Injecting religion into the science curricula of public schools is often a hidden goal of state legislation addressing the teaching of evolution.
Image: Zachary Zavislak (photograph); Kursten Bracchi (styling)
In Brief
- Creationists continue to agitate against the teaching of evolution in public schools, adapting their tactics to match the roadblocks they encounter.
- Past strategies have included portraying creationism as a credible alternative to
evolution and disguising it under the name “intelligent design.” - Other tactics misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial and pretend that advocates for teaching creationism are defending academic freedom.
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Time Line: Evolution in the U.S. Classroom
Professors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that “without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense.”
The sentiment was not original with Landy, of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, famously told the readers of The American Biology Teacher that “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Back then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology teachers to present evolution to their pupils in spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindal—the governor of the state of Louisiana—on whose desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, awaiting his signature.
This article was originally published with the title The Latest Face of Creationism.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
454 Comments
Add CommentThis article is one of the worst misrepresentations of intelligent design I have ever read. I can't understand that a high standard scientific publication accepts such a low standard article. What happened with the famous peer review? What we are seeing here is in my opinion political correctness in action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID is a very old thought that was expressed already by the old greeks. There are many great scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, who see signs of intelligence in the laws of the Universe, in the intricate mechanisms of the cell machinery etc. According to this article you must be an idiot to see an intelligence revealed in Nature. I think this is not only wrong, it is very unfair.
It seems that the naturalistic/secular world view has become as rigid and as oppressive as ever any fundamentalistic religion was. I do not believe this is an advantage to science. There is no automatic coupling between true and good science and atheism.
Krister Renard
Uppsala, Sweden
Krister, Krister, Krister ~ as Jon Stewart often says: "Settle down !". I'm assuming that you are a Christian (of some sort) and, if so, simply read your Bible - as throughly & critically as you seem to read other texts. Which includes this article. Then, having done that - examine your ideas about "intelligent design". R N Dunn Denver, Colorado
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa know, I can almost see Jon's face as he reads this column. First, his trademarked frown, then a smile. (I understand that he's constantly on the lookout for show material).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd while I respect the work of the NCSE, I would like to see it back off a little regarding it's fairly official position that ID advocates seek to undermine science by religious indoctrination. That's simply not the case, if it ever was. While true that some militant religious groups may seek to undermine science with underhanded tactics, they would never fly, given the court system and the existing legal precedents.
Let's propose a scenario: Allowing for new standards of 'academic freedom', a biased or 'bought' school board accepts a new biology textbook that has it all wrong regarding science. In it, they criticize evolutionary theory, and support creation science or intelligent design as the new paradigm to explain how life unfolded. Given prior cases where a mere sticker was challenged in court, what chance would it have? None.
Creation Science is off the table as a teachable subject due to Aguillard v. Edwards, captioned the 'Creation Act'. That leaves Intelligent Design as the new interloper, once referred to as creation science in a cheap tuxedo (or lab coat). Are we to believe that, or is that depiction concocted to throw more fuel on the fire?
ID is a hypothesis that certain features of life on planet earth may have been designed. As a hypothesis, its truth or falsity is, as stated, hypothetical. So what are the real issues regarding ID? Since it doesn't consist of a tested theory with peer-reviewed support, there is no way that it could be taught in the classroom. No way! Mentioned as a hypothesis perhaps, but never taught.
So what is the harm of simply restating the obvious, that academic freedom is paramount. Is it not? Regardless of policy language additions or deletions, the truth of our origins remains just that; truth. What is is, and yes, evolutionary theory will remain with us as before. But will ID be allowed a passing comment or two in the classroom? Since there isn't anyone out there today that hasn't heard of it, I would say yes, followed by a blush from the teacher, and a few chuckles. But will it be taught as the new theory or origins. Not on your (evolved) life. Just .. settle .. down ..
Our high school curriculum included intelligent design over 50 years ago, but in religion class not in the science class. The school was De La Salle Bond Street in Toronto, run by the Christian Brothers. Make no mistake: intelligent design is as much a religious belief now as then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe odd thing was that the Christian Brothers never denied evolution as a valid scientific theory. The official position of the Catholic Church seems to be that the bible tells us why the Earth was created and scientists tell us how the process occurred. According to Catholic teaching then and now, there is no conflict between science and religion.
My Christian faith is very strong. I just don't see what the problem is in saying that the Laws of Physics, Nature, Evolution, biology, Universal Laws governing everything are G_d's laws. After all, first and foremost, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is a G_d of Law. And a Being that existed before time began and will be here when it ends can probably afford to wait a few billion years while the Laws S/He/It set in motion play themselves out. You therefore maintain the scientific basis while acknowledging a an intelligence that set the designs in motion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem with an intelligent "designer" of the Universe. I humbly admit that my breadth of knowledge and scope of understanding as a mere mortal MUST be limited to my experience. What I can't abide however is being told to believe something that flies in the face of factual evidence or else I'm a "bad" person...pshaw. There's nothing wrong in my mind with G_od creating the heavens and the Earth...14.5 billion years ago... Genesis is just a STORY kids. A really really good STORY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, that's a great idea! Let's teach ID in the classroom. But since we're expressing our academic freedom can we go ahead and teach Alchemy and Astrology, too? Hell, this is SciAm - somebody who reads this might be in a better position to pose an experiment - let's teach "Creation in Sheeps Clothing" (ID), Astrology, and Alchemy in one half of our schools and the scientifically accepted Evolution, Astronomy, and Chemistry in the other half. Then we'll follow the lives of the student post graduation and compare notes on the two groups. Let me hypothesize for a moment about the result - The scientifically accepted school children will grow up to become professors, scientists, doctors, and Nobel prize laureates and the alternatively educated students will become politicians, clergymen, and traveling sideshow attractions - One of them is bound to become President, unfortunately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID beggars belief. It is utterly ridiculous and i feel strongly enought to say something about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to beleive this dim nonsense go ahead, Don't try and force it down everybody else's throats.
And get a decent education.
S.E.T.I. science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislow probability + objective specific pattern = intelligence -> information X design
I.D. science:
low probability + objective specific pattern = intelligence -> information X design
science is science !
Has no one noticed that evolution is a religion? it says that all things began by miracles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe appeared suddenly from nothing – miracle
The galaxies appeared slowly from chaos into the organized clusters we perceive today. - another miracle, chaos leads to more chaos, not order
From this imposable order, stars and planets arose – miracle, more order from less order
In one of these star systems a planet arose seated EXACTLY in the right place, around EXACTLY the right type of star, with EXACTLY the right mixture of chemicals, gravity, and solar radiation to cause more imposable order from chaos: life – miracle
This life again reordered itself added information from no where with no external source of information grew more complex over the eons – miracle
According to evolution we are here today because of a series of miracles.
According to creationism we are here because of 6 days of miracles
Neither can be proven, The evidence does not back evolution any more than it apposes creationism for neither can be proven. we cannon reproduce anything from these two different suppositions yet evolution is grabbed as fact ONLY because it does not include a readily apparent "god" yet a god it has: evolution is an evolutionist god and if you don't believe that look how staunchly they hold on to their faith and condemn all who do not believe. That is a classic oppressive religion, very akin to old Roman Catholicism and moder extremist Islam, only evolutionists simply banish “creationists” from their scientific community, and ruin their careers instead of physically destroying them. A step up at least.
This is not a scientific debate, Newton was a Christian, Pasteur was a Christian, Galileo, a Christian, even Einstein believed the universe had a divine inspiration, though he never professed Christianity.
Science arose from Christianity. The belief that if God made the universe there must be laws that govern it that are reliable and predictable and reproducible. Christianity has succeeded where evolution has not. Richard Porter was a Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. A Christian, he started from the assumption that our spine was perfectly formed for the function of standing upright, and thus from that assumption helped many people to alleviate back pain. He also invented many of the treatments for scoliosis. Evolutionary doctors literally assumed our backs had not “had enough time to evolve properly” and sadly did more harm than good for their patients. Some doctors even thought the curve in the spine was an evolutionary left over and tried to “help” people by attempting to eliminate that curve. Prof. Porter showed the error in the evolutionary ways, and developed exercises to help strengthen the curve, not eliminate it. We all benefit from these Christian scientists.
If it were not for Christianity, creationism, and God fearing people, we would not have the technological, or medicinal advancements of today. Evolution hinders this by condemning instantly all evidence that contradicts its fundamental beliefs and never allows freedom of discussion and research just as old Roman Catholicism did and Radical Islam does today. No they don’t physically harm any one (well, not intentionally), and they are, but they do hinder sience in general, and that is to every ones detriment. Creationists are free to discus, and discover and question because were are commanded to do so by our creator.
This is the fundamental difference: creationists assume creation, and try to discover how it all works and fits together, this leads to discovery, advancement, and the general prosperity to society. Evolutionists assume, and attempts to find, contrive, and twist evidence to fit the starting assumption and will not accept anything against their assumptions. Creationists have no such woes for their only starting assumption is that everything was created.
Which religion will you choose?
So what is the deal with SciAm lately. It used to be a decent magazine but lately it is just the rip on anything that is not evolution magazine. They seem to be stuck in a groove here. Somebody bump the turntable or even better buy them a CD player.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissee what carl agan had to say:http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, xylyx3d's comment is based heavily on assumptions and half-truths intelligently designed to mislead(no ID pun intended):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The universe appeared suddenly from nothing miracle" Not a miracle, because science does not say the universe appeared from nothing, but as a result of anti matter/matter collisions where matter prevailed dominant, condensing into masses that eventually became galaxies.
"The galaxies appeared slowly from chaos into the organized clusters we perceive today. - another miracle, chaos leads to more chaos, not order "
False, modern chaos theory shows that out of the random effect of chaos , order has a 100% chance of occuring. That organization (condensation of matter) promotes more order(although not indeffinate order, i must say)
"in one of these star systems a planet arose seated EXACTLY in the right place, around EXACTLY the right type of star, with EXACTLY the right mixture of chemicals, gravity, and solar radiation to cause more imposable order from chaos: life miracle" Again this is based on more assumptions.
In many star systems, many planets arose, we only confirm a handfull out of the 1% of our own galaxy that we can see. Additionally, gravity is responsible for planets forming and momentum vs. suns gravity keeps the plantes in orbit. as for "life from chaos", multiple theorys about how amino acids formed exists, but all have the same end result and all have a degree of physical, reproducable evidence.
"This life again reordered itself added information from no where with no external source of information grew more complex over the eons miracle"
Life cant be said to have reordered a deffinate # of times, as evolution is constant and the very concept means that things change in order to adapt to their conditions. and added information? what information?cellular instructions?DNA? knowledge and ability to learn? All of these things evolved, Or was the "added information" bit just filler to add another "-Miracle" ultimatum?
"Neither can be proven, The evidence does not back evolution any more than it apposes creationism for neither can be proven. we cannon reproduce anything from these two different suppositions" These statements may not be false assumptions, but a direct attempt at deceit. Evolution has been proven uncountable times, both biological and inanimate systems evolution.
"Teach only the scripture's account of creation". Who is trying to enforce this feodal view of the universe? Is it the Taliban?...(No! it is a minority religious group in the US supposedly Christian).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIT JUST NEVER ENDS... does it? The bogus attacks by the indoctrinated lemmings in the pews on the Towering Edifice of Science, Evolutionary Theory continue unabated... like a rusty, leaky faucet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is among the most powerful concepts supported by physical evidence ever proffered by the observations of a reasoned mind. While religiously motivated creationism, in all its phony costumes, is as bankrupt as the imagined sky-god of the bible.
Men and women of science who actually seek to understand the world... the universe as it actually is... will continue their good and patient work, despite the machinations and schemes of the "christians" who cannot fathom a world not dripping in myth and superstition. As Robert Green Ingersoll, a great American iconoclast of the late 19th century remarked, the enterprise of science is like a young, vigorous athelete, while creationism and religion are more a palsied wreck.
For those who have checked their critical thinking... the epitome of humanity... at the door to the pews, then the reality of Evolution that confronts them threatens to topple their House o' Cards which is the lynchpin of their faith-based world. There is too much at stake for these purveyors of delusion and wishful thinking, and thus, no tactic, no matter how shamelessly and transparently calculated to serve their religious needs, is too low, false or immoral.
IT DOES SADDEN me though that so many in our country... in the 21st century... well beyond the Enlightenment... continue to cling to such childish notions... such religious fantasies, while the reality of the Cosmos if far more interesting and far grander than the goofy, sophomoric notions of the bible, which are the musings of ignorant, late iron-age tribal jews.
Oh well, the ignorant Nascar crowd of the bible-belt... the pretend cowboys and lovers of god n' guns... are so awash in the jesus delusion that I do fear it is all but hopeless. Once identity is so wedded to a concept (creator-sky-god), no matter how absurd, it makes exposing the falsity of it too threatening to those who have accepted it.
In the long run though, it matters not... god or nature... call it what you will... Nature, the brute fact of existence... the ultimate ontology, prevails.
Cheers and Happy Holidays to all!!!
Writing such a piece in this magazine is, of course, just preaching to the choir. I'll count myself a member of that choir, but I feel the need to point out the uncomfortable truth that almost all "hard" scientists are really, in fact, their own special kind of creationists. No matter to what degree they may proclaim a belief in either a strictly deterministic or a truly random universe, they don't, in their heart of hearts, believe that their own behavior is 100% outside of the control of their own volition or will. We almost all believe that we decide our own actions to some extent, and are not just slaves to either a chain of physical causes and effects or to completely random processes. This quite understandable belief in the power of one's own will is the first cousin of biological creationism. It is, in essence, the same thing: a belief that a sentient being can and does act outside of the principles derived from a scientific study of nature, thus creating complex entities (life forms, thoughts, works of art,...). So, to any creationists reading this, you are in good company, i.e., most of the readers of Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChaos does lead to order, study chaos theory and youll see how/why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I do agree with you on the point of ID.
How anyone can truly believe that evolution is 'blind' or left to chance, is beyond me.
I would like for any darwinists to enlighten me as to how exactly a bug can 'mutate' a leaf on their back, to match other leaves in their area.
The amount of genes needed to mutate in the correct sequence, I imagine is many...
What is the feedback mechanism for that???
How did the bug 'know' that the leaf it finally mutated on its back, matched other leaves, and would now keep it safe????
I definitely understand not wanting to believe in a creator God, and Im definitely not saying 'God' did it....all I'm saying is that evolution suspisciously seems to know where its going, and that its definitely not 'blind'.
Heres a good example of what I mean....
Some may have read Dawkins' book 'The Blind watchmaker'. In one of the chapters he tries to prove random mutation by running random letters through a computer which 'mutates' the letters, to form a readable sentence. Basically every time it finds a wrong letter it throws it away. Every time it finds a right letter it keeps it. So, according to him, its basically mimicking natural selection, choosing whats best, and getting rid of the rest. And he claims that after only 30 or 40 iterations of his program, he went from totally randomized letters to getting this coherent sentence.
"methinks it is like a weasel"
What blows my mind, considering he's a pretty smart guy, is that he says it's a perfect illustration of evolution via random mutation/natural selection.
But its nothing of the sort!!!!!!
Its actually a brilliant example of intelligent design or guided/conscious evolution.
Cuz for the computer to be able to throw away the bad letters, it had to know what the good letters were!! It had an END GOAL that was pre-programmed into it. The random letters had a 'template' that they were mutating towards.
Sure the mutations were 'random', but the end result was predetermined by a 'higher' intelligence. (a la Dawkins selecting a Shakespeare sentence as the goal)
So what Im getting at is that forms can only 'randomly' evolve TOWARDS a SET DESIGN / GOAL.....randomness can never just PRODUCE designs of infinite complexity, without knowing that complexity beforehand.
Hence, guided evolution, or ID (ugh, hate that term) is the most likely answer.
Heres a site that proves that strictly random mutation can only bring extinction.....
www.randommutation.com
by showing that a coherent sentence can never be formed by random selection.
So my conclusion then....
Is that the universe's evolution has an END GOAL, that everything is evolving towards.
Whether that End Goal, was put there by a 'higher intelligence'/ 'God', is beyond answering.
But nonetheless....its like a fractal.
A fractal cant exist without an equation, and before that equation is entered, the shape of the fractal is known. Even though chaos rules the fractal, the shape in the end is the same.
The end is in the beginning, the alpha in the omega.
And its no coincedence that everything around us is fractal, and that the universe is fractal...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/
Just proves even more so, that there is
a strange attractor guiding the evolution of the universe.
Is that God? Who knows....who cares. All I know is evolution is DEFINITELY NOT BLIND!! Random, sure....but not blind.
evolution should be taught in science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscreationism should be taught in theology.
there is far too much evidence that the world isn't 6,000 to10,000 years old.
if the validity of the time line is in question...
why go any further?
Why must evolution always be up against creationism??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism is bogus.
But so is blind/random evolution.
Guided/conscious/intelligent evolution is the only rational answer
Anyone with half a brain, and an understanding of math, chaos and fractals, can see that.
And why do soooooo many people confuse Intelligent Design with creationism?? They're totally different.
Continued from previous post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is not a scientific debate, Newton was a Christian, Pasteur was a Christian, Galileo, a Christian, even Einstein believed the universe had a divine inspiration, though he never professed Christianity"
logic poses that the issue is a debate, otherwise it would not exist as an issue. To say the the above listed scientist were all "christian" is very misleading and easy to proclaim, but again a false assumption. All the above scientists were fanatical in their research and never once in recorded history has any one been said to attend church sermons, much less as their personal belief structure. Secondly all, except Einstein, had significant rebellions against "christianity"(a blanket designation for all denominations of christ) and both newton and galileo were threatened with execution by the church if they professed their theories. Thirdly all, except Einstein, lived in the ages before darwin, and thus before any knowledge of evolution (quite outside any of thier focuses in science) and thus cannot said to be either "Evolutionist" or "Christian". EInstein lived in a time where it was illegal to teach evolution in schools. It is almost a fullblown lie to say Einstein believed the universe had divine inspiration, as there are quotes of him professing his belief that due to the random effect of chaos, ammong other things, life is a coincidence. His unfinished theory of everything, although considered invalid, shows his belief in mass coincidence.
It is that concept, coincedence, that most humans struggle in believing especially when it comes to things very detailed or so unprobable they would likely have never seen it.
"Evolutionary doctors literally assumed our backs had not “had enough time to evolve properly” and sadly did more harm than good for their patients. Some doctors even thought the curve in the spine was an evolutionary left over and tried to “help” people by attempting to eliminate that curve." It is very dishonest, especially of a christian, to claim as a fact that mainstream or the majority of evolutionary doctors believed the curve of the spine was a flaw that evolution has not had time to fix, which is the insinuation given. The statement in itself is an assumption of doctors assumptions, assuming doctors of the era were not self-proclaimed.
I say let them teach evolution, on two conditions. First, present it as a theory instead of a fact. Just because most scientists buy into it doesn't make it a fact...don't forget that it was a well known 'fact' that the world was flat! Second, it should be illegal to teach that evolution somehow proves that God doesn't exist. This common delusion is the epitome of stupidity. I think that as often as not this stupidity is foisted by religious weaklings who demant that God be simple enough to allow them absolute understanding of the depth and breadth of His power. They fear that their belief structure would be threatened or canceled out if evolution were true. If we want to educate our children well, and want them to be wise as well as intelligent, then we must teach three things: First, evolution is a very strongly supported theory, the best thoughts of the best scientific minds on the subject; Second, evolution can NEVER be PROVEN, supported with even more data, yes, but proof requires duplicating the results in a laboratory; and Third, there is nothing in or about the theory of evolution that can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, such a comparison is tantamount to proving or disproving God by the lint in my belly button. Beyond this, the religious literalists need to read 1 Corinthians 13:9 and remember that their understanding of God is not perfect nor anywhere close to complete, and therefore no scientific fact (however valid or not) can ever disprove the existence of God. Our insistance that we have perfect knowledge from the Bible about how long the earth has existed can not please God, especially when it causes fights like this evolution / creationism war. The two sides are not at odds based on any logical evidence, but solely based on their hatred of mystery, with which God constantly surrounds us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKJeroH opines: "My Christian faith is very strong. I just don't see what the problem is in saying that the Laws of Physics, Nature, Evolution, biology, Universal Laws governing everything are G_d's laws."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course your faith is strong... who wants "weak faith"? And of course on a personal level, there is absolutely no problem with you pretending that everything about the Cosmos is based on the goofy bible-based god-construct in your physical brain.
The problem is when you and others of your indoctrinated ilk, wish to codify delusional religious thinking, totally bereft of evidence, and pretend it the fruit of honest scientific endeavor. Sheesh!
WHY is it that your particular notion of a god is superior to all of the other imagined gods that have been trotted out during human evolution? Why should any one take seriously the attributes ascribed to a creator of the universe born of ignorant tribal jews millennia ago... which just happend to serve their particular needs at that particular time?
WHY do you reject all other god constructs of all the other myriad religions? WHAT evidence do you have for yours? AND... if your god created the universe, ex-nihlo, then from whence did your god arise?
AS FOR THE RAMBLINGS of "XYLYX3d"... where to begin? First of all, Evolutionary Theory, while elegant, powerful and beyond doubt, addressed neither abiogenesis nor the origin of our particular universe. The latter being the ultimate ontological question, eh? Sooo bucko, try to focus on the biological evidence that totally supports Evolutionary Theory and totally refutes your bible-based goobly-gook... kay?
As for your rehash of the Goldilock's Theory of Planet Earth ("it was created just right for god's poster children")... aka "fine tuning" or the Antropic Principle... it has been debunked ad nauseum.
HOW should we respond to those clinging to a "finely tuned universe", as if somehow, like the bogus notion of "intelligent design", it were evidence of a (their) supernatural diety. Clearly, these people are loathe to admit they are motivated by their bible-based religious beliefs... and sadly, feel threatened by science "pulling back the curtain" and finding Nature... not a wizard, nor a personal sky-god. Further, even if some sort of creator-entity was able to program the unfathomable... the Singularity with Inflationary expansion and Dark Energy... this entity would be unknowable to mere mortals, occupying less than a "speck" in the vastness of space.
Oh well, I could go on, but why bother?
Tell me, Spin-oza, if I have complete knowledge of HOW a building was erected does this knowledge prove the non-existence of the craftsmen who built it or the architect who designed it? You seem to imply this absurd notion is an obvious fact. For that matter, does the understanding of HOW automatically mean that there could not possibly be a why? Careful how you answer, YOU'RE supposed to be the rational one!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisduring the "scopes trial" (following shortly after the discovery of the "nebraska man" civilization, which turned out to be a fraud), teaching "ONLY" creationism was presented as the ultimate in bigotry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOW, the enormity of the BIGOTRY of evolutionism has it's adherents peering through the "O" as if it were a porthole and saying: " what BIGOTRY, we don't see no stinking BIGOTRY!"
"... IT DOES SADDEN me though that so many in our country... in the 21st century... well beyond the Enlightenment... continue to cling to such childish notions... such religious fantasies, while the reality of the Cosmos if far more interesting and far grander than the goofy, sophomoric notions of the bible, which are the musings of ignorant, late iron-age tribal jews...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------------------------------------
It doesn't just sadden me, it makes me angry, when the same primitive religious minds try to snuff out scientific advances, cloaking themselves as "ethicists" and "moral leaders."
I am so sick of having to be polite, when someone starts babbling gibberish about a mythical being in the sky, and then tries to tell the rest of us, that we have to live in accordance with the hodgepodge of Bronze Age wisdoms collected in the books of the "great" religions.
Replace "God" with the "Silly The Green Gnome" and these people would all be in mental institutions.
Phew!
xylyx3d: "Newton was a Christian, Galileo, a Christian," etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, that's not going to fly. For starters, Galileo was tried and muzzled by the Church for propounding the same heliocentric model of the solar system that the pre-Christian Aristarchus of Samos had advocated 1,800 years previously. Which was as long as Christianity, fearful of anything which appeared to contradict scripture, managed to suppress the idea. As for Sir Isaac, he is on record as saying that he did not accept the Trinity, and even considered the concept 'blasphemous'. Even today, his version of Christianity would be considered heretical and even occult. And as Newton advocated Galileo's heliocentric model, had he been living in Galileo's time, he would have been put on trial by the Church for heresy as well.
So, xylyx3d, your statements are fallacious. Including your assertion that science arose from Christianity. I have already cited Aristarchus. The Sumerians also come to mind. And it would be downright churlish not mention the enormous contribution made by the Moslem golden age to science. Further, Hypatia of Alexandria and Giordano Bruno were just two notably enlightened souls whose teachings - and lives - were brutally snuffed out by the Church. You need to get out more.
Continued debugging of various assumptions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If it were not for Christianity, creationism, and God fearing people, we would not have the technological, or medicinal advancements of today. Evolution hinders this by condemning instantly all evidence that contradicts its fundamental beliefs and never allows freedom of discussion and research just as old Roman Catholicism did and Radical Islam does today"
Evolution is a concept, a thought, and idea, an effect observed in nature... not a practice and it is not controlled or ran by people, as islam or cristianity is, and nowhere in the 'theory of evolution' does it state anything proving it wrong is a lie and should not be thouroghly reviewed, quite the opposite in fact. It states that if there is evidence of the development of a system that can be proven, it must be true. therefore it does not "condemn" anything, especially not free thought.
"Creationists are free to discus, and discover and question because were are commanded to do so by our creator."
God, of any represesntation, in any religoin, in any text, does not propose s/he its followers to deny their maker or even consider the idea. Almost* all known religous violence arises from the sugestion that people should truely consider that thier diety/ies are not real. Creationist are free to canabolize anything other than their own beliefs. If they had such zeal and emotional drive to scrutinize thier own religion they would find it comes down to more conjecture and assumptions than accepted scientific theories. Then they might realize that the only leg Creationism has to stand on is composed only of fundamental questions no known entity in existance has the answer to, and because current theories on fundamentals often come down to or rely upon coincidences that are very improbable, such as the formation of a planet in the right conditions to harbor life, said persons might turn to rely on a much easier to conceive idea: Faith...faith that a higher power did it and therefore you dont need to/are incapable of understanding it. Faith is when you accept something with absolutely no logic or reasoning. ****It is the exact opposite of free thought****Therefore any religion that runs on and preaches 'faith', cannot promote an Ubiased** analysis of logic and evidence without cannabolizing itself.
There Can Be No 'Faith' In Science, Otherwise It Is Not Science.
American Scientific seems to be at politics yet again. Ask yourself just what fear is there that God created the heavens? Prove he didn't? Again, can't science work with religion to discover truths? As in politics science and religion has its absolutists. If both choose to succumb to absolutists then both show their ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure it's somewhere inbetween if both would just work together. But to deny creationism is also to deny the belief we are all created equal as well! If science were to destroy the notion of God then it might as well destroy the notion of Liberty and the foundation of our nation.
Be careful...
AMSCI should be ashamed to take up such sides like this. Politics are rampant in your articles and you proselytize as much as an evangelical and your religion apparently is blind science.
"There Can Be No 'Faith' In Science, Otherwise It Is Not Science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell.....thats what proponents to blind evolution seems to have.
Massive faith in insurmountable odds of randomness. lol
I dont deny evolution, just that its a random process, thats all.
Read my post below.......templates are needed!!! WIthout a template/guide, randomness can only bring extinction.
a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal uncaused FIRST CAUSE has a one to one probability of creating the universe and everything in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"struggling to survive" demands purpose and purpose demands reason and reason demands meaning. for evolutionists to use this "phrase" renders it nonsensical.
what saddens me is that those who have rid themselves of their CREATOR, have, at the same time, rid themselves of any purpose, reason, and meaning for their lives; not to mention - yes, i will - their inalienable rights.
they reduce the universe to a freak cosmic accident and themselves to a compilation of random mistakes - MEANINGLESS MUTANTS.
The total lack of humility in this article suggests entropy in editorial content. It proposes evolution is a fact, not a theory. So lets review:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst we had Darwin with his evolving finches that turn out to be the same species with differing amounts of growth factor accounting for beak changes. Then we had pulsatile evolution, now punctuate evolution. Punctate Evolution scares me: sounds like Genesis.
Specific comments:
Creationism adapts quickly : sounds like the creationists are evolving. Ouch, evolutionists!
Evidence against evolution is thus evidence for creationism; disproving evolution thus proves creationism. Lets try that in reverse: disproving creation proves evolution . Yet that darned punctuate evolution seems to be taking us in the wrong direction.
Portraying the scientific community as conspiring to persecute scientists for their views on creationism : Try looking at the tone of your own editorial.
Long-ago-debunked creationist claptrap : Almost all science is clap-trap&few theories last a decade [unless they are defended by a court system].
Evolution as a theory, not a fact: See Websters definition of theory.
Most of us would be happy to listen to facts proposed. But when a theory tells me that I am an ape without a God, its proponents better be sure of their data.
Maybe a real scientist could admit that with this much controversy, we might not have the answer. Maybe there is a better theory. Maybe we need to stop spending taxpayer money on evolutionists.
- Joseph C. Eichel, M.D.
After debugging a heavily flawed claim about how creationism is responsible for all great advances in science and existence, I have come to believe two important things about intelligent design, although take note I am not implying that they are fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Intelligent Design cannot function as a true science without losing its endorsement of faith, for the obvious reason that science based on faith is science based on conjecture, and thus not science at all, unless proven ofcoarse.
2) It cannot function as a religion without faith, for the reasons that the historical claims of the bible or of the existence of a diety have never been and not likely ever will be proven.
Therefore either christianity is compelled to develop high opposition to Intelligent Design, or convert from a faith-based religion to a fact-based religion, in which case followers would abandon the 'history' that the bible supposedly records and thus cease to be christians. Ofcoarse I cant leave it unsaid that there will be a vast number of "ID" and Faith followers who do not concieve of or ignore this conundrum immediatly and will support both, becoming ignorant to the contradicting circumstances. "ID" could very possibly become a partial science, or biased study that ignores evidence/facts and especially the lack thereof.
Only an impartial, unbiased review of facts/evidence can be called true science. Again I claim : There Can Be No 'Faith' In Science, Otherwise It Is Not Science.
Nicely said, toothful. Totally agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts like a mandelbrot fractal, the underlying cause is infinity.
Form from infinity. Without the infinite, no form can be.
All religions state that God is infinite. Man, and religion has perverted this beyond any and all meaning though. Though most religions are saying God is infinite, and whatever, they still fight over which is the 'true' one.
Its laughable, cuz there can only be ONE. Theyre all the same!!
Its like a finger pointing to the moon, being mistaken for the moon itself.
xylyx3d - you're jumping the gun. We're talking about evolution, for which there is evidence and fact. The Big Bang is merely a theory, and not inherently tied to evolution. I'm sure there are forms of creationist thought that are not inherently tied to organized religion, but I have yet to see examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZorropisa - of course a naturalistic/secular world view is going to be rigid. It's based on science, which is based on evidence and fact. We've seen science refute the word of God time and time again (the world is flat? everything revolves around the earth? the world is 6000 years old?). Science has proven the case for creationism sketchy at best, while even the 'mistakes' in science were entirely mistakes - most of the time, it was the result of evidence overlooked.
Until tangible, credible evidence can be shown proving the existence of the intelligent being responsible for our design, I do not think it should be taught in a classroom as fact. Since it's case does not follow the scientific method, it can't be considered part of science curriculum. If it is taught, it should be taught in a class on world religion, or as a elective theory class in college.
See the above about the anthropomorphic principal. You are basically applying what we do to the universe, which is a logical fallacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... There Can Be No 'Faith' In Science, Otherwise It Is Not Science...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------------------------
Duh, how true.
Unfortunately, the faithful are ignorant, by definition, so even simple concepts like this escape them.
Funny, how different ignoramuses are willing to blindly believe (and sometimes die,) for different mythologies, largely dependent on the geographical location of their birth. The same lunatics thumping a Bible in your face in the Bible Belt, would be thumping a Koran, had they been born in Saudi Arabia, or The Book of Mormon, if born in Salt Lake City.
Actually, it would be funny, if only their lunacy didn't cause them to harm the rest of us, either by "martyring" themselves, or by hounding or shooting family-planning professionals, or by preventing legitimate scientific research, or by committing child-abuse by brainwashing kids.
Nope, stop right there. To deny a creator is NOT denying that we were all created equal, just to deny we were created. We all share a species, so we are equal in that sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, no, science cannot work with religion to find truth, because religion is a bunch of unprovable assertions, and science is looking for evidence.
Last, you claim some magician created the universe, therefor YOU must prove he DID. It is not up to scientists to prove otherwise. That which is presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Why are templates needed? Why is an actor need in this action? It is called the Anthropomorphic Principal, and is a logical fallacy. So try again when you have shed yourself of your self important human centric views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere to begin... well I'll start with ""struggling to survive" demands purpose and purpose demands reason and reason demands meaning." Being alive is the meaning of life. End of story. Now, since we are conscious of ourselves and our lifespans, we can choose to add additional meaning to our lives, such as basic human rights. We can enjoy our families, be kind to one another, have children, and live decent lives that do not cause harm to others. No need for a deity cluttering things up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheLivingTInman, Ill explain why templates are needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts really simple...
www.randommutation.com
This site clearly shows a sentence. When you click mutate. It changes a letter one by one. Just as if random mutation was changing genes, one by one. In the end, all you end up with is garbage. Uncoherence.
By the same logic therefore, applied to DNA, which are 'sentences' with grammar structures etc....then random mutation can also only create uncoherence, or in our case...extinction.
I already posted this, but perhaps you didnt read it??
So here it is again.
You may have read Dawkins' book 'The Blind watchmaker'. In one of the chapters he tries to prove random mutation by running random letters through a computer which 'mutates' the letters, to form a readable sentence. Basically every time it finds a wrong letter it throws it away. Every time it finds a right letter it keeps it. So, according to him, its basically mimicking natural selection, choosing whats best, and getting rid of the rest. And he claims that after only 30 or 40 iterations of his program, he went from totally randomized letters to getting this coherent sentence.
"methinks it is like a weasel"
What blows my mind is that he says it's a perfect illustration of evolution via random mutation/natural selection.
But its not at all!
Its actually a brilliant example of intelligent design or guided/conscious evolution.
Cuz for the computer to be able to throw away the bad letters, it had to know what the good letters were!! It had an END GOAL that was pre-programmed into it. The random letters had a 'template' that they were mutating towards.
Sure the mutations were 'random', but the end result was predetermined by a 'higher' intelligence. (a la Dawkins selecting a sentence)
So thats why you need templates.
Hence, guided evolution, or ID (ugh, hate that term) is the most rational conclusion to evolution.
And no, Im not applying 'anthropic' principles to this debate.
Im not christian, or a fundamentalist to any degree.
Im just a truth seeker.
And Blind/Random evolution fits nowhere in that truth. Because the mathematics behind the insurmountable odds to create life and all forms randomly are HUGE. That, IMO, requires faith beyond measure.
Words like "transcendent", "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "eternal" are mostly religious terms. They have no meaning in the world of science. So you should not try to impress us with "one to one probability" statements. It is 100% nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally am just as sadenned that there seem to be so many people who require a God to give their lives meaning. I just don't pretend that my life's meaning extends much beyong this life and the lives of those whom I can influence positively.
Okay, Tinman, let me see if I've got this straight...God doesn't exist unless (until) someone PROVES God exists? So, by that logic, the world really WAS flat until we proved otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't prove God exists, you can't prove God does not exist, therefore the only fact of God's existence is that it can't be proven.
I believe in evolution, but it is a theory. Given the evidence, it is very rational to conclude that evolution is the process which created said evidence. A couple of thousand years ago it seemed equally rational to conclude that the world is flat.
Evolution is a process, not an object. We can prove that the earth is round (or nearly so) by measuring it. For all the supporting evidence behind the theory of evolution, we can not prove the process because we did not see it, did not measure it, and can not duplicate it. That it makes such 'perfect' sense to you and I does not make the process of evolution a fact.
By comparison, proving or disproving the existence of God is far more difficult (more difficult than impossible? YES!) To claim that something doesn't (or worse, can't) exist because you see no direct evidence is a failure of logic I would expect from a Christian Literalist Fundamentalist. Or perhaps a flat-earther (they're still around, look it up).
If science has shown us nothing else in the last millenium, it has shown us that our most profound understanding is always flawed. But when you argue unprovable points using equally stupid but opposite arguments to those of your 'adversary' you simply contribute to the combined ignorance of the absolutist war.
ALL SCIENCE IS "FAITH" BASED!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is based on the "BELIEF" that the laws of physics (chemistry included) will "FAITHFULLY" continue as they have.
some here don't understand what the "faith" is in CHRISTIANITY. it is not a "blind faith" which many evolutionists exercise in their religion, but a reasoned faith based on empirical evidence (seeing is believing, too!) we observe the world around us and see evidence of an intelligent cause for the universe and the diversity of life.
we have "eyewitness", recorded, historical accounts by people who were subjected to torturous deaths for transmitting the "TRUTH" that our CREATOR GOD became flesh and lived among them ( they saw, touched, and heard HIM) and will return.
how many here would die for something they "know" is a lie, anyone?
we divided time from this point in our history (A.D.; B.C.; B.C.E.; C.E.; etc.)
the primary "FAITH" is whether or not you believe that YHWH "is" from the empirical evidence and that HE is our only "HOPE" for now and eternity through "FAITH" in HIS WORD of promises yet to be fulfilled (even this is not "blind", for all of the promises which have already been fulfilled lead us to "believe" that HE will keep the rest.
It should be stated that its a commonly held belief that all evolution is random, and a misinterpretation it is. A very deep misinterpretation that is propagated most heavily by opponents to the theory of evolution, i believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of random genetic mutation does not claim that your DNA mutates at random, but rather specific sequences mutate at random** in an attempt to adapt the current system with a new mechanism, often leading to unuseable results that are reworked. keep in mind this is not a cingular genetic profile we are talking about, but an entire species. This process takes time.
As an example many opponents of evolution turn to a random character generator in the english language and say that because it cannot produce coherent sentences or even words from an originally coherent sentence in an amount of time relevant to existence that it debunks darwinian evolution. This Is False for two reasons:
1) The english language has rules that dictate form, like DNA does, and a completely random process will not in a realistic timespan produce coherence to those rules, However random DNA mutation does not mutate any strand of DNA at* random, in a random place, but a specific base pair(it is specific because it has the most relevance in the gene responsible for a possible solution to the mutation-driving condition), untill it gets a working result, like generating random letters, in order to get a sentence.
No Template is needed this way as evolution always takes the easiest path to the solution of the manipulating factor, which is consequently the first mutation that works* to adapt to the condition. sometimes multiple solutions...
2) Relevance. The english language has many words that can be paired to make sentences, however they are still independent of eachother, you can use them in what ever fashion you like. therefore, they have no particular relevance to eachother.
DNA is different, significantly. Random mutations occur repeatedly, especially throughout a species generations and only the ones that are relevant to the manpiulating conditions are retained. the various mechanisms that determine relevance of genetic mutations in DNA is not applied to the random character generator, due to claims that simulating them is ID, making it impossible for a computer* to reproduce them.
Causes of genetic mutation are someitmes an effect of external conditions, like radiation, sometimes to maximize effeciency ect...the list goes on for a bit because there is no one and only reason why evolution occurs
It should be stated that its a commonly held belief that all evolution is random, and a misinterpretation it is. A very deep misinterpretation that is propagated most heavily by opponents to the theory of evolution, i believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of random genetic mutation does not claim that your DNA mutates at random, but rather specific sequences mutate at random** in an attempt to adapt the current system with a new mechanism, often leading to unuseable results that are reworked. keep in mind this is not a cingular genetic profile we are talking about, but an entire species. This process takes time.
As an example many opponents of evolution turn to a random character generator in the english language and say that because it cannot produce coherent sentences or even words from an originally coherent sentence in an amount of time relevant to existence that it debunks darwinian evolution. This Is False for two reasons:
1) The english language has rules that dictate form, like DNA does, and a completely random process will not in a realistic timespan produce coherence to those rules, However random DNA mutation does not mutate any strand of DNA at* random, in a random place, but a specific base pair(it is specific because it has the most relevance in the gene responsible for a possible solution to the mutation-driving condition), untill it gets a working result, like generating random letters, in order to get a sentence.
No Template is needed this way as evolution always takes the easiest path to the solution of the manipulating factor, which is consequently the first mutation that works* to adapt to the condition. sometimes multiple solutions...
2) Relevance. The english language has many words that can be paired to make sentences, however they are still independent of eachother, you can use them in what ever fashion you like. therefore, they have no particular relevance to eachother.
DNA is different, significantly. Random mutations occur repeatedly, especially throughout a species generations and only the ones that are relevant to the manpiulating conditions are retained. the various mechanisms that determine relevance of genetic mutations in DNA is not applied to the random character generator, due to claims that simulating them is ID, making it impossible for a computer* to reproduce them.
Causes of genetic mutation are someitmes an effect of external conditions, like radiation, sometimes to maximize effeciency ect...the list goes on for a bit because there is no one and only reason why evolution occurs.
Appologies to all who read these comments for the double post, it was unintentional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am forever done debating on the ideology and philosophy of intelligent design. Such debates should be reserved to the professional scientists/ theologists that can accurately and adequately debate them.
To limit comments to actual comments and not debates Sciam should reduce the character limit from 3000 characters to 1000 and place a 2-3 post limit on all email addresses.
"it is specific because it has the most relevance in the gene responsible for a possible solution to the mutation-driving condition"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just proved what I was getting at with this one sentence.
The organism 'knew' (not intellectually, but holistically) which genes to mutate.
how?
I do understand what youre getting at, and it makes sense, in some situations. Like mutating a specific gene changing us from lactose intolerant to be able to drink milk all the time. Because we force ourselves to drink milk. A changing condition. Microevolution.
But nothing, I repeat....nothing...in the environment, will cause us to change into another species.
Also evolution has been shown to happen in spurts/explosions, hence why we dont find all these intermediary forms.
And how does a bug mutate a leaf on its back for camouflage?? Whats the driving condition, as you put, for this to happen?? Whats the feedback mechanism to know that the leaf matches the ones in the area?
If evolution is correct, which all the evidence indicates that it is, then no, that doesn't disprove that intelligence "a god" exists somewhere in the universe. It does, however prove that the creation story in the Bible is not in fact true, but rather nothing more than a fabrication by superstitious nomads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. There should be no debate whatsoever with any clergy regarding what should be taught in a science classroom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, I'm shocked at the number of Christians on this board. Why would they read or care about a publication devoted to reason and science? And no, my comments aren't a slam on Christians, but rather they simply reflect the reality of Christian's supernatural belief system. If you believe <insert your favorite deity here> is the explanation for the unknown, then why would you care about science, who's job it is to reject supernatural explanations and further our knowledge?
KENeconomyCLAST opines:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Tell me, Spin-oza, if I have complete knowledge of HOW a building was erected does this knowledge prove the non-existence of the craftsmen who built it or the architect who designed it? You seem to imply this absurd notion is an obvious fact. For that matter, does the understanding of HOW automatically mean that there could not possibly be a why? Careful how you answer, YOU'RE supposed to be the rational one!
WELL, it seems that since you cannot argue biological facts and evidence on scientific merits... which any one denying Evolution must needs do... and are reduced to the drivel above... making straw-men, bogus analogies, which signify... nada.
WE are not taking about your little dim corner of consciousness and ontological constructs... hopeless muddled by years of religious indoctrination repeated ad nauseum. You are merely parroting Paley's infamous, specious and discredited watchmaker analogy. How sad. In case you had not noticed, the UNIVERSE is NEITHER A WATCH NOR A BUILDING!
LIKE CHILDREN, the faith-based must have a "why" that comforts them... just like the fact that again like children, they cannot accept their evolved place in the Cosmos and their MORTALITY. They slefishly wish for (eternal) demigod status and to be APART FROM Nature, instead recognizing they are intimately embedded and A PART OF Nature.
EVERTHING EVOLVES... everything changes... nothing is permanent!
TO POSTULATE an entity of unimaginable complexity that preceded the singularity of the Big Bang... then it would be so improbable as to be absurd... and beyond that, would be unknowable to frail humans... NOT to mention a huge target for Occam's Razor... or the beginning of an infinite regress, eh?
BY ALL MEANS, cling to whatever gets you through the night, but realize that unlike Evolution, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for your creator god... or "he" must have such a light, celestial touch as to not have left a trace of evidence.... which makes "him" irrelevant to our lives.
MUCH like impotent "prayer", NOT A SHREAD OF EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PROVE ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL. The onerous, vindictive, bible-sky-god certainly needs not be invoked to explain ANY ASPECT of our Universe, much less our completely evolved selves.
BTW, KENican'tholdaGLASS, I doubt you have "complete knowledge" of anything... especially not the origins of your canonical bible and the reams of fiction, superstitions, redactions, and contradictions contained therin.
READ V. Stenger's "God the Failed Hypothesis"!
Bye.
No, you do not have it straight. I said that it was up to the claimant to PROVE the existence of their aforementioned deity, just like it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt in a trial. The default state of something beyond our senses is 'nonexistent', so it is up to those who claim to have an invisible man looking after them to find a way to prove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxylyx3d : no doubt Plato, Aristotle and Galen, along with all the Chinese scientists I can't name, were Christians too - but they just didn't know it! Poor fools. Perhaps economic development is a result of Christianity too, as Adam Smith was Christian! Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, as my Roman pals used to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSPACEdude3:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent comments and unlike the faith-based apologists posting here, totally germane to the article.
I am never "shocked" by the "christians" and the bogus arguments they make or the shameful tactics they continue to employ to gain political clout ... while attempting to coopt science to serve their narrow, constricted religious dogma.
YUPPERS, the article nicely recounts America's special brand of christian blowhards using whatever means available to force teachers in the public, secular domain to adopt their incredibly stupid "creation science", in whatever clothing it is currently adorned.
IT'S bad enough this country is both incredibly ignorant and hyperreligious (could these two attributes possibly be linked?), has mega-church-social-clubs dotting the landscape like kudzu and cheeseball televangelists polluting the airways 24/7. However, these pew-lemmings are not content with this much largesse... noooo... they must foist their incoherent trilune god on relatively defenseless children in the science classroom as well.
Of course, like the "church fathers" (who actually admitted it in unguarded documented comments) of old, they carry on a grand christian tradition: DECEPTION in the NAME OF GOD.
SHEESH!
To: xylyx3d
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments show your lack of even brief reading against the views you believe. Please, please, PLEASE read up on what you are talking about.
Quote xylyx3d : "Science arose from Christianity"
It arose DESPITE christianity. It was, alter all, official catholic doctrine of the blood libel against Jews until 1912 - read up on that pearl of wisdom.
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place...."
Galileo?
In return for his work (SCIENTIFIC work), what did the church do? Thanks to these bronze age myths: Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest. His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
Einstein?
He was a Jew! Besides, he clearly stated:
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Also, you are taking a very Euro-centric view of the world. Most of the world thinks that christianity is hog-wash. They have science - and it never came from Christianity! The Chinese invented the compass, gunpowder, the printing press. Christianity kept Europe behind the rest of the world, and ONLY science pulled it ahead. Now the attempt to return to obvious falsehoods of religion, will only sink us in terms of world standards.
If a doctor told you he had "faith" in homeopathic medicine, and it had been "revealed" to him to work, I hope you would run screaming! Just as you should from your church. False consolation, and repetition of falsehoods, will never make it true.
Evolution is real. Its the foundation of many sciences, to the point that they would not work, if not for evolution. We bred all the wondrous varieties of dogs, cabbage, sheep, cattle, and many, many more, through “Artificial Selection”. Fact. Simply put, evolution only adds to this, pressures from sources OTHER than Humans.
I politely request, that you print a retraction on AT VERY LEAST your comments about Einstein and poor Galileo.
This article puts the lie to its own statement that "...Aren’t teachers in the public schools already exhorted to promote critical thinking, logical analysis and objective discussion of the scientific theories that they discuss? Yes,...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHa! Apparently not, if such suspension of critical thinking and outright lies about the subject matter is offered as an example.
