I weep for Ohio Chewers

While interesting, this is probably better for Politics or Culture forum and here's why:
Unless you're supporting the idea that Evolution is a Religion requiring belief then this is nothing but potentially nasty argument bait.

BUT...

If what you're trying to get at is the point that both a belief in God/Creator/intelligent design requires as much faith as a belief in the theory of Evolution then this is in the proper place.

Me? On this I am in the camp of intelligent evolution. A small camp to be sure. But I am of the belief that life was brought to Earth by another civilization and allowed to grow and evolve into the forms we know today.

What we kow of as God was that which lives on other planets and influenced our own.
Hmmmm?

You missed my point...

Here's my point:

When it finally gets revealed that Mars was inhabited and that we are their descendants...all will become clear.

I KNOW! But I was trying to drive it toward a religious rather than political discussion.

I'd like to point out that a belief in a system of biological evolution requires as much faith as a belief in a system of intelligent design.

Belief is a religious tenet. It shakes people to the bone when you say that their evolutionary belief is as much a religion as any Judeo-Christian/Jewish/whatever. Science is many people's religion. They don't want to hear that...

This sux.

OHIOANS REPRESENT!

Buy it from Chud:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/091756152X/qid=1022876937/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/091756152X/qid=1022876937/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684845091/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684845091/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892818840/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892818840/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892132949/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892132949/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262762/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262762/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0840768818/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0840768818/qid=1022877050/sr=5-4/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830819290/qid=1022877326/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830819290/qid=1022877326/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/103-6034007-8975001</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830813241/qid=1022877358/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-6034007-8975001" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830813241/qid=1022877358/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-6034007-8975001</a>

Wow! A hyperlink per word! Cool...

Those aren't creation science books. Darwinian evolution is the new Catholicism. Dogmatic as heck, and not open to new paradigms of thought.

Did you know that Kronos's stated theory resembles the current theory of one Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA? Crick looks at evolution and sees the problems with the evidence, postulates that there must be some other explananation (his answer: alien sperm).

But there isn't room at the inn for such speculative nonsense. Darwinian evolution is a belief system with adherents and heretics. "We've got our beliefs and we only want to hear the evidence that advances the current belief system, not contradictory or speculative arguments." That is the voice of that Ohio conference, which was national in scope (so don't blame the poor Ohioans). Orthodoxy is good, dogma is good, new ideas bad, different takes bad. How very human.

I'm sure that's exactly what they told Luther when he posted his theses on the door.

Trying to force unanimity when it isn't there is like trying to convince Django that TPM is a bad movie. The circle will not hold even if you want it too. There are differing opinions about the direction and nature of Darwinian evolution, and just because "you" reject those ideas means that you are a strict adherent to the faith. There are closeted scientists that don't believe the orthodoxy... who don't want to be labeled, as you would label them, heretics. More than you think.

There's going to be a reformation in the scientific world, and soon. It won't be God-centered if that's what you're worried about, but a mixture of New Age and science. Science is not pure, it never has been, it never will be.

Non sarcastic, 100% serious curiosity:

You really believe this? I am interested in the thinking behind it.

Does it seem wacky to you? Does it sound as implausible as any other theory or myth?

Or is it just because I used the word Mars and that connotes images of Marvin or 1940's pulp science fiction?

What if:
...humans really did spontaneously evolve from single-celled organisms?
...Jesus really is the Son Of God and that God's Chosen People are the Jews?
...life on Earth was brought here from another place?

Which of those questions support each other's conjectures? And which of those questions is being scientifically persued vigorously at this very moment?

Should I post links for those not paying attention?

Settle down, Kronos - I'm not devin! wink
Admittedly, yeah, a little bit - but I reiterate I wasn't ripping on the belief, just curious.
This is why you have and continually reinforce my respect - I completely understand your point. Of the 3 options, the 3rd sounds most likely, although at face value they all seem somewhat implausible - which is the rub when discussing the "why" of humanity - all theories require to some extent a leap of faith.

But having an alien race sire man merely removes the grand debate one degree: "Why are we here, and where did we come from?" is answered, but will be replaced by "Why are they here, and where did they come from?"
Should I post links for those not paying attention?[/QB][/QUOTE]

That's exactly the thought that occurred to me. Even if science can someday prove that we were created by extraterrestrials, and maybe even that those extraterrestrials were created by other extraterrestrials, it will still inevitably leave us with a question of whether some sort of higher plane exists in which some sort of omniscient, incomprehensible being designed all of this. And, if so, where did that being come from?

I think most believers in God would agree that, while His presence may be felt, He can never be fully understood or measured in scientific terms. This is where belief and disbelief come in, no matter how many generations (alien or not) we can trace the human race back with science.

Hence my toungue-in-cheek remark/question:
"Do the aliens believe in God?"

