[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Swantz
I know an explanation that might sooth more angry souls.  (insert deity here) caused us to evolve the way we did, simple as that.  Of course some ultra religous people might have a problem with that but they just be the craziest peoples.

but that isn't evolution, it's domestication, it isn't natural selection if there is an inteligence behind it.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
BOTH evolutionists and creationists cannot "scientifically"  prove or disprove each other. Remember that both macro evolution and intelligent design are NOT in the scientific FACT category and both require a certain level of FAITH.

Evolution (I'm not going to split it up into Macro and micro, since that's not a distinction anyone in the scientific community makes) is about as close to scientific fact as it gets. There's no more faith involved in that than there is in accepting that atoms are made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons, or that electricity works the way it does, or that the sky is blue because of the scattering of light rays through the atmosphere. Live with it.

[Unknown Target]

Whether or not life sprung from evolution is debatable. However, whether or not evolution exists is not. Evolution does exist, has existed, and will exist forever, in any living creature.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
BOTH evolutionists and creationists cannot "scientifically"  prove or disprove each other. Remember that both macro evolution and intelligent design are NOT in the scientific FACT category and both require a certain level of FAITH.

Sorry Omni. Go back to class and learn how science works.

The fact that you used the term scientific fact proves that you don't understand how science actually works. As Grey Wolf stated there is no such thing.

There is no faith anywhere in science. If it involves faith in any place then it isn't science.

Originally posted by Bobboau
but that isn't evolution, it's domestication, it isn't natural selection if there is an inteligence behind it.

Actually I'm being a little pedantic here but natural selection isn't actually required for evolution. Intelligent selection, mutationism and Lamarckism* are all forms of evolution too (which is why you sometimes here the term Darwinian evolution when someone is trying to distinguish between the types).

Evolution mearly means the accumulation of changes in successive generations.

Darwinian evolution is what gave us humans. Selective breeding (which is a form of evolution driven by unnatural selection) gave us domesticated animals. Mutationism is absolute nonsense (although by definition it must be classified as a form of evolution) and Lamarckism was impossible on Earth due to the way our genetics work but could quite possibly occur in extra terrestials.


* Lamarckism is an older theory of evolution that predates the Darwinian theory. The basic theory is that if a man spends all day walking barefoot he develops calluses on his feet. His children would be born predisposed to grow calluses quicker and quicker until eventually a generation would be born with the calluses already present from birth.
 The more biologically astute amongst you will have seen why the theory doesn't actually work in practice and why it was thrown out.

[Descenterace]

I think Darwinian Evolution should be accelerated where Humanity is concerned...

The government in Britain is doing too good a job of slowing it down. People are protected from the consequences of their actions to the extent where they become irresponsible.

[aldo_14]

It's interesting to note that scientific theory is developed by examination of the gathered evidence, whereas religious belief is not.  Also probably worth noting that in established theory such as evolution, the 'theory' part tends to mean more it's being constantly revised and refined rather than that there is any scientific likelihood of contradictory and disproving evidence.

Incidentally, I've never understood why (some) people see creationism and evolution/big band (or soforth) as being diametrically opposed.  I mean, if God (or ) wanted to explain creation to someone several hundred or thousand years ago, it's not likely He'd go into the details of deoxyribonucleic acid or accretion disks, etc.....  you'd expect the supreme diety and creator of the universe to know how to talk down to an audiences level, after all.

[Mongoose]

Exactly, aldo.  There are many people out there, myself included, who feel that the scientific theory of evolution fits in fine with the idea of an omnipotent deity creating the universe.  Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people in this country can't see things that way, and thus you get events like this.  Popular Science had a pretty good retort to the decision by one county in Georgia to put disclaimer stickers about evolution in biology textbooks; take a look. I love the people who think that "scientific theory" is on the same level as a theory such as "aliens are controlling the government;" did these people ever take a science class in grade or high school?  (I'm beginning to suspect that the answer is no. )

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mongoose
did these people ever take a science class in grade or high school?  (I'm beginning to suspect that the answer is no. )

and cause they never took it they see no reason why anyone else should either.

[aldo_14]

One thing that did just occur to me.... if there's a biology teacher oppossed to evolution complaining about these things.. how did they ever get accreditation as a teacher?

A second thing is... most people here know I'm not a religious bloke.  But at the same time I've never understood why it seems to often that scientific investigation is regarded as not being doable by religious people (something which I think both fundamentalists and the more bigoted aetheists are guilty of).  My understanding of religion - which admittedly isn't great or far reaching - always led me to think that there's nothing to preclude trying to understand the world you live in; in a sense it's simply understanding "'s work" anyways.  

(furthermore) In my understanding, God (or inse...ach, you know what i mean.  Just replace God with the diety of your choice if you think I'm ignoring you) is suppossed to be intangible, unproveable - that's the point of faith.  Which at the same time, means God cannot be collected as evidence to form or support a scientific theory; so the work of a good religious scientist and a good aetheist scientist should both be factually correct and indistinguishable.  So the whole 'science is incompatible with God' thing - from both sides of the fence - pisses me off.