First, pretending the lie that every proponent of Intelligent Design is a stealth creationist is one of the stupidest thing you can say for your argument. As a Young-Earth Creationist myself, I totally reject the Muslim doctrines of Harun Yahya, the pagan New Age doctrines of professional co-workers who agree with the principles of ID, the agnosticism of Andrew Flew, and many scientist members of Discovery Center who are Christians who nonetheless fully believe in general darwinian evolutionary history, but reject most emphatically what is known as Creationism.
And denying the role of Inquisitor Against Academic Freedom rings so hollow, it lacks the mass of a quark.
They are panicked at the prospect of a free and open debate. They learned their lesson after a few humiliating defeats by some of their outstanding luminaries...
--the truther
"The default state of something beyond our senses is 'nonexistent',"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislol, theres more beyond our senses than there is not.
X-rays, Gamma rays, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc etc.
And I think the photon has best fitted the description of God. IMO
Religions say God exists in a timeless domain. He is omniscient and omnipotent.
Well a photon is timeless. It experiences no time, and all time, at the same time. It represents infinity....And without light, nothing would exist....Therefore a photon is also omnipotent.
I dont believe in a God, but if I did, the discovery of the properties of a photon would be proof of my concept of a God.
Reply to KenIconoclast:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKenIconoclast “First, present it as a theory instead of a fact. “
This was a religious proposition, and was not held by other more advanced cultures of the time. If memory serves, the chinese mapped the stars and placed earth in a orbit around the sun at about 500BC (certainly BC). Flat-earth was not based on evidence. None what so ever. And that, is the very point. There is NO evidence against evolution – those put forward have been thoroughly routed.
KenIconoclast “Second, it should be illegal to teach that evolution somehow proves that God doesn't exist”
Illegal?? Are you insane?
Just at it does not disprove of the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the China Tea Pot in space. It does, however, prove that the bronze age myths are junk, by clearly refutting their preposterous claims and statements about the world that can be clearly disproved.
KenIconoclast “They fear that their belief structure would be threatened or canceled out if evolution were true.”
That’s exactly right. It is.
KenIconoclast “First, evolution is a very strongly supported theory, the best thoughts of the best scientific minds on the subject;”
Just like gravity. I have a brick in my hand I can drop on your head as a simple test, to add to the “weight” of evidence. But I bet you are not prepared to call that “theory” JUST a theory!
KenIconoclast “Second, evolution can NEVER be PROVEN”
Neither can be it PROVEN that you have a functioning brand in your head. More evidence, yes, but not PROVEN.
KenIconoclast “Third, there is nothing in or about the theory of evolution that can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, such a comparison is tantamount to proving or disproving God by the lint in my belly button.”
You have all of us on that point. Just like the lint in your head. Seems to act like a brain…. But then again…
It does prove (if you are prepared to accept the evidence you have a brain) that so many factual statement in the books are WRONG. They are obviously utterly man made drivel.
KenIconoclast “Beyond this, the religious literalists need to read 1 Corinthians 13:9 and remember…..”…. blah blah blah.
Let us remember 1 Samuel 15:3
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
Bring a tear to your eye… such a loving god! How about another one?
KenIconoclast They fear that their belief structure would be threatened or canceled out if evolution were true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKiwiKan"Thats exactly right. It is."
Only because they are stupid, KK. Gee, I hope you didn't agree with them...
The problem here is that your childish, knee-jerk reaction to their stupidity is to answer with more stupidity. First of all, you seem incapable of accepting the FACT (I know, cuz this FACT lives in my head where you say the lint is) that I do not reject your science in the slightest! What I reject is your absolutism. You will require that I, with a 140 I.Q., be branded a simpering idiot if I don't embrace it with all the vigor that you do, INCLUDING abject rejection of a spiritual matter which is one of personal experience for me. I on the other hand DO NOT require you to BELIEVE me, NOR to ACCEPT my personal experience as valid evidence!
Furthermore, I personally resent the insinuation that because I believe in God I *MUST* be the same kind of religious zealots that I have come to hate more than you do for dramatically different reasons.
The bottom line here is that just because there is no evidence to prove something doesn't mean that it doesn't and/or can't exist. ANYONE who preaches otherwise is preaching CRAP SCIENCE. And that goes for Darwinists and Bible Thumpers ALIKE, EQUALLY, AND DOUBLE!
I understand why my Christian bretheren hate me, because their ignorance is so deeply rooted in poor teaching of their own scriptures that many can't have a chance to understand the truth, which is that no matter how much we learn, there's still WAY MORE TO IT!!! Matters of science and spirit alike are, in their totality, beyond human comprehension. And God WANTED us to try, and KNEW we'd continually think we were either on the verge of understanding it all, or already there.
Tell me, KK or ANYBODY, these ancient chinese scientists, did they find, much less figure out black holes, galaxies, quarks or neutrinos? How long did they exist without proof? Or did they exist at all before someone looked outside his box long enough to try to prove the existence of something noone ever thought of.
If you don't believe in God, that's fine with me, and none of my business, but GOOD SCIENCE PLUS ELITIST ABSOLUTISM EQUALS CRAP SCIENCE. Evolution is good science, even great, but forcing it down peoples throats and calling them ninnies if they cant see the greatness of it is a lot like the inquisition tactics you people so gleefully reference to "prove" your point.
LOL...KK, In my last post my references, to KK were to KiwiKan, not you. I like your theory...the scriptures say God Is light, and I never knew that about photons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust like KiwiKan, Spin-oza, you accuse me of ideas I do not hold. I believe in evolution AND God, and you hit me with your memorized spiel about how people who DON'T must be stupid and also believe your ad nauseum list of stupid ideas. NO ONE has absolute knowledge, that is a direct misquote, in contrast to all the stupid trash you took from others and attributed to me. ANYONE, Darwinist and Christian alike who believes that evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive was badly educated on one or both subjects. I assume that your major loss was in having bad preachers, and I am sorry for your loss, but HOW DARE YOU accuse ME of believing the kind of tripe so many of my Christian idiot bretheren bash you with? YOU are the one with the narrow mind!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have asked before, and never heard of an answer to this simple question. If the ID types want to "teach the strengths & weaknesses" of both creationism and evolution, let us see, in writing, exactly what they consider those to be, FOR BOTH SIDES. We already know the strengths & weaknesses of both, from the evolution supporters. Ket's see something from the ID types on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have asked before, and never heard of an answer to this simple question. If the ID types want to "teach the strengths & weaknesses" of both creationism and evolution, let us see, in writing, exactly what they consider those to be, FOR BOTH SIDES. We already know the strengths & weaknesses of both, from the evolution supporters. Ket's see something from the ID types on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have asked before, and never heard of an answer to this simple question. If the ID types want to "teach the strengths & weaknesses" of both creationism and evolution, let us see, in writing, exactly what they consider those to be, FOR BOTH SIDES. We already know the strengths & weaknesses of both, from the evolution supporters. Ket's see something from the ID types on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have asked before, and never heard of an answer to this simple question. If the ID types want to "teach the strengths & weaknesses" of both creationism and evolution, let us see, in writing, exactly what they consider those to be, FOR BOTH SIDES. We already know the strengths & weaknesses of both, from the evolution supporters. Ket's see something from the ID types on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskeith3196: "But to deny creationism is also to deny the belief we are all created equal as well!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense. Basic human rights are a separate issue, beyond the claim of any one belief.
keith3196: "Again, can't science work with religion to discover truths?"
There have been other comments here suggesting this. Why I personally consider the suggestion unworkable has to do with the factor that, were it ever possible to establish the existence of 'God' in a laboratory, then what 'God' actually is would change forever, and free will would become redundant. That this would be the consequence of a melding of science and religion underscores why they have different fields of operations. Science deals in empirical values. Belief requires no proofs. That's why it's called 'faith'.
toothful: "ALL SCIENCE IS "FAITH" BASED! it is based on the "BELIEF" that the laws of physics (chemistry included) will "FAITHFULLY" continue as they have."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's as much as you know about the workings of science. I suggest that you go to a good dictionary and learn the difference between such terms as 'deduce', infer', 'interpolate', 'interpret', and so on. The religious who oppose science for reasons of belief always attempt to establish that science is a 'faith' as well. It's a familiar tactic, but the analogy remains spurious no matter how many times it is claimed.
To my Christian bretheren: Get a Grip! 1 Cor 13:8-10 explicitly tells us that all human knowledge will pass away. This means that any understanding we have of the dawn of time is flawed, whether gained through bible study or science, we are not advanced enough to comprehend the whole picture. What spiritual significance could there possibly be in the age of the planet, universe or human race. The significance in these points lies in our desire to have perfect knowledge, and more importantly, knowledge more perfect than the knowledge of everyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour own Savior spoke in parables, He said things so mysterious that His hand picked disciples frequently made Him re-explain His words. And yet, creation had to happen in 7 days of 24 hours, otherwise the "foundation" of your beliefs become suspect? How dare we demand such compliance from our God to REQUIRE Him to perform miracles in ways we can easily explain and understand.
Even if the 7x24 explanation IS literally true, is God so weak that He could not squeeze billions of years of astrological time and geological time and billions of generations of species into those seven days? If your faith is so weak that you can't hold on to it without the feeling of absolute knowledge, then at least take some direction from Christ, Paul and Peter (and others, but these three I can quote) and walk away from non-believers who won't hear the "truth". (I put "truth" in quotes because, as mentioned above, our understanding of real spiritual truth ia flawed and incomplete.)
To the Darwinists who think evolution disproves God: How does it feel to act as stupidly as the Christians you ridicule for their stupidity? You operate on their level, using character assassination as "proof". You claim to be champions of rational thought, yet the greatest scientific discoveries of all time came from people who refused to be bound by other peoples definition of rational. If we only had science that seemed rational when first posited, we'd be lucky to be out of the dark ages by now.
As for me, I will continue to rejoice in every scientific development I see as further evidence of the Power and Greatness of God! Now, before you attack me, make sure whether you are trying to defend your science (which I do not attack), or whether you just want to hold a crusade or inquisition against those of us who believe in a God you hate.
@ KenIconoclast Change all the references in your post from “God” to “Invisible Pink Unicorn” and you will maybe understand why rationalists ridicule you for your belief, especially when you expect us to respect you because you quote “which is one of personal experience for me.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have the same amount of evidence = 0. People with your views I think are the worst. You just spew white noise about how you try and rationalise science and religion, and convince the world that your version is somehow correct. You have to admit to be religious, whatever “version" you take forces you not just irrational, but anti rational. Also for someone who is boasting their claimed IQ, to come up with such weak arguments like “The bottom line here is that just because there is no evidence to prove something doesn't mean that it doesn't and/or can't exist.” Does nothing to justify that claim. You cant disprove an infinite number of things but that does not mean the chance of it being true is 50/50 and that you should live your life under the assumption that it is true. WEAK WEAK WEAK logic.
I would just love to divide the world.... All religious believes on one side and atheists on the other.... You would all tear each other to shreds in wars (like all history) and trying to “prove your faith is the true one” and the rest of us can live in peace and prosperity with science & serious moral philosophers leading the way.
Discussion of the fallacies of evolution. Scary. A "fact" that can't stand scrutiny by the "ignorant masses". I say protect it by any means. Remember phlogiston.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Kenlconoclast
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As for me, I will continue to rejoice in every scientific development I see as further evidence of the Power and Greatness of God."
Futher examples of white noise. You have a very serious virus that has hijacked you mind and has screwed your ability to think critically. You are starting with untouchable TRUTH and bending over backwards to make everything fit, as demonstrated with your quote. That is NOT the scientific method.
Dividing the world: Already been done. It was called communism. It was an atheistic "utopia". Got 66 million Soviets killed. And that was just during Stalin's tenure. Idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven while writing that I KNEW some ignorant fool was either going to quote Hitler or Stalin. It didn’t take long..... What I suggested in no way implies communism & to call that an “Atheist Utopia”..... Just shows stupidity. Stalin’s dictatorship was nothing to do with atheism and in fact has EVERYTHING in common with a RELIGIOUS dictatorship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution as a theory, not a fact: See Webster's definition of theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWebster's: "1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."
Yup, that fits about right. "Theory" in science is not just a hunch, guess, or assumption. Theories in science explain all observations of a phenomena, and make testable predictions about future observations. Evolution does this.
@ KenIconoclast: Scary stuff. I can almost see the manic glint in your eye from here. 'Darwinists' thinking evolution disproves God? Character assassination? "against those of us who believe in a God you hate." Who said anything about hating God? You're losing the plot, KenIconoclast. Get a grip. You sound like someone who feeds upon the disdain of others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't argue the evolution vs intelligent design issue because I don't believe this is the appropriate venue. Similarly, I'm very disappointed SciAm published what amounts to nothing more than a political editorial with no redeeming scientific value. The editor who approved the publication of this piece should at least review his priorities for this publication and resign if they feel this kind of material is appropriate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKenl >> Tell me, Spin-oza, if I have complete knowledge of HOW a building was erected does this knowledge prove the non-existence of the craftsmen who built it or the architect who designed it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxylyx3d >> The galaxies appeared slowly from chaos into the organized clusters we perceive today. - another miracle, chaos leads to more chaos, not order
toothful >> a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal uncaused FIRST CAUSE has a one to one probability of creating the universe and everything in it.
Fear not, people of reason. The profusion of ID supporters in this thread is nothing more than what the faith-heads call a "believer blitz"; an organized "group spam" of a site like this that allows comments to its articles. When one of the "faithful" finds an article like this one, "sheep-mail" goes out to all their cronies who blitz the site with an endless torrent of sectarian spin. The dead giveaway is the content. As you can see from the quotes cited above, they're all filled with common logic errors (like Kenl's), ignorance masquerading as scientific knowledge (like xylyx3ds), and ridiculous, unsubstantiated proclamations (like toothfuls Im still chuckling about that one). Nowhere in these posts will you find novel thought or a rational argument. Theyre banking on the assumption that most people will just accept as true the beliefs of the majority. But history illustrates quite graphically what happens when the truth is decided by public opinion and not impassionate evaluation of the evidence. Men are persecuted for revealing the truth when it contradicts religious dogma (Galileo), women are burned at the stake for merely appearing suspicious (the witch trials worldwide) and children are brutally molested by the very same men they were taught to call father the men they were taught to look to for gods salvation.
dog
Kenl >> Tell me, Spin-oza, if I have complete knowledge of HOW a building was erected does this knowledge prove the non-existence of the craftsmen who built it or the architect who designed it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxylyx3d >> The galaxies appeared slowly from chaos into the organized clusters we perceive today. - another miracle, chaos leads to more chaos, not order
toothful >> a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal uncaused FIRST CAUSE has a one to one probability of creating the universe and everything in it.
Fear not, people of reason. The profusion of ID supporters in this thread is nothing more than what the faith-heads call a "believer blitz"; an organized "group spam" of a site like this that allows comments to its articles. When one of the "faithful" finds an article like this one, "sheep-mail" goes out to all their cronies who blitz the site with an endless torrent of sectarian spin. The dead giveaway is the content. As you can see from the quotes cited above, they're all filled with common logic errors (like Kenl's), ignorance masquerading as “scientific knowledge” (like xylyx3d’s), and ridiculous, unsubstantiated proclamations (like toothful’s – I’m still chuckling about that one). Nowhere in these posts will you find novel thought or a rational argument. They’re banking on the assumption that most people will just accept as true the beliefs of the majority. But history illustrates quite graphically what happens when the “truth” is decided by public opinion and not impassionate evaluation of the evidence. Men are persecuted for revealing the truth when it contradicts religious dogma (Galileo), women are burned at the stake for merely “appearing” suspicious (the “witch trials” worldwide) and children are brutally molested by the very same men they were taught to call “father” – the men they were taught to look to for “god’s” salvation.
dog•ma, n. [ dáwgmə, dógmə ] (plural dog•mas or dog•ma•ta [ dáwgmətə ])
1. institutionalized ignorance
tra•di•tion [ trə dísh'n ] (plural tra•di•tions)
1. see “dogma”
The theory of creation - based on dogma and supported by faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of evolution - based on observation and supported by empirical evidence (ie experimental and environmental fact).
Evolution is not a belief. It is a rigorously tested theory supported by myriad examples in diverse fields - unlike creationism/ ID. Creationsim is an ideology not a science and, as such, belongs in religious education or philosophy class. If ID is to be taught in schools, then so should Scientologists' version of the origins of humans, and other like theories/ religions/ belief systems (it's only fair, after all, to include all theories - Pachamama, Xenu and Shiva would be upset not to be included).
RESTLESSbutnotDEVIANT: thanks for keeping KENecomonyCLASS's pathologic rantings somewhat in check... otherwise, the thread would be totally spammed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE point of the article is the long unrelenting history of shameful, bogus tactics and lies used by bible-believing "christians" to undermine the rock-solid edifice of evolution, in public, secular schools. The case against these creation-science oxymorons is, like evolution itself, air-tight.
The trial in the Dover DE, decided by a "conservative judge" layed out in detail how pathetically transparent their plots... and how vacuous their pseudo-science.
MUSTACH above whines that he won't "debate" ID v. Evolution here... blah, blah, blah. Of course you won't, since one it is among the most profound, elegant and powerful scientific theories... the proverbial foundation of all biological science... while the ID is the wishful musings of the religiously indoctrinated, having zero scientific merit.
THE point here, is that those of us on the side of unfettered science and reason as humanities best methodology of arriving at some understanding of the Universe in which all life embedded, don't real care what any one's "religious beliefs" may be. We do care passionately that those personal delusions be kept out of science, the classroom and politics. I think most of us agree that the Founding Fathers got it right with the bedrock Constitutional principle separating church and state, eh?
BTW MUSTACH, if you wish to posit ID as some "explanatory hypothesis" for our observable universe. I would be more than happy to debate you, anytime.
EVOLUTION is only supported by... uh... all the available evidence... not only in biology, but is absolutely coherent with geology, palentology, bio-chemistry and even astrophysics. The revealtion of genetics has merely been the proverbial slam-dunk Darwin could have only wished.
I remember when the bogus "Discovery Institute" trotted out some of their payrolled, lackey "scientists" to raise doubt about evolution... oh, about 5 years ago... and supposedly had a list of other "scientists" who had similar misgivings. It was soon "discovered" that most of these scientists were 1. not in biological fields and 2. not credible. But what was most amusing is that this dirty dozen or so sham-scientists represented to the public as having "real scientific" questions regarding evolution were overwhelming countered by "STEVE's LIST", over 700 bio-academics who completely supported evolution, whose first-name happened to be... Steve!
Cheers
mblarson - good job!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxylyx3d >> The galaxies appeared slowly from chaos into the organized clusters we perceive today. - another miracle, chaos leads to more chaos, not order
Have you ever heard of Chaos Theory?
Or how about gravity? But, so yes, it too is only a theory. Why don't you get onto the roof of your house, or apartment building, or church, and as you take that step off the edge, yell out to everyone, "It's only a theory!"
For those ID believers, likewise, ID is only a theory. Further, if it is to be considered as valid as scientific evolution, then please state the many advances humanity can directly tie to the theory of ID. Those advances, both in quality and quantity, should be on par with that of scientific evolution.
As far as I've found Creationism\ID has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism\ID has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.
And until it has, there is NO validity to it.
Earlier this year in the case, Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al., Behe stated that science books like 'Biology for Christian Schools' are perfectly good science textbooks.
However, these books declare on the very first page:
A.) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."
B.) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
C.) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)
The IDers, state that we need to teach the controversy, yet as we can see above, they certainly do not want to reciprocate. In the above case, Behe testified; "it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea. . . . Requiring a student to, effectively, consent to an idea violates his personal integrity. Such a wrenching violation [may cause] a terrible educational outcome." (Behe Decl. Para. 59.)
Biologist PZ Myers wrote "the judge pointed out that the books which Behe approved flatly state that Christians must accept creationist conclusions—unlike our biology books, which don't demand any religious litmus test of their readers—and were therefore perfect examples of exactly the problem he was complaining about."
Yes, The universe may seem to be made of many miracles. However, as science advances those miracles are unveiled. Science provides an avenue for the unexplained to come to light and become the explained. This often leads to more and more mystery and in turn provides science the opportunity to cross yet another unknown horizon. Science cannot be considered a religion because it is more than willing to let go of preconceived beliefs ideas once new evidence is discovered. If religion followed the same meticulous steps as science it would self destruct because religion is not there to discover what the world is made of. It is there to provide comfort to those overwhelmed by the world around them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is there to question that same world.
Two other comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLouisiana is currently ranked as having the third worst educational system in the country.
Gee, I wonder what ranking they'll have after they start teaching Creationist/ID theory.
In reality, the "controversy" actually resides within the ranks of the religious pseudosciences.
1.) ID states that, according to Behe (ID's leading advocate), that the earth is indeed 4.6 billion years old (as reflected in his testimony in the Dover, PA trial). Which flies directly in the face of YECs (young earth creationists) and the inerrancy of the Bible which says (via theological calculations) the earth began in 4004 BCE, 6000 years years ago.
2.) As agreeing that the world is 4.6 billion years old, that would mean that scientific historical geology is true. That would therefore mean that 'The Great Deluge' did not happen. Boy, this must really be messing up those YECs.
Spin-oza -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you illustrate exactly why debating ID vs evolution in this forum is of little benefit especially when I didn't even state on which side of the debate I stand.
Second, I'm not even attempting to debate ID vs evolution. My point is a political editorial like this doesn't belong in SciAm.
I think some of the posters here are confusing 'design' and 'intelligence' with the Discovery Institute's marketed concept 'Intelligent Design', which is what I saw as the thrust of the article. Read up on the Wedge Strategy Document from the DI, read the transcripts from the Dover Trial, reads the words of the DI's daddy rabbit Phillip E. Johnson.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current incarnation of ID is NOTHING but a front for theistic Creationism. That's it, expressed in their own words. It has nothing to do with recognizing design, or even postulating intelligence, it is a sham, a front, a lie! Johnson admits there is no scientific theory of ID, other Senior DI fellows have started that for ID to actually be considered science, you would have to expand the definition of science to include supernatural causation. Their own words show how their 'take' on ID really has little to do with design or intelligence, they are using people's beliefs as tactics to push a theistic agenda specifically designed to push a single, narrow Evangelical Christian viewpoint regardless of others beliefs, actual science, or reality.
You know what the most befuddling thing about christian apologists is? These very people who claim to be "disciples of the universal truth" never offer any credible, objective support for their assertions; just the same tired errors and misinformation that have been repeatedly promulgated and thoroughly discredited for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismblarson323 offers commendable information here. I myself was beginning to wonder why the same old names kept churning out the same fallacious pseudo-science comments on other SA article threads dealing with these issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorth remembering as well that 'Intelligent Design' in it's present form was a concept dreamed up by creationists in the States for no other purpose than cynically to circumvent a legal ruling against teaching creationism.
Creationists and advocates of ID (if indeed there is a difference between the two) exercise a kind of 'science envy'. They attack science, while at the same time wishing to claim the respectability of science for themselves. But as soon as it is suggested that they submit their findings to peer adjudication, they cry foul.
Evolutionary theory has over the past century and a half worked hard under much peer scrutiny to make its way in the world. Creationists either must tread the same path or confine themselves to being 'only' a religious belief that is an extreme fundamentalist offshoot of Christianity. They can't have it both ways, much as they try.
BOOBS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow xylyx3d, all that typing to say absolutely nothing. Just because christers want to reduce science to a religion doesn't make it so. But I understand the tactic so commonly used by intellectually bankrupt creationists. It's a tactic worth pointing and laughing at, but little more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe a good and patriotic American; READ the constitution. There's a reason the establishment clause was put into the very first amendment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
@RelentlessDeviant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Futher examples of white noise. You have a very serious virus that has hijacked you mind and has screwed your ability to think critically. You are starting with untouchable TRUTH and bending over backwards to make everything fit, as demonstrated with your quote. That is NOT the scientific method."
I don't do anything to "make" it fit. It fits neatly all by itself. Absolutism is not scientific, and we would still be living in the dark ages if science never considered that there may be forces beyond human perception and possibilities beyond current human experience.
Which kind of thinking is less critical, the thinking of a man who believes that which he can not explain or prove, or the man who only accepts what others tell him is correct? Is it critical thinking to say that something can not exist just because I can't prove it? No. Critical thinking means always knowing that there is more to the story. Critical thinking requires that every new answer raises multiple new questions. I can never provide empirical evidence that God exists, and you can never provide empirical evidence that He does not. I submit that the only logical conclusion that a critical thinker can draw from this total (and permanent) lack of evidence, is that God may or may not exist. Any conclusion beyond that becomes faith. My belief that God exists, and your belief that He does not are equally unprovable and equally unscientific. Not believing in God is unrelated to science. Claiming that God is impossible because He can not be proven, is just narrow-minded bigotry, just like the Christians who claim that the Bible proves that evolution is impossible.
I understand why Christians would attack me, as I specifically say they are wrong about both science and their own religion. You, on the other hand, claim to be a critical thinker, and the only thing I attack is your absolutism, your church-like demands that anything you don't understand or agree with MUST be labeled as some sort of degenerative disease. I agree with (most of) your science, and you attack me as a twit because I say there might be more to it. Can you REALLY defend THAT as critical thinking?
@RestlessDeviant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would just love to divide the world.... All religious believes on one side and atheists on the other.... You would all tear each other to shreds in wars (like all history) and trying to “prove your faith is the true one” and the rest of us can live in peace and prosperity with science & serious moral philosophers leading the way."
Is this method of attributing to me things that I never said, thought nor practiced what you call critical thinking? I NEVER 'try to prove' my faith is 'the real one'. And, hmm...ALL scientists are peaceful and moral?
Read all my posts and you will see that I NEVER demand that others accept or agree with my faith. What I criticize is the claim that something that can not be proven is disproven by default. You say you are open minded and brand me a simpleton for being open to things you can't or won't consider. Who has the open mind, the who knows there is always more to the story, or the one who says, "That seems silly, therefore it can't be." New science continually proves past science to either be wrong or, more often, incomplete. Has science reached a level where there are no more questions? Is there nothing new to learn? Does nothing exist lest it make sense to scientists?
Our ability to explain something does not make the explanation correct, science has proven that over and over as new discoveries provide new explanations. Our understanding of a natural process does not prove that there is nothing more to it than what we have measured so far. Absolutism is anti-science, anti rational to use your phrase.
My understanding of God is clearly outside your experience, and will be for as long as you can continue to avoid it. Your understanding of science is easily within my grasp, and I embrace it up to the point where it gets so full of itself that it believes there is nothing else to know.
@RestlessDeviant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Also for someone who is boasting their claimed IQ, to come up with such weak arguments like “The bottom line here is that just because there is no evidence to prove something doesn't mean that it doesn't and/or can't exist.” Does nothing to justify that claim. You cant disprove an infinite number of things but that does not mean the chance of it being true is 50/50 and that you should live your life under the assumption that it is true. WEAK WEAK WEAK logic. "
First, I was not boasting about my I.Q. I was defending myself against someone's assertion that I was stupid. Second, where do you find the need or desire to disprove everything that isn't true? What a waste of time that would be. Are you arguing the contrary? Are you saying that anything which can't be proven is therefore proven false? Now, THAT would be WEAK WEAK WEAK logic! In fact, by that logic, black holes just came into being in the last hundred years!
My comment that a lack of evidence is not proof of lack of existence is very rational, and required of an open mind. To turn it around and imply that one must therefore accept everything unproven as real is the epitome of poor logic. It is also in direct contradiction of quantum physics, which implies that blue unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are every bit as possible as they are astronomically unlikely.
Believing the unproven is not stupid except to the narrow minded elitists who require agreement with their "absolute" knowledge.
So what is the bottom line here? I will not abandon my belief in God, and certainly not just on your say so. Must I then abandon science and stop telling my fellow Christians that you are not going to hell for believing in evolution? Maybe you should have a crusade and exterminate all us Christians who are such an abomination to your lack of God.
ambertooth:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scary stuff. I can almost see the manic glint in your eye from here.'
That's your imagination.
'Darwinists' thinking evolution disproves God? Character assassination?'
I have been told repeatedly in this discussion that I am stupid for believing in God because He clearly doesn't exist, proven false by the lack of evidence. I have been accused of believing things I don't believe, saying things I haven't said. And I have been told that the available evidence not only proves evolution is true (which I did not dispute), but also "proves" that God had nothing to do with it.
'against those of us who believe in a God you hate.'
O.K. that part was over the top, they can't hate something they don't believe in. But one of these cats suggested that it would be good if we could segregate the world and keep all religious folk away from the scientists. Is that not hate? Besides neither side would have me, where would I go?
I have said repeatedly that I LIKE science, I support science, I think evolution is good science, but I made the mistake of saying that that doesn't interfere or conflict with my belief in God, and WHOOSH! here come the hawks to call me an idiot. Meanwhile, my fellow Christians, who I directly confront for their ignorant attacks against science have been silent.
@ KenIconoclast
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust read you post cafefully and re:posted it with a few small changes (Hope you dont mind):
@RestlessDeviant
"Futher examples of white noise. You have a very serious virus that has hijacked you mind and has screwed your ability to think critically. You are starting with untouchable TRUTH and bending over backwards to make everything fit, as demonstrated with your quote. That is NOT the scientific method."
I don't do anything to "make" it fit. It fits neatly all by itself. Absolutism is not scientific, and we would still be living in the dark ages if science never considered that there may be forces beyond human perception and possibilities beyond current human experience.
Which kind of thinking is less critical, the thinking of a man who believes that which he can not explain or prove, or the man who only accepts what others tell him is correct? Is it critical thinking to say that something can not exist just because I can't prove it? No. Critical thinking means always knowing that there is more to the story. Critical thinking requires that every new answer raises multiple new questions. I can never provide empirical evidence that “INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS” exists, and you can never provide empirical evidence that “THEY” do not. I submit that the only logical conclusion that a critical thinker can draw from this total (and permanent) lack of evidence, is that “INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS” may or may not exist. Any conclusion beyond that becomes faith. My belief that “INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS” exist, and your belief that they do not are equally unprovable and equally unscientific. Not believing in “INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS” is unrelated to science. Claiming that “INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS” are impossible because they cannot be proven, is just narrow-minded bigotry, just like the Christians who claim that the Bible proves that evolution is impossible.
I understand why Christians would attack me, as I specifically say they are wrong about both science and their own religion. You, on the other hand, claim to be a critical thinker, and the only thing I attack is your absolutism, your church-like demands that anything you don't understand or agree with MUST be labeled as some sort of degenerative disease. I agree with (most of) your science, and you attack me as a twit because I say there might be more to it. Can you REALLY defend THAT as critical thinking?
Gee, I can see that you really put a lot of thought into that. You have shown me the error of my ways. You are my god now. I will believe everything you tell me. You are SUCH a deep thinker. How can I escape the iron clad logic of this fine example of critical thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry this is all too deep for you to fathom.
Thanks for a well composed piece, and for bringing up a topic that disturbs children's education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally think that evolution should be taught in school's rather than creationism. Creationism has no proof, while evolution has quite a lot.
Thus I believe creationism is false, as are many other attributes of religion.
Creationism is actually polluting the American child's mind, handicapping it from progressing any further. Religious teachings like this are annoying and cruel; what of the atheists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindu, amongst many other proud religions. This is not fair on them, and just because 75% percent of the U.S. is Christian, doesn't mean there are other religions.
This country needs teachings of the implausible to be removed, and that of the plausible to be taught. Teach evolution as a theory, teach the Big Bang as a theory, not restrict this to simple Christian beliefs.
It is unfair; for Christians will be taught this at Sunday school or whatever (I don't mean to be offensive). These teachers that are allowing the creationist theories to be taught are not mindful of agnostics; I'm not sure what age this is taught at, but if its taught at a very young age, or possibly even a middle school level, some children, who were normally agnostic, Jews, Muslim, Hindu, et cetera, think that everything taught in school is right, so they will go with that.
Sorry that I didn't add any other religions to the list, I just don't want to name all of them.
I just think scientific theories should be taught, and if not, at least don't pollute a child's mind and cloud it with impossible to prove lies.
This is a free country isn't it? Or is it ruled by solely the Christian faith?
@KenIconoclast
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your posts.
About belief and “defence” of critical thinking:
I can clearly see here that you have read my posts and change the meaning very slightly to fit your point. You are focusing on the premise “Because something can’t be disproven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist” & specifically you are under the impression that atheists are absolutists forcing Non-existence down your throat. This is not the case, please think EXACTYLY about the point I’m making. No atheist (I would hope) categorically denies the possibility of any of the 1000s of claimed, and prayed to gods & I don’t believe I ever did this. My point there is no evidence for it for any of it. So if you decide based on non-evidence to “live your life under the assumption that something is true” IE. prey etc, then you are acting on faith (admitted by yourself) It is no use going on about critical thinking and science and twisting yourself in knots. ITS FAITH... Nothing else. FAITH!!!!!! Anti Rational & Anti Science. Pause.... absorb.....
Now there are an infinite Number of things that “Could” be true. I could tell you that “I believe” that there is a Diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in your back-garden, but you wouldn’t start, (or be too happy if I) digging for it. WHY?? Because like in every other action or thought that u make decisions based on, U REQIRE EVIDENCE. You have chosen NOT to prey to all the other Gods all over the world. Think about that for a second. ALL CLAIMED GODS. We must be taking in the 1000’s worldwide. You can’t disprove them either in exactly the same way I can’t disprove your faith claim, however you join me in choosing in light of EVIDENCE not to agree with the claims, or follow you life with those teachings. One again just to be clear, NOT stating categorically that any of them couldn’t be true, just that there is no evidence.
ouch..... sore spot for you? Getting angry instead of realising the point i was making with it? It was also just a quick demonstration while i was writing a reply to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally I don't understand why the debate still goes on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism and evolution don't exclude each other, they are part of the same.
It is designed for evolution plain and simple. Both creationism and evolution is right.
I don't understand why the debate still goes on. I guess people are still stuck within an old paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism and evolution don't exclude each other, they are part of the same.
It is designed for evolution. Everything is.
Peace
Personally I don't understand why the debate still goes on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism and evolution don't exclude each other, they are part of the same.
It is designed for evolution plain and simple. Both creationism and evolution is right.
It is evolution and creationism both are right. Not is right
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRestlessDeviant,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are surely aware that there many pig-headed absolutists on all sides of most every question, I'm sorry I mistook you for one of them. I disagree on faith being anti rational, more like unrelated to rationality. Also, don't think for a moment that I dismiss any religion based on evidence, unless you are ready to start accepting spiritual evidence.
What started all of this was my assertion that evolution is not fact. When I was in grade school I was taught that scientific fact was something that could be duplicated in a controlled environment, anything less was a theory. Evolution took place over such a long period of time with a nearly infinite number of variables...enough, at least that we could never identify them all without a time machine (no..that would not guarantee it either). Calling evolution a proven fact requires belief in things that can not be proven, but only inferred from archeological evidence. Rationally, this is only the tiniest bit more sound than calling God a fact based on personal experience.
The difference, at least the only one I see, is that belief in God is faith and nothing else. Belief in evolution is the intellectual acceptance of the preponderance of the available evidence. Like religion, but in a much smaller percentage, science has its crap practitioners and its hoaxes, and those are normally exposed quickly and easily. What I see as a pox on otherwise respectable science is the church like desire for absolutism. "Its a FACT, man! We made a computer model that takes every conceivable variable into account, and every time we run it it proves our FACT!" I'm not accusing you of this, but I see it a lot. As a computer programmer I am NO fan of computer models proving ANYTHING beyond what COULD have happened a million years ago.
This difference between theory and fact is very subtle, but substantial to me. You won't believe in God without empirical proof. I won't promote evolution from theory to fact without the same thing. No assertion, no inferrence, just show me, let me watch. Turn a monkey into a man. If you could, which I doubt, you couldn't do it in my lifetime, unless you could compress many generations of time into a brief experiment.
Now, how are we different, except that you think my belief is silly and I think science is pretty cool, if sometimes too full of itself?
Not surprisingly... I was right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKENnotmuchCLASS has totally spammed this thread with his personal delusions and very tenuous grasp of science... and complete and utter blindness to the unassailable evidence supporting evolution... as well as its sheeer power and elegance... as grand a scientific principle as we have.
KENunicornClass... have you considered temporal lobe epilepsy or other documented neurological phenomena as a "possibility" for your certainty that your totally subjective "spirtual" experiences somehow comport or reflect (intersubjective) reality? Uh, didn't think so.
Wonder what happened to my post about "Steve's List"... hmmm.... ?
The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skullbones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can't find them, because they don't exist. There isn't a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.
The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.
To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we'd all be demanding and impatient, and we'd be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.
There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact
Spin-oza, you are correct in assuming temporal-lobe epilepsy and other conditions brought rise to religion/spirituality. Which was probably the case. But theres more to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIve had an experience, and IMO it was the most meaningful/profound experience one can have. What is its purpose?? (in evolutionary terms)
What the f*** is the point in making humans see that everything is connected and their is an infinite intelligence behind the universe.
To bring about these types of debates?? I think not.
More like, theres a purpose (as with every evolved function) and we should be researching it further.
Its like evolution chose to put the most powerful hallucinogen on the planet right in our brain!!?? WTF!
Sadly...most 'christians' just thump the bible, instead of actually experiencing this for themselves, to 'GET' what God is all about.
Buddhists know, Taoists know, they dont cause wars cause they know.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, dont know, so they continue to cause wars.
(of course thats a little black and white, but you get what im trying to say)
Anyone who truly understands 'God' (hate using that word) will never try to start a war, or try to argue that their God is the right one, because they understand that God is all, and infinite, and until its experienced subjectively.....it'll forever be a useless sky-daddy concept.
Also you obviously have no knowledge of the mountains and mountains of evidence for objective validity in hallucinations. Veridical hallucinations, OBE's, NDE's, many cases have been verified by objective means. Meaning, consciousness was detached from the body at the time, and the report brought back was confirmed by external reality.
How this happens is unexplained, but VERY worthwhile investigating.
As ususal, Spin-oza, you completely misrepresent my position. I think much, no, most evidence for evolution is quite good. I do not dispute the evidence, nor the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do however see some speculation in the interpretation of this evidence. That does not cause me to doubt the theory, but only to continue to call it a theory and not a fact. It is a sound theory, but there is more to it than what we know now, or I suspect, will ever know.
I do not require nor expect you to believe in God, and as an intellectual I have no choice but to admit that I could be wrong, it is mathematically possible that God does not exist. Accepting evolution as a fact requires that I accept certain assertions and inferences regarding the unassailable evidence. I have done that, but as a critical thinker I must also accept that these assertions and inferences don't constitute facts.
Science has proven the science before it wrong or incomplete countless times, yet you expect me to believe that we are suddenly so advanced that all of our science is now perfect? Moreover, you expect me to believe that the fact that we understand the mechanics of a natural process PROVES that no supernatural force could have possibly been involved? What a perfectly religious assertion!
BTW...regarding your Steve's list post, it means nothing to me. I have repeatedly stated that I think evolution is good science. I have also pointed out that fundamentalist, literalist Judeo-Christian opponents of evolution are that way because they don't understand their own Bible any better than they do science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet you continue to slur me, sometimes with fairly rational thought, sometimes with trite childish cliches, all indicating that I am stupid. Do you think that you are so smart that NOTHING is beyond your comprehension? Or so smart that any contradictory opinion is impossible? These attitudes will not foster good science. Good science must always believe that there is more to it than what we have discovered so far. Am I wrong about this? Do we have all the answers and no more questions? If so, the evolution scientists should find new jobs, since there is nothing new to add.
Yes, Restless, you did touch a nerve with the "Flying Pink Unicorns" drivel. It is a trite cliche and you are too intelligent to present yourself as such a childish hack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, I have come under so much fire as one who accepts evolution but not completely enough, I suppose I resorted to a few angry, childish outbursts of my own. Speaking from an angry heart can make ANYBODY look stupid.
@kk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sadly...most 'christians' just thump the bible, instead of actually experiencing this for themselves, to 'GET' what God is all about."
Worse, KK, they ignore significant passages in the Bible in order to use other parts to attack people. Bad teaching in the churches, IMO.
"objective validity in hallucinations"
Now this is interesting. I always wanted to do a study on the relationship between halucinogenic substances and out of body experiences.
"Now this is interesting. I always wanted to do a study on the relationship between halucinogenic substances and out of body experiences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"
Oh yes, its an extremely interesting subject.
Ancient cultures have always had traditions of dark room initiations. Stretching for 14-20 days. To bring about a truer understanding of the universe. Egyptians built some pyramids specifically for these initiation rituals. The tibetans used caves, as do the Native americans.
But why/how does this bring about a truer understanding??
Well....Day 1-3 your eyes/body adjust to the complete darkness, and your pineal gland starts producing melatonin.
Day 4-6
The pineal gland starts to increase the production of 'pinoline', whereby a greater fluidity of thought starts to occur. This period allows for transition, and allows meditative trance to be easily achieved.
Day 6-8
This is when the pineal starts producing the psychoactive tryptamine (hallucinogen) 5-MeO-DMT. Produced right inside your own brain!!
It is extremely phospherescent due to the amount of phosphene that it transmits onto the visual cortex.
And thus in complete darkness, all you can see now is 'light'
But 'spiritual' light. Or better put, chemical light.
The 5-MeO-DMT literally lets the nervous system become aware of itself, and a state of extremely lucid awareness results. Actual feeling of all unconscious bodily functions arises, and etreme appreciation for life, is usually the end result. With a deep knowing that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. Meaning IT was the first cause.
Day 9-12
This is when DMT is produced. The strongest hallucinogen known to man.
When DMT levels reach more than 25mg, one's experience can become very visual. DMT is the visual third eye neurotransmitter. It enables subjective awareness of the infinite, and timeless. It is intensely energizing.
When the subject emerges, he is aware of the ultimate level of reality and sees a profound new outlook on the world, and life itself.
This is what 'knowing God' is all about.
This is what is truly meant, when the bible says, fill yourself with the Holy Spirit. The true 'spiritual experience'
something that should be experienced by everyone.
Whether religous or not, atheist, agnostic or believer, it doesnt matter.
We're all human, and we all share the hardware (brain) and software (consciousness) to experience this.
Why not??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all have questions about the universe. We read books, go to lectures, go to school, visit websites..
This is just one more way of gaining a little more knowledge. Its a valid tool....and its part of the human experience. Shutting it down, cuz you 'dont believe in God' is unforgivable, IMO.
IMO if this was a regular initiation practice in our culture the world would be a very different place.
But who am I.....just a guy. lol.
Fun stuff to research though.
I truly feel sad for fundamentalists who will argue that such things are 'of the devil'
And I truly feel sad for atheists who will argue that 'hallucinations arent valid'
Our whole life is a constant hallucination.
Our brains can NEVER perceive objective reality. Its all projection.
Ok Im done. :)
Also sad....is that in this society, most people could not even stand being locked in a dark room for more than 12 hours. Let alone 20 days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe live in a culture of constant stimulation....needing to be doing things, ALL THE TIME.
BTW, I'd like to add for all I've argued with here, that my fascination with, love of, and healthy skepticism of science, are all far wider than this article. I find a ton of thrill with each new discovery, and yet I believe that to be a truly critical thinker I must always err on the side of skepticism. I also don't let my skepticism color my opinion of the thesis (beyond the extent to which I believe it has been proven), nor ny thirst for more information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you call that foolish, there is no hope for you.
If you do understand the intellectual value of vigilant skepticism, then regardless of your level of disagreement with my assertion that evolution is great theory but not fact, you can not dismiss that assertion as irrational thought, but merely too skeptical for your taste.
Furthermore, I will challenge you to, in the future, to use the mountains of available evidence to support evolution rather than mention their existence in passing on the way to launching direct personal attacks against something your opponents may well consider to be the deepest, most important part of their beings. A critical thinker should see that this will create a knee-jerk reaction so severe that the truth could never get past it with a rocket engine.
Why do text-book-thumping Darwinists not cite things like some of the recent genetic research I've read about where they have isolated the gene in a chicken to make it grow an enormous tail? Bible-thumping-Christians cite the absolute literal truth of the creation story in a book which clearly states in multiple places that: 1, its own perfect truth trancends literal human understanding; 2, clearly describes its own savior as one who spoke in such complicated riddles that His own followers often couldn't understand him; and 3, they should not go running around condemning people who don't believe, but rather concern themselves entirely with their own sins. (believe it or not, this last one has by far the most mentions in Christian scripture!)
So the Christians who assail you with their book haven't read and/or understood it well enough to know what it means (and the preacher won't tell 'em, 'cause that kinda talk is bad for bizness!), so don't expect them to have read the science either. But, if only for the sake of science itself, when you preach good science, do it like a scientist, not like a fired up Fundamentalist! If you MUST agitate them, tell them that it is only their failure to understand the Bible that prevents their acceptance of science. GOD LOVES SCIENCE,HE TOLD ME SO!
@RestlessYouRascalDeviant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. "
This whole piece is just bloody effin high-larry-us satire.
Counter productive, as I pointed out in another post, but bloody effin funny.
Now I see that my "you're God" post should have been a rant about what my stinkin' pink unicorn wuz gonna do to yer fambly!
The way to handle the Creationism argument is to simply explain to science students that the rules of science, like baseball, exclude arguments that God caused an outcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs evolution a theory? Certainly the gross physical and some chemical changes in life forms is well documented. But the accompanying changes in DNA are not, and will be the source of Nobel prizes for decades to come.
Certainlyour understanding of the earliest origins of life doesn't come close to a sensible theory. Those who synthesise new compounds know the difficulties of making even small molecules, and can only wonder at their foolish peers who suggest that a crude prebiotic soup would form useful polymer RNA chains. Suh a person is no more welcome in a science classroom than a fundamentalist.
More research on evolution, please, less politics
@richardwindgassen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The way to handle the Creationism argument is to simply explain to science students that the rules of science, like baseball, exclude arguments that God caused an outcome."
This will go down better if you say "aren't concerned with whether God was involved in a process." Everything you can prove with science, I can marvel at and say, "So THAT'S how God did it!" Hence, the question of the existence of God is irrelevant to science, not precluded nor disproven by it. Therefore, any discussion of God has no place in the class room, and that includes denial of God's existence as well as of belief in Him.
Scientists would do much better in life if they told Christians, "We don't care if God did it or not, we're just trying to figure how it was done. Here's the evidence we have so far. If it conflicts with your Bible, I'd suspect that there is some part of the Bible you're taking too literally. I understand parts of it are quite hard to understand. If you'd like to refute any of the evidence, do so scientifically or do so elsewhere." Such an approach, my friend, is the most likely route to peace with them, and would save all of us from the insipid flying purple elephant analogies.
The photo illustration of creationism being inserted into science makes clear the failure of intelligent design critics. It showes ID being injected between physics, algebra, chemistry. Not only is math not science, it obvious to fair minded people that the sciences are not dependent on the theory of evolution, even biology. Be especially watchful of scientists like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells with doctorate degrees being dismissed as mere 'creationists'. It is not science that is being defended but the naturalistic commitments of many in the establishment of biology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a logical assumption that change over time cannot do more than actualize the ever abiding potential of Being Eternal. In the beginning God... (Being Itself) is that by way of which all that can ever happen - happens. The eternal procession of Being shall not be found to be less thoughtful, less creative, less volitional, less intelligent than any one or any gathering of the multitude of its participants. Relative to our shared infinite potential, our best science may be a fleeting myth written in the fading parchment of a temporal universe while our best myths may be the stuff of an abiding melody. Make your offerings of knowledge to God cautiously lest You construct for your self a prison or a pit of exalted small thoughts. Each of Us is a participant in the actualization of Being (Life) We participate in Creation We participate in Evolution We give expression to Intelligent Volition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere there is creativity there is the Creator, where there is Evolution there God is the living structure of the organism out of which the expression of the mutation emerges and God is the living structure of the environment that receives that mutation and acts upon it. Separation from God is the dulled capacity to appreciate the volitional infinite potential that is (Who are) the abiding context of this and any other physical cosmos (shared reality). We celebrate both the creation of small minded dogma and our liberation from it as required, in our science (the study of structure) or in our religion (the celebration of our shared infinite potential).
and you wonder why so many bad things are happening to this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's because we took God out of classrooms and made God the outsider.
this country was founded on the principles of religious freedom and this evolution theory, i have seen first hand, has it's roots in nazism and i don't this country's flag to have swastickas instead of stars.