Because there is not one -NOT ONE- astrophysicist who can explain who or what existed the nanosecond prior to The Big Bang -another theory by the way.

Of course, if the aliens could prove what existed before the Big Bang and what created life in the Universe and neither answer was "God", what would the reaction of the fundamentalists and church heirarchies be?

Of course, they could also descend from the sky in ships powered by "God's will", so what do I know. wink

Just because science TODAY can't explain what existed before the Big Bang doesn't mean it never can.

500 years ago scientists couldn't explain a TV. Doesn't mean God invented it. "I don't know" is not the same as saying God did it.

That's called "superstition"

Oh I know. I just like to pose the question. I have no idea either. And sometimes I'm not sure what to believe -or if I even should!

And when you consider what we know today in comparison to what we knew yesterday -yeah, stolen from MIB, but not a bad line- I'm sure an answer is within your lifetime(not mine of course).

Agreed.

I think there's always a loophole for religion and mysticism, though, in that even if we learn everything there is to know about the physical world, believers can always say that the physical world only exists on the whim of an undetectable, non-physical entity.

Every scientific discovery could be seen by some as even more proof that a deity had to have planned the universe out so that it works as "perfectly" as it does. My problem with this is that we're biased to believe nature works "perfectly" because it's the only nature we can comprehend. Maybe a universe without gravity would be an improvement, but we'll never know.

In any case, call this clinging to a religious explanation for everything "superstition" or call it "faith," it really doesn't change things.

In any case, I'm in the "I don't know" camp and make no more or less allowances for theories of God than I do for any other theories anyone would care to bring up as to the meaning of existence.

Oh, absolutely agreed. I was just going with the flow of the topic.

If there are other scientific theories to be taught, go for it. If there are arguments against evolution based on science, this should be noted. However, it should be made clear that because one theory (evolution) may have flaws, this doesn't automatically make another (creation) more correct. And if scientific proof can be dug up for creationism, by all means, teach it. But good luck finding it.

I so wish that the above was true. But you act like SCIENCE is this magical formula that erases the human biases that create it. When a scientist is trying to alter chemical A into chemical B, and trys over and over again, does it, then reproduces said result... that's Science. When scientists speculate about the nature and origin of the universe, or life on this planet, they are not using reproducible experiments by the very nature of the question. It's all speculation and supposition taught as cold hard fact. That's what gets my goat, the idea that we are taught Darwinian evolution as fact without teaching the underlying suppositions that you have to accede to before you can accept DE as true. Heck, they're still teaching the pepper moth as an example of Darwinian evolution in action.

Like Fox Mulder, I'm only interested in the truth. If my faith was "disproven," I could live with that if I felt that I now knew the truth.

My point above was that scientists work in a field with an orthodoxy as rigid as any religious order. Your reaction to the "Intelligent Design Theory" is proof of that. Are most scientists open to new ideas about the origin of man? HELL NO. You would say "because the theories have been proven, why should we change them?" The nature and history of science is that science has main theories overthrown constantly. Was it fifty years ago when the atom was the smallest particle for sure? Scientists aren't willing to look for new possibilities regarding the origins of man because of the social pressure not too. "Intelligent Design Theory... why that sort of sounds like Creationism... we're against that socially so we should be against it scientifically... even if they aren't the same thing, we must reject that theory because it doesn't fit our worldview." Scientists don't live in a social vaccuum, hastily working on their experiments and coming up with the "truth."

Fritjof Capra was the first, and their have been many more after him. Eastern Religion/New Age and science are becoming more and more intertwined by authors from both genres. See. i think this is a societal change and not a scientific one, which sort of proves my point about scientists not working without bias.

I'm not saying that your version of evolution isn't true. I'm saying that we aren't taught all the underlying suppositions, nor are we taught the questions surrounding the theory because the scientific society doesn't want the general public to see the seams in the theory. Thus when something like IDT comes along it is attacked viciously, because it doesn't fit the ideology of the moment that most scientists want to represent.

But it's not science if it can't be reproduced in the lab! Can evolution create an eye? Or did it create an eye? Why are most mutations harmful now, but not way back when? There are more questions than answers... way more...

I have no problem with cosmology. Most astronomers acknowledge that there is always more to learn. It's the evolutionary biologists who seem a tad more close minded.
Just because you refuse to acknowlege the bad science in Darwinian evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. wink (or since that's close to a double negative maybe it does mean it does exist, but if it doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't not exist)
That was a guesstimate. The history of science is filed with mistaken assumptions. My example was one of them.

How can you prove that mutations now are more harmful than they once were? Evolution is a slow and painful process, with many many false starts.

And where is the bad science in evolution? You hold up the pepper moth, which is supposedly not a good example of evolution, but you seem to have nothing else. Trot out some bad science.