Of course, I'm one of those people who like equitable compromise........

[Flipside]

My opinon

Humanity has this desperate need to feel important. That's how God and Creation got here. Because if God didn't make man, then surely that means we aren't the most important thing in the universe, and maybe there isn't a Heaven, and maybe we have to accept the fact that the millions we have killed in arguing over which God is real are gone, obliterated, never to benefit mankind again, and maybe 'I' am next.

That scares people. They respond by sticking their head in the sand and going 'Lalalalala I'm not listening'.

/my opinion

[aldo_14]

You could say pretty much all the best things - and a good number of the worst - were done by people trying to make sure they'd be remember after dying.





Of course, you couldn't prove it.  





But you could say it.





Might be wrong though........





where was I?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
A second thing is... most people here know I'm not a religious bloke.  But at the same time I've never understood why it seems to often that scientific investigation is regarded as not being doable by religious people (something which I think both fundamentalists and the more bigoted aetheists are guilty of).  My understanding of religion - which admittedly isn't great or far reaching - always led me to think that there's nothing to preclude trying to understand the world you live in; in a sense it's simply understanding "'s work" anyways.  

(furthermore) In my understanding, God (or inse...ach, you know what i mean.  Just replace God with the diety of your choice if you think I'm ignoring you) is suppossed to be intangible, unproveable - that's the point of faith.  Which at the same time, means God cannot be collected as evidence to form or support a scientific theory; so the work of a good religious scientist and a good aetheist scientist should both be factually correct and indistinguishable.  So the whole 'science is incompatible with God' thing - from both sides of the fence - pisses me off.

Speaking as someone who actually was a scientist at one point (and generally still regards himself as one) I disagree with anyone who says someone can't be religious and a scientist.

However by being religious you've already proved that at least in one field you've denounced the scientific method and simply said that something is true because you want it to be.

That sits a little uncomfortably with the notion of being a scientist. It's like you've noticed a flaw in them and don't know how deep it runs.
 In the case of someone like Mongoose who has no problem with evolution is doesn't run deep so I would have no problem with a scientist like him.

However, a scientist who claims evolution is false (and they do exist, although generally not in the biology field) instantly goes in the big red "Do not trust" book regardless of anything else they do. By claiming evolution is false you go even further and are actually doing the exact opposite of science by throwing out evidence you don't like to replace it with something for which there is no evidence.
 Any scientist who does that is completely untrustworthy scum in my book because they are doing the exact opposite of what they claim to do.
 I have a pet hate for scientists who pick and choose the results they want to accept and discard results they don't like because they actually harm the cause of science with their idiocy. Of course this isn't a flaw that only religious people have. *points at the cold fusion team and the "memory of water" guy*

Originally posted by aldo_14
One thing that did just occur to me.... if there's a biology teacher oppossed to evolution complaining about these things.. how did they ever get accreditation as a teacher?

They teach f**k all evolution in America even at a degree level. I was quite shocked when I was talking about evolution with my biology graduate girlfriend (who studied in New York) and I found that I knew more about the subject from reading The Selfish Gene than she knew.

I wouldn't be surprised if the teaching over here is similarly bad. I once had a biology teacher talk to me about an animal doing something for the good of the species

[WeatherOp]

Ooo, Dogonit, I would really like to get in this topic, but I'm being good.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Exactly, aldo.  There are many people out there, myself included, who feel that the scientific theory of evolution fits in fine with the idea of an omnipotent deity creating the universe.  Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people in this country can't see things that way, and thus you get events like this.

Problem is that vast majority of people like yourself never stick up for evolution when this sort of debate gets started. It basically ends up as atheists and agnostics against fundementalists which is a big pity as I might stand more of a chance of convincing the people in the middle that I was right if there were also religious people saying exactly the same thing about the scientific theories involved.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Speaking as someone who actually was a scientist at one point (and generally still regards himself as one) I disagree with anyone who says someone can't be religious and a scientist.

However by being religious you've already proved that at least in one field you've denounced the scientific method and simply said that something is true because you want it to be.

That sits a little uncomfortably with the notion of being a scientist. It's like you've noticed a flaw in them and don't know how deep it runs.  

Well... I agree it can still be an issue.  I don't think that, though, it necessarily is always one, in the sense that I don't believe religion negates the ability to perform honest science.

That is, religion in the sense of believing in a higher power, etc.  Organized religion, on the other hand, IMO sets boundaries which are dangerous within a scientific context.

[Flipside]

The thing is that most of the die-hard creationists involved in this kind of thing automagically assume that evolutionists are trying to disprove the bible. They often cannot even fathom the idea that there are people in the world who have not even read the bible.

Simply raising questions about the Origin of the Species seems to mean that you are saying 'God doesn't exist and the bible is a pack of lies', which is a blatant generalisation. There is strong scientific and cultural evidence for things mentioned in the Bible, such as the Great Flood, the 7 plagues of Egypt etc, but simply because science can show how it could happen naturally does not preclude God, after all, is not God the ultimate natural force to those who believe in Him in whatever form?