"this country was founded on the principles of religious freedom and this evolution theory, i have seen first hand, has it's roots in nazism and i don't this country's flag to have swastickas instead of stars. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary theory does nothing against religious freedom. Ask Biologist Kenneth R. Miller about whether his acceptance of the theory of evolution makes any difference in whether or not he retains his Christian beliefs. Acceptance of evolution doesn't mandate the disbelief in the supernatural, because science cannot make assumptions or declarations about what is not testable or falsifiable.
Evolution was not thought up by Nazis. The Nazis took "social darwinism" and injected it with racist BS and called it a science. Eugenics has nothing to do with evolution because eugenics is based on the idea that some humans are more "perfect" than others, based on racist preferential ideals. Evolution is not about what individuals are more "perfect", it's about which individuals are better suited for survival in their particular environment. "Perfection" implies a goal or final destination, of which there is none in evolution.
So in response to me changing you post to try a help you see you contradictions you posted to me…. You post back…… Exact words “The "Flying Pink Unicorns drivel…… Childish Hack.” This shows EVERYTHING I have been trying to get you to understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow are you so convinced it’s drivel? I was making a serious point and you have missed it completely & your reply says it all. Your whole point to me about atheists being absolutist and here you go with the most offensive, dismissive, ABSOLUTIST claim about other people’s beliefs. Now you have just shown your true warped logic, calling it drivel, a trite cliché, and disregarding it out of hand. On what bases can you do this??? Lack of evidence maybe??? BUT WAIT you can’t disprove it can you. For goodness sake re-read all your posts and you have just contradicted EVERYTHING you have been saying. You have just seriously cornered yourself. If someone says the same about your god, and implied such non existence and joke status you flood this thread with posts. How can you imply that such a thing does not exist & that I was only making a joke. If you had even bothered to read it properly then you would realise its not flying, it’s Invisible. Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. People know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. People have faith that they are pink; they logically know that they are invisible because they can't see them."
So EITHER:
“Invisible Pink Unicorns are drivel/trite cliché = so have all your post and logic been.
Or U have to give it the same accordance as the admittedly faith based god you believe.
You chose the 1st and show delusion.
You have 2 options here. Either barely read this post like the others, mis-represent the point being made and post some twisted logic AGAIN. Or READ, THINK and REFLECT about what is being written. You are clearly not stupid, but something in your brain is blocking your ability to understand these points. Realise this. If all your logic is based on this personal experience you have indicated then please watch this video.
http://media.richarddawkins.net/video/AAI07/Sam%20Harris%20web%20color_SM.mov
It is Sam Harris talking, from the AAI about atheism and the 2nd half is about Spiritual experiences & separating it from religion. I hope you would be interested and it would help.
@restlessD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So in response to me changing you post to try a help you see you contradictions you posted to me…. You post back…… Exact words “The "Flying Pink Unicorns drivel…… Childish Hack.” This shows EVERYTHING I have been trying to get you to understand."
Really? This was a serious attempt to help?
At least you didn't say it's not cliche. But I'm guessing you don't understand how this kind of post sounds to someone who believes in God. The motive apparent to the recipient of such a post is that you are trying to parodize what you perceive as outlandishly stupid ideas in order to help the person see how stupid they sound. It also seems that if the recipient of this parody, which feels like ridicule to them, doesn't 'get it' and abandon their belief in God, that they likely ARE stupid.
Now, this may not be your intent, but you are telling someone that something they have deeply-rooted, decades-old feelings about sounds stupid (which implies that the underlying idea IS stupid), and then trying to prove the point by twisting their words to sound stupid enough that only the stupidest moron of all time could fail to see the deep truth of how stupid they sound to you. If you think that this kind of 'logic' has a chance of producing any result other than to insult that person deeply, and alienate them (thereby reducing the chance that anyone will ever 'get through' to them), then you lack understanding of some pretty basic psychology.
Now, don't get me wrong, I get you point. You see God and spaghetti monsters and flying unicorns as equally stupid ideas. And yes, any idiot can get that from your post. What I don't get is why it is so important to you to make people agree that anything not rational is automatically stupid. Again, if that is not your point, you have a communication issue, because that is how it sounds to a Christian.
In fact, the impression I keep getting from your manner of presentation is that you think the human mind is not capable of both rational and irrational thought, but never both, and that people who are not as rational as you need to be cured of the disease of irrationality.
The overwhelming irony here is that I have never disputed the science of evolution, nor the evidence that supports it. I have only shown a healthy skepticism of the evidence, and stated the obvious fact that evolution (or any other science) can not prove or disprove the existence of God, yet you are bent on curing me of my God-delusion, while I respect your right to your atheist delusion. I am not a fundie, are U?
FIRST of all, it really is quite disturbing to those of us in possession of our critical thinking abilities to see such a lame rash of faith-based posting on this "SciAM" thread... which to remind all the delusional, is about the shameful tactics used by the religiously motivated wishing to undermine a long legacy of legitimate, peer-reviewed science (evolution) with hollow wishful thinking devoid of real science, creationism, in all of its various guises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOW... "KK" ... yes, of course all experience in grounded in our physical brains. Any one still clinging to mind-body dualism is either woefully ignornant of neuroscience or... more likely, religiously indoctrinated on the goofy notion of a "soul-thing"... or minds somehow detached from physical brains ... yet somehow supervening upon them. How bizarro!
HOWEVER, while one can make a strong, rational case for everything being interconnected in determined universe - i.e. the very universe we see is the very one "determined" post singularity- it is a grand leap to make the remainder of your case, especially the paranormal, Psi tripe.
ON the one hand you correctly make the link with halluncinogens (DMT... MDA, LSD, whatever) and "spiritual" phenomena... but take your subjective (pathological?) experience and attempt to generalize far beyond any reasonable bounds.
NO, there are not "mountains" o' evidence for any supernatural events like OBE... and there is certainly zero evidence for a conscious soul-thing surviving our physical selves. The notion of a "self" apart from our surroundings is clearly a contruct of the brain with evolutionary value... but not an independent entity. This does get to your point though somewhat tangentially that we are indeed embedded in Nature and not as the religious erroneously believe, a "special creation" apart from it.
I suspect "KK" may be a Deepak Chopra devotee ... or worse?
AS with evolution, the evidence is staggering that we are wonderfully evolved sentient beings, but our conscious lives are clearly an emergent property of an evolved neural network. The late Dr. Francis Crick coined the term the "astonishing hypothesis" that all the characteristics of the human "mind" are instantiated by our physical brains. There is beyond doubt neural correlates of consciousness... and with increasingly sophisticated techniques, the curtain of mystery that used to surround our kidney, liver, lungs and heart, will yield... and there will be NO GHOST in the "machine".
DEUS SIVE NATURA... god or nature, it matters not.
From Dictionary.com:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact:
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Based on definition three, evolution is not a fact. You did not observe it and can not duplicate it (although I'm greatly encouraged by the recent primordial soup research).
Based on definition 4 evolution is CLEARLY a fact.
Therefore I stand corrected. To properly support my skepticism regarding evolution, I must say that evolution is indeed a scientific fact. From a purely scientific standpoint, I believe that the evidence runs the gamut from the obvious hoaxes which scientists have debunked to some remarkably sound and, moreover, exciting research, with no dire shortage of research which spans the area in between.
On the other hand, as a wise man recently posted here, science excludes arguments that God caused an outcome. Therefore, to argue that evolution proves the non-existence of God constitutes a violation of the rules of science. Such an argument is not rational, logical nor scientific, because it violates the rules of science.
All I would require in order to approve of the teaching of evolution in school would be respect for this ever so important rule of science, and that evolution theory be presented as a work in progress which is well supported by all the mountains of the best scientific facts available. Any student who wishes to refute the theory should be offered the opportunity to study the available data and offer any SCIENTIFIC rebuttal they wish, but if their only refutation is based on supernatural causes, then they should be counselled to choose a field other than science to concentrate on.
One of the strongest and most important foundations of modern science is called peer review; it involves scientists questioning the validity of other scientists work; it debunks bad science, and makes good science better, or should, in theory.
Yet I see a lot of people demanding that Christians accept ALL science completely, and branding doubters as "spaghetti monster" worshipers. The argument offered is typically that religion is irrational and precludes the ability of rational thought. The presentation often sounds angry, or at best degrading; two good examples of irrational thought.
I know that fundamentalist Christians offend you, they offend me, too, and I'm a Christian. But, responding in kind makes you a fundy scientist.
THE other major point that needs making is that the faith-based are constantly demanding more evidence for rock-solid evolution, the organizing principle of the biological sciences... yet demand NO PROOF WHATEVER for the notion of a god-man roaming our planet briefly, about 2000 years ago... leaving not a single scrap of evidence... writing not a single word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIRONIC, is it not?
THE christians wail and moan regarding the intolerable situation of teaching evolutionary theory, which is supported by merely ALL available evidence... versus parroting ad nauseum the absurd notion of a "virgin-born" (from whence the "Y" chromosome?) supernatural, miracle working "messiah" conveniently appearing for desperate, persecuted tribal desert jews, supported by... NO HISTORICAL evidence.
I won't even mention the lunacy of post-putrefication bodily resurection, a "holy ghost"... demons... devils... or angels on the head of a pin.
"We're now, by the way, in what's now called the third quest for the historical Jesus. There will be a fourth, I can assure you, somewhere along the way. But at that time they called it the new quest, because Bornkamm, as his own statement reflected, was thinking back half a century before him, when Albert Schweitzer, in 1901, published the original book that came to be called The Quest for the Historical Jesus.
And Schweitzer, in 1901, concluded precisely the same way: 'We don't know very much. The quest yielded a failure in so far as we are actually able to find too much about this historical figure.'" - L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin, in a symposium at Harvard University in 1998, related to the PBS Frontline special presentation From Jesus to Christ .
THE above scholarly quote is not too bad for a quick summary... I could post volumes as a "recovered christian"... but my favorite is this snippet:
"THE CASE FOR AN HISTORICAL JESUS NEED NOT BE DENIED... SINCE IT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE".
... just can't remember who said it.
TO quote Scweitzer directly:
"There is NOTHING MORE NEGATIVE than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, NEVER HAD ANY EXISTENCE."
Scweitzer was an unimpeachable source... wonder if they are quoting him to the children being brainwashed in "sunday school", eh?
One last thought, and I'll leave my science fundy acquaintance Spin-oza to bash me all he wants. He's sick of Bible fundys rejecting everything he knows to be absolute fact, and rightly so. They've beaten his sensibilities so badly that he has been reduced to their level, so obsessed with his own rightness that he defends science by abandoning science and attacking something that doesn't concern science in the least.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe judges my God by all the worst and most ludicrous examples he can find. If I were to judge science by the same quality of examples as he uses to judge my faith, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because I would probably have had to become Amish just to live with myself.
Just to hack the spin-fundy off a little further I'll thank God that I'm not that narrow-minded, and I can love my God and our science, and spin can't take that away from me except inside his own, injured mind.
Deviant, I actually like you. You're (sometimes too) funny, and obviously a critical thinker, I just wish you'd be more careful in considering whether your logic may come off to the adressee as a personal attack, and concern yourself more with science. I'd say this conversation has proven conclusively that a refutation of religion, however perfect it may be, can never advance science, which can't, by it's own definition, consider religious arguments.
To advance science your best course would be to tell the Christians the ABSOLUTE TRUTH that science does not conflict with God in any way shape or form. It conflicts with God's followers if they insist that their view of God is so complete and exclusive as to disprove facts.
Quote 1st Corinthinans 13:8 to them: "where there is knowledge, it will pass away". This is true in science as well. If we live another thousand years, scientists will wonder how we survived all our crude ideas and tools.
Christians are people, some have money, some have LOTS of it. I want Christians to love science, there's more research money in larger numbers! Why engage in non-scientific, personal attacks. I saw one comment in here that "a God so complex could never be known by a mortal man", and I was too rushed at the moment to post that truer words were never spoken. 1 Cor 13:8-10 says so very explicitly. Nothing in the Christian Bible disproves even a single scientific fact. Christians who claim otherwise don't understand those three verses. Bashing fundies turns you into one. TEACH them or ignore them, but you don't want to BE them, don't act like them.
There is the fact that gravity exists and then there is the theory that explains its properties and the math behind it. The theory makes testable predictions for the outcomes of inquiry into as-yet unanswered questions about gravity. These predictions being testable is important because it gives the theory falsifiability, which is required of all scientific theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is the fact that evolution by natural selection occurs (the evidence is all over the living world today, all over the genetic material of living things today, and it's all over the fossil record) and then there is the theory that explains its mechanisms, how it happens, and why. The theory makes testable predictions about what would happen under certain conditions. These predictions are very testable, making the theory very falsifiable.
You must have an understanding of what the differences between facts, theories and laws are in science. In science, facts are just raw data. Weight, length, time scales, etc are all raw data that are direct measurements. Laws are general statements about the natural world. "If you drop an object, it falls to the ground" is a very, very basic wording for the Law of Gravity, that stuff falls towards other stuff. Then you have theories. Theories are the explanations for why laws are what they are. Theories explain ALL observations of a particular part of the natural world. They use all of the facts to support these explanations and to extrapolate testable predictions to answer as-yet unanswered questions about the particular area of the natural world the theory is trying to explain.
Something in science does go from a theory and change into a law or a fact. All three are different and very important in science, and calling something a theory is in no way saying that it lacks any amount of credibility that laws or facts have. A theory wouldn't be a scientific one if it wasn't supported by ALL of the facts.
EDIT: Something in science does [not] go from a theory and change into a law or a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissilly typos
"NO, there are not "mountains" o' evidence for any supernatural events like OBE... and there is certainly zero evidence for a conscious soul-thing surviving our physical selves
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you havent read, or heard of the evidence. Doesnt make it non-existant. Just shows your ignorance on the matter.
Its ok, I hadnt heard of any of it before either, and I used to be on your side of the argument, for a very long time...
I used to like knowing that my body produces my consciousness, and when it dies, it ceases.
But after all my studying and trying to prove my view, I was horribly suprised, and instead found myself having to change my view, because now.....it just didnt make sense in light of all the legitimate scientific studies I had read.
This is a stance few are willing to take. Most people just read the articles that cushion your viewpoint, and strengthen your beliefs in said viewpoint.
But rarely do people actually take the time to thoroughly study the other side of the argument.
This is what troubles me about current science, is the fact that STILL, in the face of all our gathered evidence, we�re still clinging to the emergent consciousness theory. When there have been numerous experiments done....that have no other option but to shatter that assumption, and force us to come up with a better theory of consciousness..
There are countless journals, and studies out there, that have been done, and some that are still going, and on-going.
Theres even been some EXTRAORDINARY cases as well.
Whether you choose to research them or not is up to you.......but dont state that no evidence exists, when you havent even really looked into it, before saying that.
I believe in fair argument, and if some experiments are producing things that dont fit our current view.....we have to change our theories to accomodate....not just ignore the data. Its a very hard pill to swallow.
My suggestion to you is to read Irreducible Mind....its a nice 450 page textbook style book, full of this stuff. If anything, it will make you want to research further.
and really, did you have to say.....oh he must be a Deepak follower.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on now.....
Just because Im willing to question sciences assumptions doesnt automatically make me a new-age guru cult memeber for christ sakes.
Grow up.
Also...the stance you take on this subject (emergentism vs T-theory) is also similar to the creationitst who denies evolution even in light of mountains of evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust plain ignorance. Possibly willful ignorance. But ignorance nonetheless.
Both cases just show the strength of human stubborness and the power of a comforting viewpoint. Though I fail to see how a meaningless, chance driven universe is a comforting viewpoint to carry.
But thats just me. Obviously some rather like the idea.
You are absolutely correct, and have stated the obvious elephant in the room very eloquently. I personally know a brilliant young woman who was denied entry into Texas Tech Medical School because "a Christian can not possibly rightly understand science, and would not make a good doctor." She was accepted by another very prestigious medical school in Texas, and graduated with high honors. The assumption that people of faith are intellectually inferior is just that... an arrogant assumption!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, that the "science" of evolution makes another rather interesting assumption, that at some point in time, SPONTANEOUS GENERATION occurred. Indeed, the list of assumptions requires very strong faith. For life to have changed from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, two members of the species had to evolve into the two opposite sexes, AND they had to evolve in exactly the same place at exactly the same time.
Christians and Jews can and do understand scientific principle, and I don't really have a problem with a day in God's time being a thousand or even a billion years in our time. What I do have a problem with is for others who know absolutely nothing about things spiritual, especially things biblical, telling people of faith who have actually studied both science and the biblical account of creation that evolution is an absolute FACT. If you want to see fabrications, just view the pictures of prehistoric creatures. Some of them were dreamed up from a very few found bones. America's favorite dinosaur Tyrannosaurus Rex never existed. It was put forth by an archaeologist who knowingly combined the found head of one creature with the body bones of another in much the same way that the mythical unicorn was "found." The bones of a horse like creature were found near the spiral skeleton of a sea creature, and were mistakenly assumed to be of the same animal.
The truth is that man can not scientifically prove, one way or the other, how life began. Funny, I can understand the religion of science, and even find the truth that is there and work with it to discover more truth both within the body of Christian faith and without. Those who have chosen to deny that there is a God, or intelligence beyond their own on the other hand are the ones who have closed their minds to the possibility of truth beyond their own understanding.
Spinoza - "Any one still clinging to mind-body dualism is woefully ignornant of neuroscience"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeres an elephant in the room for you....
If emergentism is correct, this should be impossible. Yet, many cases like this exist.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1930510020070720
"I fail to see how a meaningless, chance driven universe is a comforting viewpoint to carry."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, evolution isn't based on chance. This has been thoroughly explained before. While mutations may be random, natural selection is not. Natural selection is quite the opposite of random. It's not goal-oriented or guided, either.
Secondly, evolution doesn't take the meaning out of life. Your life has whatever meaning you give it, regardless of your origins. Meaning is personal and abstract, and what meaning we give ourselves is unrelated to whether or not you understand evolution.
Thirdly, biological evolution's scope is the diversity of life. Biological evolution isn't about the origins of life or the origins of the universe.
Finally, those who don't deny evolution do so because all of the evidence supports it, not because its a cozy comfy idea. Science isn't about comfortable ideas, it's about what the evidence supports.
"If emergentism is correct, this should be impossible. Yet, many cases like this exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1930510020070720"
All that shows is that, if we don't understand what's happening in those cases already, we still have much to learn about how the brain functions and how it can adapt to unusual circumstances.
Also, Emergentism is a philosophy, not a field of science.
@pirwzy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Something in science does not go from a theory and change into a law or a fact. All three are different and very important in science, and calling something a theory is in no way saying that it lacks any amount of credibility that laws or facts have. A theory wouldn't be a scientific one if it wasn't supported by ALL of the facts."
Excellent post! Bravo!
@little-d
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Those who have chosen to deny that there is a God, or intelligence beyond their own on the other hand are the ones who have closed their minds to the possibility of truth beyond their own understanding."
Bravo! Brace yourself for the impending crucifixion attempt.
"Finally, those who don't deny evolution do so because all of the evidence supports it, not because its a cozy comfy idea. Science isn't about comfortable ideas, it's about what the evidence supports"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wasnt talking about those who dont deny it. I was talking about those that do. How can they possibly deny it, with all the evidence?
Just as with consciousness, how can emergentism still be clung to, in light of all the evidence against such?
The examples of humanities delusional capacity:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Aztecs sacrificed virgins for soil fertility, the Christians burnt witches as they communicated with the Devil, rivers and mountains were formed by giant snakes etc in Aboriginal culture and the Egyptian gods expected embalmed Pharaohs to meet them on the other side of the river Styx.
It is beyond obvious that none of the aforementioned delusions were anything but that. They were believed in by humans no different from us and with the same amount of sincerity expressed in the belief of today's gods. We have an inbuilt propensity to be brainwashed into believing just about anything that can be proposed.
well put restless deviant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@RestlessD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is beyond obvious that none of the aforementioned delusions were anything but that. "
Absolutely true. Like science, religion must evolve, and MOST people of faith today call virgin-sacrificers and witch-burners maniacal zealots who do (did) not understand God.
The advantage of science is that it is designed to continually improve its facts and theories, where religion, in practice, has a propensity to resist changes. Religion and science both suffer when absolutism precludes growth, neither is ever deep enough nor complete enough to satisfy the true seeker. Religion, being faith based is easy to corrupt, science purifies its ideas by its own design.
The masses are as easily misled by bad science as they are by bad religion, science is just better suited for ferreting out its bad ideas, and far more eager to discover new ones. Religious people too easily blur the distinction between the perfection of God and the human imperfection of their understanding of Him. Scientists don't seem to let go of their ideas any easier until they are confronted with new data drawn from better methods or more precise measurements. Then, as a rule, they say, "I wonder why that is?", and they are off to answer new questions.
A religious man does the same, if he is wise. Most, instead, fear that if their understanding is flawed then God must be flawed as well, and this folly leads them to blind dogma which stunts their personal growth, both scientific and spiritual. This happens to religious leaders, as well as followers, leading to the kind of mass delusions you cite, Restless.
@KenIconoclast
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe mental gymnastics that middle ground faithful such as yourself, go through to try and reconcile their superstitious nonsense with the secular values they grew up in, amuses me.
"Scientists don't seem to let go of their ideas any easier until they are confronted with new data drawn from better methods or more precise measurements."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists readily let go of ideas. All you need to do is falsify their theory with solid scientific evidence, and they have no other option.
Creationism should never be tolerated. Fortunately, beginning Jan 20, it won't be. We've already been successful in my school district in getting a teacher to stop teaching this idiocy. We need children that understand science, not that think the Earth is 6k years old. They can teach that along with mythology I suppose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's fine . . . just not in science class. It is a religious belief and has NO basis in science. Would you want the Wiccan view taught in science class? Of course not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa know, ALL science is theory. Nothing is taught as fact, especially with the advent of quantum mechanics. You can never ever say something is 100% true. Ever. But there is an utter lack of any evidence that there is a god . . . but that discussion is a theological one, not a scientific one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said, and who said you have to be polite? I used to be and am not anymore. That is how we got ID tossed from our school system. Believe me, there are more that think it shouldn't be taught in schools than do. Don't be polite, be rude. It works because reasoning with these cro-magnons sure doesn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAH... back to the thread... and nice to see some rational viewpoints well represented (PRWZY & Scytherius).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAS for "KK"'s musings on the paranormal... well, cling to whatever threadbear "evidence" exists in your brain, but it simply doesn't past scientific muster. OBE has been debunked... just as there is an evolved neurological basis for ALL subjective phenomena. Get back to me when you have observed or quantified a "consicousness" apart from the physical brain... and not totally dependent of it's functioning, eh?
BTW, your sophomoric term of "emergentism" is well... goofy. The actual, physical neural network, unlike your Psi world, is real: a billion plus neurons forming trillions of connections... a evolutionary structure that was absolutely necessary for otherwise frail Homo species to survive... and become a creature with "hive" intelligence... in a complex social web.
NO mystery of muddled "emergentism" there. The evolution of the human brain and its capabilities are rather clear. Furthermore, it has become increasingly obvious that all of our "conscious" experience has neuroanatomical correlates... just like many (if not all) of our behaviors have a genetic foundation. Perhaps "KK" is just ignornant of huge strides of neuroscience and genetics... or finds it too difficult to follow... while the paranormal excites the more adolescent... wishing fantasy become reality.
"KK" when and by what means did your ethereral "consciouness" entity appear in evolutionary history... 4 MYA with Australopithecus Aferensis ("Lucy")... or about 1.8 MYA with the first HOMO specie (Habilis)? When does it EMERGE during the course of human development, during "ensoulment" (LOL) at conception or when the toddler sits up... or walks?
WHY do shizophrenics lose a coherent view of the "self"... and what about those with dissociative disorders (derealization/depersonalization)... and "KK", what's going on with "consciousness" in those pesky dementias (Alzheimer's)? It is beyond obvious that the personal, ongoing narrative of SELF is fully dependent and instantiated by our physical brains. WOW!
IT is equally clear to many in these fields, as well as many philosophers, that like our determined Universe, there is no supernatural FREEWILLING soul-thing supervening on our physical brain... some bizarro conscious entity... from who knows where... an UNCAUSED-causer of untethered "will"... unbound by the genetic-environmental interplay or constraints, which clearly give rise to our evolved, natural selves.
NEXT!
"WHY do shizophrenics lose a coherent view of the "self"... and what about those with dissociative disorders (derealization/depersonalization)... and "KK", what's going on with "consciousness" in those pesky dementias "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell because the brain is like a TV. Break a part of the TV and the signal wont come in right, or will be fuzzy, or just white noise. But the signal of the TV show still exists.
Perhaps the brain is like a receiver, so yes any physical damage would likely result in a muddled sense of self, or loss of memory and what not.
But just because Ive come to HAVE to believe in something other than emerging phenomena, doesnt mean Im all fairytale psi, and soul believing either.
Im not saying we have souls Im merely saying that our brain activity is only half the story. Theres too many cases where the theory we have now for 'mind' is woefully inadequate. If you chose to shut those cases out, like most, and call me ignorant, so be it.
I just know that Ive farily looked at both sides and was forced to change my beliefs. You my friend, dont seem so willing to let go of yours.
Remember, Im not just your run of the mill psi believer....credulous, and stroking my healing crystals. lol
I USED to be a hardcore materialist/reductionist. I was you at one point.
Sayting to others they were ignorant of neuroscience, and the current view of the mind and brain. But really it was me who was ignorant of all the data to suggest otherwise.
Please dont talk to me about this subject further, until you'vactually done some research because by the sound of it, it seems you are totally unaware of the data.
Saying stuff like, Obe's have been debunked, is laughable.
Sure theyve induced the sensation via 'virtual reality' and shown the malleability of the brain and how it can cause illusions, BUT they have never once 'debunked' veridical obe's where external data is brought back, and verified.
Im sorry , until the three major cases like that have been debunked I fail to see how I could ever come back to your side of the fence.
Please remember though, Im only here because of my research, I DID NOT start out as a believer, I wasnt biased, trying to make things fit, I was literally trying to debunk, BUT COULDNT.
My idea of it is......there is ONE consciousness which we are all plugged in to, or all receive through our brains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiterally we are all the same `soul` but our brains give us our sense of identity and self, and continuity with memories and stuff like that.
But the base, the source, is the same for everyone.
And seriously though, theres no need to say stuff like, he`s a Deepak follower, or he wants to believe in fairytale things like psi.
I dont sit here saying stuff like....Oh hes a Dawkins cult member, wants to believe in fairytales like random mutation etc...
So dont say it to me. Its just childish.
Just because I hold a different view than you, you dont have to lump me in with fundamentalists, or new age cults, or anything like that.
Im just a human trying to understand things. I study both sides for everything I research because its really the only fair thing to do.
Most pseudo-skeptics dont even want to look at the data.
In fear of crumbling their beliefs. I understand that feeling, because I was once there.
And everytime I reaserch things, Im ready to change my beliefs.
Whatever side I end up on after studying both, depends on the evidence. And I just so happened to end up on the `transmission` theory side.
All I urge everyone to do is look at both sides EQUALLY.
Without prejudice or bias. Do it as if you`ve never heard about the subject before. See where it leads you.
Because this nonsense of taking a view, and only reading supportive articles and books is garbage. You cant learn anything. You just make yourself rigid and unable to accept new ideas etc.
If you came to my house and saw my bookshelves, you actually wouldnt be able to peg my worldview on me, because I study BOTH sides!
You wouldnt know if I was a skeptic, or believer, or atheist or whatever.
Cuz Ive got books from all the sides of all the arguments.
Can you say the same for yourself
OH... I see NONE of the faith-based of the bogus bible are either willing or able (see below) to step up to the cruicible of science.. bow and deceptively submit their "evidence" justifying a belief in either a supernatural god serving ignorant , tribal jews of the desert nor a miracle-working, death-defying god-man allegedly roaming a little spit of our planet some 2000 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO surprise there... since not a shread of evidence exists. EVEN the scholarly "jesus seminars" reduced the messiah-myth to a paltry 18%...meaning even if an historical character existed (which is likely since there were a boatload of fellows named "jesus" during that time, but unfortunately none were supernatural beings), at best, only 18% of the sayings attritributed to the ascetic, itinerant preacher (who managed to write... not a single word for posterity) were likely uttered (in some form).
AMAZING, how the jews. who were desperately longing for a "savior" ... a "messiah" to defeat their enemies utterly failed to recognize a god-man, heaven sent, right in their very midst.... not to mention, how impotent their sky god.
PERHAPS those who wish to cling to the myths, fables and legends of the bible... and hope childishly for demigod status in an imagined "eternal afterlife" (BTW, what do you expect to do... for an eternity... zzz... zzz...etc.)... believe in such bogus reliics, popular in the proverbial "Dark Ages", like the Shroud of Turin (only about 1 of 40)... Holy Foreskins (enough around to make a large purse)... fragments of the cross ("enough to fill a ship's hold" is how the quote goes)... or the VIrgin Mary now appearing at your local Diner, in a grill cheese sandwich.
YUPPERS, while the deluded in the pews demand motion-picture evidence of evolution over hundreds of millions of years... with every detail accounted for... they blindly accept utterly ridiculous relics, absurd fantasies and "feelings" that the god-construct in their brain, born of cultural indoctrination, somehow comports with and explains the reality of the Universe... a world completely Naturalized by science.
OH... and we 've all seen Noah's ARK too (LOL)!
THE irony of their position... its tenuousness... could not be any greater.
[ Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
- the great Athenean philosopher, Epicurus (341-270 BCE)]
NEXT!
DEVIANT refering to KENlackingCLASS rightly observes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The mental gymnastics that middle ground faithful such as yourself, go through to try and reconcile their superstitious nonsense with the secular values they grew up in, amuses me."
HOWEVER, there is a succint term for such irrationality:
"COGNITIVE DISSONANCE".
LIKE deception and embracing fantasies in order to make sense of the world about them, humans excel at CD as the faith-biased attempt to reconcile science and religion.
AGAIN, a supernatural god is a testable hypothesis which falls flat... since there is no evidence for it. Read physicist Victor Stengers recent book if you need things layed out due to years of religious indoctrination.
"God does not exist if Big Bang cosmology, or some relevantly similar theory, is true. If this cosmology is true, our universe exists without cause and without explanation.
There are numerous possible universes, and there is possibly no universe at all, and there is no reason why this one is actual rather than some other one or none at all.
Now the theistically alleged human need for a reason for existence, and other alleged needs, are unsatisfied.
But I suggest that humans do or can possess a deeper level of experience than such anthropocentric despairs. We can forget about ourselves for a moment and open ourselves up to the startling impingement of reality itself. We can let ourselves become
profoundly astonished by the fact that this universe exists at all"
Dr. Quentin Smith: William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) ,p. 216.
EXCELLENT observation indeed.
The same can be said if evolutionary theory or any similar model is true. We can categorically state that at a minimum, the so-called "god" or "holy trinity" of the bible is pure mythology, and further, that "intelligent design" fails at all levels of explanation.
In every instance where religion and science have clashed (the model of the universe, the age of the earth, the earth orbiting the sun; the cause of natural disasters and diseases; miracles, supernatural events and global flood fables; The Origin of Species and our profound genetic link with other primates, etc.), religious beliefs have been proven hollow
and impotent.
MEMO to "KK":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisONCE again, there is NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC evidence to substantiate your rather bald, paranormal asseretions.
YOUR brain as TV receiver for the "one consciousness" is a vacuous analogy... and fails at every level. Clearly, the neurochemistry, anatomy and physiology of our evolved nervous system escapes your broken reciever. I wonder whether the brains of the Great Apes, dolphins, Orcas, elephants... and Neanderthals (whose brains were larger than Homo's) are/were "plugged in" to the Grand Consciousness Thing? If not, then why not?
IT'S not that I can completely rule out the occult ontological possibility of the Universe having "consciousness" transcending spacetime,,, there is just no evidence for it. However, I can rule out with certainty, all gods and the slime trail of religous dogma thus far imagined by frail humans.
AS a scientific Naturalist, I merely accept the world... the Universe... as it is. The brute fact of our existence was determined from the Singularity... and for me, that is beyond wonderment.... and completely reassuring. The Natural world and our evolved selves far exceed any man-made religious mythos in grandeur and as a bonus... it is grounded in reality.
NOW, one could make a strong rational case for pantheism in the sense that at Singularity, all was energy... "one substance" in the Spinozan sense... the only notion of a "god" that Einstein embraced... the one that we are all embedded in... and the only one that I acknowledge.
WE are indeed "starstuff" as Sagan often remarked.
BUT please, keep your angular gyrus under control and those OBE's will stop.
DEUS SIVE NATURA.... it matters... not at all.
Wow spin-oza....we actually have the same belief! lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also only acknowledge the kinda pantheistic concept of `God`
You said...
`I wonder whether the brains of the Great Apes, dolphins, Orcas, elephants... and Neanderthals (whose brains were larger than Homo's) are/were "plugged in" to the Grand Consciousness Thing? If not, then why not?
Yes they are plugged in. because everything is. Either all sentient beings are plugged in...insects, bacteria, cells, included or every single atom is plugged in. Like panpsychism postulates.
The latter I prefer. Maybe thats where our beliefs deter.
SHOW ME THE SCIENCE. There is none for Creationism. Stop lying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Literally we are all the same `soul` but our brains give us our sense of identity and self, and continuity with memories and stuff like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the base, the source, is the same for everyone."
Once you can test that somehow and measure it empirically then you can argue that scientifically.
"Just because I hold a different view than you, you dont have to lump me in with fundamentalists, or new age cults, or anything like that."
Well, there is the scientific view, and then there are all the other views which are unscientific ones.
"Most pseudo-skeptics dont even want to look at the data.
In fear of crumbling their beliefs. I understand that feeling, because I was once there."
What data? Names, experiments, dates, links. Giving any such information someone could use for reference to go get this "data" would do wonders in aiding your point, if you have any such information to give.
"Im just a human trying to understand things. I study both sides for everything I research because its really the only fair thing to do."
There is only the scientific and the unscientific. The unscientific side includes everything that is untestable, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable, and supernatural. If you want to actually expand on humanity's knowledge, you can only do so by pursuing it via the scientific method.
"And everytime I reaserch things, Im ready to change my beliefs.
Whatever side I end up on after studying both, depends on the evidence. And I just so happened to end up on the `transmission` theory side."
Data is not evaluated based on belief. You either follow what the evidence points to (be scientific) or you don't. There is no belief involved when you do things scientifically.
"All I urge everyone to do is look at both sides EQUALLY.
Without prejudice or bias. Do it as if you've never heard about the subject before. See where it leads you."
I look at the evidence and the data, and follow where it leads. To do otherwise would be unscientific and faith-based.
"If you came to my house and saw my bookshelves, you actually wouldnt be able to peg my worldview on me, because I study BOTH sides!
You wouldnt know if I was a skeptic, or believer, or atheist or whatever.
Cuz Ive got books from all the sides of all the arguments."
You can own a book without accepting what's written in it as fact. I would peg you as someone who could disregard the scientific evidence if he disagrees with what it points to. I would peg you as someone who really doesn't understand what it means to be scientific.
``I look at the evidence and the data, and follow where it leads. To do otherwise would be unscientific and faith-based.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you truly did that....you wouldnt keep telling me to produce the cases and evidence because you would have researched that yourself, and would intimately know the cases.
So just by that one comment alone, I know you havent done a shred of research on the `psi`side.
But one good example case, is the OBE of a young woman who travelled out of her body and saw a tennis shoe on a ledge a few floors above her, in the hospital. After she floated through the ceiling she went 3 floors up and saw a tennis shoe sitting on the window ledge.
It was an old shoe and she noticed that the little toe had worn a whole through the fabric. She also noticed several other details, such as the fact that the lace was stuck under the heel.
She begged a nurse to please go to the ledge and see if there was a shoe there so that she could confirm whether her experience was real or not.
The nurse was skeptical after she looked up, out the window, but saw nothing. She went up to the third floor and began going in and out of pateients' rooms looking through windows so narrow she had to press her face against the glass just to see the ledge at all. Finally she found a room where she pressed her face against the glass and looked down and saw the tennis shoe. It wasn't until she retrieved the shoe that she confirmed Maria's various observations. "The only way she would have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe," states Clark, who has since become a believer in OBEs. "It was very concrete evidence for me."
This is not the only veridical OBE verified by external data. If you truly say you follow the data, you will know the many other cases. But of course you dont.
You just ignore the data, and fit back happily into your comforting beliefs.
Listen to this all the way through....if you dare
Its a shining example of a psychic detective case.
http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=69
How can you just ignore stuff like this?
I tried for a long time, but then I just said, F*** it! What am I really clinging to. Why cant consciousness be seperate from the brain in a way that we cant really explain but should be working on, because the data suggests that maybe this is the case.
Follow the data
"This is not the only veridical OBE verified by external data. If you truly say you follow the data, you will know the many other cases. But of course you dont."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you've just given is not scientific evidence. You've given a testimonial. Unless you can provide details such as the name of the hospital, date of event, the name of the doctor or the patient or the nurse, it is impossible to verify the veracity of your statement. There is no way to verify such an event occurred, that the patient really didn't know about the tennis ball, that the tennis ball was ever there, or that someone didn't make the entire story up from the beginning.
You've given anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not falsifiable, not testable, not scientific. You cannot empirically measure the properties of supposed OBE's, so you can't document them scientifically.
There is a reason why eye-witness testimony is the least trusted evidence in a criminal trial, while DNA evidence can on its own decide guilt or innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.
EDIT: tennis ball = tennis shoe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes good point, but there have been tested cases in scientific settings that produced good results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* Dr. Michael Sabom did a study on over 57 cardiac patients who had clinically died and were brought back, 32 of whom had experienced Veridical OBEs and had described in great detail their own resusitations during cardiac arrest, and 25 of whom had not experienced an OBE during their cardiac arrest. He had two groups, the experiencers who saw in their OBEs and the non-experiencers who did not, describe their resusitations. To his suprise, 80% of the non-experiencers misdescribed the procedures. On the other hand, all of the experiencers did not make a single mistake.
Charles Tart's OBE Experiments of having an experienced OBEr accurately read a five-digit number from an unreachable/unseeable location, and also affectRobert Morris' OBE Experiments with Keith Harary who reported accurately on sitters, letters, and positions, in a sealed labrotory 20 yards away
The strain guage experiments, etc etc etc
Theres much data to be looked at, but sadly the majority is being ignored as of now.
Aspirin is well known as a heart-attack reducer. A daily aspirin can `save your life` Aspirin advertises that their product can reduce heart attacks. Rightfully so, becuase the studies suggest that. But the effect size is relatively small.
Get this though....the meta-analysis of psi data, has produced an effect size FAR higher than that of the aspirin study, yet its STILL unacknowledged!!?? Why is that?
My only explanation is fear of letting go of old paradigms? I dunno...
I know I didnt like the data, or the eimplications when I first found out.
Are you trying to draw some supernatural conclusion from Sabom's research? He was only determining how common or uncommon it is for someone to claim to have had such an experience. He made no conclusions as to the scientific reasons for the experiences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if you want investigation into the properties of the experiences and their scientific causes, look at Kinseher's theory:
"In a new theory devised by Kinseher in 2006, the knowledge of the Sensory Autonomic System is applied in the NDE phenomenon. His theory states that the experience of looming death is an extremely strange paradox to a living organism - and therefore it will start the NDE: during the NDE, the individual becomes capable of "seeing" the brain performing a scan of the whole episodic memory (even prenatal experiences), in order to find a stored experience which is comparable to the input information of death. All these scanned and retrieved bits of information are permanently evaluated by the actual mind, as it is searching for a coping mechanism out of the potentially fatal situation. Kinseher feels this is the reason why a near-death experience is so unusual.
The theory also states that out-of-body experiences, accompanied with NDEs, are an attempt by the brain to create a mental overview of the situation and the surrounding world. The brain then transforms the input from sense organs and stored experience (knowledge) into a dream-like idea about oneself and the surrounding area.
Whether or not these experiences are hallucinatory, they do have a profound impact on the observer. Many psychologists not necessarily pursuing the paranormal, such as Susan Blackmore, have recognized this. These scientists are not trying to debunk the experience, but are instead searching for biological causes of NDEs."
But scientifically, you can try to draw conclusions which are not reproducibly testable and which are not falsifiable. Claims about souls and spirits and OBEs are not repeatably testable, and not falsifiable.
EDIT: But scientifically, you [cannot] try to draw conclusions which are not reproducibly testable and which are not falsifiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really need to start catching these things during proofread.
`Claims about souls and spirits and OBEs are not repeatably testable, and not falsifiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never made such claims. Im merely stating that consciousness seemed to be located away from the bodies in veridical verifiable OBES.
`Are you trying to draw some supernatural conclusion from Sabom's research?``
Absolutely not! Im a naturalist at my core. I dont believe in a God, or afterlife per se, just that humans have a wierd way of being able to gain anomolous information, that needs to be accounted for! Not ignored
Somehow were embedded in this fractal and seem to be able to gain information from parts of it.....as demonstrated in remote viewing experiments etc.
Im not postulating supernatural explanations. Quite the contrary.
What I would like most, is for this field of inquiry to become `natural`, and move away from the term supernatural, and incorporate it into theory so it can become part of nature, and not be outside-nature, or supernatural. We need some brilliant minds to come up with theories as to how we think it operates. Instead of just ignoring it.
Again...just cause Im questioning, doesnt make me a believer in God, or supernatural things like Yeti, Aliens etc etc.
All I have really gained from my research is that the human mind is capable of FAR more than we have imagined. And data suggests it can traverse through space-time either actually (consciousness leaving body) or by flashes of information received from locations in space-time.
How it operates is the question.
Not whether it exists.
Cuz by the same logic then, Aspirin should retract the ad campaign about heart attacks. But they dont, because they believe their effect size is great enough.
What effect size will it take to convince reductionists that emergentism might not be the whole story.
Who are you referring you as reductionists? Sounds suspiciously like a dubious label in line with "darwinist".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich of these reductionists are holding the philosophical idea of emergentism as the only explanation for this phenomena?
And lastly, how does any of this tie in with the discussion of creationism in the science class room?
Youre right...this thread got hijacked Im sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIll stop now. :)
Seriously though, check out that skeptiko podcast I posted.
Its interesting, and Id love to hear what you think
"And data suggests it can traverse through space-time either actually (consciousness leaving body) or by flashes of information received from locations in space-time."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, the data doesn't suggest that. You are drawing that conclusions prematurely. You cannot measure such travel. You cannot measure consciousness outside of the body. You cannot detect information coming from another location of space-time.
EDIT: nix that last line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this`` You cannot measure consciousness outside of the body`
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell sure....but only because we`re not trying!
Because of the current viewpoint, funding for such research is close to zero.
Though it has been done....the strain guage experiments!
If we continued in that direction maybe we finally could measure consciousness. I believe you`re also guilty of drawing your conclusion too early as well here.
Until such time as you can positivity point to some data that says 100% without a doubt that "this measurement shows consciousness outside of the human body, and cannot be representative of anything else because of x, y and z" what you are talking about is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch is the reason many things are still outside the realm of practical, active inquiry in science. String Theory may sooner or later enter the realm of laboratory scientific inquiry, but as of now I know of no way science can measure what is happening on the small scale String Theory deals with. As such it remains untestable.
To bring back on topic (if anyone cares ;))... some wise words from Sam Harris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fact of Life
All complex life on earth has developed from simpler life forms over billions of years. This is a fact that no longer admits of intelligent dispute. If you doubt that human beings evolved from prior species, you may as well doubt that the sun is a star. Granted, the sun doesn't seem like an ordinary star, but we know that it is a star that just happens to be relatively close to the earth. Imagine your potential for embarrassment if your religious faith rested on the presumption that the sun was not a star at all. Imagine millions of Christians in the United States spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year to battle the godless astronomers and astrophysicists on this point.
Christians who doubt the truth of evolution are apt to say things like "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact." Such statements betray a serious misunderstanding of the way the term "theory" is used in scientific discourse. In science, facts must be explained with reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are "theories." Theories make predictions and can, in principle, be tested. The phrase "the theory of evolution" does not in the least suggest that evolution is not a fact. One can speak about "the germ theory of disease" or "the theory of gravitation" without casting doubt upon disease or gravity as facts of nature.
It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of the Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.
Sam Harris - Letter to a Christian Nation
Look up the Kitzmiller court case. Intelligent design was ruled to be creationism re-labeled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat Pandas and people book actually word for word cut out creator and creation to replace them with designer and design.
RESTLESSbutnotDEVIANT: thanks for the Harris synopsis on the absolute stupidity of the faith-based grasping at straws to preserve their myth-based delusional world. Sam also touches on the sham, agenda-based "scientists" whose "mission" is to lay a thin veneer of credible controversy over rock-solid evolutionary theory... in order to keep the lemmings in the pews blissfully ignorant, and to gain a foothold for dressed-up creationism to gain a foothold in the public science classroom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHAT is so galling to me is these patenalistic purveyors of religious pap have had almost total control of these poor defenseless children, being hammered from near birth to adolescence with bible dogma which has absolutely NO basis in fact... and absolutely NO credible evidence!
AS shameless televangelists have shown ad nauseum, indoctrinating the young with now sophisticated multimedia "bible stories" in a bizarro Disneyesque way is a guilded multimillion dollar industry. After years in such an echo-chamber of lies, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the calm reason of science to break through the din... particularly when it is demonized in hyper-religious, scientifically-ignorant America.
OH well... i remain stubbornly optimistic, that like me, many of these young people will at some level of consciousness understand that the spoon-fed religious tripe just doesn't comport with reality... and at some point, an awakening will occur. At least now, some best-selling authors, like Harris, point out the absurdity of faith in the nonexistent... and the resources of the internet to explore a Naturalistic viewpoint is a portal to freedom.
Cheers!
JUST a final memo to "KK":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHAT you are so obsessed over is not merely NDE's/OBE's, which clearly have a neruochemical basis (google Olaf Blanke or Michael Persinger experiental, peer-reviewed, published work which I am quite familiar)... but some form of bogus ASTRAL PROJECTION or spirit-travel.
SORRY bucko, but there just aren't any ghosts... demons, devils nor angels... nor conscious entities leaving the physical body which fully instantiates the brain... and thus... the "mind". ALL evidence supports the mind and brain are one entity... duh.
AS far as I know, not a single living being has died (how many billions have died thus far?) and returned in a conscious state. I must assume that you may have "special knowledge" on this point though... not! So... in the meantime, you are like the faith-based praying that fossil which overturns evolutionary theory (many dumb-down christians still think humans walked with the dinosaurs... but then again, they believe in a spirit-world were the miraculous is common place)... will magically appear. The only rational conclusion at present is that evolution occured pretty much as advertised and consciousness apart from the organism that gave rise to it is... just... not... ... possible.
ADIOS ... and btw, how are those cheesy seances working for ya... your dead relatives doing OK?
You know, if you like ID as a belief that specifically has no say in what created us that's fine but it doesn't change who coined the term and what it was intended to be used for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThankfully it's political usefulness dead-ended back in '05 so they abandoned it and now you can use it with purer intentions.