I agree with Burke when he says science has been dogmatic in its treatment of evolution. But that's where the philosophical congruence ends. And I hasten to say that science has only been so obstinate due to our glorious history of religious tyranny and the ceaseless crusading of evolutionary ‘critics’. It is difficult for scientists to be self-critical while fiddlesticks like Icons of Evolution is still touted as strong evidence for ID or Creationism.

Evolution is no more a belief than gravity. Furthermore, science isn’t about belief, it’s about observation. Not everyone prescribes to the Helmholtzian universe. Science isn’t about disproving God, believing Empiricism has all the answers, and all that rot. Besides, Gods can’t be falsified. Science is about examining the physical world, not exploring humanity’s place in the universe.

Evolution does Not suggest that God is nonexistent. God is intractable. Evolution merely undermines the theocratic status-quo. Big deal to some who have a vested interest in maintaining a Their universal vision.

Point is, evolution is pretty much fact; how it occurs, why it occurs, and how such things affect You are open to philosophical discussion and scientific enquiry.

But gravity is a constant right this moment. Evolution is also supposedly a constant variable at this moment. If you define evolution as change, then of course evolution is in action right now. If you define evolution as positive change, then it's problematic. If I say there ain't anything "new" being created am I a heretic? Evolution and creation are not the same.

My problem is with the un-observable assumptions made by scientists regarding the history of every species that has ever inhabited the earth. My point is the same arrogance that afflicted humanity when religious dogma overrode common sense scientific discoveries is still present in today's scientist. The awful certainty that they are right, naysayers be stoned is what bothers me.

Can God be proven scientifically? I don't think so. That's not even a consideration for me personally. C.S. Lewis accepted evolution as "fact" and that didn't stop him from being a man of faith.

- Gravity is a bit of a mystery. But that's semantics. My point is that both are observations, not beliefs. After all, one does not 'observe' evidence for catasrophism and the like.

- Evolution is adaptation, which is not subject to the relative human perceptions of 'positive' and 'negative'.

- God inherently exists outside the observable world, unless he/she/it decides otherwise.

- Naysayers are often out to undermine evolution itself, and furthermore, the valid critics garner little attention, since their 'solid' findings make boring news. Much of evolutionary criticism is confined to acedemic circles, for a variety of reasons(uninteresting to many, lack of maturity in our society, legions of wacky Billy Graham types and so on).

- And what specific assumptions?

I once confronted a physicist(Ken Hayes, Phd, Stanford et al) with this question: "When you're looking for the one force that binds the universe together -Grand Unification Theory- aren't you ultimately looking for God?"

He looked at me and smiled.

Ken, "Yeah, kind of."

True Story.

There is belief based on hard evidence, and there is belief without evidence. Belief based on evidence is called knowledge.

The point of this thread, I guess, was to point out how strange it is that the theory of evolution is not allowed to be taught in some schools. Isn't evolution, among most scientists, thought to be a pretty good explanation of why the world looks like it does? The reason why people oppose this theory so much, is that:

a) It goes so fundamentally against what the bible says. The earth isn't flat? Ok. It doesn't say so specifically in the bible. The earth isn't the centre of the universe? Ok. There was no flood? Well, all right then. But evolution? No way! Just because the bible specifically states that species were created and cannot be altered, evolution is wrong. But other scientific theories on cosmology and suchlike are ok.

b) We don't want to be monkeys. The concept of evolution kind of undermines the special place that the human species has in our minds. We can't just be animals, can we?

Evolution is, in my opinion, a perfectly good way to try to make sense of how the world works: Evidence seems to support this way of explaining what we can see around us. Yes, God may have created the species, but the case against is stronger than the case for. Besides, what about breeding dogs, for example? If the appearance of dogs can be changed through active breeding, you don't need any great leaps of imagination to ask why it couldnt happen through natural selection as well. It is a simple case of probability.

So, evolution is a valid scientific theory that is built on evidence (biological and paleontological). That's why it should be taught in schools. It is not the final truth about how things work, but it is a step on the road to an explanation. The only reason why it isn't accepted is religious dogmatism.

End of pro-evolution rant.

Did you actually read the thread before you posted? No one is talking about evolution not being taught in schools.

Who cares what the Bible says? It's not relevant. No one here is talking about the Bible in relation to evolution.

Current adaptation by animals and plants living today is not the kind of evolution we're talking about. We're talking about creation. It's easy to get the two mixed up because we now use the same word for both. If Darwinian evolution sounds good to you, good for you. Accept the party line and don't think.

Let me reiterate. Natural selection and adaptation do not produce new life forms. Evolutionary theory is predicated on new life forms arising from different species.

That is stupid. But if there is evidence...

