somehow "the church" got to be in power in government like it was at the time of the crusades and whatnot. That's never a good idea. But I don't see the US going that way at all, and certainly not the world.

Well, to be honest, as someone living in Europe I wouldn't say America is that far removed from that concept compared to European standards. You have a president who claims to be doing things in the name of god, who actively uses his veto powers whenever he can to block things such as stem cell research simply because he morally disagrees with it based on his religious views (and those held by the vast majority of the party he represents), and who does infact hold the belief that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. This is the same man who gets to decide on which judges are nominated as candidates for the Supreme Court (which may be crucial in decisions on things like stem cell research, same sex marriages, euthanasia, and the seperation between the church and education systems). Not to mention the powerful Jewish and Christian lobby organizations which are not directly part of the government but certainly seem capable of influencing it.

And given that polls have shown that Americans would sooner vote for a black president, a female president or even a gay president than they would for a president that openly admits to being an atheist, I think you guys have a fair way to go before the US government can be considered a secular one.

 

[cookiecutter]

 

[Death Aflame]

Slightly off topic but I think this is an interesting point about Science but it can also apply to Religion or the supernatural (the example the character uses) just as easily (taken from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig, pp.41-42):

"We believe the disembodied words of Isaac Newton were sitting in the middle of nowhere billions of years before he was born and that magically he discovered these words. They were always there, even when they applied to nothing. Gradually the world came into being and then they applied to it. In fact, those words themselves were what formed the world. That, John is ridiculous.

"The problem, the contradiction the scientists are stuck with, is that of mind. Mind has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. Numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. It's the only that gets me. Science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. Or ghosts either."

"Laws of Nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Laws of Logic and of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed thing is a human invention, including the idea that it isn't a human invention. The world has no existence whatsover outside of the human imagination. It's all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed world we live in. It's run by ghosts. We see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past. Ghost and more ghosts. Ghosts trying to find a place among the living."

 

[AchrisK]

eh?

 

[Death Aflame]

Are you saying my quotation is too off topic for this thread? Because if so I could move it or delete it if you wish.

 

[AchrisK]

No, it's just very abstract and not easy to comprehend. I don't mind it being in here.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm not really sure about what you're getting at Death Aflame. Are you trying to suggest that because Science uses made up methods, that other made up things like ghosts are valid?

 

[Death Aflame]

I'm not really sure about what you're getting at Death Aflame. Are you trying to suggest that because Science uses made up methods, that other made up things like ghosts are valid?

Science isn't anymore valid, ultimately, than an idea like Ghosts, God etc. This is because they all are created and exist exclusively in the human mind and from there they shape not only our perceptions of our environment but also the environment itself. The idea of ghosts to explain unexplainable phenomena has simply been replaced by science, both of which are fundamentally human constructs and only exist because we bring them into existence. This is what the author is getting at, I think at least.

In terms of its relevance here, it could be expanded to say Evolution is no more of a 'truth', ultimately, than any other human idea (i.e. ID). In other words, being human is the greatest bias of all. We think we are observing nature in its natural state but the actuality is that we are shaping the world around us through the act of thinking and then superimposing those thoughts onto it.

Of course this is all more on the philosophical side of things, which has already been dismissed, I see, earlier in the thread. Nonetheless I thought it was an interesting point.

 

[skeptik]

We've gotten over that Descartes and Berkeley inspired babble long ago and have accepted that there is indeed a real world. Science is far more valid than the idea of ghosts, and to question this is absurd. Science studies the observable and concludes the most likely and accurate premesis that we can based on what we know. We have evidence in the real world to support scientific claims. We can't say that about ghosts. "Science" in a sense is "in our heads," if you really want to talk about it that way, but it's highly arbitrary. Of course nature does not know a tree as "a tree," a thing with roots and bark and leaves, etc. These are obviously traits ascribed to them by the human intellect. But these traits are ascribed to what is observed. They are real things, from the human perspective. And we work from the human perspective.

 

[cookiecutter]

I would say pretty much what Necuratul just said. Science is a an artificial construct through which we best explain what we perceive. When people say they "saw a ghost" or "believe in God" that means people actually think something perceptible exists*. Science can investigate those claims and in both those examples has yet to validate them. That is why scientific claims should be believed and unscientific ones not.

*I know some may argue that God is beyond perception, but in that case I would argue back "what is the point?" If he cannot be perceived in any way by us, he might as well not exist and belief in him would not be necessary or justified.

 

[Death Aflame]

Science is far more valid than the idea of ghosts, and to question this is absurd. Science studies the observable and concludes the most likely and accurate premesis that we can based on what we know. We have evidence in the real world to support scientific claims. We can't say that about ghosts. "Science" in a sense is "in our heads," if you really want to talk about it that way, but it's highly arbitrary. Of course nature does not know a tree as "a tree," a thing with roots and bark and leaves, etc. These are obviously traits ascribed to them by the human intellect. But these traits are ascribed to what is observed. They are real things, from the human perspective. And we work from the human perspective.