"but there just aren't any ghosts... demons, devils nor angels... nor conscious entities leaving the physical body which fully instantiates the brain... and thus... the "mind". ALL evidence supports the mind and brain are one entity... duh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"
I never once mentioned demons, ghosts or any bullshit like that!!
I was merely stating that with current research the old paradigm of brain producing consciousness may have to be revised, that is all.
PLEASE STOP lumping me in with new-agers, crystal healers, demon hunters, God believers....IM NONE OF THESE THINGS!
Im a pantheist at heart....the natural world is what appeals to me.
I believe in evolution, stop saying Im aligned with bible-thumpers waiting for the fossil evidence to be turned over!
Consciousness is a part of that natural world. Im merely trying to understand where it fits, and along my way Ive come across some VERY STRANGE studies indeed.
In fact, I believe that the reason so many scientists are afraid of the implications of psi, is mainly because the 'credulous' believe stuff like this....and they dont want to be aligned with them, because I mean......look at them!
SAME WITH ME!
I can't stand psychic hotlines, charlatans, frauds, UFO, conspiracy theorists, homeopathy, crystal channeling, etc etc...
Most of it is bullshit!!!!
But on the other hand, there is something there, that we need to explain.
Statistical effect sizes, suggesting perhaps some form of evolutionary 'foresight' of sorts. I dunno.
What about that experiment with the chickens??
I forgot the details...but Im sure it can be googled.
A guy set up a cage with a random number generating robot, with a red light on its 'face'
The robot would change direction each time a random number was generated. Leading to a highly chaotic path, when plotted, showed the robot moved all around the cage rather randomly.
Now in another cage, there were a dozen baby chicks.....it was postulated that the chickens would sense the red light of the robot and the warmth, and they would think the robot was their mother, and they would want for it to come closer.
Indeed....when the blocker was removed so the robot came into view of the chicks, the robots path suddenly started getting smaller and smaller within the cage, until it was just moving around near the edge of one side of the cage. The edge closest to the chicks!
Explain that!!
Without a theory of how conscious entities can effect other things in reality, this cannot be explained by current science!
We need new theories to accommodate for stuff like this.
And also I never once mentioned dead people, or talking to the dead, or conducting seances, I dont even know why you brought any of that up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe its cuz I referred you to that Skeptiko podcast #58 about that psychic detective case.
But what I merely wanted you to do was check it out....
Just listen to it, with an open mind, and tell me what you think.
I really want to hear a 'skeptics' take on this. Cuz I think its pretty remarkable, but Id love to hear someone elses take.
Thanks
Heres some theories of a 'universal' type of 'mind' and how it might work. Depending on your mathematical knowledge, it may be a bit hard for you to grasp. Not sure of your level of education. But Im sure you'll get the gist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/pdf/boyarsky.theorymind.pdf
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012
At least some people are working towards including consciousness in theory, as opposed to just saying...oh its a curious byproduct of the brain, but really, we can ignore it.
xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really had me going there for a while. I had to read your post twice before I figured out it was satire. Excellent. I think this is Poe's Law moment: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_law
well said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell done!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvery well presented, if a little confusing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ IX , sounds good at first, but breaks down chaos theory; chaos theory is based only on mathematics, not on real life scenarios. every example in nature shows the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisqmc789, all creationist thank you for your respectful and kind gesture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperfect! that is how it should be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is fact, not 'theory.' it's the same difference between the LAW of gravitation vs. the 'theory' of gravity. Creationists are taking the coward's exit by claiming 'we dont want to study we're just going to believe in a higher power and be done with it.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come you never see chickens or dogs or cats worshiping some omnipotent supernatural fairy? Religions play on the fear of death to collect money from those they are offering to save.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no god. Get over it.
Believe whatever you want but as long as they don't try to mandate their doctrine into law (like the members of the creationism movement,) you don't have good justification for opposing them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll I'm saying is that their are plenty of reasonable people of faith and alienating them is only a favor to the creationism movement.
Spin-oza....whats your email address? If you dont mind me asking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand if you dont want to give it out. ;)
This article is poorly written, verbose, and verges on fear mongering. Such journalism styles (which unfortunately Scientific American has slid toward during the past 10 years) ultimately betray their intent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent design is a flawed attempt to compromise with evilution (No spelling error, it is pronounced this way in the UK where Charles Darwin published his grandfather,s collection of Greek philosophy and mythology as his own). I lived in Oxford 1982-1986. I have lived on 4 continents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am 74 and have been fascinated by the creation since I was 2. I attended the University of Colorado and studied geology for one semester until I learned they did not want to answer my questions, they just wanted to indoctrinate me!
I now fully believe in Infinite Intelligent Design, Infinite Wisdom to know how to use the information and Infinite Power to make it work as well as it does.
What is life? It is the Infinite revealed in the Finite. We were created in the image of God on the six day of creation and have the breath of God that the Lord Jesus Christ breathed into Adam's nostrils. He lived 929 years and we have devolved to the point we rarely pass 92.9 years in this life!
All men are religious! God is the Author of true religion and satan the author of all false religion. There are 5 things all men use to control each other. 1. Religion 2. Politics 3. Education 4. Economics 5. Entertainment.
You can vote a dictator into office but you can't vote him out! They want total control of all 5.
I met the Lord Jesus Christ in August 1954 and He did more for me in 20 seconds than religion and education had done in 20 years! He can and will do the same for you IF you ask Him! Then you really won't need me!
I am available for intelligent discussion at: dean@juno.com
THIS thread ran its course a few days ago... just checking in to see the detritus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see "Brother Dean" (personally, I tend to run the other way when strangers or casual acquaintences call me... and everyone else the "b" word) could not help himself and just had to pontificate about his personal delusions in a public forum. MEMO to BRO': keep your dim dogma on a tight leash... and please, no proselytizing on SciAM.
ALONG the same lines... if I here anyone... and I mean any one say "god/jesus told me this or that"... I view that as prima-facie evidence of frank psychopathology and rapidly exit... stage right or left.
ISN'T it nice of "MisterJustice" to pass out terse platitudes... while having nothing of substance to post in response to shameful creationist strategies outlined in the article?
Ditto for "JB"... who excels at... whinning.
MEMO to "KK"... as for handing out my email address... uh, no. IF we cross paths on SciAM in the land o' blogging... that's fine. I think we have a bit in common... but we part company at the very moment when you have "consciousness" leaving the physical brain and bodies outside themselves... floating through physical barriers. Sheesh!
MY interest is having "modern society"finally move beyond the onerous constraints of religions, especially pop-culture-mega-church-big-business christianity, born of ignornance and wishful messiah musings... and built on myth & lies.
IF one has need of a "god" ... and clearly many among us do... then let it be the god of Spinoza... and Einstein. Let it be the Universe naturalized by science and apprehended by reason... the Cosmos if you like. At least this god is both grand and... unlike every other god created by man... is grounded in reality.
AS I have said many times before... no one should really care what anyone else's personal beliefs may be... as long as they keep their musings to themselves... especially in the secular realms of government and public education... plus, its what our Constitution mandates!
FINAL THOUGHT: if any among us were truly in communion with an eternal creator entity... or some personal, supernatural demigod who allegedly briefly visited our planet... then:
1. That person would not be wasting time on the internet... nor with any other petty activities.
2. Would be in an unspeakable state of deep calm and joy.
3. Would likely be living the life of an ascetic... detached from society at large.
4. Would have nothing in common with hypocritical self-proclaimed "christians".
Cheers!
It is a logical assumption that change over time (evolution) can do less but not more than actualize the ever abiding potential of Being. How close are we to being able to see to every locus of volition and to measuring its full effect? How close are we to measuring the full consequences of every volitional act? I have experience of the power of intelligent volition; I do not have experience of the ultimate boundaries of that power. Might the foundation of the fabric of the cosmos be volitional? I find that to be a reasonable expectation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No spelling error"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, dean, it is a spelling error. You can't change the spelling of a word just because of how you choose to pronounce it. We all know it was just a thinly veiled attempt to put "evil" into the word.
joining "phoneboy" is his reply to x--3d: evolution has little to say about the first 13 B or so years, and claims _no_ miracles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand in general, theories are theories (and nothing else) e.g. "gravity" is a theory, and as i love to point out, the experimental evidence is richer in behalf of evolution than it is for gravity. other than the one experiment we perform daily when we crawl out of bed.
I think you are using the phrase "intelligent design" as a stand-in for the wonder that is evolution. As an example let us use the ABO blood type. The O type person is the predominant type in the world. This is great because O's can only recieve compatible blood from another O. So it is good that there are a lot of us. On the other hand people with the AB type are very rare and if they could only recive blood from their own type they would be in trouble needing a transfusion or multiple transfusions. Wonder of wonders!!! They can receive blood from any of the types A,B,or O. Is this intelligent? You Bet Ya!! This is not "intelligent design" it is the intelligence that is evolution , refining itself over the millenia, inproving what works and slowly deleting what does not. Common sense would tend to show that "creation obviously happened" but not in isolation as discrete "closed events ". Scientists are anything but closed minded. We would still think the world was flat it that were true !! Creation at it's beginning point set in motion the wonders that are life and science and our world. Evolution has no quarrel with creation or with religion trying to explain the wonder of it all. Creationists don't try to drag us back into the Dark Ages by refusing to use the intelligence that creation has given us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProponents of creationism's intelligent design are fond enough of pointing out the wonders of a butterfly's wing, the beauty of a swallow in flight, and the general perfection of this presumed 'designer's' work. But this 'designer' must also have 'designed' onchocerciasis (river blindeness), and the legion of other diseases, parasites, and assorted afflictions with which we share the planet. So what is this designer's moral stance? Is such a designer caring or merely indifferent? And if indifferent, then why create in the first place? And to credit the 'bad' things to the Devil (as I have in the past heard from ID'ers) gives evil equal powers of creation, which is of course a Christian heresy. Creationists/ID'ers have yet to provide satisfactory answers to any of these points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpin-oza there's a psychology theory that says some people will not change their beliefs no matter of the evidence presented to them...so if you want to finish your 'quest' successfully you probably need to start your quest with young generations...as you've seen in this section older people aren't so easy (read: impossible) to convince.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as for you guys...it was funny when someone says that he's basing what he's saying on data he reads and has no beliefs...oh boy you're trying to negate one part of human nature called the 'belief system'. I think kk was right when he said that we all have belief systems...I bet that even Spin-oza read kk comments with the belief: "This guy is telling bs...what he's wrong, what he's wrong about..., this guy is talking bullsiht"
And for you evolutionist, evolution is a theory not a fact. It cannot be proven (at least not with today's advancement of science). And ding, ding...there's ALTERNATIVES...which COULD SOMEDAY be true..but with today's advancement of science that probability is low.
Who knows, maybe in 20 years the scientific method will advance and some super natural forces will be discovered...but for now let's keep our minds open.
You can teach everything you want in classrooms these days...but real knowledge will come from the real world and reading discussions like this. Einstain said it many times in his quotes.
Stop conflating religion with science. Furthermore, the tenets of evolution say nothing about abiogenesis. I really wish trolls would not post misinformation or disinformation. You should be honest with yourself, if you have not put in at least 80-100 hours of studying evolution, then in all liklihood, you do not understand it and hence should refrain from posting/talking about it in any definitive manner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrr...is there a school that teaches evolution for that many hours? If there is please tell me about it :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscrad I am sorry I even understood yesterday about abiogenesis. Well I'm 18 and still studying this...I've been taught evolution 4 years ago when it was only mentioned briefly and nobody cared honestly because we already knew it from 4th grade...
Btw, where did I mention that evolution and religion conflate in my post? I stated that evolution cannot be proved in scientific matter until it is demonstrated in a laboratory, am I right? And thus evolution is still not a FACT...and I don't personally believe it will be in near future.
Criticizing people and calling them trolls doesn't help in real nor virtual life and you should be mature enough to know that.
Hello. Me again. I've read:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time.
I see many people confusing this including me till today. I am not afraid to say I was wrong. So, sorry about that.
Both schools of thought are correct. ID was created be evolved beings. The creationists are correct that we believe that live evolved on earth and concocted ID to explain the fact that life knows it is alive. Evolution is good science and will remain so as the gaps in the puzzle are filled-in. ID is good for the soul because it allows us to feel like Dad's still with us and we're not flailing around out here all alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth schools of thought are correct. Life is both created and evolved at the same time. Adam and Eve were the first two monkeys whose brains clicked onto the Spirit, in essence creating the concept. Creationism and Evolution co-exist within us. What's so evil about that?
EvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, let me just say your tone is very intriguing. Let me explain:
Duh, how true.
Here, you start out with a condescending tone that will carry out through your comment.
Unfortunately, the faithful are ignorant, by definition, so even simple concepts like this escape them.
The Faithful are ignorant? To what? And who gave you that definition, Grandma? The faithful are far from ignorant; in fact, I would wager than most that are faithful have a very strong head on their shoulders...apparently a trait lacking in your case. And these concepts do not escape us, we are every bit as smart as you (which doesn't say THAT much).
Funny, how different ignoramuses are willing to blindly believe (and sometimes die,) for different mythologies, largely dependent on the geographical location of their birth. The same lunatics thumping a Bible in your face in the Bible Belt, would be thumping a Koran, had they been born in Saudi Arabia, or The Book of Mormon, if born in Salt Lake City.
Funny how you are defending the same thing in essence. You have put your faith in Evolution, which is a greater leap of faith than those Bible Thumpers took, so good for you! However, unlike your viciously toned comment, we Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon Thumpers are calm and collected when we debate evolutionists such as yourself. Thanks for extending the same courtesy.
Actually, it would be funny, if only their lunacy didn't cause them to harm the rest of us, either by "martyring" themselves, or by hounding or shooting family-planning professionals, or by preventing legitimate scientific research, or by committing child-abuse by brainwashing kids.
Alright, let's cut through the political correctness here. We do not martyr ourselves, look up the definition of martyr. It is someone who has been discriminated against for their faith, not something we can do to ourselves. And an extremist shot an Abortionist, not a family-planning professional. I don't agree with their actions, and it certainly does not represent the majority of us "Faithfuls". And we are NOT trying to hinder legitimate science, but keep morals in the balance, and to offer other ways of analyzing the data collected. Not a hindrance in my opinion, but part of the scientific research. And finally, raising our kids with standards is NOT abuse!
Thanks for your deliciously and obscenely weak and no-knowledge post. Next time you post, try less anal exploration with your opposing digit and try opening your mind to REAL ideas. Thank you!
Evolution is science and as such does not want or even allow faith. This is in stark contrast to the trust people put in the assumed authority of any of the human-authored documents which are all of dubious authenticity and have been altered both intentionally and unintentionally since they were first 'divinely inspired'. The reason creationists receive such ridicule is the contempt they show for the scientific method and the scientists involved in the process of trying to further our knowledge about the world. Creationists resort to misquoted statements that are out of date and out of context and they are unwilling to accept that any evidence (historical, scientific or otherwise) can ever contradict their particular reading of a 3000 year old book and many of the creationist organizations require their employees to sign statements of faith to this effect. They conduct no respectable research of their own and so they have never been able to refute any of the ideas that they argue against, let alone provide any evidence which would support their own ideas. They describe ridiculous caricatures of evolution, such as evolution says humans came from rocks. or that a monkey one day gave birth to a human being. Many of them in fact describe evolution as anything from the unfolding of the universe to the formation of elements in stars, and they make use of any opportunity they can to poke wholes in ideas that they never demonstrate any understanding of. They are so desperate to find anything that they think would argue against these scientific ideas that they completely miss the wood for the trees and come up with arrant nonsense such as evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all mutations are harmful, or asking for fossils of monstrous zoological absurdities (eg. crocoduck).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists are unwilling to accept that they might not have the absolute answer already, so they are unable to engage in the scientific method which operates completely differently. No scientist, including Darwin, is infallible, and he did get some things wrong, but the basic ideas that he described 150 years ago have amassed, and continue to amass, such overwhelming evidence that scientists have no alternative but to accept it. So many different fields of science all converge on the same answer that it would be absurd to for any reasonable person to the regard the statement that living organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors as anything other than a fact. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the data that we have.
Eugenie Scott has been recycled enough times now to confidently conclude human evolution has ceased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"while I respect the work of the NCSE, I would like to see it back off a little regarding it's fairly official position that ID advocates seek to undermine science by religious indoctrination."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said.
I would like somebody to answer this: who died and bequeathed the ownership of "science" to a collective comprised variously of NSSE, AAAS, the Smithsonian, the US Government, the US Judiciary, Scientific American, Nature... and so on? Representatives of these parties might as well call anyone who does not believe in Evolution as "enemies of the people", "socially unfriendly elements". Hail Lysenko comrades! The era of scientists and "educators" as poorly disguised political commissars has fully arrived in North America.
that would be the National Senter for Science Education.... comrades. A word means just precisely comrad Eugenie wants it to mean, and is spelled just the way Comrade Eugenie says is the correct way to spell it. After all, everything evolves to a higher purpose... ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution is science and as such does not want or even allow faith."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefine faith; if faith is trust in something reliable and reproducible, then that is exactly what much of science is -- much of it must be accepted on trust by those in no position to reproduce its results before acting, say by undergoing a drug regimen on the advice of a physician.
Much of evolutionary doctrine is based on assumptions about the unobserved past; words like "might have", "could have", the famous Darwinian "it seems to me", perhaps. As such, these assumptions do not have even one real time empirical demonstration because no scientist was there to observe them.. Christian faith, which I assume is what most people mean when they speak of faith in this forum, is based on documentary evidence from the past and as such is subject to the same standards as all texts. The Christian texts pass the tests, if you would care to look into the matter in depth, reading the scholars who have examined the texts over many centuries and compared them to other texts.
It is true that scientists aren't able to create the earth in a laboratory, see how life appeared on its surface, or watch how it diversified over time and they will certainly never be able to detect if a deity was involved in any of this but I think most people would accept that this is an unreasonable expectation. However, scientists can still make logical inferences based on the evidence available today using the scientific method which, like it or not, is the only system we have which uses evidence and reason in its approach to discovering about nature. I suppose a certain amount of 'faith' is required in the scientific method but it has a pretty good track record on the whole so I'm willing to accept that the people involved in it know what they are doing. These scientists have no agenda and they certainly are not all a bunch of god-hating atheists hell-bent on destroying biblical Christianity or any other form of theism, in fact a large proportion of scientists are religious themselves. They are just a group of people who are attempting to abide by the scientific method as they attempt to investigate the natural world and further our understanding of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as the 'evolutionary doctrine', doctrines belong in religion. In science everything is up for grabs, and if anybody were ever able to present some solid empirical evidence against evolution then scientists would have to accept it but so far no such evidence has been forthcoming. In fact the evidence has been essentially entirely in support of evolution each time a new scientific field has emerged which could potentially challenge it. The people involved in studying evolution have demonstrated again and again that the so-called 'evidence against evolution' is not evidence at all, but is based on misunderstandings, flawed reasoning, and many outright falsehoods. However the disseminators of these arguements are unwilling to refine their arguements or accept that they might be wrong, which is why they have no credibility among the scientific community and why the nonsense they continue to peddle is essentially little more than propaganda.
The reason scientists use tentative language is because nothing in science is ever established beyond dispute, and much of science of based on a sceptical approach to evaluating evidence and not making statements which could turn out to be wrong; this is how science works.
Aside from science, your statements concerning the supposed accuracy of the bible also demonstrate very little understanding of an evidence-based approach to discovering about history. Modern historical research and archaeology has shown that most of the Old Testament is little more than folklore and legend. Although there may be some kernel of truth in some of the stories, there is no reason to think that any of the events described in the Old Testament happened as described until around the time King David enters the scene. As the timeline of events moves closer to the actually period when these books were written and assembled then the historical accuracy does, as one would expect, improve. Where these books inspired by a supreme being? Maybe, maybe not. This is where faith comes in because this is not a question to which the tools of evidence and reason can be applied. There is no real way to distinguish the collection of stories in the Old Testament from the vast reams of similar stories told by differing cultures, or from the various myths and legends many primitive people simply invented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe New Testament is obviously more recent still but it still has various problems for anybody who is attempting to discover what actually happened to the characters involved at the time in which they took place. Even the most recent of the Gospels was written 35-40 years after the events which they purport to describe, and the last one was written around 25-30 years after that so these certainly don't appear to be eye-witness accounts. Not only this, but the oldest surviving manuscripts of these texts date to around 150 years later still and they are fragmented so it is very difficult to establish what these texts originally contained. The texts that we have show such of obvious signs of attempting to make their accounts agree with Old Testament prophecies, such as the invention of an census which has no basis in history in the attempt to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, to name but one, that one wonders how much in them could be considered unbiased historical documentation. They disagree on many of the main points of the story of Jesus, even differing on their opinions as to on what day he actually died. Did corpses actually rise out of their graves and walk around? I doubt it. Was the tomb empty three days after Jesus's crucifiction? Maybe. Did his followers have visions of him? Possibly. Was Jesus raised from the dead by the creator of the universe and did his followers die for thinking he was? No way of knowing, but probably not.
By me, evolution is splendid creation myth as well as being sound science. But some people believe otherwise, and I am concerned that we may be hardening the problem, missing some human understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course we shouldn't let the science of evolution be misrepresented, but sometimes the facts are not the point.
Respect: I have heard a number of intelligent people professing creation myth that is not evolution, people speaking in terms of their culture, character, religion, spirituality, expressing a myth that represents who they feel they are. It would be smart of us to respond with all possible honest respect.
Science can, in general, be taught with a sidebar acknowledging human impact and reaction. Evolution could well be taught with respectful acknowledgment of the fact that many people disagree.
Caril Chasens, while many people disagree about evolution no respectable scientist working in any field relevant to it does. There are some disagreements, which creationists do their best to emphasize, about exactly how it occurred, such as whether natural selection was the main mechanism or not, but there is no debate about the reality of common descent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the contrary, I think you are misinformed about Biblical historiograpy. These so called settled results of Biblical criticism are far from modern, they go back hundreds of years and while they may be accepted by many socalled scholars these days, "showing" these old arguments as though they were true, biblical higher criticism regarding the old testament has a poor case and is based on an evollutionary view of history. Surprise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn assertion that is just not true and you don't appear to have any evidence to support your case other than a tired old recycled meme.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is no debate about the reality of common descent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot where you look for support... like the man who lost a gold coin who only looked under street lamps because that's where the most light was.
Many think the evlutionary "establisment" literally owns the whole scientific enterprise. Anyone outside the pale is "out of the clubhouse" . Where would science be today if it operated like that in the past? Newton, Copernicus, Halley, Priestly, Humphrey Davey, James Clerk Maxwell, none of them would be consdered real scientists by you lot because of their views re: religion or evolution.
You seem perfectly happy also to let courts define what science is, and scientists are, when it suits you. eg Kitzmiller, a case I deplore as a Christian but face it the judge was a complete hack who read most of the ACLU stuff into his decision.
There is no such thing as an evolutionary world view, although I would accept that there is a scientific one. I do not look anywhere for support, I simply look at the large picture and there is no evidence that anyone has ever provided which shows that common descent is wrong. The DNA record speaks so unambiguously in favour of common descent that there is no way of dismissing it. I have to point out that the same techniques which indicate common descent are the very same ones that would be used in a court case to determine paternity and that are considered reliable enough to make life and death decisions concerning the guilt of people on trial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't want the courts to determine what science is but the Intelligent Design creationists are trying to cheat on the process. The have produced absolutely no peer reviewed research in favour of their positon and they have failed miserably to persuade the scientific community that what they are advocating is anything more than propaganda. They tried to insert their point of view into the classroom, and they were rightly taken to court over their actions. If they really believed in what they said, they would be doing research to try to convince other scientists but they aren't. The contribution of intelligent design to the scientific understanding of nature is precisely zero. Can you name me one scientific organisation that thinks that ID is even science, regardless of whether they consider it good science or not? As Sean Carrol says 'were it not for its theological appeal and the tactics of its proponents, we would have never heard of Intelligent Design, and it would join other notions in the vast ashcan of rejected ideas'. The scientific community is not biased against these promoters of pseudoscience because they are religious, but because the ideas that they advocate are contradicted by all current evidence. As people have pointed out, almost none of them, despite their PhDs, are involved in the scientific enterprise and none of them at all have any credentials in any field that is relevant to evolution; paeleontology, population genetics, evolutionary biology, or macroevolutionary theory.
Time and again the scientists all over the globe line up on one side of this issue and yet you chose to listen the few sidelined crackpots who are complaining because their unsubstantiated views aren't taken seriously.
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/1709000/1709901/9/print/1709901.pdf
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
chasthology: "Newton, Copernicus, Halley, Priestly, Humphrey Davey, James Clerk Maxwell, none of them would be consdered real scientists by you lot because of their views re: religion or evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's take the first mentioned. The point which chasthology attempts to make is that Sir Isaac Newton would not be considered by 'us lot' to be a true scientist because of his religious beliefs. Newton is often cited as a scientist who was an exemplary Christian by those who seek to discredit what they perceive to be 'godless science'. The truth is otherwise. Sir Isaac is on record as saying that, not only did he deny the Trinity, but he considered the concept 'blasphemous'. His views on Christian doctrine would be considered heretical even by today's conventions, as a little background study will establish. So which 'clubhouse' is Newton 'out of', chasthology? The scientific, or the one for which you claim him?
chasthology: "Define faith; if faith is trust in something reliable and reproducible, then that is exactly what much of science is"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is exactly what faith is not. Faith asks for nothing except belief. It is something that is taken on trust, neither asking for nor requiring any proof whatever. That is why it is called 'faith'. Those opposed to evolutionary theory on religious rather than scientific grounds keep pounding this 'science is a religion too' line. But science requires testable hypotheses, repeatable experiments, peer-reviews, and so on, not one of which applies to a religious belief. So what's REALLY going on here?
Creationists and other Biblical literalists suffer from a sort of science envy. They attempt to drape themselves in the trappings of what they think is science because they imagine that it will invest their beliefs with a veneer of respectability. The 'we can prove our beliefs so they must be true' mentality. But what they end up with is an ugly hybrid that is neither true science, which must pass review to become established, nor true religion, which neither asks for nor requires proof of any kind. So, no, science is not a religion. And for this reason, neither is creationism.
Of course, I agree. Not my point....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's The AAAS That Promotes Religion In Science And In Law
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhereas Religion Is But A Legitimate Virtual Reality Tool
A. "Protest Louisiana creationism law"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/69.page
B. From a Dec 03 2008 posting
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/80/122.page#1136
"If "god" is defined/understood to be a human artifact - regardless of reasons, purposes, implications, consequences - the subject "god-science" is scientifically discussable.
If "god" is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and "god-science" is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality."
C. It's The AAAS That Promotes Religion In Science And In Law
The AAAS and its affiliates and equivalent organizations, i.e. all the Science Establishment Guilds, loudly and pseudoscientifically promote and "profoundly respect" the "spiritual religious domain" as A REAL domain, a domain separate from the REAL, science, domain. They do this both because, unbelievably, they actually believe it and as a politically powerful tool in promoting their power and state-public support.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
It's The AAAS That Promotes Religion In Science And In Law
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhereas Religion Is But A Legitimate Virtual Reality Tool
A. "Protest Louisiana creationism law"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/69.page
B. From a Dec 03 2008 posting
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/80/122.page#1136
"If "god" is defined/understood to be a human artifact - regardless of reasons, purposes, implications, consequences - the subject "god-science" is scientifically discussable.
If "god" is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and "god-science" is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality."
C. It's The AAAS That Promotes Religion In Science And In Law
The AAAS and its affiliates and equivalent organizations, i.e. all the Science Establishment Guilds, loudly and pseudoscientifically promote and "profoundly respect" the "spiritual religious domain" as A REAL domain, a domain separate from the REAL, science, domain. They do this both because, unbelievably, they actually believe it and as a politically powerful tool in promoting their power and state-public support.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
It is interesting to note that in this edition of scientific american there was not one critique of the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact no questions were even raised. I would contend that these same arguments for evolution and those against intelligent design would have been proposed 70 years ago, before mutations were considered as the force behind evolution. It comes down to the old adage, One does not ask questions when he's afraid of the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting to note that in this edition of scientific american there was not one critique of the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact no questions were even raised. I would contend that these same arguments for evolution and those against intelligent design would have been proposed 70 years ago, before mutations were considered as the force behind evolution. It comes down to the old adage, One does not ask questions when he's afraid of the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm still reading the article, but wanted to mention twothings before I forgot...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting the speed at which creationism evolves, making any comparison between it and a nasty virus all the more apt.
And this sentence (I've just got this far in the article:
"The designer, the proponents say, might be God, but it might be space aliens or time-traveling cell biologists from the future."
Actually makes me want them to teach it as a 'scientific' alternative to evolution. If a science teacher started their lesson with 'Today we learn about intelligent design, the hypothesis that time-travelling cell biologist aliens are governing the fate of our planet and everything on it', people would realise very quickly quite what a load of baloney it is...
Dear xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote, "Has no one noticed that evolution is a religion? it says that all things began by miracles.
The universe appeared suddenly from nothing miracle..."
Uh, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, silly.
Dear xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote, "Has no one noticed that evolution is a religion? it says that all things began by miracles.
The universe appeared suddenly from nothing – miracle..."
Uh, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, silly.
Credit must be paid to the judgment made by Judge John E. Jones III, in the case [Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]. Judge Jones' decision appears here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
I recommend you ID guys watch the following documentary available on Google Video: Intelligent Design on Trial. I think you'll get then that all the arguments against evolution by intelligent designers are simply silly. They might argue against ABIOGENESIS, but evolution is a totally different thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso search youtube for "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" he's the best guy to explain in the most simplistic matter about this funny ID movement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was an ID guy...but I understood that I accepted their views because I knew so little about evolution. Now when I'm more educated after watching these videos (btw, reading to comments like these is not going to take you anywhere, I recommend first look for some official and credible explanations like PBS documentaries and different scientists, etc) and even then realized how big BS it is.
Main arguments:
Life is created out of randomness = that's not evolution's job, that's abiogenesis. Evolution inspects how life EVOLVED over time.
Too many forms like the bacteria flagellum are complex and if ONE part is taken away they won't work = false. There is an organism that is missing the parts that the bacteria flagellum has and is still working perfectly good. Just it has a different role.
So the basic premise of ID is FALSE thus the whole ID movement is a sham. That's all. End of discussion.
The reason most people don't realize this is either because they read all sorts online on discussion forums which are false or they watch low-quality full with propaganda movies which are lies too. Just go and watch the videos I told you (it should take you 3 hours) but the amount of time that you'll save yourself from arguing with ignorant fools will be priceless, I promise.
The biblical account in the light of evolutionary theory is wrong. All things living were not created separately according to its kind. All life on the planet is genealogically related.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrister, as one Christian to another let me say that you need to learn the difference between faith and science. Evolution is not a matter of faith... and it doesn't threaten faith... at least a faith that knows it isn't a science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBob G (to xylyx3d): "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been duelling with creationists on the Internet for months, both on SciAm and on other sites. For some reason, one of the most persistent misconceptions which they cling to is confusing cosmology with evolutionary theory. The number of times that this error is pointed out to them seems to make no difference. They just go on believing that these separate scientific disciplines are one amorphous mass. The same holds true for the misconception of what a scientific theory involves. I wish I had a buck for the number of times that I've had the 'evolution is just a theory' line thrown at me.
I have concluded two things from the above. The first is that they must glean their misinformation from the same sources, such as the creationist site Answers in Genesis (a guaranteed toe-curler for anyone who knows even a modicum about these subjects). The second is the rather more philosophical reflection that, if you reject the notion that something can evolve, then neither will you.
hi my name is camilo, the vast majority of the people takes the evolution theory as a fact for the explanation for life we see now. however, have you ever think about that Evolution could be wrong, let see Evolution from a mathematical point of view, life to be life have to undergo thousands of chemical reactions on every living been to be sustainable, according Evolution all these Chemestry came to be as a process of try and mistake
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto be perfected, well if this is true , would be logical to think that now day we will see the reminds of the mistakes that life did in its carrier to create life
even more we wil see now animals dying for and plant dying for the mistakes that nature did when trying to create life. the reality is other we can see species that have in their DNA the istructions already writting by someone on how to react to certain situations and how to adapt. Another point that I am not agree with evolucion is what it claims about the fact that animals that we see now evolve from other animals. For instance, there is the theory that the Mamouth is the father of the mother elephant. why, let see do you think will be logical that I said that the Dog vigo is the ancester of the chiuaa, because it change over time and become more adult. well it is the same with the elephant and the mamouth they are animals which belongs ot on brand of animals which are have similar phenotypic caracteristics but that are different, it is like someone costumize a paintings, sometimes it takes the model and add more details to it, holding the basic caracteristic of the model but adding new details, the result is many different painting that share on theorical model . that happend in the case of any brand of animals such as Dog and its differents variation, for this reasons and other more I am agree with the Creacionism theory, finally, if the evolucion theory is true another animals who consume more meat than us will be ale to think.since according evolution that's why men become an inteligent been.
Hi Camilo. A couple of points: to think of variations as 'mistakes' is the wrong term, as it gives the wrong idea of what is really going on. There are no 'mistakes' in evolution, just ways of adapting to different situations. So you're not going to find any 'mistakes' in nature anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA is a very good test of evolution, because it contains clues to how an animal evolved, and what it was like before it came to be as we see it. So apart from fossils which tell us these things, a bird's DNA will contain the means to grow the teeth and bony reptile tail of its dinosaur ancestors. We don't see these things in birds because these DNA 'switches' don't get used as the baby bird develops, but the DNA information is still there.
I'm afraid you have the wrong idea about mammoths. I think what you are saying is that there are different 'kinds' of animals. But this is a term used by creationists; the word 'kind' has no meaning in science, because it does not explain anything, except in a way that is too general to be useful. And I'm fraid that you're also wrong about meat-eating having anything to do with intelligence. After all, if this were true, then people who were vegetarian (and there are of course many who are) would be more stupid than meat-eaters, and that's just not so.
There is no sound evidence whatsoever for creationism, and evolution has never been disproved. Believe me, if a scientist ever managed to do this, then he or she would win fame and probably a Nobel Prize as well!
Believers in "panentheism" feel that a "cosmic mind" pervades the material universe (but isn't restricted to it). This would at least explain the innate intelligence that appears so evident at the cellular level and even at the viral level. Perhaps, then, intelligent design began at a fundemental level, which then made possible the evolution of eukaryotic cells and multicellular organisms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBranch and Scott cite Louisiana's Academic Freedom Act but miss a similar proposal, "Strengths and Weaknesses," now wending its way through the Texas legal process. Personally, I'd welcome such efforts into the classroom, but only if they would be taught with intellectual rigor. A true "academic freedom, strengths and weaknesses" curriculum would include at minimum the following items:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) A survey of creation theories, for instance:
a selection from Kipling's "Just So" stories
Hesiod's Theogeny
at least two Native American (Navajo?, Kwakwaka'wakw?) creation stories
the current astrophysical Standard Model
the Biblical creation story
at least two African creation stories
Terry Pratchett's "Discworld Science"
(2) An introduction to epistemology, with discussion of standards of proof
appeal to authority
appeal to evidence
appeal to internal consistency
(3) Kuhn's "paradigm shift" theory as an analytical tool
(4) A critical review of each theory in Part 1
No doubt those with legal and/or philosophical training could flesh out the second major bullet. If this were the proposed curriculum, and if we had any assurance that it would be taught honestly, I for one would be willing to support it with tax money. I think the citizenry would be better off -- but the politicians and the backers of the Discovery Institute wouldn't like it.
I submit my letter for consideration as a reply to the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement, "Evolution should be taught as a practical tool for understanding drug resistance and the price of fish" would be far more useful if it did not contain the controversial word 'Evolution'. It would be much better to say, "Natural selection and the complementary idea of how genes, individuals and species change over time should be taught as a practical tool for understanding drug resistance and the price of fish." The term 'evolution' has too many connotations and turns many away. We would accomplish more if we used our terms more carefully. --Carl Sheperd, Utica, KY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement, "Evolution should be taught as a practical tool for understanding drug resistance and the price of fish" would be far more useful if it did not contain the controversial word 'Evolution'. It would be much better to say, "Natural selection and the complementary idea of how genes, individuals and species change over time should be taught as a practical tool for understanding drug resistance and the price of fish." The term 'evolution' has too many connotations and turns many away. We would accomplish more if we used our terms more carefully. --Carl Sheperd, Utica, KY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntrue, evolotion DOES NOT say ANYTHING about how the universe began nor does it say how the first cell came into existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, think about it, there IS a reason we are in EXACTLY the right place.
It is because there are BILLIONS of galaxys each with BILLIONS of stars.
Life had a HUGE chance of happening, THAT is why you are in EXACTLY the right place .
Evolution says that "the galaxies appeared slowly from chaos into the organized clusters we see today"? Really? The theory of EVOLUTION says that? In all the books I've read about the the theory of evolution, I've never ONCE seen anything having to do with astronomy. Which makes sense, of course, since evolution is a product of the BIOLOGICAL sciences. So what you're criticizing here isn't evolution- it's science as a whole. That's fine- but if you're going to criticize science, what the hell are you doing on the website of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN? Surely there must be a better place to post your rehtoric?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe place of religion is in religious classrooms, and science in science classrooms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent Design skewered as essentially Creationism in drag. Well done. It’s a fair analysis, because you’ve detected the rarely understood elliptical linkage between argument and underlying world view. The arguments may change, dare I say, evolve. But the relationship to its presupposed world view remains. My concern is that proponents of scientific macro evolution are no less guilty of such presupposed, though unacknowledged commitments to their world view. The word science can, and often is, used as if it alone is reserved some sort of holy standard of objectivity. (Sorry for the use of the word holy, I can’t help myself, I keep importing a presupposed religious perspective.) Science is a tool which can only be wielded by persons, thinking, reasoning, as well as presuppositional subrational, human beings. Some of which can be guilty of scientism, empiricism, and materialism. Yes, men of science have their presupposed subscientific commitments driving them as well. The great irony is that appeals to science without a recognition of the presupposed commitments to materialism etc…amounts to a form of scientific and academic fundamentalism. We the academy said it, you must believe it, that settles it. Remember the really onerous part of this isn’t just the dogmatism, but rather the hubris and therefore lack of any critique. Speaking of facts, evidence and information as if they either don’t require an interpretation or at any rate no one need interpret, we’ve don’t that for you and rest assured it’s always correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may despise the dogmatic world views of fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims for the kind of sub scientific presuppositions they make consistently from their worldview, but please recognize many of your arguments for science and macroevolution fall on the same grounds.
oppositional thinker, you seem to be making the simplistic assumption that the scientific community is some sort of closed-ranks Masonic order. But what one scientist might publish is scrutinised by many another who will be all-too-eager to find fault with any conclusions drawn. These are the checks and balances of science, and the fact that they are in place leaves scant room for what you describe as "presupposed subscientific commitments". Even were presupposition to creep into an individual scientist's conclusions, it will be found out by others in review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, all this is perhaps news to you, because in spite of your apparent even-handed approach, your closing claim that "science and macroevolution fall on the same grounds" as religious fundamentalism gives the game away. Divisions between macro- and microevolution are for practical purposes little used in biological science. It is creationists who seem to presume that such terms carry scientific currency.
And as if your use of this term is not enough to reveal your true affiliations, your assertion that "..the academy said it, you must believe it, that settles it. Remember the really onerous part of this isn’t just the dogmatism, but rather the hubris and therefore lack of any critique" makes for derisory reading on a science website.
Is it not possible that extraterrestrials salted the earth with higher life forms? Is this not what mankind is planning for Mars? Respectfully, Gortenbull
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if ID supporters could get their theories taught in schools it really wouldn't have much effect. Those actually interested in pursuing a career in the sciences would figure out pretty quickly that ID is in no shape or form scientific and would discard it. Either way we will be right back where we started. Scientists doing science and and a non-scientific public constantly trying (unsuccessfully) to pervert it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if ID supporters could get their theories taught in schools it really wouldn't have much effect. Those actually interested in pursuing a career in the sciences would figure out pretty quickly that ID is in no shape or form scientific and would discard it. Either way we will be right back where we started. Scientists doing science and and a non-scientific public constantly trying (unsuccessfully) to pervert it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is it not possible that extraterrestrials salted the earth with higher life forms? Is this not what mankind is planning for Mars? Respectfully, Gortenbull"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure. There is nothing unscientific about that argument. But, those aliens would have first evolved on their planet before visiting ours.
Scopes Monkey Trial in reverse:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a case of the shoe placed squarely on the other foot, recent legal cases (McLean v. Arkansas) involving attempts by proponents of creationism to slip intelligent design (ID) into schools as a scientific hypothesis have failed to meet that condition. Here's why:
At its core, ID violates the founding principle of scientific inquiry formally established by Adelard of Bath (1080 - 1152 CE) that the universe is a closed system in which natural effects can have only natural causes. Whether or not this is ultimately true in any metaphysical sense misses the point. The world's most notable scientists, from Newton to Einstein all believed in God, but none would go so far as to suggest that their belief constituted a scientific hypothesis. We have a choice between investigating the causes of phenomena or simply throw our hands up and just say God did it. The scopes monkey trial of 1926 took the opposing position that Darwinian evolution could not be taught in public schools, per the Butler Act of 1925 forbidding teachers from denying the biblical account of creation. By contrast, the scientific community does not oppose teaching creationism in the proper context of comparative religion, in which many creationist accounts from hindu to roman to polynesian and many other exotic accounts can be found. While there is certainly a fair share of politics within the science community, it has been the subject of numerous books and articles in the social sciences, which have dismantled the distinction between *hard* and *soft* sciences. For centuries the "God-did it" method of understanding the world has had more meaning in politics than in biology, technology, ethics or any other human endeavor, which is why there is now a resistance to creationists posing in scientists lab coats. One need look no further than the middle east to see a modern form of oppression by creationists of another creed.
Now for an even bigger question: Are religion and science mutually exclusive realms of inquiry? Believe it or not, no. As mentioned above, the world's most notable movers and shakers in science were deeply religious, but they were not moved by authority as much as by a courageous pursuit to know what others said could not be known. They knew intuitively, as without even question that the universe was a continuous whole of forces and materials at rock bottom hidden from our immediate sense impressions, and each merely contributed their small voice to the Great Conversation that is mankind.
"We - mankind - are a conversation. The being of men is founded in language."
~Martin Heidegger
"In the Beginning was the Word."
~Gospel of John
LOGOS is Greek for Word. Our language is the lens through which we see the world, and as we shape our language so too we shape our world.
Are you stupid? Can I just ask you a question?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you get it?!?
You spent the entire article complaining about how creationists are critizing the other side-BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING you're critizing their veiw as well!
You spend all this time wishing they didn't have a say- why are you so mad about this?
Your critizing that creationism is putting pressure on people- even thought evolution is and has been pressuring 10times more!
Thats all your article was- complaining about how they complain, and pressuring them out of the right to speak their minds.
I am undecided in this scientific area so its not like I'm a creationist bashing you for this- but you are a complete moron for writing this.
(( sorry if this sounds rude))
Our universe is known to consist of 4 dimensions - 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. The time dimension is the most interesting because it is intangible and difficult to precisely define.Time may be said to be a measure of the degree of separation of 2 events. More importantly, it is responsible for the existance and defines the extent of continuous events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing a continuous event, our universe is dependant on time, and is thought to have been created about 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". True or not, since time is an intrinsic property, it must have been created in some way at some time in the distant past. The sciences of physics, archaeology, and evolution all agree on this, and although some theologians (religionists might be a better word) disagree the Bible does not. And since time is an intrinsic property, it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist outside of our universe, except possibly in other universes.
It might be noted that if the universe were created without a time dimension it would still exist, but it wouldn't change from the instant of creation. If it were created yesterday, for example, we would all be there with everything like it was, but we couldn't move; nothing would change ever and the word "ever" would be meaningless.
The biblical account of the creation of the universe and everything in it is imprecise, but its only material conflict with science is the "timeline," which, like many other biblical narratives, is clearly not meant to be taken literally. The length of time in a biblical "day" during the creation obviously has no relation to a day now that things have settled down. .
From the time of origin, the universe and everything in it seems to have developed and progressed in a rational scientific manner. Before and at the instant of creation, however, science can provide nothing but guesses. But if there were a god existing outside the universe and unaffected by the presence or absence of a time dimension, it could see the universe instantaneously from beginning to end, just as a person flying past the earth at the speed of light could see its past, present and future all at once without the hands of his clock moving.
Like the Bible, all religions were created by man and contain much that is unbelievable or at least open to debate, but the existance of the universe seems to constitute undeniable evidence of the existance of God that science can never refute.
Robert B. Williamson
3010 Vera Drive
Knoxville, TN 37917
"...but the existance of the universe seems to constitute undeniable evidence of the existance of God that science can never refute"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow so? The Universe exists and it is not clear how it came into existence so God must have done it? Sounds like "God of the cracks" to me. Where ever there is a gap in our knowledge we stick God in there until such a time when that gap can be filled with knowledge.
Besides, saying that the universe required God to exist fails to explain how God came to exist.
mlrb2113: "It might be noted that if the universe were created without a time dimension it would still exist, but it wouldn't change from the instant of creation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem not to understand the continuum nature of space-time, mlrb2113. These two are not, as you suggest, mutually exclusive entities. Movement in space (any movement) also and inevitably involves movement in time, and vice versa. Space exists because time exists (and, yet again, vice versa). You can stand stock-still, but time for you still passes because the Earth is moving through space. This linear, sequential past/present/future time mode is (as Einstein taught us) relative, and its effects might be warped by speed and gravity. But were it possible to step out of this space-time continuum, then you would not experience a lack of time, but an omnipresent mode, putting you at all points of the universe simultaneously.
As to your statement that "the existance of the universe seems to constitute undeniable evidence of the existance of God that science can never refute": Well, if science can never refute it (in science, the term is 'falsify'), then it cannot be considered by science (where refutation is a prerequisite), and must remain where it is at the moment, which is in the realm of religious belief, and (as far as science is concerned) is anything but 'undeniable'.
Like Ambertooth mentioned, it is impossible to prove that god, or any other being that could have created the Universe, does not exists. Therefore, it does not belong to the realm of science. How can we then teach a so called "theory", like ID, at school during SCIENCE class? If it should be taught at school at all, it should belong to some kind of theology class, or philosophy class at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs some people have already stated, it is impossible to disprove the existence of god or any other being that could have created the universe. Therefore, so called 'theories' like ID and creationism are not even close to the realm of science. How then, can we teach ID during SCIENCE class? If it were taught at school at all, it should be taught during theology class, or philosophy at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe post mlrb2113 - 02/27/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“It might be noted that if the universe were created without a time dimension it would still exist, but it wouldn't change from the instant of creation.”
How so –
Empty/non-existent universe (state A) --------> Universe + matter + energy (state B)
How do you get from A to B without a time dimension ?
“ If it were created yesterday, for example, we would all be there with everything like it was, but we couldn't move; nothing would change ever and the word "ever" would be meaningless.”
( Assume we can get from A to B without a time dimension)
All matter rotates (electrons orbit atoms etc ), + energy, all require time to continue to exist
Stop time matter + energy cease to exist.
“But if there were a god existing outside the universe and unaffected by the presence or absence of a time dimension, it could see the universe instantaneously from beginning to end,”
How do you “see” from one universe to another ?
To “see” requires a time element-
Energy must be expended to enable the “viewer” to “see” (see Maxwell’s demon) , and also transfer the information from one universe to the other
Without a time dimension the terms “instantaneously”,“beginning” and “end” have no meaning.
“but the existence of the universe seems to constitute undeniable evidence of the existence of God.”
I do not see how the existence of the universe constitutes evidence of anything – Please explain
“that science can never refute.”