Assumption #1: The big daddy

Living matter comes from non-living matter. That’s the basis of evolutionary theory. Let me say it again. Living matter’s origin story is tied up in non-living matter. How is that possible? Can it be reproduced in the lab? Why do we let this huge plot hole in evolutionary theory go by without at least noticing it? This is the basis of Francis Crick’s problem with evolution, and where his “space sperm” theory comes from. He sees no way that living matter could have arisen from non-living matter, no matter how many lightning strikes you send down into the primordial soup. This is the foundation of Darwinian evolution. Is it shaky? You tell me.

Assumption #2: All life grew from single-celled organisms

Well, since we’ve already “assumed” that #1 is true, let’s see what happens next. Single celled life forms “mutate” into more complex life forms. Aren’t most mutations harmful? Isn’t the most widely known effect of any mutation that the mutant is sterile? Yet evolution is predicated on the notion that mutations are beneficial and that eventually a single-celled organism can “evolve” into every single living creature that has ever inhabited the Earth. Every single plant and animal on the Earth is a product of random mutation originally from a single cell. This of course ignores the complexity of life, the symbiotic relationships formed by living creatures, etc. Have you ever read a sentence that starts with “Evolution creates…” What does evolution create? How did single-celled animals become multi-celled animals in the beginning? At least this should give one pause, to think about why they believe what they believe.

Assumption #3: The fossil record

Seeing as how we’ve already assumed one and two, well there must be some evidence. In fact there should be a lot of evidence. In fact there should be more evidence that we could have ever dreamed possible. Why? Because every single fricking creature on Earth must have had about a million transition forms before it got to the creature it is now. Every single plant and animal on Earth supposedly mutated into its current form from numerous other transition forms. Where are these fossils? It’s not just that we can’t find the “missing link.” Or that we can’t find very many fossils that link reptiles to birds. It’s that we should be drowning in them. But we’re not.

Every one of these assumptions has already been accepted as fact. Adam Warren says evolution is a fact, as a way of trying to make it so. Hey, all of the assumptions made here may very well be true. But you can’t tell me that there is any evidence beyond the circular reasoning “for evolution to have occurred, these must be true.” Circular reasoning does not prove a theorem.

Adaptation today does not prove Darwinian evolution yesterday. We’re talking about the creation of life, not what life does now that it is here.

I never mistook the broad collection of facts and rational observations which make-up the Concept of evolution for a single fact. I compared it to gravity, however, an observable phenomenon not fully understood.

Assumption #1: The big daddy

Living matter comes from non-living matter.

Not exactly a giant leap. Mocelules, chemicals, and so on do not arrange themselves randomly at the atomic level. Abiogenisis, or so they call it, is not considered to be sheer fluke. There is no scattershot universe.

Besides, this brand of sophism lures debate into a deconstructing cul-de-sac, in which creatinists and non-creationists hash-out the chicken/egg who created God/who started evolution argument. Disproving abiogenisis has no effect on evolution, any more than proving God wasn't first on the scene removes said diety from any philosphical discourse. After all, something popped into existence, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Capiche?

Assumption #2: All life grew from single-celled organisms

I'm not here to give a Biology 101 course. Of course evolutionary history can't be created in a lab. And again, the Universe is not Random. Just because one has no understanding of something, doesn't mean that this un-understood thing is fictitious. As a high-school student who observed the simple coalition of cells which is a water hydra, I can say this lack of knowledge, and hence invalid.

Assumption #3: The fossil record

Poppycock. The fossil record has advanced since Huxley and the Bishop of Oxford duked it out.

<a href="http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/trans_faq.html" target="_blank">Transitional fossils</a>

We evolved from Lemurs!

Thanks to Adam for thoroughly fucking up the screen!

Re: Assumption #1

However, if it were taught the way Adam describes it (i.e. we don't know how it happened but it did) I would be very satisfied. It ain't taught like that. It's taught like this: "Evolution created living organisms through non-living material..."

Re: Assumption #2

I'm not sure your reply is really an answer. Isn't evolutionary theory supposed to be falsifiable, thus it's grand standing among the scientific theories?
Adam Warren said:
Okay. Then why do they teach it in schools. Saying that there isn't a coherent explanation (but there must be and it's probably this one) is an easy way to get out from underneath thorny problems. I can imagine plenty, but without evidence...

Re: Assumption #3

Hey, neither of us are scientists so let's look at it logically.
(I borrowed this from somewhere else):

Fun stuff.

Which goes back to my earlier point: It takes as much faith to thoroughly believe evolution as the one and only way life on Earth came about.

But since the word "faith" is so often attributed to the traditional description of "religion" Evolutionists won't accept it.

Yet their religious belief in something that is not provable is in itself an act of faith. Maybe not faith in a God, but faith nonetheless.

Interesting, no?