That is all well and good and I agree, I was just pointing out that when a larger than human perspective is incorporated the distinction between science and ghosts is extremely small, if their is any at all. But as you said you have already been over that so I guess their is no need to recover that ground in this thread.

 

[AchrisK]

It is interesting to ponder things like that.

Does that whole line of thinking imply the absence of absolute truth?

 

[skeptik]

If that really interests you, read Descartes' Meditations On First Philosophy and Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge.

 

[ForeverMetal]

Is he a fundamentalist Christian or something?

he is a diehard Republican. might explain his stance.

 

[Patrick R.]

I would say that the key points behind it can be explained in layman's terms.

I'm not too up on my evolution theory, though. Perhaps someone here can make a decent case for it.

Evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population over time. This is a proven fact, laboratory research has proven this, on many occasions. For example, unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol as their sole carbon sources. Lets integrate chemistry and history here, nylon was first produced on February 28 1935 by Wallace Carothers, single celled organisms have lived and evolved for billions of years, yet it evolved the ability to use a man made material as it’s sole carbon source. This is microevolution, evolution below the species level, which isn’t controversial in marked contrast to macroevolution.

Okada, H., S. Negoro, et al. (1983) "Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers." Nature 306: 203-206

Macroevolution on the other hand is very controversial because it details the transformation of one species to another, such as the common claim that humans come from “monkeys”, which offends most people, however macroevolution doesn’t stop there. In any case, humans aren’t the descendents of monkey, chimpanzees, or gorillas, but rather humans share a common ancestor with the latter two. At one point, paleontologist believed Ramapithecus was our common ancestor, but advanced biochemical research proved that our common ancestor wasn’t Ramapithecus, it biochemical research also proved that our common ancestor lived around 5 million years ago, rather then 25 or 15 million years go.

Sarich VM, Wilson AC. Immunological time scale for hominid evolution. Science 158, 1967, p. 1200-1203.

This same type of anti-evolutionary lunacy is obvious with humans, some academics argue that humans are all the same despite surface differences, which is untrue, forensic scientist who identify and classify humans into taxonomic categories can distinguish a human of black African descent from a human of white European descent by their non-living physical remains and the absence of skin color, they can determine their ancestry by their bones making a clear case that skin color isn’t the only physical and genetic difference humans have and most certainly not one that would be used to classify them into biological categories.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

 

[Patrick R.]

Well, to be honest, as someone living in Europe I wouldn't say America is that far removed from that concept compared to European standards. You have a president who claims to be doing things in the name of god, who actively uses his veto powers whenever he can to block things such as stem cell research simply because he morally disagrees with it based on his religious views (and those held by the vast majority of the party he represents), and who does infact hold the belief that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. This is the same man who gets to decide on which judges are nominated as candidates for the Supreme Court (which may be crucial in decisions on things like stem cell research, same sex marriages, euthanasia, and the seperation between the church and education systems). Not to mention the powerful Jewish and Christian lobby organizations which are not directly part of the government but certainly seem capable of influencing it.

And given that polls have shown that Americans would sooner vote for a black president, a female president or even a gay president than they would for a president that openly admits to being an atheist, I think you guys have a fair way to go before the US government can be considered a secular one.

Well here is the thing, you don’t have to be ‘secular’ or against religion to excel with science. Take a look at Soviet genetics and Lysenkoism, a pseudoscientific concept that denies biological determinism, the communist were utterly opposed to religion, but their ‘science’ was way of track as well.

As far as Christianity being ‘prevalent’ in the United States federal government, that is pure delusion, in fact, why can’t Christians prey in school if ‘America’ is so Christian? Also, why is it ‘bigotry’ to suggest that America was meant to be a Christian nation? If any politician, including our president dared to say such a thing, they would be attacked by the media.

The things is, there are a lot of Christians in America so politicians try to do anything to get their votes by giving the voters the impression that they will somehow stick up for their values, this doesn’t happen of course. George Bush vetoes these bills of course not because he cares about Christianity, but rather to give the impression that he does so he doesn’t kill some of his support. As you pointed out in that source, more Americas would vote for a black, female, or gay president before an atheist so of course any politician is going to say he or she is Christian. In fact his administration isn’t Christian, they are mostly neo-conservatives who care about Israel, not Christianity. Even the so called ‘Christians’ care more about the Jewish state which is based on Jewish genetics, not religion.

In a nutshell, the Christian philosophy has shifted over the years, it was at one point good for European-American morality, these days it is a tool for delusion and political correctness.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You didn't prove that you don't have to be generally free of religious constraints when dealing with physical science, you proved that you can lack in both areas equally and still be relevant.