String theory indicates the possibility of parallel universes (blanes). Perhaps in time science will prove the existence of these universes and show a way how to investigate them (I agree this will PROBABLY never happen but never is a long time)
Reading the posts I am never sure when people refer to the universe they are refering to "space" + all the contents , i.e planets, stars etc, or just to empty "space".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor empty "space" I see no reason why this should have been "created" at all.
Why could this not have existed forever ?
Two questions to those who believe in ID.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you believe man was
a) created however long ago and evolved under control of ID to his current state, or
b) was created and has remained unchanged or
c) evolved under control of ID from some other creature?
When do you believe man was first created(if a) or b)) or evolved (if c))?
From my reading I believe at the heart of the problem re. – creationism/ID lay 2 questions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 – Does either
a) the proponents of creationism/ID wish to become a universally accepted scientific discipline.
Or b) do they wish subjects relating to biological evolution be removed from the list of established disciplines
If the answer to the above is a) then a second question arises
2) Do the proponents wish to
a) Become an established discipline by following the currently universally accepted scientific methodology and tenets
or b) Change the methodology and tenets of all sciences to become more easily accepted as a universally accepted discipline
or c) change the methodology and tenets in relation to biological sciences only
Would any proponent of creationism/ID care to answer these questions ?
Further information Re post mlrb2113 - 02/27/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might be noted that if the universe were created without a time dimension it would still exist, but it wouldn't change from the instant of creation.
Without time dimension
Empty/non-existent universe must co-exist with an existing Universe/matter/energy.
Now there's a paradox
One last post ref mlrb2113 /02/27/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said
"just as a person flying past the earth at the speed of light could see its past, present and future all at once without the hands of his clock moving"
Not a very good analogy
According to Einstein's theories
1) For you the past/present/future and "present time" of the earth become meaningless, as you are now experiencing time differently.
That is "past","present" and "future" are relative to a time frame, but whose? yours or the earths.
2) IF you could travel at the speed of light. I am not sure what you would see as you appoached the earth as the image would be affected by "blue" shift (I think). However as you went passed the image would "freeze", new "images" would no longer be able to reach you as you would be travelling at the same speed as light from the last "image".
3) You would see your own clock to be moving as normal but it would be travelling infinitely faster than a clock on earth.
Sorry I made a mistake re my last post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3) You would see your own clock moving as normal and you would experience time as normal, i.e you would age normally.
Similarly the earth would experience its own time, and would age, as normal in its own "time frame"
However both you and the earth are experiencing different "time frames" so relative to you the time on earth would be passing infinitely quickly, i.e. the earth would age infinitely quickly relative to you.
Relative to the earth you would cease to age.
Another 2 question for creationist/ID believers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming there is(was?) a "designer"
What was the "starting point" of the "designer" in creating existing complex organisms?
What is the mechanism that enabled the designer to get from the "starting point" to these complex organisms?
RE Laughable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a much simpler explanation
Imagine 2 clocks, 1 on earth, 1 on a spaceship travelling at the speed of light
A person on the spaceship can see both clocks
He would see the clock on the spaceship moving normally but the one on earth moving infinitely fast
Now imagine a person on earth who can also see both clocks
He would see the clock on earth moving normally but the clock on the spaceship not moving at all.
(How both clocks could be "seen" I will leave to your imagination)
Much clearer dont you think?
THE ORIGINAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS OVER 2550 YEARS OLD!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCuriously enough, we find that the theories of life are dominated by two schools of thought.
On one side of the divide we meet those indomitable creationists. These true believers are convinced that a creator God is the initiator of life.
On the opposite side we meet the Darwinists. They it seems have placed all of their eggs in a single basket. For they invoke Natural selection as an explain all in order to make clear this subtle and complicated becoming process of species.
Naturally it can be established that, a pound of butter contains a pounds weight by simply weighing it. But the natural selection mantra is diffused to say the least. Equipped with this instrument, it is a daunting task for the Darwinians to produce any evidence that a species is either moving up the ladder of survival or directed towards extinction. As a matter of fact, can Darwinist specify at what point of time did an X species ended up as Y species by rearranging its genes.
Incredibly enough its taken for granted that, it is through Darwins famous work The Origin of Species that we first encountered this evolutionary process of species and its shadowy dynamics. Yet upon closer scrutiny, it becomes blatantly evident that those, hangers on of the Darwinian version of life, are not any different from their opponents, the true believers.
Indeed, if Darwinists are so certain that natural selection is so scientific, then they should lobby the United Nations to get survival of the fittest ideology accepted in the affairs of men and nations. They should persuade UN not to interfere in the tribal wars of annihilation and genocide. For surely the fittest or the victors will survive, and go on to procreate and send their types further in time and space. Surely Darwinists are not nursing an absurd notion that the human species is a special creation by God and should be an exception to the rule, hence needs protection by the League of Nations.
Not only did the word evolution derail our thinking from investigating how species metamorphosed but it also put blinkers to our logically and rationally thinking. It also hindered our probing what mechanisms fired this becoming process of species.
My own research indicates that a whole bunch of vital ingredients are missing from the Darwinian model of evolution. To name a few obvious ones:
1. It lacks an action theory. (Totally ignored by Darwin)
2. An ethical theory is totally left out. (Being purely mechanistic theory of life, it does not give any consideration to ethics as having relevance to the struggle to survive .)
3. It does not include a conditioning process or conditional genesis of creatures; hence a gaping hole is created in the theory. (A core Buddhist concept and having momentous significance when understanding the sensory becoming process. This element is totally unknown among the Darwinians).
4. Pleasure and pain principle, which is the core-stimulating factor for directional change of speciation according to the Buddha, is not incorporated in the Darwinian evolution model, though crucial to the sensory becoming process.
5. The phenomenon of Cause and effect is of profound and paramount significance when considering the mechanisms of evolution according to sensory becoming. (This is purely a Buddhist metaphysical notion, and an indispensable parameter when analyzing the sensory becoming process. To Darwinians it is merely tantamount to superstition and hence an irrational notion at that).
Yet contrary to the established certainty, Darwin did not produce a theory of evolution as a whole, but merely a theory, that promoted evolution by natural selection from accidental variations. Magnified for the sake of clarity, we perceive Darwinism as purporting that the whole of the evolutionary process has taken place among absolute robots, which reproduced their prototypes, with slight accidental variations of form.
The denial of a purpose is Darwins distinctive contention. By an automatic or a switch called natural selection, variations favouring survival would be preserved. Thus sum total of the accidents of life acting upon the sum total of the accidents of variation, provided completely mechanical and material systems by which the changes of living forms are accounted for.
Indeed if we embrace either of these two schools of beliefs then we thereby accept that our fate and destiny is fatalistically or mechanistically preordained by forces beyond our control?
In other words we have no power or control over our destiny and at the mercy of external forces! In which case we have to curse God for our handicapped psycho physical situation, or bow down to a luck by chance accidental process, through which each of us has come into being. If this is a fact we must meekly accept our pathetic circumstances, and subsist before fading out.
Yet no one has asked to be created or begotten. In other words, be one an imbecile or a Darwin, wise man or a disabled one, indeed a man or a mouse, we are the outcome through a naturally selected genetical lotto or due to a flight of fancy of an almighty God.
Due to the addictive power of one or the other sort of determinism, the intellectual world was blinded from investigating the ancient causal theory. There is substantial evidence to prove, that an evolutionary theory was first promulgated over 2550 years ago. Only it was not termed evolution as such.
According to causal theory, all animate and inanimate entities are in a state of a dynamic flux and changing momentarily. Change, according to this theory (being the original rational one) is inherent in all compounded things. According to the Buddha, all beings obey the Law of Impermanence. Causes and effects govern the dynamics of such change. Darwin and his disciples called this change, evolution, The Buddha called it becoming . The word becoming has more going for it than evolution on several levels.
Thus, existence is not an objective in-itself. Rather, what lies beyond! Existence becomes merely a preamble to a more vital goal. Biological evolution is subservient to a pleasure principle. The net result is creatures with progressively developed sensory potential. Evolution we notice heightens the sensory experience, including the pleasures of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. A closer investigation yields the validation of this extraordinary principle. Sensory additions to the original single celled amoeba, did not necessarily contribute its ability to survive, but it certainly enhanced its capabilities of sensory gratification!
Equipped with this unique theory, if we were to scrutinise the broad evolutionary ladder, we are in for a rude shock: species with ascending orders of sensory complexity of body and mind have really been extending their capabilities of sensory potential and scope, thereby waxing their gratificational prospects!
Humankind, the most advanced product of this sensory struggle, bears ample proof of this natural phenomenon. If we were to compare him with the lower orders of species, it is not hard to spot his ultra sophisticated and balanced sensory paraphernalia, which would have aided him, in reaping untold myriads of sensory stimuli. Eliminate such sensory possibilities and life becomes meaningless and existence an aimless mechanical struggle.
In fact, equipped with the Buddhas sensory becoming theory, we can effortlessly explain what Darwin termed evolution. But then, the none status quo situation of all compounds (including species) is the rudimentary section of his teaching.
If a creature is to achieve the ability of experiencing sensory stimuli, and bring home the necessities of life, he must perform actions. Hence an action theory is affiliated to sensory becoming. Actions are conditioned by ones sensory status and socio-economic and geophysical conditions. All of this becomes comprehensible when woven together using the Buddhas basic law, known as conditional genesis or as the scriptures popularly termed The Cycle of Birth, Death and Birth , but I would simply call it a cycle of becoming.
On the other hand if creatures are to survive develop and progress they needed an ethical outlook; hence Buddha attached an ethical corollary to his basic sensory becoming theory.
To assert that an individual lacks self-determination and is fatalistically or mechanistically bound is to mock his needs, desires ambitions, and aspirations. Without self-determination, life becomes meaningless and a mechanical struggle, and an inanity, as the mechanistic natural selection informs us.
Humankind is not on this planet for the greater glory of some none existing God. Nor does the noble species exist to produce more of its type and to simply send them on further, in time and space. Rather, individuals exist to experience pleasure and pain here, and now.
Now getting back to the two schools of thought, if we investigate meticulously what they bequeath to us, we find that it is nothing but a horror story. The Judo Christian Bible makes abundantly clear the terrible weapon this strange God placed in the hands of the true believers. In fact Genesis (IX 23) specify what God expects his chosen species to do to the rest of his fellow creatures, the ecology and finally to the world itself.
The fear of you and the dread of you all shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.
Blow back effects of such injunctions can be observed by all and sundry today and need no elaboration by me.
As for the natural selection people, their impact is no better since 1859.
We find in time Darwinism granted nations, groups and individuals a survival of the fittest mandate, which effectively justified the suspension of any ethical disposition they owned. It sponsored selfishness, as a prerequisite for survival with ghastly consequences for the global society.
In fact Social Darwinisms chequered history can be traced back to the master himself. Charles Darwins work, On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural selection, (subtitled) The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life laid the foundation for the questionable theories that were to follow in its wake. Indeed intelligent people deciphered this hazy Darwinian concoction: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism; and indeed a pseudoscience called eugenics.
All of these built on a solid scientific edifice; for it justified racial prejudice racial discrimination and racism. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonisation, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.
Time is here for the global society to explore the alternative sensory becoming process diligently. Indeed it transcended both other schools of thought, at every level, as Buddhist civilisations document. Sensory becoming is not only about peaceful coexistence between nations, but also understanding nature and handling it with care. Failing which, the extinction of the civilization as we know it may not be far off.
Mahinda Weerasinghe
25-02-2009
Author of The Origin of Species According to The Buddha
Web ad: - http://evolution-becoming.com/
THE ORIGINAL THEORY OF ‘EVOLUTION’ IS OVER 2550 YEARS OLD!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCuriously enough, we find that the ‘theories of life’ are dominated by two schools of thought.
On one side of the divide we meet those indomitable creationists. These true believers are convinced that a creator ‘God’ is the initiator of life.
On the opposite side we meet the Darwinists. They it seems have placed all of their ‘eggs in a single basket’. For they invoke ‘Natural selection’ as an ‘explain all’ in order to make clear this subtle and complicated becoming process of species.
Naturally it can be established that, a pound of butter contains a pounds weight by simply weighing it. But the ‘natural selection’ mantra is diffused to say the least. Equipped with this instrument, it is a daunting task for the Darwinians to produce any evidence that a species is either moving up the ladder of survival or directed towards extinction. As a matter of fact, can Darwinist specify at what point of time did an X species ended up as Y species by rearranging its genes.
Incredibly enough it’s taken for granted that, it is through Darwin’s famous work ‘The Origin of Species’ that we first encountered this evolutionary process of species and its shadowy dynamics. Yet upon closer scrutiny, it becomes blatantly evident that those, ‘hangers on’ of the Darwinian version of life, are not any different from their opponents, the true believers.
Indeed, if Darwinists are so certain that ‘natural selection’ is so scientific, then they should lobby the United Nations to get ‘survival of the fittest’ ideology accepted in the affairs of men and nations. They should persuade UN not to interfere in the tribal wars of annihilation and genocide. For surely the ‘fittest’ or the victors will survive, and go on to procreate and send their types further in time and space. Surely Darwinists are not nursing an absurd notion that the human species is a ‘special creation by ‘God’ and should be an exception to the rule, hence needs protection by the League of Nations.
Not only did the word ‘evolution’ derail our thinking from investigating how species metamorphosed but it also put blinkers to our logically and rationally thinking. It also hindered our probing what mechanisms fired this becoming process of species.
My own research indicates that a whole bunch of vital ingredients are missing from the Darwinian model of ‘evolution’. To name a few obvious ones:
1. It lacks an action theory. (Totally ignored by Darwin)
2. An ethical theory is totally left out. (Being purely mechanistic theory of life, it does not give any consideration to ethics as having relevance to the “struggle to survive”.)
3. It does not include a conditioning process or conditional genesis of creatures; hence a gaping hole is created in the theory. (A core Buddhist concept and having momentous significance when understanding the sensory becoming process. This element is totally unknown among the Darwinians).
4. Pleasure and pain principle, which is the core-stimulating factor for directional change of speciation according to the Buddha, is not incorporated in the Darwinian evolution model, though crucial to the sensory becoming process.
5. The phenomenon of ‘Cause and effect’ is of profound and paramount significance when considering the mechanisms of evolution according to sensory becoming. (This is purely a Buddhist metaphysical notion, and an indispensable parameter when analyzing the sensory becoming process. To Darwinians it is merely tantamount to superstition and hence an irrational notion at that).
Yet contrary to the established certainty, Darwin did not produce a theory of evolution as a whole, but merely a theory, that promoted evolution by ‘natural selection’ from accidental variations. Magnified for the sake of clarity, we perceive Darwinism as purporting that the whole of the evolutionary process has taken place among absolute robots, which reproduced their prototypes, with slight accidental variations of form.
The denial of a purpose is Darwin’s distinctive contention. By an automatic or a switch called ‘natural selection’, variations favouring survival would be preserved. Thus sum total of the accidents of life acting upon the sum total of the accidents of variation, provided completely mechanical and material systems by which the changes of living forms are accounted for.
Indeed if we embrace either of these two schools of ‘beliefs’ then we thereby accept that our fate and destiny is fatalistically or mechanistically preordained by forces beyond our control?
In other words we have no power or control over our destiny and at the mercy of external forces! In which case we have to curse ‘God’ for our handicapped psycho physical situation, or bow down to a ‘luck by chance’ accidental process, through which each of us has come into being. If this is a fact we must meekly accept our pathetic circumstances, and subsist before fading out.
Yet no one has asked to be created or begotten. In other words, be one an imbecile or a Darwin, wise man or a disabled one, indeed a man or a mouse, we are the outcome through a ‘naturally selected’ genetical lotto or due to a flight of fancy of an almighty ‘God’.
Due to the addictive power of one or the other sort of determinism, the intellectual world was blinded from investigating the ancient causal theory. There is substantial evidence to prove, that “an evolutionary theory” was first promulgated over 2550 years ago. Only it was not termed ‘evolution’ as such.
According to causal theory, all animate and inanimate entities are in a “state of a dynamic flux and changing momentarily.” Change, according to this theory (being the original rational one) is inherent in all “compounded things.” According to the Buddha, all beings obey the Law of Impermanence. “Causes and effects” govern the dynamics of such change. Darwin and his disciples called this change, evolution, The Buddha called it “becoming”. The word “becoming” has more going for it than evolution on several levels.
Thus, existence is not an objective in-itself. Rather, what lies beyond! Existence becomes merely a preamble to a more vital goal. Biological evolution is subservient to a pleasure principle. The net result is creatures with progressively developed sensory potential. Evolution we notice heightens the sensory experience, including the pleasures of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. A closer investigation yields the validation of this extraordinary principle. Sensory additions to the original single celled amoeba, did not necessarily contribute its ability to survive, but it certainly enhanced its capabilities of sensory gratification!
Equipped with this unique theory, if we were to scrutinise the broad evolutionary ladder, we are in for a rude shock: species with ascending orders of sensory complexity of body and mind have really been extending their capabilities of sensory potential and scope, thereby waxing their gratificational prospects!
Humankind, the most advanced product of this sensory struggle, bears ample proof of this natural phenomenon. If we were to compare him with the lower orders of species, it is not hard to spot his ultra sophisticated and balanced sensory paraphernalia, which would have aided him, in reaping untold myriads of sensory stimuli. Eliminate such sensory possibilities and life becomes meaningless and existence an aimless mechanical struggle.
In fact, equipped with the Buddha’s sensory becoming theory, we can effortlessly explain what Darwin termed “evolution.” But then, the none status quo situation of all compounds (including species) is the rudimentary section of his teaching.
If a creature is to achieve the ability of experiencing sensory stimuli, and bring home the necessities of life, he must perform actions. Hence “an action” theory is affiliated to sensory becoming. Actions are conditioned by one’s sensory status and socio-economic and geophysical conditions. All of this becomes comprehensible when woven together using the Buddha’s basic law, known as ‘conditional genesis or as the scriptures popularly termed “The Cycle of Birth, Death and Birth”, but I would simply call it ‘a cycle of becoming’.
On the other hand if creatures are to survive develop and progress they needed an ethical outlook; hence Buddha attached an ethical corollary to his basic sensory becoming theory.
To assert that an individual lacks self-determination and is fatalistically or mechanistically bound is to mock his needs, desires ambitions, and aspirations. Without self-determination, life becomes meaningless and a mechanical struggle, and an inanity, as the mechanistic ‘natural selection’ informs us.
Humankind is not on this planet for the “greater glory” of some none existing ‘God’. Nor does the noble species exist to produce more of its type and to simply send them on further, in time and space. Rather, individuals exist to experience pleasure and pain here, and now.
Now getting back to the two schools of thought, if we investigate meticulously what they bequeath to us, we find that it is nothing but a horror story. The Judo Christian Bible makes abundantly clear the terrible weapon this strange ‘God’ placed in the hands of the true believers. In fact Genesis (IX 2—3) specify what God expects his chosen species to do to the rest of his fellow creatures, the ecology and finally to the world itself.
The fear of you and the dread of you all shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.
Blow back effects of such injunctions can be observed by all and sundry today and need no elaboration by me.
As for the ‘natural selection’ people, their impact is no better since 1859.
We find in time Darwinism granted nations, groups and individuals a “survival of the fittest” mandate, which effectively justified the suspension of any ethical disposition they owned. It sponsored selfishness, as a prerequisite for survival with ghastly consequences for the global society.
In fact Social Darwinism’s chequered history can be traced back to the master himself. Charles Darwin’s work, “On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural selection, (subtitled) The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” laid the foundation for the questionable theories that were to follow in its wake. Indeed intelligent people deciphered this hazy Darwinian concoction: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism; and indeed a pseudoscience called ‘eugenics’.
All of these built on a solid ‘scientific’ edifice; for it justified ‘racial prejudice’ ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘racism’. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonisation, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.
Time is here for the global society to explore the alternative sensory becoming process diligently. Indeed it transcended both other schools of thought, at every level, as Buddhist civilisations document. Sensory becoming is not only about peaceful coexistence between nations, but also understanding nature and handling it with care. Failing which, the extinction of the civilization as we know it may not be far off.
Mahinda Weerasinghe
25-02-2009
Author of ‘The Origin of Species According to The Buddha’
Web ad: - http://evolution-becoming.com/
The article refers to the answers to 15 creationist questions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever there lies the double standards of creationists.
They expect answers from evolutionism but either do not (or refuse to) understand science, ignore any questions by evolutionists, ignore the holes in their own belief, or expect evolution to answer questions for which they themselves have no scientific answer.
Here are my list of 15 examples of where creationists(aka ID) attempt to mislead the public
1 The basis of creationism consists of just a few paragraphs in a book. It is not an hypothesis,theory, or fact, just a few statements.
2 Creationists do not understand the difference between the phrase "circular reasoning" , and a tautology
3 Creationism is unscientific, It presents no evidence, and makes claims about events that were not observed and, according to them, can never be re-created
4 Scientists totally reject the creation story as written in genesis
5 There is total agreement among real scientists that the paragraphs in genesis have no scientific evidence to support them.
6 No human fossils been found with dynosaurs
7 Creationism makes no attempt to explain HOW life appeared on earth
8 Creationists repeatedly resort to probability which assumes all changes in evolution are equally likely. But evolution theory explicitly states that this is not the case
9 Creationists are ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics, but repeatedly refer to them.
ALL laws of thermodynamics are irrelevent to the creation of life as they only relate to CLOSED systems.
ALL material in the universe is in an OPEN system.
The universe is the only thing in nature that is a CLOSED system
The second law also refers to entropy not disorder. Entropy is a measure of free energy in a system - this is not the same as how "orderly" or "disorderly" the system is, or how much "information" is in the system.(The flow of "information" has nothing to do with the amount of entropy in a system.) It also DOES NOT say that the entropy of something cannot decrease, only that energy must be used to enable the decrease to take place.
10 Creationists make repeated assertions of fact based on no evidence. e.g.mutations cannot produce new features. My question to creationists - what evidence do you have that they cant?
11 Creationists make no attempt to scientifically explain the origins of different species
12 Creationists have a strange concept of time, short periods of observations(in human terms) are extended into "forever", implying that since something has/has not occured in the short period then it must always have been so.
13 Creationists make no attempt to define what constitutes a transitional fossil but expect evolutionists to find one. In fact there is no reason in evolution why 2 genetically difference species should not have identical appearances. In this case identifying them as difference species would be extremely difficult, and at present impossible with fossils
14 "Intelligent design'ers" have not presented any evidence to support their conclusions, only their opinion. They have NOT presented any scientific evidence to show that an "intelligent designer" exists (or could exist), NONE that it influenced the structure of ANY living thing, and NONE as to how this was (or even could have been) achieved.
15 Creationists repeatedly try to "reverse engineer" life and conclude that because life is complex now that it has aways been complex, and therefore evolution theory must be wrong (see 12). However evolution theory explicitly explains how this is incorrect and how life evolved to that we see today.
Hi Mahinda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy but you have said a lot
Unfortunately the article being discussed relates to the scientific treatment of Evolution vs Creationists/ID
As far as I can see you have introduced many phrases of which I am sure you are aware, but I am also sure many non buddhists (especially me) have no idea of meaning or concept (especially in a scientific context), so I do not see how they are relevent to the matter being discussed (pity)
However I do have 5 comments
1) you do not appear to know how science works
There is not a "Darwin" camp with "all their eggs in 1 basket"
There are scientists who believe at this point in time that Darwin's theory gives the best explanation as to how species evolved. However if a better theory were to come along then I have no doubt that after a while they would adopt the new theory. (I am also sure they would take some convincing)
2) .Pity in all your "researches" you do not appear to have actually read the "origin of species by natural selection" otherwise you would know it does not propose the "survival of the fittest" (this is a commonly used but incorrect understanding of the theory),but more accurately to "the favouring of the species most adapted to the environment."
3) Darwin's theory related to biological evolution, not political or social evolution. Other people have applied his theory in these areas, but that is their responsibility not Darwin's.
4) You say Darwin ignored or was not aware of several "factors". I do not see why you should believe Darwin should have taken any of these factors into account as you have not shown that a scientific definition exists (or existed), or presented any evidence that they actually exist in a scientific sense.
5) Should you believe you have a better scientific theory as to how living things got to how they are today then by all means present your scientific evidence for scrutiny. It's no-one else's responsibility to do this but yours, do not expect anyone else to do it for you.
Mahinda: "The phenomenon of ‘Cause and effect’ is of profound and paramount significance when considering the mechanisms of evolution according to sensory becoming. (This is purely a Buddhist metaphysical notion, and an indispensable parameter when analyzing the sensory becoming process. To Darwinians it is merely tantamount to superstition and hence an irrational notion at that)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMahinda, I have chosen the above statement from your overly-verbose comment almost at random, although a look at the rest of what you say prompts me to conclude that its inaccuracy is representative. You claim that 'cause and effect' is 'tantamount to superstition' and 'irrational' among 'Darwinians' (whoever they are). Cause and effect is not only central to much of science (one thinks of laws energy and of motion), but central as well (your phrase: 'of profound and paramount significance') to evolutionary theory. An environment changes (for climatic or other reasons). This is a cause. Over generations, an organism responds to that change. This is an effect. It is also evolution in action. So for you to claim that this paramount factor is somehow missed or simply ignored by those studying and applying evolutionary theory, is frank nonsense.
Such cavalier inaccuracy is hardly a ringing advertisement for what your book might offer.
Mahinda: "An ethical theory is totally left out (of the Darwinian model of evolutionary theory)".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMahinda, since when did ethics have anything to do with the natural world?
Laughing gravy (to Mahinda): "As far as I can see you have introduced many phrases of which I am sure you are aware, but I am also sure many non buddhists (especially me) have no idea of meaning or concept"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that Mahinda might be the only one who is aware of them. His postings appear too preoccupied with dualities to be truly Buddhist.
Mahinda, having visited your website, I admit that I can see no clear difference between what you advocate and what creationists propound. Both creationism and your 'sensory becoming principle' are systems which have as their basis, not sound scientific methodology, but religious belief. On your website, you make the statement: "What becomes crystal clear is that, individual bacteria have stressed and strained their genetic machinery and given battle to avoid extermination. Mutation here was not an accident or a chance happening, but one brought about through a premeditated exertion." Such an assertion has nothing to do with known science. Individual bacteria do not 'premeditate'. No organism premeditates its evolutionary course.
I feel I must say frankly that in your ideas I see creationism in a Buddhist jacket. In the same way that creationism has little to do with true religious spirituality, and everything to do with bending observations to fit a pre-existing notion, you seem to be using the tenets of Buddhism to construct a pseudo-scientific model. If, however, I am mistaken, then I suggest that you get your ideas written up into a paper and submit them to an accedited scientific outlet for peer review.
To all you creationist believers out there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver the past several days I have asked many questions and made assertions re - creationism
So far
responses of any sort 0
answers 0
Wonder why that is ??????
Perhaps you are all shy ?
The Evolution of evolution, January 2009.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the smallest or simplest living organism possible ? How many hundreds of millions or billion of atoms would it take to make that living organism ? How is it possible that all those atoms were randomly gathered into the thousands or millions of molecules and aligned in the required order to make that organism by mere chance ? That is the question that haunts evolutions ability to describe how life began.
I use to believe in evolution explained it all, but was given some doubts with it. When my wife went to a Veterinarian college and showed me her micro biology studies. I saw how vastly complicated the cell was. How could something so complex be built by random chance? It was then, that I became convinced that Darwin's theory of evolution could not explain the existence of life. Darwin was totally blind to the inner workings of a living body and it was science that revealed the unimaginable complexity of the workings at the microscopic and atomic levels that convinced me evaluation can not explain the existence of life and many parts of it. Example; a human DNA has 90 billion atoms and is inside a cell containing 100 trillion atoms and each of those atoms perform a necessary function for that cell. How many mutations per generation does that take ?
The Evolution of evolution, January 2009.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the smallest or simplest living organism possible ? How many hundreds of millions or billion of atoms would it take to make that living organism ? How is it possible that all those atoms were randomly gathered into the thousands or millions of molecules and aligned in the required order to make that organism by mere chance ? That is the question that haunts evolutions ability to describe how life began.
I use to believe in evolution explained it all, but was given some doubts with it. When my wife went to a Veterinarian college and showed me her micro biology studies. I saw how vastly complicated the cell was. How could something so complex be built by random chance? It was then, that I became convinced that Darwin's theory of evolution could not explain the existence of life. Darwin was totally blind to the inner workings of a living body and it was science that revealed the unimaginable complexity of the workings at the microscopic and atomic levels that convinced me evaluation can not explain the existence of life and many parts of it. Example; a human DNA has 90 billion atoms and is inside a cell containing 100 trillion atoms and each of those atoms perform a necessary function for that cell. How many mutations per generation does that take ?
At last Mahinda has given a rational and natural explanation of existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Mahinda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi guys,
I appreciate your feedback.
But killing the messenger bearing an unpalatable message does not help much. I am certain what we all want is a rational, a natural and a ‘true to life’ explanation as to what dynamics lay behind the mutation of species.
Now I never promoted myself as a guru, a prophet or even as professor of some sort. As you all are aware, there are thousands and thousands of specialised individuals and global institutions researching such intricate questions financed and subsidized by governments. In that sense I was handicapped and over shadowed.
At an early stage in my life I found the Darwinian interpretations of the evolutionary process mismatching. We all agree that species are transforming and evolving, but as far as I see ‘natural selection’ in no way explains this intricate process. So, I in spite my limitations of resources and a host of other short comings I was keen to satisfy myself what forces powered it. And I researched and investigated neutrally exploiting my own resources. This while practising as an offshore structural engineer in order to prop myself up financially.
At that early stage I realised; that no institution was ever going to finance my researches as Darwinism (just as creationist) has turned into a self interested cult of believers. Beside it’s becoming obvious with each passing day that the Darwinists ‘are unable to see the wood, for the trees’. I expanded 35 years of my life investigating. I have brought to your attention, this more than modern theory, assuming I will receive some constructive criticism. Sadly the reverse was the truth, for the response was disappointing.
Though I am sure we all want to get at the truth no matter where it lands us. In order to do this, you have to get off the established mindset and analyse neutrally, leaving aside any preconceived dogmas, prejudices and self interest.
Now I have not used the accepted scientific lingo while formulating this work. This was done purposely. For it is my contention that such information need not be cleared by a hollow group of book worms, but the man on the road. For people act according to their life philosophies they own, and it is they, who have got to convince. Indeed as the present day ecological and social crisis bear proof, that their conditioned life theories are immensely flawed. Hence it is profitable to assess this theory with an open mind.
In fact it is easy to resolve the ‘right or wrongness’ of the sensory becoming theory. And if it’s found logically flawed, I am ready to dismantle it. What’s more I will apologize to the readers, for misinforming them.
Let us begin with the basics. And at the incept I need to correct a bigoted accusation by a true believer of Darwinism.
He has tried to pigeon hole the ‘sensory becoming theory’ by categorising it as a religious concept. The absurdity of his postulations can be effortlessly disproved by the following simple facts.
Indeed long before Darwin and longer before a concept of Science was formulated, the Buddha proposed a rational and natural explanation of life. He was unique and the exception when, two and a half millenniums ago he declared that, ‘he could not discover any creator God, nor a (Soul) self to an individual being; what’s more, heaven or hell is to be found here on earth and not in some none existing coordinates.’
Any respectable and accepted revealed religion needs one or most of the above elements to survive and prosper. Indeed I found the Buddha’s charter of free inquiry a good guide when analysing this question, as found in the Pali Text in Anguttara Nikaya, Tika Nipata, Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65 and penned down ca 100 BC in Sri Lanka. And I quote it here for your benefit.
'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
(In the Internet you can find the full scriptural qote.)
Obviously we should apply his criteria to the sensory becoming theory too as directed by the advice of the original rational scientific theorist.
Having said that, I will aid you to destroy the sensory becoming theory if it found untenable in any way. How?
Simply this, if you really want to discredit ‘sensory becoming principle and dismantle this original and rational theory, then it is not a difficult thing to do. And you must act now, as the Buddhist world is inclined to accept sensory becoming as a plausible explanation of existence?
So forget an action theory, dismiss the ethical theory, disregard conditioning process of individuals of a species and go to the jugular of the theory.
Simply said it is a fact species are selected in one way or other; it could be through a process of ‘natural selection’, it could be through a selection of ‘being at the right time at the right place’, or could even be by pure pot luck ‘like a shot in the dark’. Indeed let me be fair while also ‘tickling your funny bone’ and declare that selection may be by a ‘none existing merciful God’, as the chosen people the Jews were selected. Only it escapes me what, they are selected for?
Just because the Darwinists stick a name to a species and connect it up by giving a definition as to what constitute a species, does not mean anything to any thinking person. I find I could hang my coat on such
hollow declarations.
So what is the surest way of identifying a species?
Obviously by its sensory standing! Meditate on this statement, for it speaks volumes and volumes.
Indeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will(and more vital) allow extend its sensory gratificational aptitude. Conditional obviously to, the available resources.
What comes out clearly is the sensory paraphernalia specify the species one belongs to. No question about it, it is the sensory equipment which aids individuals experience pleasure and pain and differentiate species from one another. Without species owning such an ability life becomes absurd and living meaningless. So becoming (evolution to Darwinist) is immediately directional, for it is targeted by sensory opportunity.
That’s the core of the theory which none of you have touched. Now that’s what should be dismantled in order to get rid of this theory. If you propose a logical explanation why this heart of the theory is wrong then I will dissipate from the scene ‘like the early morning dew’.
Historically the global society has to thank the Judo-Christian’s centuries and centuries of annihilation of the tolerant Buddhist nations as they were ‘Godless heathens’. Indeed all those nations along the Silk Road were once thriving Buddhist societies. Those Buddhist societies were wiped out and their tolerant philosophy expunged from the face of earth. Even in our life time the innocuous Bamiyan Buddha Statues were bombed out of existence, as dictated by the Islamic tenets.
For they find tolerant Buddhist explanation of life thousand fold threatening than the Darwinian ‘natural selection’ ever would. If the Darwinians adapted the sensory becoming concept, then they got the creationists on the run. For they will find they have lost all of their arguments.
I look forward to your input!
Best regards,
Mahinda
Author of: The Origin of Species According to the Buddha
Also visit: http://evolution-becoming.com/
Mahinda: "Beside it’s becoming obvious with each passing day that the Darwinists ‘are unable to see the wood, for the trees’."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it's not. This statement is prime nonsense.
Mahinda: "Indeed as the present day ecological and social crisis bear proof, that their conditioned life theories are immensely flawed. Hence it is profitable to assess this theory with an open mind."
But the one does not equate with the other. What do "the present day ecological and social crisis" have to do exactly with currently-accepted evolutionary theory? Answer: nothing.
Mahinda: "He has tried to pigeon hole the ‘sensory becoming theory’ by categorising it as a religious concept."
You are referring to myself. I am well-aware that for some Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion, but so far, every dictionary which I have consulted (about six) refers to it as a religion. And I thoroughly resent you describing my comment as "a bigoted accusation by a true believer of Darwinism." For one, the term 'Darwinism' only carries currency in the kind of pseudo-science which creationists (whatever their religious affiliations) propound. For another, to describe someone as a bigot because they hold an opinion different from your own is itself bigoted. As I previously mentioned, your ideas strike me as distinctly un-Buddhist in their thrust, because you preoccupy yourself with dualities. You set up 'Darwinists' (whoever they are) as your opponent, which makes your claimed adherence to Buddhism somewhat hollow. Your pseudo-scientific ideas are no more representative of true Buddhism that creationism is representative of true Christianity.
Mahinda: "Simply said it is a fact species are selected in one way or other; it could be through a process of ‘natural selection’, it could be through a selection of ‘being at the right time at the right place’, or could even be by pure pot luck ‘like a shot in the dark’."
If you do not accept that evolutionary theory embraces all three of these examples, then you're fighting shadows.
Mahinda: "Only it escapes me what, they are selected for?"
Species are not selected 'for' anything. An organism responds over generations to environmental factors. If the environmental imperative is not there, then an organism (such as the horseshoe crab) will not change. If environmental pressures emerge, then an organism's lineage will either adapt to those pressures, or face extinction.
Mahinda: "That’s the core of the theory which none of you have touched. Now that’s what should be dismantled in order to get rid of this theory."
Actually (and more correctly), nothing needs to be 'dismantled', because your theory has yet to gain acceptance in the first place.
Obviously by its sensory standing! Meditate on this statement, for it speaks volumes and volumes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will (and more vital) allow it to extend its sensory gratificational aptitude. Conditional obviously to, the available resources.
What comes out clearly is the sensory paraphernalia specify the species one belongs to. No question about it, it is the sensory equipment which aids individuals experience pleasure and pain and differentiate species from one another. Without species owning such an ability life becomes absurd and living meaningless. So becoming (evolution to Darwinist) is immediately directional, for it is targeted by sensory opportunity.
Is there no one to answer to his arrogance! I propose some answer him before he gets carried awa
Mahinda: "Just because the Darwinists stick a name to a species and connect it up by giving a definition as to what constitute a species, does not mean anything to any thinking person."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatent nonsense. It means a considerable amount to, and is accepted by, many 'thinking people' in the scientific community at large, otherwise it would not be in science in the first place.
Mahinda: "So what is the surest way of identifying a species? Obviously by its sensory standing!" and: "What comes out clearly is the sensory paraphernalia specify the species one belongs to."
Clearly not so. The surest way of identifying a species might or might not have to do with classifying its 'sensory standing'. It might equally have to do with morphology or other factors. And what about all the fossil species for which we clearly have no sensory data? How does your theory work with these? Classifying fossil species demands methods which clearly have little or no recourse to sensory input of the organism in question, beyond examination of orbital placement, nasal turbinate structures, and other such clues. For these extinct organisms we must rely upon morphometrics and other techniques to establish a species.
Evolutionary theory (and note the term, Mahinda, because 'Darwinism' is now too 19th century and limiting a term to cover contemporary applications) actually employs both data recovered from living species and the array of study techniques (resonance Raman spectroscopy and others), and technological applications for fossil species (morphometrics and others), so is equipped for the study of all species and all organisms that have ever lived. Can your theory do this?
Mahinda: "No question about it, it is the sensory equipment which aids individuals experience pleasure and pain and differentiate species from one another. Without species owning such an ability life becomes absurd and living meaningless."
On the contrary, there's every question about it. What strikes me is that, not only does evolutionary theory already embrace all that you propose (sensory input does, after all, offer favorable traits for an organism's potential survival), but that 'sensory becoming' seems to be tangled up with the experienced emotions of an organism. This as well is already covered by evolutionary theory. The impala that shows casual indifference to a charging lioness is not going to be around long enough to contribute to the gene pool.
So an organism's 'sensory equipment' is by no means adequate to define speciation. And if life were 'absurd and meaningless' without the emotions generated by such equipment, why are jellyfish still with us after some five hundred million years? What; you think that jellyfish are somehow less worthy of consideration in your theory because they do not experience your criteria? How very un-Buddhist of you.
At the least, please don't play the victim with that 'killing the messenger' nonsense. Your message is not 'unpalatable'; just unsound.
@ Mahinda: I might also add that evolutionary theory is also equipped to deal with speciation in plants, bacteria, you name it. Does your theory cover these as well? What sensory emotions do bacteria feel? And yet they speciate and endure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally a serious challenge by Ambertooth, He writes:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘I might also add that evolutionary theory is also equipped to deal with speciation in plants, bacteria, you name it. Does your theory cover these as well? What sensory emotions do bacteria feel? And yet they speciate and endure.’
I am not certain I have the knowledge to answer this one, but I can only hazard a guess for what ever its worth.
‘Sensory’ is not a simple word but a broad idea. And ‘sensory’ at that primitive level of existence should perhaps be considered in this manner: What is pleasant or unpleasant on contact. The best way of relaying this idea is through a simile.
It is just as if a blind man’s groping in a world of darkness. Say perchance such a blind person enters a kitchen. And in that kitchen the hot plate of the oven is on. And he places his hand on that hot plate. Now his palm’s outer surface is covered with cells. Instantaneously the message will be relayed of an unpleasant burning feeling and he would remove his hand forthwith. May be perhaps the primitive life forms react to pleasant or unpleasant through sensory contact in a like manner?
Perhaps I am wrong that’s all I have at the moment.
Bu t there may be another way of approaching this subject.
Indeed what I will do is I quote from ‘The origin of species According to the Buddha’
Where Buddhist Pali text for the first time in the history of the world speaks of the evolution of the world and evolution of species. May be one of you will be capable of coming up with a better explanation after reading it. I will quote from the area beginning with my assessment of this Pali text. (See page 33 of Chapter two. Third edition) and I quote:
Here I would present a more specific and blunt outlining from the Buddhist scriptures of a general theory of physical evolution (becoming) species. This we do in the book of genesis in the Pali canon. I have taken the liberty of editing out, sentences between specific rational sections. These parts are what I believe to be later commentary, addition, colouring, exaggeration and flourishes of the Hindu legends. Once those expunged, a spellbinding dialogue of the Buddha emerges. And
especially today, with our newfound wisdom, we would be in a position evaluate it critically. In fact it reads like an eyewitness account of this extremely complex physical evolutionary process, starting from the world evolution to how physical evolution of species takes shape. When
confronted with parts which begin to be colouring, and which I have expunged, I have dotted to indicate these gaps, as these I assume are later efforts by editors trying to make incomprehensive and abstract material, palatable. Digha Nikaya, Agganna Suttanta, (D.iii.84), Translated
from Pali as Dialogue of the Buddha, part III, (Book of Genesis) by T.W. and A.F.Rhys Davids.
There comes also a time, Vasettha. when sooner or later this
world begins to re-evolve. . . .
Now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark,
and of darkness that maketh blind.
No moon or sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor day,
neither months nor half—months, neither years nor seasons,
neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings
only (amoebas?). And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or
later after a long time, earth with its savour was spread out
in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled
milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. It became
endowed with colour with odour, and with taste. Even as
well-made ghee or pure butter, so was its colour; even as the
flawless honey of the bee, so sweet was it.…
…Thereupon star-shapes and constellations become
manifest. Thereupon night and day became manifest,
months, too, and half-months, the seasons and the years.
Thus far then, Vasettha, did the world evolve again.
Now those beings. Vasettha, feasting on the savoury earth
feeding on it, nourished by it, continued thus for a long, long
while. And in measure as they thus fed, did their bodies
become solid, and did variety in their comeliness become
manifest. Some beings were well favoured, some were ill
favoured. And herein they that were well favoured despised
them that were ill favoured,…
Then, Vasettha, when the savoury earth had vanished for
those beings, outgrowth appeared in the soil. The manner of
the rising up thereof was as the springing up of the
mushroom, it had colour, odour and taste; even as weltformed
ghee or fine butter so was the colour thereof, and
even as flawless honeycomb so was the sweetness thereof.
Then those beings began to feast on these outgrowths of the
soil. And they, feasting on them, finding food and
nourishment in them, continued for a long, long while. And
in measure as they thus fed and were thus nourished, so did
their bodies grow ever more solid, and the difference in their
comeliness more manifest, some becoming well favoured,
some ill favoured ….
Thereupon creeping plants appeared,
and the manner of the growth thereof was as that of the
bamboo, and they had colour, odour and taste. Even as wellmade
ghee or fine butter so was the colour thereof even as
flawless honeycomb so was the sweetness thereof.
Then, Vasettha, Those beings began to feast on the creepers.
And they, feasting on them, feeding on them, nourished by
them, continued for a long, long while, And in measure as
they thus fed and were nourished did their bodies wax more
solid, and the divergence in their comeliness increase…..
Then those beings feasting on this rice in the clearings,
feeding on it, nourished by it, so continued for a long, long
while. And in measure as they, thus feeding, went on existing
so did the bodies of those beings become even more solid,
and the divergence in their comeliness more pronounced.
In the female appeared the distinctive features of the female,
in the male those of the male….
That’s it.
Reagrds,
Mahinda
Mahinda, I enjoyed reading the scriptural dialogue which you have supplied. But as with all such textual sources (I could also cite a favorite of mine: the creation story in the pre-Columbian Popol Vuh), it can be enjoyed on its own merits while having little relevance to 21st century scientific enquiry. And while I appreciate your honesty in attempting an answer for the question of bacteria, I do not consider that you have addressed my specific points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBacteria are non-sensory, and yet they still conform to evolutionary theory. As do all members of the plant kingdom, from the humblest lichens to the tallest trees. And virtually all fossil organisms, whether they were primitive reptiles such as the Carboniferous Hylonomus, or basal archosaurs, must be examined and classified without recourse to direct sensory data. Evolutionary theory is broad-ranging enough to allow us to do this using other methods such as morphometrics, as I have previously described.
But how far would we come were we to use ONLY sensory data to describe and classify all of these? And using only sensory data, to what extend could we construct clades and assign places for these organisms on them? And using only your theory, how would you go about scientifically describing and classifying the various diverse types of sea kelp? Or trilobites? Or mosquitos? Or sponges?
The beauty of evolutionary theory is that it encompasses all of life, whether microbial, extinct, floral, or any other. Can your theory do this? There are some thirty distinct genera of kelp. Using your theory alone, can you classify them into species? Because unless you are able to, evolutionary theory remains the effective standard.
Small brains deliver small thoughts. If there was not creationism, there would be nothing to evolve. How can you teach one without teaching the other. Until we know exactly how the universe came into existence; we can blame God. For the sake of the "like of understanding and argument", let's say God exists and He created everything. Since everything is not static, it evolves -- changes. Let's say He created humans, and since we do not know what the first human on this planet looked like, we must assume we humans today evolved from that human of yesterday and that human of yesterday looked almost like the evolved human of today. So how can you teach one without teaching the other? Small brained religious and scientific thoughts should sit in the back of the class - not the front.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the smallest or simplest living organism possible ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefine what constitutes a living organism, otherwise you can argue in circles forever.
How could something so complex be built by random chance?
Read the 15 answers to creationism on SCIAM before you continue. I think one of these answers explains the error in the basic premise of your question
The remainder of you post is irrelevent as you dont understand how stupid your previous question was
It is also based on creationisms position of "irreducible complexity" which is also answered in the 15 questions mentioned above.
By the way- To all you others out there. I am still waiting for responses to my questions - re - creationism
- Are you all struck dumb ?
re JamesDavis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust sitting here waiting for a response from ANY creationist - re my questions, and got to reading your post . A few comments
"If there was not creationism, there would be nothing to evolve".
Slight semantic+presumption problem here
IF you believe in creationism (BIG IF) (i.e taking creationism to be the belief in creation) then the sentence should read "If there was not a creation......."
Your presumption is that evolution requires creation (as believed by creationists). BIG presumption
"How can you teach one without teaching the other."
Whats the problem? Just because you teach maths doesn't mean you must teach astrology.
"For the sake of the "like of understanding and argument", let's say God exists and He created everything.................Let's say He created humans"
Lets not say any supernatural entity created anything.
"and since we do not know what the first human on this planet looked like, we must assume we humans today evolved from that human of yesterday and that human of yesterday looked almost like the evolved human of today."
Firstly
I do not see it as a large leap to assume that the human of today evolved from the human of yesterday (i.e. the first human)
So why do you say "we must assume we humans today evolved from that human of yesterday" i.e an imperative
Secondly
In the context of the sentence, you are proposing the assumption that humans of today looked "almost like" the first humans because we do not know what the first human looked like.
If you remotely believe in evolution you must be aware of the evolutionary path of humans, and as a consequence the most likely physical characteristics he would have had.
So lets not assume anything as to what early man looked like
"So how can you teach one without teaching the other? "
Very easily.
"Small brained religious and scientific thoughts should sit in the back of the class - not the front. "
What are your criteria for being small brained?
JamesDavis: "Small brained religious and scientific thoughts should sit in the back of the class - not the front."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this statement is already dubious in its assumed elitism (how small does a brain need to be before it fits this loose definition in the first place?), it crashes out in its implication that the class in question is the same for both religion and science. It is not. If you wish for instruction in science, then by all means attend a science lecture. If you prefer religious instruction, then head on over to the theology department. There are two classrooms involved here, and not, as JamesDavis' statement seeks to imply, one class for both.