There are other things that simple common sense, when applied, are genuinely silly, Moses spending 40 years walking across a desert you can cross in less than 6 months etc, which either suggest a mistake, or that Moses' sense of direction was about as good as mine. But people still cling onto them, as though letting go of one tiny inconsistency would bring the entire house of cards down. I cannot define that as being secure in a faith.

Evolution is not about disproving the existence of God, it's nothing to do with Him, it is simply the product of observed results and study. Darwin made some whopping mistakes, which are only now coming to light, Evolution is a massively complex process, and it's transmission wasn't help by the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' which is a phrase Darwin never ever uttered, it was a reporter who coined it.

The study of evolution is evolving itself, it grows and learns from it's mistakes and changes all the time, mistakes have been made, and corrected over time, and yet still the house is standing, that speaks volumes.

[EtherShock]

On the subject of religious scientists (jeez, almost sounds like an oxymoron ), all I have to say is that many scientists of the past were religious. It comes down to a matter of how much the person lets religion influence his or her work, kind of like separation of church and state. If he or she lets religion influence too much, then their work becomes illegitimate.

Also, I learned about evolution in high school. No one ever cried about it. Then again, I don't live in a very conservative part of the US. However, we had a sex ed program strongly in favor of abstinence, now someone explain that to me.

Science is not perfect and admits it. Organized religion isn't perfect and won't.

[Flipside]

Isaac Newton created the Newtonian Laws when he was a teenager, he spent most of the rest of his life trying to unsuccesfully turn base metals into Gold using a mixture of pseudo chemistry and appeals to God.

Thing is, I don't remember Genesis ever mentioning God snapping his fingers or saying 'Shnigwiggle' to bring the world into existence, in fact, Genesis only covers product, not method, so who exactly is to say the Evolution isn't exactly what He had in mind? After all, if you'd tried to describe Evolution to people 4000 years ago, they wouldn't have understood it, and the Bible does actually get things generally in the correct order, Light, Stars/Planets etc, Land, Water (creation of the Earths Ecosystem), Plants, Animals, Humans, though admittedly, from a Human Bias, but still, the timeline is accurate. Since God is timeless, it's not like he was in a rush, for all we know, we could still be in the 7th Day

[Omniscaper]

Big surprise, the same old, same old, high horse attitudes are popping up. My statement did not bash evolution, yet a number of you still ATTACK perspectives different from your own. Name calling and assumptions of lack of education. Very adult of you.

My main point was to keep an open mind because neither concepts can present  conclusive scientific evidence. To suggest that there is no such thing as scientific fact anymore is just relativism BULL.

Faith does not necesarrily denote religious thought. To say that faith has had no place in science shows an enoumous amount of ignorance to how science has progressed. From Isaac to Newton to Einstein, many of the our pivotal scientists did not conjure up their theories purely from the established facts of their time. It took imagination and advanced creative thinking and reasoning. At their moments of revelation, I have no doubt that it took tremendous amount of faith and open mindedness to pursue their out of the box thinking.



From MY perspective:

There is still not enough hard evidence to move evolution from the back of my mind to the front. There is still no evidence of transitional missing links or observable chains of favorable genetic mutations.

The mathematical probablilities behind the random formation of the first (supposedly simple, lol) single celled organism requires much MUCH more time than what Einstein's general relativity theory, which suggests a begining of space-time, would allow.

There are also many other reasons that I do not blindly accept evolution as cold hard fact. It being from improbable constant formation of favorable amino acid chirality to environmental inhospitablility to random DNA development.

[WMCoolmon]

Also, I learned about evolution in high school. No one ever cried about it. Then again, I don't live in a very conservative part of the US. However, we had a sex ed program strongly in favor of abstinence, now someone explain that to me.

The Federal government provided some hundred million dollars to schools for abstinence-only sex ed. That's basically 'these are some methods of birth control and these are the failure rates...now go out and don't have sex.'


On the topic of evolution, I think that the majority of people's problems stem from it making sense. It's logical. There's evidence for it. But the center of nearly all 'mainstream' religions is faith, not evidence.

Really, what I think should be done is that evolution should be taught in science...but creationism and all that shouldn't be ignored. Because that is still what some people choose to believe, and saying "evolution is fact" is no different than saying "creationism is fact" unless you back up the statement with some evidence.

The problem I have with intelligent design is that it's just bull in the way I hear it used. Hey, great idea, combine creationism and evolution in a politically-correct package and teach is as fact! No. If nobody subscribes to that belief, it shouldn't be taught in any form. If somebody does, see the above guidelines for teaching evolution and creationism (provide evidence).

While I've heard people saying that "NO, creationism should only be talked about in religious class", fact is that this is one point where science and religion crash. Pretending that other people don't think differently and teaching that evolution is the sole explanation for why life came to be as it did is not teaching factually, because there are other explanations for why life came about, no matter how lacking the evidence is. Neither side can disprove the other.

I've probably pissed off both sides now.