Hi Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your feed back. I appreciate the information.
In fact while stating that I was unable to propose a broad based explanation to the bacterial becoming based on the ‘sensory theory’, it does not mean that such a one does not exist. Only I conceded that I haven’t reached that level of insight yet. If a whole establishment was doing research guided by this theory as Darwin’s one is, we would have arrived at a satisfactory explanation, I am certain of. So your statement ‘Bacteria are non-sensory, and yet they still conform to evolutionary theory’ does not validate that ‘natural selection’ holds an impeccable explanation to the bacterial evolution while sensory becoming does not.
But in fact you have arrived at the crux of the matter when you state “But how far would we come were we to use ONLY sensory data to describe and classify all of these? And using only sensory data, to what extend could we construct clades and assign places for these organisms on them? And using only your theory, how would you go about scientifically describing and classifying the various diverse types of sea kelp? Or trilobites? Or mosquitos? Or sponges?”
Naturally we all understand that biological sciences needed a mythology to classify and catalogue their subject matter while excluding any supernatural content infiltrating the issues. That’s understandable and technically correct. Indeed in such a manner, Darwin’s theory found consensuses and moved forward with a natural explanation of life.
But on the other hand, we find that ever since Darwin’s theory was first proposed, the scientific community had a rear guard action to defend its back from the true believers, which has continued to this day, as this site vividly depicts.
Indeed, in spite of the forward jump in the information war, and advances in knowledge in all spheres of activity, still believers of a ‘creation by God’ are growing, prospering and threatening the planet. Why so? The reason may be that ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of fittest’ can’t be applied practically to the human species. Indeed when the Darwinian club speaks of species, they studiously ‘leave out’ the human type/category.
In fact due the mechanistic nature of the theory and its inapplicability to the human condition, the ‘Gods loved ones’ have targeted the Darwinian explanation from day one.
As far as the mental health of the human animal is concerned it was not touched at all by the Darwinists.
You may argue that natural selection is a theory and hence a detached observer of the process; yet we have to use scientific finding to better the human lot from the theory’s fall out, or what is the point of such theories at all? Indeed sensory greed has to be recognised and addressed by the natural scientists soon, if they are going to have any impact on the human animal.
In order to get over such vital draw back of the theory, I suggest that the ‘natural selection’ harmonises with the sensory becoming principle till they find mechanisms to gage the sensory status of creatures scientifically. And that will lead to a quantum jump in the progress of biological sciences.
At this stage it is profitable to point out a curious fact to you. Now I have been attacking the ‘true believers’ for quite a while, and am a harsher critic than you. Yet they have not responded in kind to me. In fact the creationist have not touched on the ‘sensory becoming’ or got themselves embroiled in our present exchange for a vital reason. My feeling is that they must be advocating the Darwinian side of this debate, for they know how to deal with Darwinists. The ‘sensory becoming’ they recognise can be a far graver to them than Darwinists can ever hope to be. Indeed if the becoming theory is given serious consideration and becomes accepted, it would be a hurdle creationists will never be able to clear.
Best regards
Mahinda
Mahinda, while I appreciate your response, I suggest that you are seriously hindering your own case (and credibility) by using such unnecessarily emotive language as 'the Darwinian club', and asserting that 'biological sciences needed a mythology'. Such loaded terms do nothing to encourage others to take what you say seriously. At least I appreciatively note that you have dropped the defunct term 'Darwinism', although 'Darwinists' offers scant improvement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd now: I did not actually assert that evolutionary theory was validated as an 'impeccable explanation' of natural selection. My point was that the theory is the currently accepted and applied model, and until another theory replaces it through the recognised scientific channels, then that is the theory to which the biological sciences refer. Your own theory might or might not replace it, but to attempt that, it must go the same route as all theories and hypotheses. Believe me, ideas in science are not propounded to be validated, but to be invalidated, and there are any number of scientists standing in line with knives sharpened to slice any new idea apart if they can find a way to do that.
So know what you are up against. Although I am sure you are aware of this, be aware also of why: in its beginning, evolutionary theory itself had many trials to go through in science, but over the last century and a half it has shown itself to be remarkably robust, resilient, elegant and adaptable. It is not for nothing one of the foremost theories in all of science, and it goes on getting stronger. Witness the many new applications of the theory in the field of genetics, which profoundly (and in some instances quite startlingly) confirm the theory's principles.
I reject your contention (as does science) that "‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of fittest’ can’t be applied practically to the human species." Evolutionary theory is versatile enough (as I have previously pointed out) to apply to all organisms, the human species included. We have, to put it in a way that makes it directly applicable to our debate, violated natural selection, and are now in conflict with our own environment for that reason. But the sensory imperatives behind this (greed and other factors) remain invisible to the natural order, which only 'sees' the consequences of those actions. In other words: those sensory imperatives (which are part of your theory) are not the ones acted upon by the natural order, which dispassionately deals with consequences alone.
You suggest that "we have to use scientific finding to better the human lot from the theory’s fall out". I perceive the opposite. The environmental damage that we now face can hardly be laid at the door of evolutionary theory, for the reasons which I mentioned above. I would contend that the sorry state in which we now find ourselves could equally be the end result of Judaeo-Christian and even Islamic perceptions that 'Man' is the paragon of creation, and that the Earth was given to him by its creator to be exploited as his property and playground. The 'fallout' that we now face is the product of that religious mindset, which has persisted in viewing man as separate from, and above, the natural order. We have for millennia forced dominating and exploitive practices upon the planet. Ethnic and indigenous cultures which practice a more harmonious, co-operative view of nature have provided a model that we have ignored at our cost.
You mention that creationists have not responded to your theory. My own reaction to your comment is a grim chuckle, for I doubt that it's because they "must be advocating the Darwinian side of this debate", as you suggest. I suspect that it's more that they just don't understand what you mean, so don't know what to make of your theory in the first place. As to your suggestion that they "know how to deal with Darwinists": I have debated creationists at length, both here on SciAm and on other forums, and have found them to have weak and flawed arguments founded in ill-conceived logic full of the sorts of gaping holes through which one can comfortably drive the proverbial coach and horses.
MAHINDA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome comments
"In fact while stating that I was unable to propose a broad based explanation to the bacterial becoming based on the sensory theory, it does not mean that such a one does not exist.Only I conceded that I havent reached that level of insight yet. If a whole establishment was doing research guided by this theory as Darwins one is, we would have arrived at a satisfactory explanation, I am certain of."
You are contradicting yourself.
On the one hand you say " it does not mean that such a one does not exist". On the other you say "If...............we would have arrived at a satisfactory explanation"
A contradiction.
When you have an explanation then by all means present it, but until then one doesn't exist.
"So your statement Bacteria are non-sensory, and yet they still conform to evolutionary theory does not validate that natural selection holds an impeccable explanation to the bacterial evolution while sensory becoming does not. ........."
At this moment natural selection has an explanation to bacteria , "sensory becoming" by your own admission HAS NO EXPLANATION.
In fact I would say that the whole theory of "sensory becoming" falls apart COMPLETELY as even a pseudo-scientific theory (no way is it a real scientific theory), as it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to account for the evolution of species with no awareness.
"Naturally we all understand that biological sciences needed a mythology to classify and catalogue their subject matter while excluding any supernatural content infiltrating the issues. "
Now you are presuming what "all" people understand. - "mythology" and "supernatural" belong in your understanding, not mine or science's
"But on the other hand, we find that ever since Darwins theory was first proposed, the scientific community had a rear guard action to defend its back from the true believers, "
Why do you use the collective "we" ? Are you refering to the "true believers" because you are certainly not refering to the scientific community?
I would also rephrase your statement.
"On the other hand, we find that since Darwin's theory was first proposed and become accepted universally by the scientific community, it is now fighting the last bastions of bigotry and ignorance"
"Indeed, in spite of the forward jump in the information war, and advances in knowledge in all spheres of activity, still believers of a creation by God are growing, prospering and threatening the planet. Why so? "
Perhaps its because of their inherent bigotry
"The reason may be that natural selection and survival of fittest cant be applied practically to the human species."
Prime example of the bigotry. Its only bigotry says it cant. Science says it can
"Indeed when the Darwinian club speaks of species, they studiously leave out the human type/category."
Your bigotry in action again. Only you "leaves out" man. Science doesn't
"As far as the mental health of the human animal is concerned it was not touched at all by the Darwinists."
Now you've got me -
I can see there are 2 parts to the "mental health" of man,
1) the physical brain
2) the mental processes
The physical brain is part of the evolution of man and is already covered by Darwin's theory.
Are you say that the thinking processes (e.g. the WAY man thinks, the thoughts he has, the ideas he has?) is an evolutionary process?
"You may argue that natural selection is a theory and hence a detached observer of the process; yet we have to use scientific finding to better the human lot from the theorys fall out, or what is the point of such theories at all? "
Who is this "we" ? Do you mean mankind ?. If so then it is up to mankind to make use of the theories.
"Indeed sensory greed has to be recognised and addressed by the natural scientists soon."
What is "sensory greed" exactly?
"In order to get over such vital draw back of the theory,"
What draw back exactly. ?
"I suggest that the natural selection harmonises with the sensory becoming principle till they find mechanisms to gage the sensory status of creatures scientifically. And that will lead to a quantum jump in the progress of biological sciences".
I thought that we had already established that the "sensory status of creatures" is meaningless in the context of evolution.
It may have some role in this mythical "sensory becoming principle" but haven't we also established that this is also a non-starter scientifically.
So you want science to "harmonise" to a non-scientific principle until it can find a mechanism to gauge some "status" that only exists in this principle..
WHY????? on earth would science want to do this ??????
Are you stupid or do you have a mental problem?
"In fact the creationist have not touched on the sensory becoming or got themselves embroiled in our present exchange for a vital reason. My feeling is that they must be advocating the Darwinian side of this debate, for they know how to deal with Darwinists. The sensory becoming they recognise can be a far graver to them than Darwinists can ever hope to be. Indeed if the becoming theory is given serious consideration and becomes accepted, it would be a hurdle creationists will never be able to clear. "
Perhaps they also have come to the same conclusion that it is a scientific non-starter.
Mahinda, a couple more considered points. You say: "Now I have been attacking the ‘true believers’ for quite a while, and am a harsher critic than you." Why have you been attacking them? I thought that you claimed to be a Buddhist. I doubt also that you are 'a harsher critic' than myself. I react to how others respond to me. With others I have been (and am) ruthless. Your reasonable tone has so far spared you that, even though we disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou further state: "In order to get over such vital draw back of the theory, I suggest that the ‘natural selection’ harmonises with the sensory becoming principle till they find mechanisms to gage the sensory status of creatures scientifically. And that will lead to a quantum jump in the progress of biological sciences."
To be very clear: there is no established or recognised 'vital drawback' to evolutionary theory. I would remind you that your own ideas are not even accepted science, so for you to suggest that these ideas 'harmonise' with evolutionary theory is futile. Evolutionary theory has earned its central place in the biological sciences through hard work and established results over many decades. And you wish your unestablished and unaccepted ideas to tag along riding on its coat-tails?
As I have previously made clear (and to which statement you so far have no answer), unless and until your theory can independently classify microbial, fossil, floral and other such organisms into species (as evolutionary theory undoubtedly can and does), then you've got a non-starter whose prospects of outperforming (and therefore replacing) evolutionary theory is 0.000 to the power of... well, you name it.
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I suggest that the "natural selection" harmonises with the sensory becoming principle till they find mechanisms to gage the sensory status of creatures scientifically"
Very presumptuous to suggest natural selection harmonises with "sensory becoming"
The onus is on "sensory becoming" to "try" (I am trying hard to keep a straight face writing this) to harmonise with natural selection, (but on the evidence you have provided it would be wasting its time ).
I followed your discussions concerning sensory becoming theory with interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Mahinda wrote,
"So what is the surest way of identifying a species?
Obviously by its sensory standing! Meditate on this statement, for it speaks volumes and volumes.
Indeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will (and more vital) allow extend its sensory gratificational aptitude. Conditional obviously to, the available resources."
That is a basic statement which should have been addressed. Till you have responded to it scientifically, I feel you have lost this argument.
I followed your discussions concerning sensory becoming theory with interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Mahinda wrote,
"So what is the surest way of identifying a species?
Obviously by its sensory standing! Meditate on this statement, for it speaks volumes and volumes.
Indeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will (and more vital) allow extend its sensory gratificational aptitude. Conditional obviously to, the available resources."
That is a basic statement which should have been addressed. Till you have responded to it scientifically, I feel you have lost this argument.
anook69, you leave it unclear as to whether your comment is either addressed to Laughing gravy, or to myself, or even to both of us. I will answer: in the first place, there is no 'argument' here to be lost. There is the accepted science of evolutionary theory, and there is an as-yet unvalidated hypothesis which Mahinda is putting forward as an alternative. If you read my own previous comments carefully through, you will realise that I have indeed answered what you describe as Mahinda's 'basic statement'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it makes things clearer for you, what I said was that sensory imperatives are only part of the package used by the mechanisms of evolution. Were they to be the sole criteria which drive these mechanisms, then Mahinda's hypothesis might have some credence. But they are not. To take just one example: the integumentary filaments of Sinosauropteryx might well have aided its survival chances (probably as insulation), but these were not a part of its 'sensory paraphernalia' (to use Mahinda's phrase). So if you support Mahinda's ideas, the task before you (and him) is conclusively to demonstrate that these integuments played no part in this animal's well-being and survival, which was solely down to sensory input. And having established that, to then place this fossil species on an effective and plausible clade using Mahinda's method. And this is just one single organism.
As to "the surest way of identifying a species", perhaps you would suggest the way in which Mahinda's sensory becoming principle might independently be applied to classify into species microbial, floral, fossil, and other such organisms for which we have little or no sensory data. So far, Mahinda has not managed to respond to this crucial question, although perhaps you might fare better. Because (as I pointed out to Mahinda) if his sensory becoming hypothesis cannot be applied independently to scientifically describe such organisms, then it remains considerably less effective and more limited than current evolutionary theory, so will never replace it as science.
You previously comment that "Mahinda has given a rational and natural explanation of existence". This is problematical, as the word 'existence' can be interpreted philosophically, which is not the brief of science. But if 'existence' is meant in the sense of existing, then current evolutionary theory already does this, and considerably more effectively.
anook69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse
"So what is the surest way of identifying a species?
Obviously by its sensory standing!
Someone else who thinks opinion is fact.
Meditate on this statement, for it speaks volumes and volumes.
Sorry it says nothing except your opinion
I dont think you read previous posts either.
Ambertooth has already established that species exist that do not have sensory standing .
Mahinda has already acknowledged that sensory becoming CANNOT explain the evolution of these species.
Indeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained;
Who knows what the differences are between species X and Y without examining each ?
obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia?
Here we go again with your opinion. For all I know species X could have 5 toes, species Y- 6 toes.
Until the species are examined YOU have absolutely no reason to present your OPINION of the differences.
In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will (and more vital) allow extend its sensory gratificational aptitude.
Obviously someone else who has no idea of evolution.
Brilliant - another whole new phrase sensory gratificational aptitude
Stringing together words does not mean the resulting phrase has any meaning
That is a basic statement which should have been addressed.
Address a meaningless statement How do you do that ?
Till you have responded to it scientifically,
How can you respond scientifically to a meaningless non-scientific statement ?
I feel you have lost this argument.
So you regard a non-scientific meaningless statement as an argument.?
You have delusions of grandeur if you think you have an argument.
Also it is NOT for evolution to argue against YOU.
It is for YOU to present YOUR argument AGAINST evolution. (IT is YOU who wants YOUR theory to become accepted)
UNTIL YOU do then YOU have lost the argument.
Ambertooth, we are not concerned with the accepted science of evolutionary theory. What our concern is; is it a fact of life? And what makes you think natural selection is a validated fact of life? Indeed it is also a working hypothesis, except in the self interested Darwinists circles; where it has been made a life principle. In fact as far as I am concerned you have not answered any one of Mahinda's 'basic statements'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCuriously this is the first time I am reading about the sensory imperatives are only part of the package used by the mechanisms of evolution. Are you speaking on behalf the scientific establishment, if so, can you document where it is stated that sensory imperatives are a part and parcel of the natural selection package. Or did you slip that one in, hoping we wont notice it.
When you make the statement science has no known method of classifying the sensory status of a species microbial, floral, fossil, it does not necessarily mean that these elementary life forms have no sensory status. Of this you must surely agree, that it is these rudimentary life forms which ended up as complicated sensory mechanisms, with their complicated sensory paraphernalia?
On the contrary just because Mahinda has not provided a specific answer to your query does not mean natural selection has a sole right explanation to the evolutionary process. On the other hand I find sensory urges has fired this evolutionary process is both logical and rational.
As far as that goes, you dont have to get hanged up with any metaphysical existentialist questions. Observations of real life depicts that creatures are not existing in a purely mechanistic survival of the fittest world, so they can produce their types and send them further in time and space, but I find them motivated by their sensory urges, and hence act in order to cater to their gratification.
In this connection I must make this observation. Mahinda has proposed his theory based on his own findings. So you may debunk him as much as you want, in order to safeguard the scientific establishments official version. To me all your detractions do not show that you are following a true path of scientific inquiry.
Personally up now I find what Mahindas sensory becoming hold more water, than any argument that you have tabled. And note, he is a man along with a very abstract theory without any establishment to support or to prop him up. If that happens then you will face a real challenge.
At this point I must insist that you have to come up with a more logical answer to his basic query which you stated you answered, but avoided! Which is:
Indeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will (and more vital) allow extend its sensory gratificational aptitude. Conditional obviously to, the available resources."
I am keen to get an answer to this basic question as many others are by now. I truly find your club is doing some fancy foot work without answering this cardinal query. If you are unable to provide rational answer to this core inquiry, then we have to assume that you are just beating around the bush by invoking the accepted scientific jargon by your club.
At point of the discussion I must place it on record that it is not your club who proposed a sensory becoming principle or sensory extension as a rational explanation contra to your mechanistic natural selection theory, but it was Mahinda Weerasinghe. So dont try to hoodwink your readers.
anook69: "So you may debunk him (Mahinda) as much as you want, in order to safeguard the scientific establishment's official version. To me all your detractions do not show that you are following a true path of scientific inquiry."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanook, as I pointed out with your 'losing the argument' statement: there is no debunking to be done here, because Mahinda's hypothesis (it's not a theory yet) is not accredited science. Only when Mahinda has written his ideas into a paper and submitted them for peer analysis can he even begin to claim some sort of recognition of validity for what he is proposing. If, on the other hand, he and you are content to keep things going as a series of comments on a SciAm thread, then nothing further is going to happen. I guarantee this.
So don't tell me about not "following a true path of scientific enquiry". Because so far, Mahinda has himself not attempted to tread that path. The cold fact is, anyone can launch a website and propound whatever ideas they might have in their head, as Mahinda has done (and he sure isn't alone in that), and open those ideas for discussion on comments threads such as here on SciAm. But such activities do not amount to "following a true path of scientific inquiry".
Mahinda needs to get out into the field and begin to undertake extensive gathering of data in support of his ideas (as indeed the then-unknown Darwin did). That at least would be a first step. Then it's a lot of lab work to correlate that data and see what it yields. Then it's getting a paper written about those data results. Then it's submitting that paper to a recognised scientific outlet. Then it's sitting back and watching as a whole bunch of qualified scientists rip the thing apart to see how much it holds up. This is what "following a true path of scientific enquiry" really involves. Is this what either Mahinda or you are doing? Yes or no?
And to be frank, as I pointed out to Mahinda, your silly use of such emotive terms as 'your club' does nothing to enhance your academic credibility. On the contrary. As to the fact that you personally don't happen to consider that I've answered what you describe as Mahinda's "central statement": do you really actually seriously imagine that I care? You can insist all you like that I "come up with a more logical answer to his basic query", it's of no consequence to me. I am content with the fact that it is by now painfully obvious that neither yourself nor Mahinda can come up with a 'more logical answer' to mine.
So if you really want to usefully support Mahinda's ideas, then instead of wasting your time exchanging comments here with myself, help him to get that paper written and submitted, because without that, nothing's going to happen for either of you. And maybe next time, let him answer for himself.
A notice to Mahinda, anook69, MANI, and other proponents of Mahinda's ideas: this thread is for comments relating to the accompanying article on the teaching of creationism in school curricula. If you have something to contribute to this specific subject, then make an appropriate comment. I have continued this exchange so far because, although off-topic, it seemed to offer some avenues for discussion within a creationist context. But if you simply want to use this thread as a platform for your ideas, Mahinda, then you're in the wrong place, and I suggest that you find a more appropriate web forum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe are not concerned with the accepted science of evolutionary theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain someone using the collective we when they really mean I
What our concern is; is it a fact of life?
Similarly You mean my not our
except in the self interested Darwinists circles; where it has been made a life principle. In fact as far as I am concerned you have not answered any one of Mahinda's 'basic statements'.
As far as we are concerned
1) Mahinda has not raise any basic statements
2) therefore there is no statement (s) to answer
Curiously this is the first time I am reading about the sensory imperatives are only part of the package used by the mechanisms of evolution.
They are only part of a theory dreamed up by Mahinda , they play no part in the theory (of evolution by natural selection)
Are you speaking on behalf the scientific establishment, if so, can you document where it is stated that
sensory imperatives are a part and parcel of the natural selection package.
Since sensory imperatives (whatever they might be) only exist in Mahinda's imagination and are not part and parcel of any scientific theory, then WHY do you believe sensory imperatives should be documented anywhere?
When you make the statement science has no known method of classifying the sensory status of a species microbial, floral, fossil, it does not necessarily mean that these elementary life forms have no sensory status. Of this you must surely agree, that it is these rudimentary life forms which ended up as complicated sensory mechanisms, with their complicated sensory paraphernalia?
You live in a dream world.
You invent some new term sensory status . You don't define what the term means. YOU have no way of measuring it (not to mention a scientific way) . Then you state that because no-one has any way of measuring it then it may exist in rudimentary life forms .
What exactly are sensory mechanisms and sensory paraphernalia ?
Since you are sure rudimentary life forms have them then you must know EXACTLY what they are.
As far as that goes, you dont have to get hanged up with any metaphysical existentialist questions.
The only person hung up on metaphysical existentialist questions. is you
Observations of real life depicts that creatures are not existing in a purely mechanistic survival of the fittest world, so they can produce their types and send them further in time and space, but I find them motivated by their sensory urges, and hence act in order to cater to their gratification.
You appear to be operating under a misapprehension. YOU are talking about the motivation behind procreation, NOT evolution (which is what the article is about)
anook69 PART 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOTE – MY PREVIOUS POST RELATED TO ANOOK69
response 2
“In this connection I must make this observation. Mahinda has proposed his theory based on his own findings. So you may debunk him as much as you want, in order to safeguard the scientific establishments official version. To me all your detractions do not show that you are following a true path of scientific inquiry.
Personally up now I find what Mahindas sensory becoming hold more water, than any argument that you have tabled. And note, he is a man along with a very abstract theory without any establishment to support or to prop him up. If that happens then you will face a real challenge.”
In your dreams if you believe any evolutionary theory put forward along the lines proposed, and containing such startling scientific terms as “sensory becoming “ or “sensory status” ,will have any scientific basis.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
“At this point I must insist that you have to come up with a more logical answer to his basic query which you stated you answered, but avoided! Which is:
Indeed if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? “
ARE YOU STUPID.?
WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT SPECIES X AND SPECIES Y ARE IT CANNOT BE ANSWERED.
obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia?
ANYONE PROPOSING THIS ANSWER IS OBVIOUSLY STUPID, AS THIS WITHOUT KNOWING THE ABOVE, IT IS OBVIOUSLY AN OPINION BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION.
“I am keen to get an answer to this basic question as many others are by now. “
Only you and Mahinda have made any posts relating to “sensor” - anything. So where do you get the “many” from?
“I truly find your club is doing some fancy foot work without answering this cardinal query. If you are unable to provide rational answer to this core inquiry, then we have to assume that you are just beating around the bush by invoking the accepted scientific jargon by your club.”
When we get a rational question then we may reply with a rational answer. “
“cardinal query” - To you maybe – TO anyone else the question is just stupid for reasons already given.
By the “we” I assume that you are referring to yourself and Mahinda, (could this me the “many” you are also referring to)
So “sensory becoming” ,,“sensory apparatus” “sensory status” ,“sensory paraphernalia” are not jargon ?
At point of the discussion I must place it on record that it is not your club who proposed a sensory becoming principle or sensory extension as a rational explanation contra to your mechanistic natural selection theory, but it was Mahinda Weerasinghe. So dont try to hoodwink your readers.
I think you underestimate the readers. I believe they will realise that it is YOU trying to hoodwink them
Secondly
I fail to follow any logic – Why would any scientific “club” propose a second non-scientific theory against it's own universally accepted scientific theory ?
SO far as I can see Mahinda Weerasinghe is the ONLY person that refers to “sensory” whatever as a theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis memo is by a stupid individual to others of similar mental handicap. In fact I felt that there is a need to wrap up the whole past discussion for the benefit of those readers who are in similar incapacitated mental states as I am. But going by a survival of the fittest principal, this would not be a problem for those who are fittest anyhow.
First of all let me say that I appreciated your contribution Anook69, and I was impressed by your grasp of the sensory becoming principle. You have repeatedly posed a core question which needs answering. But if you are expecting an answer, then you will have to wait till kingdom come from the none stupid Darwinists.
Professor Emeritus Ernst Mayr, a deacon of evolutionary biology and an authority of the theory of evolution, in his WHAT EVOLUTION IS, a work I would fully recommend to any laymen to read, states in the Appendix A section unanswered questions, and I quote;
Darwinian evolutionists have every reason to be proud of the paradigm of evolutionary biology that they have constructed. Every attempt in the last 50 years to refute one or the other assumption of Darwinism has been invalidated. Furthermore, no competing evolutionary theory has been proposed, certainly none that was in any way successful. Does this mean that we now fully understand the evolutionary process in a1l of its details? The answer to this question is a qualified No.
Thats the opinion of a wise man.
Indeed millenniums prior to scientific inquiry was set in motion, a crude concept of God creation and soul was dominating the mental makeup of the Judeo Christian world. I stress Judo Christian world.
Buddha single handed dismantled such naive and irrational concepts, when he proclaimed to the world his main discovery THE LAW OF IMPERMANENCE.
He induced his followers look at the evolutionary process as a natural phenomenon for the first time in the history of thought.
Now whether the Darwinists like it or not, the law of impermanence is the basis for the theory of evolution. So do they truly believe that the evolutionally process of species was exempted by the Buddha from this universal law?
Today rational minded people accept that species and all compounds are not holding on to any status quo situation.
Indeed he did not use an imprecise formulation as evolution to explain this complicated process, instead, he called it becoming. Till one fathoms his deep philosophy it is difficult to grasp what is the distinction!
Hence I felt a comparative analysis of Darwins natural selection contra Buddhas sensory becoming is profitable.
So how does Professor Ernst Mayr define what Evolution is?
HE PRESENTS THE CORE CONCEPTS OF DARWINISM IN THIS MANNER:
The theory consists of the following five important components: -
1. The non-constancy of species (the basic theory of Evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution)
3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltation, no discontinuities)
4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection
The last item according to Darwinians could be crucial if one is desirous of grasping the mechanisms of evolution. It is broken down into the following elements:
a. A population would increase exponentially if not constrained.
b. The size of populations remains stable over time.
c. Resources available to every species are limited.
d. No two individuals are the same in a species. (Unique)
e. As a rule the differences are heritable. (Transmissible from parents to offspring.)
Above factors obviously will fire competition, friction and a struggle for survival not only between species, but also between individuals of a species. The resultant outcome is that the fittest and the best proto-types are selected for the continuation.
To the basic question what is this struggle in aid of? Or why should there be a need for this evolutionary change at all? is answered in the following manner. In order to survive so that the continuation of its proto-types is assured. But we are not provided with a qualified answer as to why the continuation of its prototypes should be such a vital driving force!
The availability of variation is the indispensable prerequisite of evolution. Hence Darwin postulated that the inexhaustible genetic variation of a population together with selection (elimination) is the key to evolutionary success.
BASIC BUDDHIST CONCEPT VIS-?VIS SENSORY BECOMING
Before continuing I must introduce some of the core Buddhist concepts dealing with the mechanisms of becoming (evolution to Darwinists).
1 Survival we find is only a preamble to what lies beyond. Indeed the urge for survival is fired by sensory greed and the indulgence in these needs is what makes an individual tick.
2 Hence an individuals struggle for survival is fired by sensory lust.
3 Individuals and groups (species) are in conflict as an outcome of this egoistic, self-centred sensory greed.
4 Sensory greed needs satiation, which offers gratification and pleasure in its turn.
5 In order to bring about satisfaction individuals need to commit actions (positive or negative conditional to necessity and circumstances).
6 But gratification and pleasure again depend squarely on:
a. The conditioned state of mind and body. (Conditioning is purely a Buddhist notion in this context.)
b. Actions, which are controlled, constrained and proportionate to evolutionary status (of species) of the conditioned body-mind mechanism.
c. Ecological circumstances (resources) current.
7 Through efforts of the mind-body mechanism, striving to cater to such sensory needs (actions), individuals sensory apparatus is strained, stretched, stressed and tested.
8 Result of such repeated stress and strain activity will eventually lead to sensory extension (change, reform or becoming) of individuals, and in turn, species itself will be reformed (renewed). In other words a reformed species will emerge.
9 The resulting process was named evolution by Darwin and as sensory becoming by the Buddha, a decisive difference in terminology. Note also that sensory greed is not directed towards some sort of a targeted progress but fired by immediate self-cantered sensory gratification depending on circumstances.
Now if we comparatively analyse the two types of arguments, and pit them carefully, then we are in for a major shock.
All of the components of Darwins theory as outlined earlier are compatible and can be replaced by those of the sensory becoming theory and it will fit in like a glove.
1. The non-constancy of species (Logical according to the law of impermanence)
2. The descent of all organisms from a common ancestor. (Though there is no direct scriptural statement, this is implicitly expressed in the Digha Nikaya (See Chapter II) and falls under the law of impermanence.
3. The gradualness of evolution or even punctuated equilibria. (Again not only logical but should occur according to the law of impermanence and change). Note: Different circumstances will trigger different becoming responses.
4. The multiplication of species (the sensory greed and its extension and also by geographical isolation of populations should naturally result in the multiplication of species)
5. Natural selection. (By itself this is an obscure statement and
without meaning even in Darwinian sense.) We would breakdown 5.) as below: -
a) A population would increase exponentially if not constrained.
(Self centred sensory individuals would reproduce unhindered and egoistically if not contained by natural and ecological causes or due to causes and effects)
b) The size of populations remains stable over time. (Depends on the time, the specific location, and self interest of the species and circumstances.
c) Resources available to every species are limited. (A natural situation and we dont need Darwinians to explain this).
d) No two individuals are similar. (Absolutely core Buddhist concept, indeed not only two individuals are not identical but indeed an individual himself is also in a dynamic process of transforming according to The Buddha).
e) As a rule the differences are heritable. (Sensory theory concurs.)
As seen, every important stricture of the Darwinian concept can be replaced by the sensory becoming theory and it becomes compatible and naturally explainable, and more comprehensive too. But the reverse is not true. It shows how general the Darwinian statements are. But unlike the sensory becoming principle, Darwins theory has major fissures and in order to seal them, they reach back and attach chance as a part of the equation.
And professor mayr comments in section chance or necessity that:
One can conclude from these observations that evolution is neither merely a series of accidents nor a deterministic movement toward ever more perfect adaptation. To be sure, evolution is in part an adaptive process, because natural selection operates in every generation. The principle of adaptationism has been adopted so widely by Darwinians because it is such a heuristic methodology. To question what the adaptive properties might be for every attribute of an organism leads almost inevitably to a deeper understanding. However, every attribute is ultimately the product of variation, and this variation is largely a product of chance. Many authors seem to have a problem in comprehending the virtually simultaneous actions of two seemingly opposing causations, chance and necessity. But this is precisely the power of the Darwinian process.
But sensory becoming goes further and deals with the real world creature qualities.
Now Laughing gravys crude invectives such as ARE YOU STUPID.? is beneath me to respond to. Indeed he must realise that being stupid is natural condition and natural selection will clear that up in time any how. Until such time us the stupid ones will go on being stupid.
But such demeaning invective does not mean we will stop asking obvious questions. It is the empty vessels that makes the biggest noise. But the comments that it is only Anook69 and youre faithfully are the only ones accepting this theory behoves a response.
Indeed I do not need an Anook69 to prop me up in this search for the truth or any other follower. History of Galileo is a good guidance when considering this situation.
History informs us, that the Catholic Church branded Galileo a heretic in 1633 for asserting that the Earth orbits the sun and not vice versa. At that point in time all the none stupid, people were in total agreement with the established theory. Galileo barley escaped being roasted alive for stating an obvious fact.
If I understood it right, Galileo stood along at that time with his findings, without any defenders as such. Still we find today the earth rotates around the sun just as I find creatures are motivated by their compulsive sensory greed. So you dont have to keep a straight face when reading this but laugh your heart out as nobody can see you anyhow.
Getting back to the question at hand: geneticist declare that the percentage of genetic similarity between humans and chimps can be as high as 98%.
On the other hand, going by natural selection, the chimp should be extinct by now as he has played his part in the evolutionary process. Because the fittest, which is the humans, have survived and gone on further, so what is the point of the continued existence of this crude chimpanzee simply puzzles me?
Curiously enough, though there is only a slight variation in the genetic machinery, between the chimp and the human animal, still there is a sea of differences in their sensory status.
Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee do more astonish than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees.
In fact what really happened is not hard to decipher if one had the instrument of sensory becoming.
Chimp after millenniums living side by side with the human cousins are still unable ape the man and do some simple alterations to improve its life quality. They are unable to put a roof over their head or cook the food to make it more palatable.
His sex act is comparatively clumsy. As for the human animals sex organ, it is lager than any ape including gorillas. The female of the human species can have sex year round and even after the menses is over. The whole point is lost if going by natural selection. Which is, that the fittest is labouring in order to send their copies further? But the female of our species after menses can not produce its types to send any of its types further in time and space. So what is the point of sex without reproduction, for there is nothing to select, or for that matter for even having bigger penis than the gorilla.
In fact when I posed the question;
If an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained; obviously a reformed sensory paraphernalia? In other words this new species has rewired its sensory equipment in order to aid it in its survival, which in turn will (and more vital) allow extend its sensory gratificational aptitude.
Indeed what has happened is; human species has ended as a pleasure seeking machines. That is the difference laughing samba was making a mockery of!
Sensory becoming theory is far beyond your scope Laughing gravy. So I propose you stick to Creationist basing. As that is what is expected from a foot solders such as you.
As for ambertooth I must thank you for your effort and your comments, and I have received a lot feed back from you for which I am grateful. You inform that
Mahinda (and others who seek scientific recognition for their as-yet unaccredited ideas, and use these SciAm threads to test reactions to those ideas), it might be worth bearing in mind that what such commenters as Laughing gravy and myself might say is gentle and forgiving when compared to the kind of harsh gauntlet that you will have to run should your ideas ever reach the stage of being peer reviewed by those of the scientific community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to what anook69 seems to think, the scientific community is not some sort of 'club' that closes ranks against outsiders. Science will always hear new hypotheses and discoveries, but any novel additions must expect to work hard to establish themselves, as the body of knowledge which comprises science already has done.
Mahinda, to you I would directly say: please stop abusing the topic of this thread. If you have something specifically to say about creationism being taught in school curricula, then state it here. Otherwise, your wayward ideas have no place here. And if you really wish to prove that you have the courage of your convictions, then instead of clogging the thread with ridiculously long-winded and off-topic comments that no-one (certainly not myself) will be bothered fully-reading, then write your paper and submit it to SciAm or another accredited journal. Believe me, this is the most sincere piece of advice I can give you, because as I have already made clear, wasting your own time using a SciAm thread about another topic as a testbed for your ideas will only antagonize those who might otherwise have an interest in what you say.
It dismays me to read what you say about the chimpanzee. Your conclusions show in a shocking light just how shaky is your grasp of the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. Trust me: were you to say such things in a paper which you might write, a science editor would simply toss your paper straight back at you by return-of-post with hoots of derisory laughter. I hope you understand that I'm using tough love here. I'm attempting to save you from the roasting that I perceive will greet your ideas from the scientific community.
In concluding, let me refer you to an almost-randomly selected article which I have spotted, issued by Julia Ridpath of the Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, concerning livestock diseases, titled 'Pestivirus Evolution, Vaccines and Diagnostics' (Sept. 2005). Dr. Ridpath documents seven major phylogenetic branches within the pestivirus genus. Using your sensory becoming hypothesis ONLY, could you have done the same? I need hardly point out that such a virus has no sensory apparatus whatever. Because unless you can square up and match Dr. Ridpath's achievement by applying only your own hypothesis, then your ideas are dead in the water.
And lastly, and yet again: please respect the topic of this thread.
Mahinda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVERY interesting
I make a response to anook69 – YOU respond that my comment
“is beneath me to respond to.”
From this we deduce what ?- that anook69 and mahinda are one and the same person ?
Previously anook69 has been making posts in support of mahinda., as if mahinda's posts have come as a revelation, previously unknown, and repeating many of the points in mahinda's posts as if from another unbiased point of view.
ARE YOU AND anook69 ONE AND THE SAME PERSON ????????
IF NOT THEN WHY ON EARTH SHOULD YOU RESPOND TO MY ANSWER TO anook69
IF SO THEN WHAT A LIAR AND AN HYPOCRITE.
(I also note some much earlier posts from anook – very interesting.)
I also repeat my statement that anyone drawing conclusions (or requiring (in the case of anook69 DEMANDING) anyone else to draw a conclusion) about the differences between 2 unspecified species is STUPID – I CANNOT THINK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION. The word stupid has very specific meaning – not crude or inaccurate but very specific, (it DOES NOT MEAN to be in an incapacitated mental state – that word is DUMB, I would not describe either you or anook69(?) as dumb) which I think applicable in this case. If you (or anyone) can think of a better description then lets hear it
YOU now repeat the same rhetorical question YET AGAIN (I have lost count how many times you+anook69 have asked the same question) ,and given the same opinion in answer
YOUR ANSWER MEANS THAT YOU ARE PRESUPPOSING YOUR OPINION TO BE THE CASE FOR ALL CASES X AND Y NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN X AND Y – THIS IS STUPID AND WILL ALWAYS BE STUPID
I CALL ANYONE STUPID WHO REPEATEDLY USES SUCH AN ARGUMENT
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH Ambertooth YOU are using this notice board as a sounding board for your own – now I am lost for a word -You don't even have the basis for an idea,let alone an hypothesis, and light years away from a theory, just a lot of incoherent meanderings
Oh I see that your imagination has been working overtime again 6 times you referred to a NONE EXISTENT LAW - (the law of impermanence.) .
Next time could you add a few more “sensory” somethings . Doesn't matter what the something is as they are all meaningless so a few more cant do any harm.
MAhinda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you not heard of RONNIE's 2 UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED LAWS
LAW OF STUPIDITY ?
This states that stupidity is directly proportional to the number of times a stupid argument is made.
LAW OF INVERSE CREDIBILITY
This states that the credibility of an argument is inversely proportional to the number of times it's made
They are in my latest book (my diary) so they must be true.
Mahinda, to make things very clear, and in case you missed it, my citing of Dr. Ridpath's article is the answer to which you/Anook69 insisted. Your/Anook69's question was: "if an X species ends up as Y species, what qualitative addition has the new species obtained?" Here we have seven speciations of the pestivirus genus. None of them involved 'a reformed sensory paraphernalia'. Your hypothesis is therefore disproven with this one example, and I have not even cited long-extinct fossil organisms or floral species, for which no sensory data exists, yet which can be (and are) classified cladistically using evolutionary theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMahinda/anook69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have asked (many,many times)
What is the difference between species x and y ? and replied with your own opinion.
Now I DEMAND an answer to my question
How long is a piece of string ?, obviously a sensory longtitudalistic differentiability ?
(another "sensory" something for your collection, I have got many more meaningless phrases if you want some inspiration)
Mahinda /anook69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome more for you to answer
"On the other hand, going by "natural selection", the chimp should be extinct by now as he has played his part in the evolutionary process. "
This displays complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.You are also trying to associate your own idea with it. Only YOUR idea assumes a direction for evolution and therefore obsolescence of other species in an evolutionary tree. No reason in evolution theory why earlier+later species should not co-exist.
You have also presumed chimp was a previous ancestor of man, contrary to evolution theory.
Stupid argument 1 +stupid misrepresentation 2
"Because the fittest,"
fittest not a term used in ACTUAL theory of evolution theory- only in your idea
Stupid argument 3
"which is the humans",
Only your idea presumes humans at a higher (fitter ?) level. Higher/lower (whatever they are) levels not relevent in theory of evolution.
stupid argument 4
(Remember Ronnies stupidity law?)
" so what is the point of the continued existence of this crude chimpanzee simply puzzles me? "
All the points puzzling you are only relevent in your own idea Do you not understand your own idea?
Stupid argument 5
"still there is a sea of differences in their sensory status".
Sensory status not defined,so a sea of what exactly?
stupid argument 6
"It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees."
Different evolutionary paths gives different results simple enough for even you to understand.
No requirement for ANYTHING to happen/not happen to either species.
Stupid argument 7
My - you are building up a stupidity score.
You follow with a lot of rhetoric regarding the capabilities of apes vs man not relevent in evolution only in your own idea
stupid argument 8
NOTE - In all cases I have used the term "idea" very - very loosely.
Conclusion
either a) you have not read the theory of evolution, or b) do not understand it , or c) you have read it and understood it, and are trying to misrepresent the theory in order to associate your own idea with it, in order to give your own some credibility.
In all cases the result is an attempt to mislead readers.
Conclusion
Applying Ronnie's stupidity law - High stupidity factor
Applying Ronnies inverse credibility law
Since you have presented the same arguments many times before and been rebutted (by ambertooth) each time then
Conclusion - Low credibility factor
Mahinda, there are some six hundred genera of grasses, comprising up to some ten thousand individual species worldwide, from the familiar urban varieties grown on garden lawns to bamboo and food crops such as wheat and barley. All of these can be named and classified using evolutionary theory. None of them have any 'sensory paraphernalia' (to use your phrase). With no other further evidence to prompt you, could you use your ideas to achieve the same results as evolutionary theory? Think about it: ten thousand separate species, with no sensory data. And these are just the grasses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I have made clear, in posing these hard questions to you now, I am trying to spare you from the questions that will fly around your ears from the scientific community. And those will be the really hard questions.
To all readers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry In presenting Ronnies law of inverse credibility I failed to acknowledge the input by mahinda/anook69?.
This law took as its inspiration his wise words?
"It is the empty vessels that makes the biggest noise"
Rephrasing this becomes.
Those with least to say take longer to say it, and/or say it more often,
In scientific jargon
The credibility of an argument is the inverse of the number of times it is repeated,or how long it is.
Hence Ronnie's second law.
Mahinda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe WHOLE of your "idea" rests on YOUR bedrock of "sensory standing"
YOU insist that the "sensory standing" of 1 species MUST be different from another
1) DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT "SENSORY STANDING" IS
2) DEFINE A METHOD BY WHICH IT CAN BE MEASURED (so we can determine if the "sensory standing" of species x is in fact different from y. If there is no difference then-according to your idea - they MUST be the same species.)
Since "SENSORY STANDING" is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to YOUR "IDEA" then YOU MUST HAVE SOME IDEA AS TO THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree
My sentiments exactly. It's about time that somebody called a spade a spade. Any belief system is a religion. Humanism is a religion; atheism is a religion. In the Scopes trial the arguement was that all different theories should be included in the education of our children. Now the arguement is the only thing that should be taught is Evolution. Wake up--evolution is a thory too! Neither creationism nor evolution can be proven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjennifermweaver; "Wake up--evolution is a thory too!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops... jennifermweaver, I'd strongly advise you actually to learn what constitutes a scientific theory before you make such faux pas. Still, just to pick up on two points which you mention: atheism is of course the absence of religious belief. You cannot define something by a condition of absence. And when you say that "Now the arguement is the only thing that should be taught is Evolution", you conveniently neglect to mention that the argument is, not that other beliefs should not be taught, but that, if they are non-accredited science, then they should not be taught in the science class.
jennifermweaver; "Wake up--evolution is a thory too! Neither creationism nor evolution can be proven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops... jennifermweaver, I'd strongly advise you actually to learn what constitutes a scientific theory before you make such faux pas. Still, just to pick up on two points which you mention: atheism is of course the absence of religious belief. You cannot define something by a condition of absence. And when you say that "Now the arguement is the only thing that should be taught is Evolution", you conveniently neglect to mention that the argument is, not that other beliefs should not be taught, but that, if they are non-accredited science, then they should not be taught in the science class.
xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not a religion. According to Wikipedia, "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." There are no symbols, practices, or supernatural qualities like you propose, but some things that have not yet been explained, which does not mean that they never will. This does not automatically mean that they are miracles, and scientists do not claim that they are miracles just because they have not yet figured them out.
For all anyone knows, there may be many more planets out there with life, we just have not found one yet with our current technology.
It was not a miracle that life arose, it was very improbable, but experiments in labs have created more complex molecules out of simpler ones in settings similar to early earth showing that it is possible.
Evolution does not propose to be a miracle, it was very slow process occurring over billions of years to get what we have today, supported by many different layers and areas of evidence, yes evidence, where is yours again?
Does saying that smart people like Einstein believed in something divine automatically make it so? What does that have to do with anything? There's lots of smart people who are atheists but that's a ridiculous argument to use because it has no bearing on the facts. Nor does claiming that science arose from religion, that does not mean anything. Yet how ironic that you use that argument that science would not be anywhere without the technological advancements of religion. Science has been stifled from making stem cell advancements which has the potential to cure a myriad of diseases, as a result of religion.
Can you please show for me one paper published by creationists in a scientific journal? Where is the religious science?
Creationists do assume that everything was created, and for them, that's where it ends. The difference with science is, when something is not known, they attempt to explain it and not just blindly assume that that's just the way it is.
Next time you get sick, I bet you'll go to the hospital rather than trying to pray your sickness away, then what do you believe?
xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not a religion. According to Wikipedia, "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." There are no symbols, practices, or supernatural qualities like you propose, but some things that have not yet been explained, which does not mean that they never will. This does not automatically mean that they are miracles, and scientists do not claim that they are miracles just because they have not yet figured them out.
For all anyone knows, there may be many more planets out there with life, we just have not found one yet with our current technology.
It was not a miracle that life arose, it was very improbable, but experiments in labs have created more complex molecules out of simpler ones in settings similar to early earth showing that it is possible.
Evolution does not propose to be a miracle, it was very slow process occurring over billions of years to get what we have today, supported by many different layers and areas of evidence, yes evidence, where is yours again?
Does saying that smart people like Einstein believed in something divine automatically make it so? What does that have to do with anything? There's lots of smart people who are atheists but that's a ridiculous argument to use because it has no bearing on the facts. Nor does claiming that science arose from religion, that does not mean anything. Yet how ironic that you use that argument that science would not be anywhere without the technological advancements of religion. Science has been stifled from making stem cell advancements which has the potential to cure a myriad of diseases, as a result of religion.
Can you please show for me one paper published by creationists in a scientific journal? Where is the religious science?
Creationists do assume that everything was created, and for them, that's where it ends. The difference with science is, when something is not known, they attempt to explain it and not just blindly assume that that's just the way it is, let alone claim some supernatural deity did it.
Next time you get sick, I bet you'll go to the hospital rather than trying to pray your sickness away, what do you really believe in?
xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not a religion. According to Wikipedia, "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." There are no symbols, practices, or supernatural qualities like you propose, but some things that have not yet been explained, which does not mean that they never will. This does not automatically mean that they are miracles, and scientists do not claim that they are miracles just because they have not yet figured them out.
For all anyone knows, there may be many more planets out there with life, we just have not found one yet with our current technology.
It was not a miracle that life arose, it was very improbable, but experiments in labs have created more complex molecules out of simpler ones in settings similar to early earth showing that it is possible.
Evolution does not propose to be a miracle, it was very slow process occurring over billions of years to get what we have today, supported by many different layers and areas of evidence, yes evidence, where is yours again?
Does saying that smart people like Einstein believed in something divine automatically make it so? What does that have to do with anything? There's lots of smart people who are atheists but that's a ridiculous argument to use because it has no bearing on the facts. Nor does claiming that science arose from religion, that does not mean anything. Yet how ironic that you use that argument that science would not be anywhere without the technological advancements of religion. Science has been stifled from making stem cell advancements which has the potential to cure a myriad of diseases, as a result of religion.
Can you please show for me one paper published by creationists in a scientific journal? Where is the religious science?
Creationists do assume that everything was created, and for them, that's where it ends. The difference with science is, when something is not known, they attempt to explain it and not just blindly assume that that's just the way it is, let alone claim some supernatural deity did it.
Next time you get sick, I bet you'll go to the hospital rather than trying to pray your sickness away, what do you really believe in?
PS sorry for the triple post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO jennifermweaver
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the Scopes trial the arguement was that all different theories should be included in the education of our children. "
Slight mistake.
This was never an argument in the trial (or appeal)
The trial argued that
1) That there was a conflict of laws. i.e. on the one hand the butler act, on the other the requirement to teach from a specified book, (which endorsed the theory of evolution)
2) that a very large part of the theory of evolution did not in fact conflict with the butler act. (however the testimony for this was dismissed by the judge)
The appeal argued (successfully) that the butler act was unconstitutional as it favoured a particular religious group.
It did NOT argue that all theories should be taught.
Also refer "15 answers to creationists" answer 1 - as to what constitutes a "theory"
jennifermweaver;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wake up--evolution is a thory too!"
I will start by assuming you have read "15 answers to creationist" answer 1 - as to what constitutes a theory
You say that evolution is a theory too, thereby implying there are other scientific theories.
Sorry to disillusion you but evolution(by natural selection) is the ONLY scientific theory we have. There are NO other scientific theories.
IF you are referring to creationism then there is a distinct lack of scientific evidence to support it. (I personally have asked many times for some, but no-one has supplied any yet.)
You may have read articles on creationist sites or journals, but they have NOT gone through the rigors required for SCIENTIFIC evidence, so do not in any way form the basis for a scientific theory.
Last comment re - jennifermweaver
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Any belief system is a religion."
No it isnt - According to MY dictionary (and several others) religion requires some belief in a supernatural entity. Conversely therefore, if a belief system does not have this requirement then it is not a religion
Humanism is a religion; atheism is a religion.
Not according to MY dictionary
I think ambertooth said it so very well. Scientists are opposed to the "leapfrogging" of Intelligent Design or Creation Science into the classroom, suddenly having it appear as an equal to the Theory of Evolution, when ID or Creation Science has not gone through any of the rigorous testing and scientific analysis required to show any merit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said that showing ID or Creation Science to schoolchildren and then proclaiming them as an alternative to Evolution is like having a racehorse take a shortcut to the finish line then asking an audience who didn't see the race to pick the winner.
Faultline
I believe in ID, and I have been educated at one of the top schools in my country. I have been taught all about evolution, and still fail to see how it is exclusive of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how can you complain about ID being shoved down your throats, when it is not even being taught at schools, and the theory that there was no intelligent designer is being forced upon every school kid? Telling people not to shove it down your throat is very hypocritical.
And when science is able to explain to us exactly how the universe came to be, then I will accept your claim that ID is "dim nonsense". People who believe in ID do not necessarily believe that Genesis is supposed to be taken literally, but agree that the creation of the universe is beyond science itself. And seen as no-one has yet explained how matter, energy, time and space can come out of nowhere; it seems scientifically ridiculous that people should not believe in ID.
And when science is able to explain to us exactly how the universe came to be,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(I assume you are talking about the universe - not planets,stars, or life)
It already has - re bing bang theory + quantum mechanics
People who believe in ID do not necessarily believe that Genesis is supposed to be taken literally, but agree that the creation of the universe is beyond science itself.
It may be beyond believers in genesis or id, but it is not beyond science.
And seen as no-one has yet explained how matter, energy, time and space can come out of nowhere;
Are you not aware of the theories of big-bang,quantum mechanics, cosmology, or relativity?
So I would say your statement is somewhat in error.
And what exactly is your theory as the HOW the universe began?
As you say that it is "scientifically ridiculous that people should not believe in ID", I think it a reasonable to assume you have seen scientific evidence supporting it and examined it carefully..
Therefore could you please supply this evidence so that we can all share it
What evidence suporting id do you have as to
1) how the universe came to be
2) how ANYTHING was created (pick anything you like)
With the emphasis on the HOW
3) WHEN all this took place
Hold on a second
Did you not say earlier that people who believe in id "agree that the creation of the universe is beyond science itself".
So I dont understand how you can say that it is "scientifically ridiculous that people should not believe in ID", when science can explain something when id cant.
Could you please explain ?
"and the theory that there was no intelligent designer is being forced upon every school kid?"
A somewhat convoluted statement here.
There is no theory that there is no intelligent designer.
There are theories that do not require an intelligent designer , but this is not the same thing.
1234Lisa1234: "it seems scientifically ridiculous that people should not believe in ID."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless and until you can present scientifically quantifiable evidence for the existence of your 'designer', then it is scientifically ridiculous that they should. Your claim that "the theory that there was no intelligent designer is being forced upon every school kid" is patent nonsense. No such theory exists in the entire body of science. And no-one that I am aware of is complaining "about ID being shoved down" anyone's throat. The complaint concerns the teaching of ID as part of the school science curriculum when it is not recognized as accredited science.
The real hypocrisy comes, not as you suggest, from "telling people not to shove it down your throat", but in the spurious claims of ID to be legitimate science when it is not. Worth remembering that ID was dreamed up by creationists in a cynical attempt to circumvent a legal ruling that creationism should not be taught as science, as this article points out. Which is why ID'ers (including yourself) fight shy of using overt religious terms. Now that, 1234Lisa1234, is what I call hypocritical.
1234Lisa1234: "I believe in ID, and I have been educated at one of the top schools in my country."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? The more I read this statement, the more puzzling it becomes. Are you attempting to claim that the fact that you "have been educated at one of the top schools in your country" in some way legitimizes what you believe? Scientists are professionally qualified to practice the science which they do, as surely as medical surgeons are in their field. And if you "have been taught all about evolution, and still fail to see how it is exclusive of religion", then I can only comment that you cannot have been paying close attention in the science class that day. So for the record: science does not concern itself with either examining, proving, or disproving any religious concept, because such concepts, being beyond refutation, are not the province of science.
I find it telling that you say that you "believe in ID". Indeed, it is a belief, which is what forever divides it from science. Faith believes. Science extrapolates.
No, I am not trying to legitimize my belief, I am saying that creationists do not neccessarily have any worse education than evolutionists, as the comment I replied to suggested, so the decision to be a creationist is not always an uneducated one. And I totally accept evolution, it has been scientifically proven. But where in science does it prove that everything can just appear from nothing? Doesn't science disprove that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you when you say ID is a belief, but it is a belief made valid by science.
1234Lisa1234: "I am saying that creationists do not neccessarily have any worse education than evolutionists"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho are 'evolutionists'? This is a term used by creationists. Would you describe someone who endorses the theory of gravity as a 'gravitationalist'? One can be a physicist, because physics is a field of science, but individual theories do not garner such terms; certainly not within science anyway. So if you use this term (and, yes, in spite of it being in the dictionary), it marks you out, not just as coming from outside of science, but as endorsing fringe scientifically unaccredited beliefs such as ID.
You claim that " the decision to be a creationist is not always an uneducated one". The reality begs to differ. Endorsing creationism requires a willful rejection of one hundred and fifty years of established science, practiced by thousands of professionally qualified men and women working on an international scale, and rigorously scrutinizing each others' research results. One would have to make a very determined effort indeed to ignore such a body of evidence in favor of.. well, what, exactly? A literalist interpretation of texts that applied to an ancient culture almost unimaginable to our own.
The decision to be a creationist means rejecting all contemporary scientific parameters in favor of a mindset that is medieval in its world view. The decision to be a creationist means shoehorning evidence into a pre-existing notion, which is the very opposite of a sound scientific method. The decision to be a creationist therefore demands the rejection of a body of human knowledge that already has been gained. And you consider this "not always an uneducated decision"?
As to "creationists not neccessarily having any worse education than evolutionists", this is more plain nonsense. You seem to have missed (or have chosen to ignore) what I have already pointed out: that those scientists who incorporate evolutionary theory into their research are already professionally qualified to do so. Where anyone went to school before that is somewhat irrelevant, and that includes you. If you genuinely had such a cracking education, and seriously cared about evolutionary theory and the science upon which it is founded, you certainly would not be using such a pseudoscientific term as 'evolutionist'.
As to your question: "where in science does it prove that everything can just appear from nothing?" If you were in any way serious in your intention to examine the science, you would know that science does not say this anyway. I have already pointed out to you that science extrapolates, but that top school education of yours does not seem to be helping you out much here.
And now your last claim that "ID is a belief made valid by science". It is either a belief or it is science. But as with other ID'ers that I have come across, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Otherwise, please cite published peer-reviewed papers in the literature so that others may check the veracity of your claim. Who, exactly, has 'validated' this belief by science in the accredited scientific community? Names. Titles. Publication dates. Journals.
Or is it rather a case of you offering a mere opinion based upon wishful thinking?
1234Lisa1234
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I tend to be more abrupt the ambertooth
According to the article to which you are responding (page 2)
"Michael Behe, testified that no articles have been published in the scientific research literature that provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred "
(Michael Behe - a leading advocate of id ?)
However you say
"I agree with you when you say ID is a belief, but it is a belief made valid by science."
So I would be interested to know on what basis do you think science has validated id.
I may be wrong but my understanding is that to date id has not provided ANY evidence to support its assertions.
There is a lot of "it looks like" , "it appears as though",unfounded assumptions, and opinion, but no evidence.
So there is NO evidence that science can even START to validate.
1234Lisa1234
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But where in science does it prove that everything can just appear from nothing? Doesn't science disprove that?"
No, science doesn't PROVE that anything cannot appear from nothing.
It also does not PROVE that it can.
However quantum theory PREDICTS that matter/energy CAN spontaneously appear.
HOWEVER -
Isn't the spontaneous appearance of matter/energy precisely what you believe with NO explanation as to the HOW, except by accepting, without any scientific evidence, 3 assumptions.
1234Lisa1234: "And I totally accept evolution, it has been scientifically proven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the record: no, it has not. Theories in science do not deal in proof (that's in mathmatics). The great strength of science is that it remains flexible enough to accommodate new discoveries and research developments. Including absolute proof as a criterion in a scientific theory would preclude the possibility for a potential future adjustment of borders, although certain theories (evolutionary theory is certainly one of them) are now so broadly applied, and so substantively documented, that they may be regarded as being to all reasonable intents and purposes 'tried and true'.
You say that "the great strength of science is that it remains flexible enough to accomodate new discoveries and research developments". I agree with this statement. But this is also true of ID. ID is the idea that a designer was involved somehow in the creation of the universe. The original theory was that of Genesis, with God creating the world in seven days (and other religions have their similar stories), and although now this is generally accepted to be false, the idea that there is a designer still accomodates for new discoveries (eg: the discovery of fossils).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some things that seem to remain unexplained if evolution is the only thing involved in our development, and that is why many people agree with the idea of ID. For some, having a designer, or a God, explains the reason for many moral values. For example, most people, if they had to kill an animal for food, would want to kill the animal as painlessly and quickly as possible, and would feel sadness at seeing it die slowly. And if survival of the fittest suggests we all fight for our own survival, what explains these emotions most people feel at seeeing an animal in pain? Although I accept this is not proof of ID, it shows why people still believe in it.
The validation that I was talking about has been seen by many scientists, such as Michael Behe, in the amazing structure of a human cell, known as "irreducible complexity".
He stated that "the conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself- not from ancient books or sectarian beliefs....The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation". There are also other scientists that have authored books on the topic, such as Walter L. Bradley. So it seems some sciencists, who clearly do have decent educations, have found evidence pointing towards ID.
Also, I did not claim that science said everything can be produced from nothing. I was just pointing out that the lack of knowlege about this is another factor that points people toward ID.
Many argue that there is no evidence pointing towards ID. But when you see that ID is simply the idea that a designer was involved somehow, and not neccesarily the idea that there is a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(any other religion) God, do you have any evidence against it?
1234Lisa1234: "Many argue that there is no evidence pointing towards ID. But when you see that ID is simply the idea that a designer was involved somehow, and not neccesarily the idea that there is a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(any other religion) God, do you have any evidence against it?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve me, you are not the first ID'er whom I have come across who mistakenly assumes that a negative condition in some obscure way constitutes 'evidence'. But having no evidence against something (even were that so) does not by default amount to evidence for that thing. Asking me if I have any evidence against ID is like me saying to you, 'You cannot prove that there's not a giant invisible chocolate rabbit in my driveway, so that proves that there must be'. With such fast-and-loose criteria, anyone could claim anything, because there would be no 'evidence against' such claims.
I am totally underwhelmed by Michael Behe's 'irreducible complexity' argument for ID, so for you to present those sorts of ideas (and that is all that they are) on a science site is somewhat wasted. Unless and until Behe can produce some sound science for what he claims (which he has yet to do), then his ideas remain mere opinion. And you are among many who mistakenly misinterpret the 'survival of the fittest' phrase (which was not even coined by Darwin) to mean 'fighting for survival'. So for the record: 'the fittest' in evolutionary terms simply refers to the fittest members of a species population to reproduce.
That you use the "there are some things that seem to remain unexplained in evolutionary theory" argument as a reason for advocating ID as an alternative is a rejection of sound scientific values. Of course there are always going to be lacunae in human knowledge in one direction or another. That is what science is about. The fossil record will never be complete. But does this mean that the entire theory of evolution should be questioned in favor of something else? Of course not. I have only scorn for those who use such gaps in human knowledge as an excuse to reject sound science in favor of unaccredited pseudoscience, yourself included.
And using the existence of moral values to support your case is a non-starter. I then could make such observations as 'some atheists I know have more personal integrity than some church-goers that I know', which happens to be true. Or that 'terrible things have been done by those who profess a faith', which indeed they have, as history and even today's news tragically endorses. Which only underscores the futility of attempting to play the moral values card in support of your idea.
I will put to you the premise which I put each time to an ID'er: unless you first can establish with scientifically acceptable criteria the existence of your 'designer', then you are basing your idea upon a presupposition, which makes it invalid as science. So can you produce such scientifically acceptable evidence for your 'designer' or not?
But supposing for the sake of the argument that you actually did produce such verifiable evidence for a disembodied creating intelligence, what then? Because there is a further factor to all this, and it is one that I find ID'ers seldom, if ever, give thought to. In antiquity we considered such phenomena as thunder, the rainbow, the aurorae, and so on, to have supernatural causes. Now through science we know differently, and these things have shifted from the realm of the supernatural to the natural world. The same would happen were such a designing agency to be scientifically determined. The whole concept of religion would be undermined, and 'God' would disappear to be absorbed into scientific veracity along with other previously-inexplicable phenomena.
Is this what you would really wish to see happen?
1234Lisa1234
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"ID is the idea that a designer was involved somehow in the creation of the universe. "
Sorry I dont think ID has any opinion as to the creation of the universe. It makes no comment as to when or how the universe was created
"the idea that there is a designer still accomodates for new discoveries (eg: the discovery of fossils)."
Course it does, -
If you dont attempt to explain how it came about then any new discovery can be stated as being the result of intelligent design. This is the scientific problem with disproving ID. Since ID makes no claim as to HOW the discovery came to be - then how can you disprove it?
"There are some things that seem to remain unexplained if evolution is the only thing involved in our development, and that is why many people agree with the idea of ID. For some, having a designer, or a God, explains the reason for many moral values."
Evolution by natural selection purely deals with the "how" creatures evolve.- i.e nothing to do with morality.
However it has been suggested that it is possible that our moral codes have evolved in a similar way to that of creatures. After all , our present day moral values are similar but not the same as those centuries ago.
"For example, most people, if they had to kill an animal for food, would want to kill the animal as painlessly and quickly as possible, and would feel sadness at seeing it die slowly. "
Sorry, I would say this "emotion" is a fairly recent occurance and even now depends on the society. Centuries ago the ONLY relevent thing was that the animal was killed so that it could be eaten. The feelings of the animal didn't come into it.
"And if survival of the fittest suggests we all fight for our own survival, what explains these emotions most people feel at seeeing an animal in pain?"
You use the same phrase used many times "survival of the fittest"
This is NOT evolution by natural selection
Please read "15 answers to creationists" - answer 2
We NOW consider animals, but I personally doubt we had the same consideration centuries ago
" Although I accept this is not proof of ID, it shows why people still believe in it".
Sorry the consideration of animals has nothing to do with ID. so I dont think it plays any part as to why people believe in it.
"The validation that I was talking about has been seen by many scientists, such as Michael Behe, in the amazing structure of a human cell, known as "irreducible complexity".
He stated that "the conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself- not from ancient books or sectarian beliefs....The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation". "
Sorry NO scientist has validated ID, not even Michael Behe.
They (including Michael Behe) observed the complexity and concluded that it was irreducible. No evidence, only their own opinions.
Someones opinion does not validate anything.
"There are also other scientists that have authored books on the topic, such as Walter L. Bradley. So it seems some sciencists, who clearly do have decent educations, have found evidence pointing towards ID."
The first thing to realise is that ANYONE can write a book.
2 Things to consider in science books.
Does the writer have a scientific backgound in the subject?
Just because he may be a scientist doesn't mean he knows anything about the subject he is writing about.
Has the book had any critical analysis?
Just because a scientist writes a book does not mean its contents are scientifically valid.
There ARE NO SCIENTIFIC BOOKS THAT PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR ID
Michael Behe himself said that ID does not meet the criteria for being a science (as defined by the National academy of science)
But when you see that ID is simply the idea that a designer was involved....do you have any evidence against it?
Sorry the starting point is - Is there any evidence FOR it.? (i.e. a designer)
Until there is then it is just an idea, not a theory.
1234Lisa1234
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the idea that the FSM (the flying spaghetti monster) created everything.
Do you have any evidence against it?
Do you see the problem of proving a negative?
Oh! You follow the FSM? You have been touched by the Heavenly Noodle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL!!! Boy does THAT bring back some funny memories!
Faultline
ID is useless in explaining how the species on Earth originated unless there is evidence to support it. There is no evidence, so there is no use in teaching ID.
Faultline: "ID is useless in explaining how the species on Earth originated unless there is evidence to support it. There is no evidence, so there is no use in teaching ID."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed. I'll add in brief the point that I made earlier: those who support ID seem to have little or no awareness of the corner which they're busy painting themselves into. Were ID ever scientifically validated, which would mean proving within science the existence of a disembodied designing consciousness (otherwise known as 'God'), then God would be absorbed into other explainable phenomena of the natural world, and the whole raison d'etre for religion would collapse.
ID'ers, be careful what you wish for.
1234Lisa1234: "ID is the idea that a designer was involved somehow in the creation of the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way you describe ID in this sentence, ID is not a science. It is an idea, sure. You can have all the ideas you want but you can't call it science until it is backed up by evidence. Even if you find some evidence, there is a long road ahead to creating a theory from that evidence.
It is useless to discuss the idea that an itelligent being was "somehow involved" in creating the universe. If that is the extent of ID, that an unknown intelligence was "somehow involved," then it is a far cry from being a far cry from anything even resembling science.
Of course, if this intelligent being's version of being "somehow involved" was that it created the mechanisms for Evolution to occur and then stood back and watched the results unfold, that idea is in line with modern biology. However, you still can't prove an intelligent being was involved without evidence.
So you can't say that "Evolution is false because an intelligence HAS to be behind this design." You need to show some evidence of that act of design. Otherwise you're just assuming an intelligent creator.
Don't assume, show evidence. That's what scientists do.
Faultline
I don't deem it necessary to "hide" or "get around" the science of Creationism by calling it the misleading name of Intelligent Design. Creationism is exactly what the word claims it to be - God CREATED what is here on Earth. God is beyond intelligent, therefore using the name Intelligent Design is not accurate and not often, if ever, used by those of us who know and understand the authenticity and truthfulness of The Bible. (including those of us who are also public school teachers!) Intelligent Deisgn is an idea claimed by those who are unsure, a notion that there is "something out there bigger than us." The claim posted is mistaken, moreover attempting to villify those whom you disagree, refusing to share the realm of science with, and denying the possibility that there is more than meets the eye. There is a loving Creator who has provided for us. (He even created science!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually Intelligent Design is a version of Creation Science put forth by conservative Christians. They have learned that any mixing of religion and government is unconstitutional in this country, so they re-wrote Creation Science texts and took the word God out, along with any religious references, then slapped on some faulty reasoning that sounds like science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
I refer you to www.answersingenesis.com or any of the publications put out by the aig (Answers in Genesis) group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, as in many situations, it is not accurate nor respectful to lump a group of people under one umbrella and assume that "they" are all the same. I am sure that we can agree that those who trust in Evolution are different in their beliefs and actions.
When putting this topic (and others) up to the Constituion, it is not as cut and dry as simply "mixing religion and government." There is nothing unconstitutional about providing people with information. Using a particular religion as a basis to govern and excluding others is unconstitutional. As a teacher, it is my job to ensure that my students have the opportunity to be exposed to more than just "one side of the coin" - and this is true in all academic areas. True education will occur when both Creationism and Evolution are presented and the students are left to use the knowledge they have acquired to make their own decisions. More than likely this will never happen as many are fearful that society's longtime belief in Evolution would be threatened.
Respectfully yours,
Laura W. Pacheco
lwpacheco: "As a teacher, it is my job to ensure that my students have the opportunity to be exposed to more than just "one side of the coin"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo tell me: do you explain clearly and thoroughly to your students the general principles within which accredited science functions, and to which it is answerable? These range from such concepts as falsifiability (refutability), predictability, the concept of peer review and how it works, and others, such as the principle that true science follows wherever the evidence takes it, rather than shoehorning evidence to fit existing notions, particularly religious ones. You further presumably explain to your students what makes such an accredited scientific theory as evolutionary theory admissible as science, using specific examples (which are readily available). You could quote peer reviewed papers from the science literature, which would demonstrably show, not only the method of citing sources (which are an essential part of peer review, because they allow others independently to check what the author has referenced), but the robust critique to which discoveries and research findings are subjected by scientists holding equal qualifications to the author. You presumably also explain why religious issues cannot be a part of science, in that they are beyond refutability, which is expected of scientific standards. And so on..
As a responsible teacher, do you do any of these things?
Next, you do the same for creationist ideas (because they are no more than that). Oh, wait.. you cannot, because they aren't in the accredited science literature, now are they? You disagree? Then please provide in these comments a list of creationist authored papers from accredited science sources for others to check. Authors' names. Titles. Dates of publication. Publishing journals. Please note that self-reviewing creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis are not 'accredited science sources'.
And please, please, assure me that you also clearly explain to your students the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the term 'theory', because I swear if I hear another creationist say 'evolution is just a theory', I'll.. I'll... well, let's just say that as a responsible teacher it is your place to educate your students on these matters. I hope that you do. Do you?
Okay then. What other side to the coin is there? What theory is equal in depth and scope to Evolution that better explains the variety and progression of species that exist on Earth now and in the past?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone. Until Creationism and its wolf-in-sheeps-clothing Intelligent Design have been supported by evidence which is analyzed and reviewed by peers and confirmed for the merits of the work, there is no other side of the coin.
To claim that Creationism is worthy of consideration is to state that it is somehow equal to Evolution. And teaching children that there are alternative theories to Evolution is like allowing a racehorse to take a shortcut to the finish line and then asking an audience who didn't see the race to pick a winner. Creationism must be put through the rigors of scientific analysis.
By the way, I'll peek at that website and find out what qualifications you have for 'scientific evidence.'
Faultline
Laura, if AIG is your idea of scientific evidence for Creation, give it up. It is full of feeble attacks on Evolution that look nice and authoritative but give no real evidence against Evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt also starts with what it calls evidence for a global flood. It does this without stating any unifying theory about the age of the Earth and when said flood took place. Please don't tell me that you think that aquatic fossils found on present-day dry land is evidence of a global flood as described in Genesis. Even a basic understanding of geology can overcome that!
First of all, if Creationism is going to be taken seriously as a science, it needs to make some unifying claims that are consistant with one another.
For instance, if the Earth is, as claimed by Young-Earth Creationists, six to ten thousand years old, then how did so many incredible creatures, both big and small, become extinct all before there was any record of them? Did the entire race of dinosaurs live for a couple of thousand years and then suddenly all die at once? What about the tons and tons of sea life that is recorded in fossil records? What reasonable explanation can you find for a mass extinction (beyond the scope of any mass extinction in history) that wiped out all prehistoric life forms, including all the variant human ancestral species, and left modern ones (including Homo Sapiens) untouched? And it happened as recently as six thousand years ago?
Faultline
First of all, it might be good to know how old YOU think the Earth is, and what leads you to that conclusion.
lwpacheco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As a teacher, it is my job to ensure that my students have the opportunity to be exposed to more than just "one side of the coin" - and this is true in all academic areas. True education will occur when both Creationism and Evolution are presented and the students are left to use the knowledge they have acquired to make their own decisions."
1) ""one side of the coin" - and this is true in all academic areas"
Sorry I would not class presenting any religious beliefs in a classroom as an "academic" exercise.
1) No-one is against the teaching of religions (including creationism ) in a religious studies class.
(Which I would consider as a good area to study (but is not an academic subject))
2) You say you wish students "are left to use the knowledge they have acquired ."
However this begs the question - what is knowledge?
Is believing something to be true the same as knowing it to be true?
Do the beliefs and assumptions of religious beliefs have equal validity to facts, scientifically collected evidence, and logical conclusions of a science (any science).?
Does non-scientific evidence have equal validity to scientific evidence.?
If one subject has mountains of such evidence supporting it and another very little - do these equate.?
If you want to teach 2 opposing views.. How do you present each, when 1 has substantial evidence which may be scientifically difficult to understand, against another which can be presented easily and quicky.- Giving equal time I would say is unfair and biased. ,
Secondly
Science is not democratic, Students can make up there own mind what to believe, but their belief is irrelevent in deciding the validity of science.
3) you say "True education will occur when both Creationism and Evolution are presented "
I notice that you would completely ignore ALL other religious beliefs. Following your definition of "true" education and presenting just Creationism is prejudicial against all other religions(and is therefore unconstitutional)
lwpacheco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"More than likely this will never happen as many are fearful that society's longtime belief in Evolution would be threatened."
You dont get it do you
No-one "believes in" evolution
They believe that the theory evolution (by natural selection) gives the best scientific explanation as to how life came to be where it is today,
If a better scientific theory comes along I have no doubt that this will become the accepted theory. But until it does we are stuck with this one.
Up until now no-one has come up with a better theory backed with scientific evidence.
Creationists may huff and puff a lot but they haven't come up with any evidence
lwpacheco: "...moreover attempting to villify those whom you disagree, refusing to share the realm of science with, and denying the possibility that there is more than meets the eye."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism richly deserves any vilification which can be heaped upon it, and every opportunity should be taken to do this by those who truly care about the collective heritage of hard-won human knowledge. Creationism seeks to leapfrog its way into scientific respectability while circumventing the checks and balances to which the rest of science is accountable. It is a dishonest and cavalier massaging of evidence to fit its own agenda, as may be witnessed in the many scurrilous articles to be read on such unaccredited websites as Answers in Genesis. It is not merely spitting upon the insights into new knowledge gained over decennia by many, many professionally qualified hard-working men and women researching on a global scale. It is lying in the name of one's religious faith. It is sacrificing the richness of scriptural metaphor on the execution block of banal literalism.
Now, what was it that you were saying, lwpacheco?
lwpacheco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I refer you to www.answersingenesis.com or any of the publications put out by the aig "
If you want to present something then by all means do so
But I dont see why I should refer to any aig site at all, as that would mean me doing all the work.
You dont appear to have read anything regarding evolution.
lwpacheco: "...refusing to share the realm of science with.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly, this is petulant nonsense. The realm of science, lwpacheco, is open to anyone who is prepared to accept the rigorous standards of science, from which creationism clearly considers itself exempt.
...And science is nothing if not held to rigorous standards. Without standards, it is merely speculation. Science may begin with speculation, but theory only grows from rigid testing and reviewing done by rigorous standards of practice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
In view of the reactions here which the comments of lwpacheco and other creationists/ID'ers have drawn, and also in view of the fact that lwpacheco has posted a link here to the official creationist website Answers in Genesis, I would like to make this observation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists and their ilk are free to come to a science website such as Scientific American and leave comments. Within the rules of the SciAm moderators, they may say whatever they wish, however much this might be considered 'against' scientific reason by others. That is what free speech is about.
Now try the reverse: what would happen were someone such Faultline, Laughing gravy, or myself to go to AiG with the same intention? I'll tell you: nothing. At a time when most websites have forums or message boards, AiG does not allow for the possibility of dissenting voices. There are no forums, and no comments threads, as there are on this and other science websites. From personal experience I can say that I have attempted to leave comments on pro-creationist threads on other websites. Those comments, however vigorously dissenting, have always been polite. To date, not a single comment of mine has ever been posted in such places.
lwpacheco, even if you do not comment further here, I hope that you read this. It might, just might, give yourself and other creationists pause for thought to reflect upon the freedom which others allow you.
Very good point, ambertooth. This represents a main principle of science, open discussion. I wonder why AIG doesn't want open discussion of what it states are obvious facts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRhetorical question. No answer needed.
Faultline
Yes, I understand that having no proof against something does not mean it is real or true. And to repeat what has already been established, ID has not been scientifically proven- but that is not what I am debating. Although you believe it does not fit scientific criteria, and maybe it never will, it still has enough reason behind it to be accepted by many as a valid explanation of the origin of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are millions of people around the world who have some form of religious belief, and claim to have witnessed the workings of a God. Some people will be more sure that there is a God than they are sure of anything else, because of what they see as validation for the existence of God. Once again, I am not claiming this as proof. But as you said yourself, even the theory of evolution has not been proven. Many people come to the conclusion that evolution is how we came to be by seeing fossils that show our development. And just because some people have never seen a fossil doesn't mean they don't exist and don't give evidence for evolution. Equally, just because some people have not witnessed an Intelligent Designer or do not agree with the things that creationists think of as evidence for this theory, does not mean it can't possibly be real.
You knowing atheists that have more personal integrity than church-goers, as true as that may be, does not at all "underscore the futility of attempting to play the moral value card in support of (my) idea". I never claimed that our Intelligent Designer only created Christians with moral values, my idea was that he created everyone with moral values, which includes atheists. And people have done terrible things in the name of faith, but atheists have also done terrible things, such as Stalin. I'm sorry, but I don't see your point.
Alot of creationists find some, but not all, evidence for ID in spiritual experiences/ideas/teachings. This does not fit scientific criteria, but just because it is not science does not mean that it is not evidence.
Lisa said: "Although you believe it does not fit scientific criteria, and maybe it never will, it still has enough reason behind it to be accepted by many as a valid explanation of the origin of the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow in Zeus' left nostril is it a valid explanation of the origin of the universe without evidence? Preposterous to think that just because it sounds reasonable that it is the best answer. Rubbish. I have as much evidence that we were all made from Zeus' toenail clippings as Creationists have for anything in Creation Science.
1234Lisa1234: "I'm sorry, but I don't see your point."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA fact which is painfully obvious from your latest comment. Please go back and read my comments to you carefully. You will then learn why I specifically explained that evolutionary theory (along with every other theory in science) is not 'proven'. Because it has nothing to do with the theory being in some way less valid, or even not true. Absolute 'proof' is not a quality of science, although it is found in mathmatics (there, that makes about the umpteenth time that I've explained that on SciAm).
You say that you don't see my point about moral values (actually it was a reaction to your point). To spell it out for you: you attempted to use the existence of moral values as 'evidence' for a deity. I demonstrated (my comment of 08:44 AM on 05/25/09) that such a course was fruitless, because moral values (and the lack of them) are subjective and across the board. Now do you understand?
1234Lisa1234, you can hold any religious beliefs which you choose. You can believe in candy-striped baby unicorns dancing under the light of alternate full moons if that's what does it for you. I really don't mind. But the issue is that if it's not accredited science, then it should not be a part of the school science curriculum. ID is not accredited science. Whether it's a religious belief or something else is not even the issue. You actually admit that ID is not science, for pete's sake, so this point cannot be so hard to grasp. If you or any other ID'er wants to see it become science, then submit your evidence through the correct channels. But so far, all so-called evidence for ID that I have ever come across is subjectively spiritual or religious in nature, which makes ID a belief, or (as in the case of someone such as Michael Behe) mere opinion.
So, although ID might have "enough reason behind it to be accepted by many as a valid explanation of the origin of the universe", those "many" are not a broad cross-section of the populace, but simply other ID'ers. True or not?
1234Lisa1234: "just because some people have not witnessed an Intelligent Designer or do not agree with the things that creationists think of as evidence for this theory, does not mean it can't possibly be real."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrrrr. To serially repeat what I have already pointed out on SciAm: Intelligent Design has no validity in science, so cannot be called a 'theory'. It is mere opinion at best. And no-one's saying that "it can't possibly be real". Pretty much anything could "possibly be real", from Bigfoot to honesty in politics. You're using the old double negative so beloved of creationists. You know: "you can't prove that it's not real, so that means that it must be". That's not the way it works, Lisa.
1234Lisa1234, I suggest that you read through and think about my comment below of 07:39 AM on 05/29/09. I hope that you appreciate the platform for your views that you and other creationists are given here on Scientific American and other science sites, and realise that such freedoms are not reciprocated to those such as myself by creationist websites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is wrong with this picture?
Why is it that you can come to a respected science site and express your views, but such a reverse action is denied to those who hold my views? Why do websites of the scope and size of Answers in Genesis, or Intelligent Design dot org, or the Young Earth Creation Club, notably have no public forums, or even message boards? Are creationists so afraid of dissenting voices? Can you explain why science sites provide the possibilities to express opinions, even those diametrically opposed to their own, and creationist sites do not?
xylyx3d, I would disagree with what you say about chaos and say that chaos (evil) is self destructive as well as being outwardly destructive, so that ultimately it leaves order (good), as order also destroys chaos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with the U.S. is the Bill of Rights, the sooner it is torn up the better. It just protects the rights of criminals, and rarely does anything for the law-abiding citizen (Consider that fruit of the poisonous tree rule as an example).
Governments should be free to regulate religion. In America there is a religion to suit every psychoses, even a Church of Satan. Other places get rid of nut-case religions. Your whole constitutional set-up needs reviewing. If you had listened to Thomas Jefferson and let Congress be the place for determining the legality of laws and not the courts (similar to what is the rule in the U.K House of Commons) you would never have even had a Civil War.
I'm back from vacation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisColin, what does good and evil have to do with anything in Evolution? These are relative concepts that have no scientific meaning in this field. You're confusing me.
Your opinions on the Bill of Rights would best be left out of this discussion. That's all, just leave it out.
Faultline
Faultline, I was equating chaos and order with good and evil, redefining it if you like. The starting point for the evolution of the Universe, and for life on Earth is chaos, and the end is order or perfection. One evolves to the other. One gets to perfection within a certain level, then one moves to the next level in a quantum leap to start it all over again. My dictionarys definition of science and scientific doesnt contradict what I said. Im just thinking outside the box that you are normally thinking in, and using different concepts. Now if you think that Scientists only behave scientifically, I would disagree. When they believe in randomness to explain things, this is a matter of faith for them. Faith and logic are inextricably combined, much to the chagrin of extreme rationalists and religious fundamentalists. Sooner or later their thinking has to rely on the other mode of thought. I am a determinist, I believe everything was determined at the Big Bang, so even our arguments here were determined billions of years ago. Free will exists at a different level, like if you were to punch me in the mouth I could tell myself that this was preordained billions of years ago, but then I would tell myself it was also preordained that I should retaliate problem solved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood and evil have nothing to do with it, I still assert. They are ambiguous moral terms that have nothing to do with science and are hard to define since each is compared through social and cultural filters. What is good for one is evil for another from a different point of view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut let's move on to the order and chaos thing. What state do you think the universe is in now? Order or chaos? Since you think that the beginning was chaos, what are we in now?
Faultline
Semichaotic. It is like when someone asks you if a glass of water whose level is halfway is half full or half empty. That depends on its past and its future, it is a vector and not static. If it was being filled it was half full, if it was full and someone drank some, it is half empty. But I suppose you could regard those as ambiguous moral terms if you wanted to wash your hands of it and take the Pontius Pilate type cop-out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSemichaotic? How non-committal can you get?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut let's move forward. So the current state of the universe in terms of order and chaos is "semichaotic." Hard to argue against that one. It is kind of like a non-position.
Here's a few more questions, then. We are talking about the whole universe here, not just the local environment. (Or are we talking about the state of the Earth alone? I get so confused.) What elements do you think are chaotic, what elements do you think are ordered, what proportion of each do you think exists? While you're at it, what progression do you believe is happening in the chaotic elements and the ordered elements? What was the proportion of each yesterday? How about a million years ago? What proportion do you predict for tomorrow and for a million years from now?
Faultline
The question is a paradox : Was intelligence invented by itself? Such a paradox requires an infinite solution, such as who made God? Or is a liar telling the truth when he says 'I am a liar'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience does not accept the existence of such paradoxes, as they are irrational. We do not need to know the answers in order to live. We do not need a God or intelligent design to know that one plus one equals two. It just is.
Not non-committal, just deductive because you don’t have the vantage point at the moment to give a quantitave answer. Do you measure it linearly or logarithmically? Earth is a pocket of relative order in a sea of relative chaos. Intelligent forms like us will spread order to other planets we colonise, it is quicker than waiting billiuons of years for them to do it on their own, if ever. Maybe you could consider all systems as being intelligence of different orders, measured by their capacity to interact. The early hydrogen-filled universe was down near the bottom. As they increase in complexity you could probably give a value to them, as the power of 10 or something. The human brain is, as far as we know, the highest form yet achieved. It is hard to make predictions with the current state of ignorance, only guesses. The more you know the more you realise how much you don’t know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo these concepts really are vague and completely relative. There's nothing measurable, you can only say that this is more chaotic than that. This is basically useless outside of existential philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I'll continue. We need more specifics. You stated that the Earth is relatively ordered compared to "a sea of relative chaos." Well, you have picked a starting point, the Earth. Now what exactly comprises this "sea." Is it the empty space outside of Earth orbit, is it the solar system, or is it the universe?
Next, answer this. What qualities leads you to describe the Earth as ordered (relative to the barely defined "sea" of chaos you mentioned)?
Faultline
Many concepts start off as vague, they point you in an alternative direction to explore. The facts you discover within them may be measurable, but are the concepts themselves? The ‘sea’ is everything outside of Earth, but there may be other islands and shallows in that sea. Earth is ordered; it has complex systems interacting on it. That doesn’t mean it is in equilibrium. As the Chinese used to say, nothing is static, you need an imbalance of Yin and Yang otherwise you have stagnation. Maybe that is why it took life over a billion years to evolve out of the primordial soup? You possibly pride yourself on having the scientific approach. Many people who think they are rational or scientific try to deny that emotion has much room in their thinking. But all motive is emotive. Pride and ambition are emotive. Notwithstanding the Terminator movies, you would find it very difficult to build a self-programming machine, such as humans are, without emotion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. In your case, neither the facts (which have yet to be defined) nor the concepts are measurable. You touched on an answer to one question and totally missed the second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the Earth is ordered compared to everything around it and there are other areas within this comparative chaos that are relatively ordered. Next, answer this. What qualities leads you to describe the Earth as ordered (relative to the barely defined "sea" of chaos you mentioned)? In other words, what qualities of Earth make it ordered and what qualities of the surrounding empty space make it chaotic? Could you please provide qualities that have some measurable trait?
Faultline
Your world seems to be only black and white, you don't see the shades of grey. There are lots of ordered systems on Earth right in front of you to provide examples. Is not your TV set manufactured in some sort of order? Is not a primate an ordered system that is of a higher order than a slug? Do I have to list every one because you cannot grasp concepts? Do you wish to quantify the level of technology? Go ask some economist because I believe they do have something measurable for that. How many TV sets are on the moon or any other planets in the solar system? None of those would have evolved by themselves. Common sense would tell you. Common sense is thinking outside the square, and not just blindly and bureaucratically applying the rules that exist within the square. I am always interested in new concepts to see if they are useful in interpreting the world. I don't reject them automatically because they don't have some measurable bar code on them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoy what have I gotten myself into? We will proceed with unquantifiable values of order and chaos. The next step is a clear definition of what constitutes them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, as far as I can follow you, life is a sign that order is present in a system. In addition, the tools and advanced technology we humans create and use (as a result of being both alive and intelligent) are marks of order that put our world on a higher level of order than the surrounding emptiness of space. Earth is higher in order becuase it has more television sets than the Moon.
In your view, is the presence of living organisms required for there to be order in a system? Or can natural phenomenon create order?
Faultline
.Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The facts you discover within them may be measurable, but are the concepts themselves? "
Stupid - you cant "measure" a concept - e.g. it is 4.2 miles long, or weighs 100 grms
But if the concept intends to have a scientific basis then it requires some scientific means of analysing its basis or predictions.
"The sea is everything outside of Earth, but there may be other islands and shallows in that sea. "
Interesting - What exactly would be "islands and shallows" ?
"Earth is ordered;"
No it isnt
"people who think they are rational or scientific try to deny that emotion has much room in their thinking."
Many non-scientists try to drag emotion into the collection and analysis of data.
Emotion places a part in the drive to study, but not in the scientific collection or analysis of data.
"you would find it very difficult to build a self-programming machine, such as humans are, without emotion."
I dont think so, not difficult at all to disregard emotion in designing machines. I also would not regard humans as self programming
Laughing gravy, you are the one who is stupid. If you had read the comments you would have seen that faultline seems to want measurable concepts. I was trying to politely point out that I didn't consider them measurable. But you are so rude and ignorant you deserve any politeness. You haven't grasped what was previously said, the answers to your questions are there. You don't seem to be familiar with relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline. You don’t need living organisms for there to be some lower level of order. But it would be extremely difficult for molecules to arrange themselves into the form of something like a gold watch, for example. There are easier pathways than this, and nature takes the path of least resistance. The development of lungs in those fish ancestors provides an analogy. The fish couldn’t make a quantum jump straight from gills to lungs. It first evolved the air sac as a buoyancy device, then seconded it to use to provide oxygen. This process may point the way to our future evolution. There may be a perfect form that is imaginable, but leaving it up to nature may take millions of years. Instead do the quantum jump by genetic engineering, deduce the desirable traits we want, then alter our genes accordingly. But getting back to quantifying order and chaos, that is where the challenge comes in, devising the mathematics for it. When you have systems within systems you have to find a way that denotes their complexity. We are more than just a collection of chemical reactions. You cannot quantify their order just by the number of chemical reactions there are in the body. The geometry of our molecules affects the reactions, such as on the surfaces of viruses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about we find a simple straightforward definition of "order" before continue. This is getting confusing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOUN:
A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.
From: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/order
And one for "chaos" could simply be the absence of order. How about that? Got something better? But please keep it simple.
Faultline
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Laughing gravy, you are the one who is stupid. If you had read the comments you would have seen that faultline seems to want measurable concepts. I was trying to politely point out that I didn't consider them measurable.
But you are so rude and ignorant you deserve any politeness."
Reading previous posts I may be wrong but YOU brought up the term "measurable concepts" faultline responded to your post with astonishment, he did not "seem" the want them to be "measured" at all.
Sorry I must have missed something.
You say something - I say you are wrong - Dont see anything rude or ignorant there (unless you think yourself infallible - now that would be stupid)?
I ask a question - Dont see anything rude there , perhaps ignorant if you have already answered, but why didn't you just refer to the date of answer ?
Dont see any relevance of my post with relativity? Please advise
"You haven't grasped what was previously said, the answers to your questions are there".
I ask 1 question - so I dont see where you get the "questions" from ?
I would also consult a dictionary if I were you
The one thing common sense isnt is "thinking outside the square" (I assume you mean box)
You may also be confusing ignorance with stupidity.
As for "Your whole constitutional set-up needs reviewing"
Unless you are a US citizen I would say to mind your own dambed business as regards the constitution
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This process may point the way to our future evolution. There may be a perfect form that is imaginable, but leaving it up to nature may take millions of years. Instead do the quantum jump by genetic engineering, deduce the desirable traits we want, then alter our genes accordingly."
I think these sentences clearly indicate your mentality
There is NO such thing as a "perfect form" as an absolute.
There is only the most suitable for environment in which the creature lives
Change the environment (by natural or unnatural means) and the suitability of the form changes.
"deduce the desirable traits we want"
Who wants ?
Who decides what is "desirable"
What IS a desirable trait? desirable for what?
Have YOU any idea of the genetic interactions that MAY occur when you start altering genes, not to mention when natural selection comes into play?
(not related to hitler by any chance ?)
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"and nature takes the path of least resistance"
Rubbish
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you had listened to Thomas Jefferson and let Congress be the place for determining the legality of laws and not the courts (similar to what is the rule in the U.K House of Commons)"
Wrong - In the uk parliament makes the laws, the "legality" of them more often than not is determined in court
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You don't seem to be familiar with relativity"
Interesting -
I do not recall mentioning relativity (I assume Einsteins theory, or have you re-defined someone else's theory) in the context of this article, and neither have you.
So on what basis do you make this statement?.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead previous posts re-
"The "sea" is everything outside of Earth, but there may be other islands and shallows in that sea. "
YOU brought up the concepts
Nowhere do YOU identify the answers to the questions I asked
So I ask the questions again
What exactly would be "islands and shallows"
According to Colin, the Earth is a known island in this sea of chaos and I'm not sure what the shallows are. I'm just trying to get a grip on what constitutes an ordered system. I need a definition and some examples. Obviously created items like televisions and gold watches count as ordered systems, but I wanted to know what kind of natural processes exist that could create ordered systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to submit that natural selection is a natural process by which order can arise from chaos. But is that thinking too maverick?
Don't mean to dislodge the discussion. Back to what I asked. We need a specific definition of order and I need some concrete examples and some examples we can use as test subjects to determine the boundaries of what classifies as an ordered system.
Faultline
Faultline, I would agree that "natural selection is a natural process by which order can arise from chaos." One of those online dictionaries defines entropy as "A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system." Couldn't this be regarded as the opposite to order? If one is at the end of a process and the other at the other end, couldn't you give a value for one by its proportion to the other?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Laughing gravy , what happens in the US affects and influences everywhere else, so it is everybody else's damned (not dambed, what dumb dictionary did you consult?) business. The U.S. has interfered with other nations from the start after a bunch of traitors forced the loyalists into Canada then stole the land off the Indians. Maybe they were after their WMDs? You don't get relative humour. The less intelligence a person has the less sense of humour they have. Faultline said, "So these concepts really are vague and completely relative. There's nothing measurable " If you read that a certain way it is like he is asking for a measurable concept because you know of course that concepts are not measurable. That is what the issue has been, concepts, whereas he keeps pressing for something measurable. When Darwin first conceived of evolution it was a concept. That pointed him in the direction to look for stuff that would test this concept.
Clouds of hydrogen in space not yet formed into stars could be considered as islands and shallows. A new-born star has some order in it.
Courts cannot question the proceedings of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by a written constitution, only an unwritten one, and ultimately can do what it wants if necessary.
Desirable traits? A lot of people don't like the traits of GE foods. Maybe it would be better to have GE people instead so that I would not be prone to high cholesterol and could eat what I wanted, or maybe people in starving countries could derive more nutrition from the little food they get.
You deviate from a rational debate and call someone stupid and you can expect to be treated accordingly. So butt out.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"what happens in the US affects and influences everywhere else, so it is everybody else's damned (not dambed, what dumb dictionary did you consult?) business"
You change the subject - STUPID
The foreign policy and actions of the US are nothing to with its constitution (unless they are un-constitutional)
I repeat
"If you are not a US citizen the constitution of the US is NONE of your DAMBED, Dumbed, Damned, whatever business"
"The less intelligence a person has the less sense of humour they have."
Another stupid statement
"Clouds of hydrogen in space not yet formed into stars could be considered as islands and shallows. A new-born star has some order in it. "
At last an answer - a stupid one , but an answer none the less
"Courts cannot question the proceedings of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by a written constitution, only an unwritten one, and ultimately can do what it wants if necessary."
Are you talking about the proceedings of parliament, or the laws passed by parliament, you are a little imprecise?
I will assume you are talking about the laws. After all the proceedings are totally irrelevent.
On this basis you are wrong again , (when will you get something right).
The UK signed up the european convention on human rights. It is bound by that convention
It is ALSO a member of the EEC and is subject to directives issued by the European parliament
(A Requirement of membership of the EEC is signing the convention on human rights.)
On the domestic front it is bound by its own magna carta and bill of rights+ centuries of unwritten constitutional conventions and laws.
It CANNOT make laws (that will stick) contrary to that convention or the EEC without withdrawing from the convention or the EEC.
It has already passed laws contrary to both which have been ruled illegal BY THE COURTS and had to repeal or re-write them.
Ultimately it cannot do what it likes as it only exists by royal prerogative and consent of the people.
Should it try I am sure, as with any country, there would be a constitutional crisis
Should any parliament try to go against the unwritten constitution (which, having evolved over centuries, is in some ways stronger than a written one) there is no problem in the head of state (the crown)dissolving it.
The courts+police+army are responsible to the crown not parliament
"You deviate from a rational debate and call someone stupid and you can expect to be treated accordingly.
So butt out."
Sorry this is a public forum - STUPID
I will say what I wish, to whoever I wish, whenever I wish (within the rules of the site)
Treat me how you want, it is of no interest to me, but I have no intention of butting out
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry Im still missing something
Do you think it rude for someone to reply that what you write is stupid?
If so you really ought to get out more.
You still havn't answered my question regarding relativity
Do you intend to or have you forgotten it ? (short attention span maybe?)
I must admit that Laughing Gravy's posts are condescending. The world is approaching a state of Globalization. We are all connected and what happens in the deserts of the Middle East affects everyone. What happens on Wall Street changes the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm studying public policy in college and you had better believe that any organization's public policy affects the Globe. Especially if that organization is of the size power and influence of the United States of America.
Can we drop the issue of politics and get back to order and chaos?
Faultline
Laughing gravy, using the term stupid is an emotional response, not a logical one. I have given up expecting anything intelligent from you, so maybe you are just a lower order of intelligence that should be ignored. England can break away from the EEC whenever it wants, not like your Confederate states. The Magna Carta can be wiped by any subsequent legislation, which is why they re-enacted it in Queensland. Sovereignty has moved from the monarch to parliament. The next stage of its evolution is for sovereignty to move to the people, something that the politicians resist. You can repeat whatever you want until you are blue in the face, but whatever the U.S. does is everybody's business. I wrote to Ronald Reagan asking him to use his influence with the movie studios to get them to stop showing reckless driving as being of low risk, as too many young drivers try to emulate it (see http://www.cars.asn.au/Archive/CARS6.pdf). American movies and TV shows are not just shown in the U.S. The global meltdown caused by the lack of regulation of the financial sector in the U.S. cost me money, so I damned well do have a right to interfere whenever I want. Now the thing about relativity, right from the start it was about "relative" chaos and "relative" order, but your primate skull seems to be thicker than most in letting that thought get through. If I were to say that you were a monkey's uncle, that might be construed as a comment about relativity, yours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisColin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Laughing gravy, using the term stupid is an emotional response, not a logical one."
No it isnt - Stupid is when you make statements contrary to facts, or from no facts
You made the statement
"The less intelligence a person has the less sense of humour they have."
No facts to support it - therefore a stupid statement
(I also notice your lack of a sense of humour - could this be the basis of your statement?)
You stated that parliament can make WHATEVER laws it wants
This is one of your stupid statements
Laws made by parliament have been rejected IN COURT,and parliament has HAD to re-write them
This is fact - available for all to see
So parliament CANNOT make whatever laws it wishes, so your statement was and is stupid.
"Sovereignty has moved from the monarch to parliament."
I dont know where you get this from Sovereignty is still with the crown not parliament
The police + courts + armed forces + PARLIAMENT swear allegiance to the crown.
BEFORE they can take their positions.
Parliament may write the laws but they still have to have royal assent.
Until that time they just remain words on paper.
So again you make a stupid statement
"England can break away from the EEC whenever it wants, not like your Confederate states."
(Technically The confederate states were entitled to withdraw from the US - Its in the constitution. and Technically Lincoln acted beyond his authority in preventing them)
Parliament can make such laws, but that doen't mean that they cannot be taken to court and lose. (my understanding of the EEC treaty is that the UK can only withdraw from the EEC after an internal referendum, and the agreement of the other states)
"You can repeat whatever you want until you are blue in the face, but whatever the U.S. does is everybody's business"
I never said that what the US does is not everyones business
So you start with a stupid assertion
I said the US constitution is No-ones business but the citizens of the US
NONE except a US citizen has any DAMBED right to interfere with its constitution
(nothing to do with foreign policy)
In your previous post you tried to ship your/my ground from the constitution to foreign policy
That was stupid
You can interfere as much as you can in its foreign policy
To imply that I say you cant was/is stupid
"Now the thing about relativity, right from the start it was about "relative" chaos and "relative" order"
My question was
" Dont see any relevance of my post with relativity? Please advise"
Notice the "my" - thay means my posts - not yours.
I have never made any post regarding the "relative" state of anything
So you made another stupid statement
Also the "relative" state of one thing to another becomes collectively "relativity"
I dont think so.
Just a comment
My but you are touchy aren't you - keep taking the tablets,you will get better.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Laughing gravy, using the term stupid is an emotional response, not a logical one."
No it isnt - Stupid is when you make statements contrary to facts, or from no facts
You made the statement
"The less intelligence a person has the less sense of humour they have."
No facts to support it - therefore a stupid statement
(I also notice your lack of a sense of humour - could this be the basis of your statement?)
You stated that parliament can make WHATEVER laws it wants
This is one of your stupid statements
Laws made by parliament have been rejected IN COURT,and parliament has HAD to re-write them
This is fact - available for all to see
So parliament CANNOT make whatever laws it wishes, so your statement was and is stupid.
"Sovereignty has moved from the monarch to parliament."
I dont know where you get this from Sovereignty is still with the crown not parliament
The police + courts + armed forces + PARLIAMENT swear allegiance to the crown.
BEFORE they can take their positions.
Parliament may write the laws but they still have to have royal assent.
Until that time they just remain words on paper.
So again you make a stupid statement
"England can break away from the EEC whenever it wants, not like your Confederate states."
(Technically The confederate states were entitled to withdraw from the US - Its in the constitution. and Technically Lincoln acted beyond his authority in preventing them)
Parliament can make such laws, but that doen't mean that they cannot be taken to court and lose. (my understanding of the EEC treaty is that the UK can only withdraw from the EEC after an internal referendum, and the agreement of the other states)
"You can repeat whatever you want until you are blue in the face, but whatever the U.S. does is everybody's business"
I never said that what the US does is not everyones business
So you start with a stupid assertion
I said the US constitution is No-ones business but the citizens of the US
NONE except a US citizen has any DAMBED right to interfere with its constitution
(nothing to do with foreign policy)
In your previous post you tried to ship your/my ground from the constitution to foreign policy
That was stupid
You can interfere as much as you can in its foreign policy
To imply that I say you cant was/is stupid
"Now the thing about relativity, right from the start it was about "relative" chaos and "relative" order"
My question was
" Dont see any relevance of my post with relativity? Please advise"
Notice the "my" - thay means my posts - not yours.
I have never made any post regarding the "relative" state of anything
So you made another stupid statement
Also the "relative" state of one thing to another becomes collectively "relativity"
I dont think so.
Just a comment
My but you are touchy aren't you - keep taking the tablets,you will get better.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Magna Carta can be wiped by any subsequent legislation, which is why they re-enacted it in Queensland"
This statement implies that Queensland re-enacted magna carta (presumably after it was nullified)
This is incorrect - Queensland RE-STATED magna carta in modern terms. I was not nullified in the first place.
As far as the UK is concerned, at present parliament is trying (but failing) to nullify parts of magna carta to suspend habeas corpus under specific conditions.
The US does not have the same problem as it has Guantanamo bay
I think faultline has made an extremely valid point
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can we drop the issue of politics and get back to order and chaos?"
Personally I would go further - and get back to the point of the forum as the "latest face of Creationism" , but order and chaos are also interesting to discuss.
Wiped means wiped, no matter how you try and reinterpret it. That means a subsequent law can wipe parts of it, or the whole. Over the centuries various laws were passed, wiping out different parts. Laws weren't restricted by a Constitution, later laws overrode earlier ones. Past generations didn't dictate to future ones. From what I remember, the Magna Carta discriminated against jews, you don't think they'd get away with that nowadays. And what sort of stupid name is Laughing gravey. What is the gravy connection, something to do with a meathead? "The less intelligence a person has the less sense of humour they have." That is from my observation, you only seem to confirm it. Sovereignty is 'nominally' with the crown, the ultimate authority is with parliament. If parliament decides to abolish the monarchy that is what will happen, ask Prince Philip, he suggested years ago that parliament is free to do that. Parliament lets the courts decide, if it wanted to it could pass laws overriding it. Parliament, besides being a law making court, can act as other types of court if it wants to, unlike the U.S. where the Constitution forbids it from bills of attainder etc. Swearing allegiance to the crown means nothing, politicians ignore that when it suits them, ask the pro-republican politicians in Australia. Probably the politicians who signed the U.S. Constitution also swore allegiance to the crown beforehand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bill of Rights is attached to your Constitution. Some people in Australia want to copy it. Thus it becomes other people's business. Some time ago they did a survey in the U.S. asking people whether they agreed to having these laws, without telling them they were already in the Constitution. A lot of people didn't like them, until they were told they were in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of criminals more than law abiding people. It creates too much injustice in the U.S., so why export it elsewhere? You track down that fruit of the poisonous tree principle and you'll find that comes from there. It allows the most heinous crimes to be thrown out of court on technicalities, rather than allowing juries to factor illegal searches into their deliberations.
You love the word stupid, I guess you have heard it a lot in your lifetime. Continuing to use 'dambed' shows you've been dumbed down, pity you weren't mute. You just want to be argumentative and plain provoking rather than contribute any thought-provoking concepts. You are boring. Get a life.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Over the centuries various laws were passed, wiping out different parts. "
Only laws passed legally
"Laws weren't restricted by a Constitution, later laws overrode earlier ones."
Now you're being stupid again
Only laws which did not conflict with the constitution were passed.
"Past generations didn't dictate to future ones".
Stupid again
Course past generations dictated the future..
The constitution/bill of rights (from the past) prevents politicials from creating/changing laws(in the present) which affect or are affected by the constitution, without referring to the supreme court.
"From what I remember, the Magna Carta discriminated against jews, you don't think they'd get away with that nowadays. "
I think you are confusing "rights" with "laws"
The constitution/bill of rights/magna carta whatever are not written in stone for evermore
They are a starting point for the rights of people.
Laws CANNOT be passed which conflict with the provisions of the constitution etc.
The constitution etc. can only be changed by VERY serious evaluation of the changes by the country concerned, and by significant majorities of the parties concerned.
"And what sort of stupid name is Laughing gravey. "
Pathetic -
I did not invent the name - it all ready existed, look it up if you want (and spell it correctly), Its there somewhere if you look in the right place.
""The less intelligence a person has the less sense of humour they have." That is from my observation, you only seem to confirm it."
You actually confirm it
You made this statement before I had made any posts to you,
Evidence after the fact - stupid.
""Sovereignty is 'nominally' with the crown, the ultimate authority is with parliament. "
No it isnt, In the UK for ANY law to be "passed" it has to have royal assent for it to be valid.
In Australia for ANY law to be "passed" it has to have signed by the governor-general (not parliament) for it to be valid.
Sure parliament can write the law to abolish the monarchy but until it the sovering signs it it is just writing on paper and has no legal standing..
"Parliament lets the courts decide, if it wanted to it could pass laws overriding it."
Do you not read , parliament does not have any control over the courts, it does not "let" the courts decide anything, it also cannot pass any laws without royal assent.
(You also stated Quensland "re-instated" magna carta
Stupid statement - Queensland has no authority to unilateraly change the australian constitution)
"Parliament, besides being a law making court, can act as other types of court if it wants to"
It can act in whatever way it chooses. Does not make what it does legal.
"Swearing allegiance to the crown means nothing, politicians ignore that when it suits them "
Now you are having a laugh - Failure to abide by the oath means LEGALLY they IMMEDIATELY cease to have any standing, in parliament, the police, the courts, or the armed forces.
"ask the pro-republican politicians in Australia. "
I am not interested in the Australia or the UK for that matter..
"The Bill of Rights is attached to your Constitution. Some people in Australia want to copy it.
Thus it becomes other people's business"
Only their own constitution is their business. What they copy/adapt is up to them, but the source is none of their business.
" The Bill of Rights protects the rights of criminals more than law abiding people."
A constitution and bill of rights are the ONLY protection the average person has against tyrants .
Thats why the consttution/bill of rights were written.
Thats why magna carta was written
Without such the average person has NO PROTECTION AT ALL.
"It creates too much injustice in the U.S., so why export it elsewhere? "
The US EXPORTS NOTHING as far as the constitution, or bill of rights.
Its not the US fault that other countries adopt them, blame those countries.
"rather than allowing juries to factor illegal searches into their deliberations."
Without a constitution/bill of rights :-
WHO SAYS THERE WOULD BE A COURT.?
What would stop the police manufacturing evidence ?
What would stop the police searching YOUR house whenever they wanted ?
What would stop the police putting YOU in jail whenever they wanted for as long as they wanted?
"You love the word stupid, I guess you have heard it a lot in your lifetime. "
Yes, and used it,. It is not my fault that there are many stupid people like you making stupid statements.
"You just want to be argumentative and plain provoking rather than contribute any thought-provoking concepts. "
No I just want people like you to stop making stupid statement. Stop doing that and I will stop replying.
Continue and I will continue.
I dont see presenting "thought-provoking concepts" as an excuse for stupidity.
If you have a problem with other peoples spelling then you really ought to get real.
YOU ARE ALSO IGNORING THE THEME OF THE FORUM - AS FAULTLINE SAID.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"pity you weren't mute."
Think you use the same dictionary as me - you dont know the difference between mute and illiterate
"You just want to be argumentative and plain provoking rather than contribute any thought-provoking concepts. "
Absolutely
(When you raise a thought provoking process let me know)
"You are boring."
Then why are you replying.?
Laughing gravy, •
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Now you're being stupid again
Only laws which did not conflict with the constitution were passed.” Idiot – when Constitution is written with a capital C it refers to a written constitution, an unwritten constitution has a small c.
“Stupid again Course past generations dictated the future.” That is the difference between parliament and congress, parliament has a lot more freedom with the laws it passes. Idiot – we’re talking about UK, not US. There is a book published about 50 years ago called ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. I gave my copy away, but I do remember a lot of what is in it. Maybe you should see if your library has a copy of it before you make more idiotic comments. Mute in that context means you ought to shut up. But you cannot understand anything within a context. Read books like Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan for an understanding of sovereignty.
“Stupid statement - Queensland has no authority to unilateraly change the australian constitution” Idiot – Queensland has its own Constitution, but where it conflicts with the Australian Constitution, the latter overrides it.
“Failure to abide by the oath means LEGALLY they IMMEDIATELY cease to have any standing” That could be an admission that the U.S. is illegal.
“Without such the average person has NO PROTECTION AT ALL.” They only have protection in that unwritten constitution. A lot of South American countries copied the U.S. Constitution, but that didn’t prevent them from having their governments overthrown in coups. But Anglo-Saxon countries remain democratic even though they might have different Constitutions. It has been said this is because the unwritten constitution is written in the hearts of the people. They passed a Bill of Rights in England centuries ago, but this only had the status of other ordinary laws, and could be subsequently changed or overridden by later laws, not like in the U.S.
Waiter? Check please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Only laws which did not conflict with the constitution were passed.”
Idiot – when Constitution is written with a capital C it refers to a written constitution, an unwritten constitution has a small c."
What? - Now you really have lost all your marbles
I am wrong because I put a "c" and not a "C" - ????????
MY COMMENT APPLIES TO ANY CONSTITUTION, WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN
.
" Idiot – we’re talking about UK, not US."
No we're not , I'm talking about the US - try to keep up
.
"Maybe you should see if your library has a copy of it before you make more idiotic comments."
So you refer to a 50 year old book on "ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY" for the meanings of words
Personally I prefer a dictionary, and expect you to do the same.
Read books like Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan for an understanding of sovereignty.
Why ? It doesn't appear to have improved your understanding.
“Idiot – Queensland has its own Constitution, but where it conflicts with the Australian Constitution, the latter overrides it."
So what?
“Failure to abide by the oath means LEGALLY they IMMEDIATELY cease to have any standing” That could be an admission that the U.S. is illegal.
Were you born an idiot. ?
The revolution established the legallity of the US.- THAT WAS THE PURPOSE of it.
If the US had lost THEN it would have been illegal
When the the US won the UK ceased to have any sovereignty or authority.
"A lot of South American countries copied the U.S. Constitution, but that didn’t prevent them from having their governments overthrown in coups. "
Unbelieveably stupid
I did not say a constitution gives an absolute guarantee of protection I said WITHOUT it there is NONE.
A constitution/bill of rights can ONLY protect from the citizen from the law makers passing laws against their rights.
A constitution does not protect from revolutions/coups ,
A constitution cannot protect the citizens from invaders.
A constitution cannot protect the citizen from murderers.
"They passed a Bill of Rights in England centuries ago, but this only had the status of other ordinary laws"
Wrong YET AGAIN - The bill of rights are NOT LAWS, just like the constitution ARE NOT LAWS.
NO-ONE "PASSED" the bill of rights (nor the CONSTITUTION.)
Question - Are we going on the grand tour of the world?
First you brought up the US then UK then Queensland then Australia, Now you have brought up South america
(NONE of which relates to the subject of the forum.)
Where next?.
"The revolution established the legality of the US.- THAT WAS THE PURPOSE of it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I dont think this is correct.
I think it should read ".....validity of the US.....!
Because I dont think at the time of the revolution countries existed in a "legal" sense, They only existed by virtue of being able to defend themselves.
Colin den Ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the past few days you have taken us on a grand tour of the worlds political systems
What happened to these "thought-provoking concepts" you were keen to discuss.
I think faultline is keen to get back the them, and so am I
(believe it or not I agree with some of your concepts"
Political systems, constitutions and so on, are so boring.
Laughing Gravey; Too much idiocy to be worth responding to. Hillbilly High should have educated you, not me. Go back and finish Grade 2. Such pig-ignorance. You cannot even think of what to type in a few minutes, you have to use the whole day to strain your brain and put up multiple posts. You don't deserve any more concepts. Don't bother seeking the last word, you have driven away all your audience, no one will read it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscolon den ronden
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Laughing Gravey; Too much idiocy to be worth responding to. Hillbilly High should have educated you, not me. Go back and finish Grade 2. Such pig-ignorance. "
Thanks
Coming from you its a compliment
Will let you know how I get on. Come and join me when you get better.
"Don't bother seeking the last word, you have driven away all your audience, no one will read it"
You're reading it, or is someone reading it to you?
"Hillbilly High should have educated you, not me"
You educated me ? I must have missed something - you aint got anything right yet - some educator you would be
(See you joined better class of speler - good for you.)
(I must get a better dictionary, mine has gone from bad to wurse)
. By the way - I followed your request - I was mute throughout writing this post, never said a word.
Just imagine that Darwin noticed that creationists don't evolve...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdummy post, please ignore
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bible was written during a time of polytheistic religions ALL of which had strong central creation stories...it was only natural for Christianity to include one. People would not be satisfied with the explanation of “Oh well, its just too difficult for you to understand right now, so don't worry about it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stories were written LONG before modern science, so how would these people possibly understand or except something like evolution or the idea that the planet was billions of years old. They were just happy with the fact that the sun came up that morning and they weren't consumed by some horrible monster during the night!
People during that time were entirely ignorant of the natural processes of the world and we are not so ignorant, yet people still views these stories as scientific fact.
The bible is not about science, it have no science in it whatsoever, its about God! This spoken by an ordained priest of the Catholic Church, which has for sometime now excepted evolution over creationism for this reason. Isn’t it time the rest of the religious world realize this too…
Evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of the universe. Evolution, using scientific evidence, explains the diversity of species and life. Countless scientists support evolution over Creationism. Also, I am a Christian and believe in evolution. The problem with some people is that they take the Bible literally. The Bible was written by scholars, not God. Evolution is true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst you bring up peer review. Almost every single scientist accepts evolution because scientific evidence and facts. Also, please name the Nobel prize winning scientists who accept ID.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswithout evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology , wouldnt make sense" was the advice given to a student in the article. This is not true! Similiarity in design and biocompatibility of DNA derived properties does not mean one species evolved from the other. My theory, "biomatrixgenesis" also show how species are related. However, this relationship is by design from similar scaffolding materials and not by evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's face it! Evolution theory will be replaced by creationism. "Biomatrixgenesis" may not be popular among arrogant self-righteous scientists, but it makes a lot more since than evolution. Nanoscale Biocompatible Information Transfer Systems (NANOBITS) allow for similarity between species without evolution and diversity because the scaffolding materials can be identical, while the DNA varies from species to species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say that YOUR theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this""Biomatrixgenesis" may not be popular among arrogant self-righteous scientists"
- You have delusions of grandeur
I dont know ANY scientists that have even heard of YOUR "theory"
I bet you havent't even submitted your theory for review
The number of people who believe their own tin-pot ideas are "theories" You have just joined the long line of them
So you are saying that since you do not except the creation, God needs your approval? I only need God's approval on this earth, not the approval of low forehead Neanderthals who believe in evolution. I did that when I was a scientist. I quit science because of institutionalized BIAS and BIGOTRY. Why would I care if they approve?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMajor Ray
"So you are saying that since you do not except the creation, God needs your approval? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must have missed something - I dont recall anyone saying that approval from anyone or anything is required to believe in creation or science.
Do you have a problem with comprehension?
"I only need God's approval on this earth, not the approval of low forehead Neanderthals who believe in evolution."
Sorry - If you believe that neanderthals existed then you believe in evolution
Neanderthals who believe in evolution ? That would have been a novelty.
"I did that when I was a scientist."
Why am I sceptical that you were ever a scientist? , or even for that matter know what constitutes science.
You certainly do not know the difference between an idea and a theory
"I quit science because of institutionalized BIAS and BIGOTRY."
Quit or fired ?
You really feel that people can only work one profession per lifetime! You are really brainwashed by the system. I have excelled in many professions, not just science. I am now entering the ministry. Do you think God has to fire me or can I quit that one ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You really feel that people can only work one profession per lifetime! You are really brainwashed by the system. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI commented on your claim to have resigned as a scientist.
Sorry I didn't know you couldn't read.
Do you not understand, or are you braindead?
First a problem with comprehension, now a problem in reading
My but you have some handicaps to contend with especially for someone claiming to have excelled in many professions
You can claim as many professions as you like - it doesn't make your claims true
You certainly haven't shown any attributes one might expect from someone from ANY of the professions.
Better brainwashed than braindead.
"I have excelled in many professions, not just science. "
Yet another claim, in fact 2 claims.
Of course you have excelled in all of the professions, I expected nothing less from you.
"I am now entering the ministry. "
Best place for you, after an asylum
Cant do any harm in either.
"Do you think God has to fire me or can I quit that one ?"
You can do whatever you like (or should I say - claim whatever you like)
Bet you'll excel in the ministry, a messiah in the making I'll be bound.
Youve certainly got a substantial imagination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent Design (ID) must be understood in the context of Creationism. ID loses nothing if it is recognized for what it is (i.e. an inventory and perspective of astounding scientific facts) and what it does (i.e. suggest miracles that point to a Creator).
However, if ID is presented as scientifically rigorous, not only is this inaccurate, it becomes a stumbling block for those who understand that science, by definition, is tightly constrained in its methods. Ironically, these constraints don't hinder intense scrutiny, vociferous debate and even the abandonment of one paradigm for another. Rather, it is precisely these constraints that make such progress possible. Furthermore, ID utterly lacks predictive utility, the test of good science.
While the starting point of science is faith in the method itself, there are no constraints on what conclusions may be reached, so long as they are reached rigorously according to the accepted methods.
The scientific method does not provide a way to go outside of itself, which is what is required in order to conclude supernatural design. Even the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in physics and Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics do not go beyond what science can address. Rather, they describe the limits of what can be measured by experiment or proven by reason, respectively.
When creationists appeal to ID, they often conclude that the finely tuned conditions we enjoy are so improbable as to be statistically impossible, even in the context of the apparent size and age of the universe. They also conclude that the extreme complexities of life could not have resulted from evolutionary mechanisms, even in the radical context of modern genetics and biotechnology, which are predicated on evolutionary models. Yet, few proponents of ID would challenge Statistical Mechanics, which depends on statistical arguments to explain how quantum mechanics must extrapolate from the atomic scale to yield the classical result at our scale. Also, statistics does not say what can or cannot happen, or even when, but rather how frequently they may happen, if counted over all space over all time. So, the logic that statistical interactions over long times cannot account for what we observe actually undermines the conclusion of ID, that is, in theological terms, when seen from a transcendent eternal perspective, what we regard as impossible may be absolute certainty, perhaps according to intent.
Just 1 thing I would like to contend
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"ID loses nothing if it is recognized for what it is (i.e. an inventory and perspective of astounding scientific facts) "
I would say that the basic premises of ID are neither scientific nor fact
I think we agree. ID is a faith perspective on scientific facts. The premises of ID are not scientific, but then again, the premises of science are not scientific either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"ID is a faith perspective on scientific facts. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree.
I would say ID is a faith perspective on inferences from observations.
However the inferences are based on assumed characteristics of the observations, when there is no scientific basis for making such assumptions.
So the basis of its perspective is neither scientific nor fact.
"The premises of ID are not scientific, but then again, the premises of science are not scientific either. "
I would say that "science" is just a methodology (or premises)
Any discipline which follows the methodology becomes de facto a science.
I dont see how the methodology CAN be scientific.
It is following the methodology that defines a science, not science that defines the methodology.
" "ID is a faith perspective on scientific facts. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree.
I would say ID is a faith perspective on inferences from observations."
Aren't facts just "inferences from observations"?
"It is following the methodology that defines a science, not science that defines the methodology."
"It is the theory that determines what can be observed."- Albert Einstein
Aren't facts just "inferences from observations"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo
(I dont see the relevance of the quote by Einstein- it has nothing to do with methodology defining what is a science, and not science defining the methodology.)
What then, are facts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe relevance of the Einstein quote is that it says what you said in a slightly different way, at least as I read it.
In the context of what I wrote, i.e. facts as inferences from observation, facts then are dependent upon what is observed, and according to Einstein, what can be observed depends on the theoretical framework of understanding, so what may be deemed fact depends on the methodology, which you said is what defines a science. Yet, I also hold that the other half of what you said is true as well, i.e. that the science does indeed define the methodology.
Its similar to the problem of linguistics, i.e. does language influence how one thinks, or vice versa? I say its both.
Other points of contention
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When creationists appeal to ID, they often conclude that the finely tuned conditions we enjoy are so improbable as to be statistically impossible, even in the context of the apparent size and age of the universe. "
Why do you imply that that the universe we inhabit is finely tuned.?
(i.e for our benefit.)
It wasn't/isn't
And why the following ?
"They also conclude that the extreme complexities of life could not have resulted from evolutionary mechanisms, even in the radical context of modern genetics and biotechnology, which are predicated on evolutionary models."
This is implying that evolution should explain id/creationism. Why should it?
Evolution explains perfectly how modern life EVOLVED.
Not much time right now, headed to the symphony for a night of Beethoven... (how did that maniac evolve?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't imply that the universe is finely tuned. I was describing what proponents of ID have said.
Their argument is that the conditions necessary for life are so delicately balanced, and therefore sensitive to change, that very slight variations in any of them lead to conditions in which life, as we know it, cannot exist.
They offer a similar argument about life itself, i.e. that the physiology of life is too complex to have evolved by natural mechanisms. My remark about modern genetics, etc, was intended to imply the ID proponents have a diminished understanding of evolution.
As for me, I prefer the view of Ken Miller in his book Finding Darwin's God, in which he says evolution is what you would expect to be the operating principle in a world where every day was a struggle to survive, as described in Genesis.
As for the universe being finely tuned, I believe the entire thing was made so we could have this conversation. That's makes you pretty special, no?
Parable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes facts are dependent on what is observed, but they are not "just the inferences from observations." (which is what you said)
The inference may or may not be valid (ie. arrived at logically).
The observations may or may not be "true" observations .
(In the case of ID something that "looks like" is not the same as something that "is")
( I see a cloud in the sky that "looks like a horse". It does not become a fact that the cloud "is" a horse.)
I think you misuderstand what I mean by methodology
I do not mean the techniques used in the observation, of course the technique depends on the scientific discipline and that which is being observed.
I mean the method of collection,analysis, and peer review of data. These are the same for all disciplines. It is this methodology that ID is trying to short circuit.
As I said this methodology defines what is a science.
Science (especially not a specific discipline) does not define this methodology. (or should I say re-define)
"what can be observed depends on the theoretical framework of understanding, so what may be deemed fact depends on the methodology, "
I fail to see how you arrived at this - This is not what Einstein said (I would say it is not even close to what he said in your quote.)
"It is the theory that determines what can be observed." - Fairly easy to understand I would say.
Also fairly easy to understand - If you cant observe it , it cannot become fact. (nothing to do with methodology)
Parable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That's makes you pretty special, no? "
No (except to my family)
I understood what you mean by "methodology". I accept your meaning, but also include a larger one, the one Einstein was getting at.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note that you did not answer my question as to what a fact is. You attempted to deconstruct my view, but you didn't clarify what you mean by the term "fact".
Please do so now.
who is your "family"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I understood what you mean by "methodology". I accept your meaning, but also include a larger one, the one Einstein was getting at."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see the quote as perfectly clear and not "getting at anything". especially as regards "methodology", so I am at a loss at to why you should wish to extend it.
"I note that you did not answer my question as to what a fact is. You attempted to deconstruct my view, but you didn't clarify what you mean by the term "fact"."
Please do so now."
Why ?
I did not "attempt to deconstruct" your view -
I said I disagreed with your definition of fact as, within your definition, opinions,conclusions based on opinions/faulty assumptions, and illogical conclusions, could all be regarded as fact.
"who is your "family"?"
I find the general use of the word quite acceptable
parable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen Miller - re fact
"A fact is a repeatable, verifiable observation or a result"
laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said "facts are dependent on what is observed", then you said, quoting Miller, "a fact is a repeatable, verifiable observation or a result."
So, from those two statements, it follows that facts are observations or results (observations again) that are dependent on what is observed, so long as they are repeatable and verifiable (another way of saying "consistent" and "congruent with truth").
Is that what you mean to say?
You also said "within your definition, opinions,conclusions based on opinions/faulty assumptions, and illogical conclusions, could all be regarded as fact." I don't disagree, but its true even beyond my definition, because facts are regarded as facts until they are not.
As I see it, there are two kinds of ideas. Facts are ideas you accept as true and propositions are ideas you need to be persuaded to accept as true. Once proven to be true, a proposition becomes a fact. In science, as in life, facts may be subject to revision given other facts that call their veracity into question.
As for the meaning of "family", are we not related in the family of mankind?
Sory I dont follow any logic in your statements
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say facts are just "inferences from observations"?
I disagree (for reasons given)
I say that that "science" is just a methodology (or premises)
And that any discipline which follows the methodology becomes de facto a science
You bring in a quote from Einstein which has nothing to do with "methodology" but you extend the quote to what you believe he was "gettting at". (He may or may not have been "getting at" something, but that is not what he says in the quote YOU made. So I would say it was stupid to extend his quote by your addition.)
You presumptuously demand a definition of "fact"
WHy? - Is the dictionary definition not good enough?
- I give you a definition from Ken Miller
Now you say "Facts are ideas you accept as true"
I think you are equivocating individual facts,e.g.that all living creatures die,(1) with the theory (fact) that explains a collection of "facts".
Where there is overwhelming evidence (ie. collection of facts) supporting a theory then the theory becomes "fact" (2)
(so far I have being using the word "fact" as in (1)), as did Miller's definition)
"So, from those two statements, it follows that facts are observations or results (observations again) that are dependent on what is observed, "
No it doesn't - The result may not be dependent on what is observed . I am sure if Ken Miller had meant this then he would have said it.
"so long as they are repeatable and verifiable "
(another way of saying "consistent" and "congruent with truth")."
NO it is not another way of saying "consistent" and "congruent with truth"
"Is that what you mean to say?"
No
What is the problem with Ken Millers definition?
I mention my family and add that the general use of the word "family" is acceptable.
Now you say "As for the meaning of "family", are we not related in the family of mankind?"
Why would I regard mankind as a "family" ? - it is not the general use of the word, so this a stupid question.
parable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As I see it, there are two kinds of ideas. Facts are ideas you accept as true and propositions are ideas you need to be persuaded to accept as true."
Now you are mixing the non-scientific world with the scientific world
Since this is a scientific forum, it is worthless considering the non-scientific
Now lets switch to fact , as in - a theory that has such overwhelming evidence that it can be regarded as fact.
The words, "idea" and "proposition" have VERY little "standing" in the scientific world
"idea" being even lower than "hypothesis"
(I have this idea that life exists on other planets, I believe this to be true,. Does this make it fact?)
In the scientific world there is NO WAY an idea would be accepted as "fact" (or "truth") until it has followed the "methodology" of science. But this would require to progress an idea to a hypothesis to a theory and then MAYBE to a fact.(or scientific "law")
YOU may accept an idea as fact, but it would not be scientific.
A "proposition" is little better than an idea. Again you may be "persuaded" to accept it, but as with an idea it would not be scientific unless it follows the scientific methodology.
(Also I dont think any scientist would accept any hypothesis,theory, or fact as "truth")
laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for what I was trying to convey with mention of the word "idea", it was along the lines of how Steven Pinker approaches the subject in his book "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a window into human nature."
You said " Now you are mixing the non-scientific world with the scientific world. Since this is a scientific forum, it is worthless considering the non-scientific."
Well, this forum may be scientific, but the article about creationism and this thread are about the politics of science education. As for my mixing anything, there is no separation between the scientific world from any other world. The world is the world is the world and would smell as sweet by any other name. Science is man's attempt to describe what he experiences and observes, and to build a rational framework of understanding around that, according to a collection of principles known as the scientific method. ID is not science because it doesn't do that, at least in its inferences about what observations mean.
As for your view on the standing of "idea"and "proposition" in science, you are simply incorrect. As for the meaning of "fact" (i.e. a well established theory), you are again incorrect.
laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said "I have this idea that life exists on other planets, I believe this to be true,. Does this make it fact?"
No, but it is a fact you have such an idea. (unless you are deranged or dishonest) That fact is my belief that you have such an idea about life on other planets.
You said " Now lets switch to fact , as in - a theory that has such overwhelming evidence that it can be regarded as fact."
So, a fact is a theory which is regarded as fact? But what is a fact, so that I might know what a reliable theory is regarded as?
You still have not defined your terms. Very unscientific of you.
"No, but it is a fact you have such an idea. (unless you are deranged or dishonest) That fact is my belief that you have such an idea about life on other planets."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo neither my idea, nor my belief in my idea make the idea fact (ie. it does not make it fact that life exists on other planets)
And neither does your belief in the factuality of my statement make my idea fact.
So it does not matter whether you (or I) belief my idea or not. it does not make it fact that life exists on other planets (i.e the "idea" is fact in that it exists, but its "contents" - that life exists on other planets - may or may not be true)
(this is all information theory)
"So, a fact is a theory which is regarded as fact? But what is a fact, so that I might know what a reliable theory is regarded as?"
You are equivocating again -
You seem to have a problem in following the posts
I have already stated Ken Miller's definition of "a fact"
Did you not understand his definition of "a fact"?
I did not say that a theory with overwhelming evidence is "a fact" but "fact"
Personally I would call a well established theory a "scientific law" but many people equate law= fact (see 15 answers to creationists, answer 1)
"You still have not defined your terms. Very unscientific of you."
Why should I define them, do you have a problem with them ?
Who said I was scientific ?
"As for what I was trying to convey with mention of the word "idea", it was along the lines of how Steven Pinker approaches the subject in his book "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a window into human nature."
Then you should have defined "idea"
"Well, this forum may be scientific, but the article about creationism and this thread are about the politics of science education. "
No it isn't. Its about the re-definition of creationism -> ID to allow creationism/id to be taught as a science.
"As for my mixing anything, there is no separation between the scientific world from any other world. "
Yes there is, Particular words in the scientific world have specific meanings, In the non-scientific world they can have several meanings.
"ID is not science because it doesn't do that, at least in its inferences about what observations mean."
I agree but would go further. The observations made by ID are not themselves scientific.
"As for your view on the standing of "idea"and "proposition" in science, you are simply incorrect. As for the meaning of "fact" (i.e. a well established theory), you are again incorrect."
I dont think so
I define an idea as the first thought a scientist has as an explanation of an existing phenomenon, or new area for science to explore. On collecting the first tentative evidence this becomes an hypothesis..
(As with my example. I have an idea that life exists on other planets.
If I could show that other planets exist, then I might claim that now I have an hypothesis)
So in the scientific world an idea has less value than an hypothesis.
How exactly do you define an idea or proposition?
As for a well established theory = fact - This is not my definition. It was answered in 15 answers to creationists (answer 1)
This is the problem of not differentiating the scientific world from the non-scientific world.
"Who said I was scientific ?" - laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since this is a scientific forum, it is worthless considering the non-scientific." - laughing gravy
"And neither does your belief in the factuality of my statement make my idea fact." -- laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy belief was not in the factuality of your statement, but in the existence of your belief. I said this to demonstrate that facts are ideas one accepts at face value, while propositions require persuation to believe.
Outside of cognition, what is "fact" or "a fact".
Reminds me of the distinction between "genocide" and "acts of genocide". A distinction without a difference. Rwandans were dead just the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollowing Ken Miller's definition
Tho ONLY fact you had was the existence of my statement
The content/meaning of my statement was NOT a fact within Miller's definition .
Even with clarification you have no way of verifying it
So you had no reason to believe it to be a factual/truthful statement.
You just assumed it to be a truthful statement (not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption non the less)
If you had not initially accepted my statement as truthful, perhaps in time I could have persuaded you. But (perhaps?, probably?) you would have relied on my statements as being truthful.
Who says they are? (only me)
According to Miller's definition you should not take any statement to be fact at face value as it is not verifiable. (It is reasonable to proceed on an assumption of fact, but you must always be very careful to bear in mind this assumption)
But according to you have accepted (as truthful) a statement at face value (that of my idea), and I believe ,had it been necessary, would have been persuaded (of its truthfullness) by further statements I would have made.
NONE of which you could have verified as truthful.
So under NO circumstance should you have accepted my statement as fact (truthful)
(It is truthful, but you should not have accepted it absolutely as such)
As I said - whether you believe something or not is up to you, but belief does not make it fact (or a fact). (I am equating fact = truthful).
"Who said I was scientific ?" - laughing gravy
"Since this is a scientific forum, it is worthless considering the non-scientific." - laughing gravy
SO ?
The fact that I responding on a scientific web site does not mean I am scientific, (ie.have a scientific background)
Sorry this post is a bit convoluted but Im tired
"ID is not science because it doesn't do that, at least in its inferences about what observations mean." -- Parable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I agree but would go further. The observations made by ID are not themselves scientific." -- laughing gravy
ID proponents cite established scientific facts as evidence of intelligence design. Please give an example of an observation made by ID that is not scientific.
"So under NO circumstance should you have accepted my statement as fact." -- laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is true for everything you say, including what you just said :)
"So under NO circumstance should you have accepted my statement as fact." -- laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is true for everything you say, including what you just said :)
Yes -
( Now you're being silly - :)
Bet I can be sillier than you :) )
Seriously :(
Whether or not you believe any statement as fact is up to you
Whether or not statements contain true beliefs is not particularly relevent, it does not make the statements fact or not fact
(For the same reason it is not particularly relevent to me whether you believe the statements you make, Its not important)
The only question is - are the arguments valid, invalid, misguided , or what?
(Personally I wish people would question statements more often, (no matter who makes them), do their own research, and decide their own truth.
"knowledge is power")
"ID proponents cite established scientific facts as evidence of intelligence design. Please give an example of an observation made by ID that is not scientific. "
ID proponents cite many scientific facts. but omit to identify any causal link between the fact and ID (i.e they completely ignore any explanatory framework. There is no explanation as to HOW ID explains the fact)
This is not scientific
(Ken Miller
"But facts by themselves don't tell us a whole lot................... the production of isolated individual facts is unimportant unless you can tie all those facts together in an explanatory framework.."
i.e - A fact without the explanatory framework is just an unexplained fact.
ergo - An unexplained fact is not evidence of anything (including evolution)
IT IS FACT THAT ID MAKES NO ATTEMPT WHATEVER TO SHOW AN EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK.
For all the supposed ID "research" establishments, none has made ANY attempt to show HOW ID explains ANY fact, that is - any mechanism as to HOW the supposed design took place)
M Behe's asserts as fact that a number of biological "features" are "irreducibly complex"
The claims are neither scientific nor fact.
W Dembski's claims in "Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information" are neither scientific nor fact.
(I am well aware that several scientists who believe in ID (includeing those above) have made observations contributing to established scientific facts and theories, but NONE explicitly supported ID)
(I assume by "observation" you do not mean the everyday type observation e.g Its a nice day,)
You give ANY observation made by ID (explicitly supporting ID) that IS an established scientific fact.
(I am well aware that several scientists who believe in ID have made observations contributing to established scientific facts and theories, but NONE explicitly supported ID)
(I assume by "observation" you do not mean the everyday type observation e.g Its a nice day,)
Excerpts from my amazon.com review of Behe's book Darwin's Black Box:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Intelligent Design (ID) is an interdisciplinary attempt to reconcile scientific experience with faith in supernatural agency. ID is not science because ID does not explain observable phenomena nor does it have predictive utility, two characteristics of proper science.
However, ID does provide a context in which to appreciate the wonder of creation, especially life and the very specific conditions that make life possible.
According to Behe, 1). Irreducible Complexity (IrCx) is established for a complex system when that system fails if just one component is removed, 2). IrCx necessarily implies that the system could not have been produced by natural processes and 3). an intelligent designer is responsible.
A fatal problem with IrCx is that it presumes complete knowledge of the components of a system such that they cannot be distinguished from the system itself, i.e. they have no identity, function, history nor future apart from the system. That is, IrCx is established only when all possibilities for viable subsystems have been exhaustively precluded. This is the meaning of "irreducible". Unfortunately, exhaustively complete knowledge is not possible, except perhaps for the supernatural intelligence ID seeks to establish.
Because IrCx is not rigorous, any argument that uses IrCx to support ID ultimately fails. "
Another excerpt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Behe's thesis is a scientific dead-end. To his credit, he admits this. Yet, he insists the impact of intelligent design "is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science" and "science can see the effects that a designer has had on life".
Unfortunately, he does not explain these effects nor demonstrate how they are distinct from those of an evolutionary model. Most importantly, he offers no suggestions for future research. Instead, he concludes his final chapter with these bitter words, "the reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design that its long hard labors have made manifest has no justifiable foundation. Scientific chauvinism is an understandable emotion, but it should not be allowed to affect serious intellectual issues."
After reading Darwin's Black Box, I have no idea what serious intellectual issues Behe would have me consider."
Title could have been 'creationism continues to evolve'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisATEGATE" has been termed the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Scientists are resigning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
It is a stark reminder that even PEER-REVIEWED scientific research can be driven by hidden agenda's that twist the data to support their theory.
Climategate may well be the worst scientific scandal of our generation, but...
DARWINISM IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF THE MILLENIUM .
To state that God created the laws of nature and then the laws of nature created nature is a Deist theology. The Deist theology has much that does not correspond to the Christian theology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI choose no religion; science is not a religion but a process for answering questions about nature. Please check your history to become more accurate in your understanding of Christianity, which is consistent in its persecution and suppression of any scientific, cultural or technological advancement, except torture. If evil is the intentional inflliction of pain using power, then Christianity has be overwhelmingly evil throughout its history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdslaby,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding? Your version of history is warped. Pure 100% baloney. It's a fact that most branches of science were founded by Christians. Most of the universities of the world were founded by Christians (Harvard, Yale, etc). Many hospitals have been founded by Christians.
You know why this whole discussion and all of your
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomments are pointless? There are many reasons. Let me
enumerate a few...
1) You're human. THat's a huge strike against you right
off the bat. It's not like you're a super intelligent
1,000 I.Q. universe traveling alien. Instead, you're
little more than barely consious pond scum which does not
qualify you to have a worthwhile opinion on anything.
Look at the bandwidth of your consciousness for example.
You cannot even process more than one miniscule thought at
a time. Your brain filters out 99% of what comes in
through your senses because your puny consious bandwidth
cannot handle it. Try listening to a book-on-tape while
also reading a book, and see if you can tell me what both
were about when you're finished.
99.9999% of the humans on this planet are so friggin stupid they won't even produce a single technological, scientific, or noteworthy invention in their entire life.
After tens of thousands of years of evolution, we still
cannot establish a definition of what life even is, or how
to identify it. You think you're smart? Gimme a break.
So now that we've established you're pretty darn stupid,
lets move to the next point.
2) Assume their is a God. So what. That doesn't mean
that you have an eternal soul. Your still a steaming pile
of flesh that will evaporate into nothingness after you
die.
3) Assume that there is life after death. So what. That
doesn't mean there is a God or creator. It simply means
you've moved to another state that you're not familiar
with and cannot establish anything about it's source or
purpose.
4) You incorrectly assume that life has inherent value.
That completely rediculous ludicrous invalid false premise
starts you down the path to a whole pantload of other
false conclusions. I'll leave it to your small mind to
figure out what those are.
Short version of that long YEC diatribe: "No! You are!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument wasn't impressive the first 50 times I saw it, and it's still isn't. Please learn how science really works.
Totally different, in that one is thinly disguised, the other blatant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo all you creationist believers out there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver the past several days I have asked many questions and made assertions re - creationism
So far
responses of any sort 0
answers 0
Wonder why that is ??????
Perhaps you are all shy ?
-------
There job is to spew half-truths, outright lies and innuendo wrapped in pseudo-scientific babble, not respond to actual questions.
To all you creationist believers out there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver the past several days I have asked many questions and made assertions re - creationism
So far
responses of any sort 0
answers 0
Wonder why that is ??????
Perhaps you are all shy ?
-------
Their job is to spew half-truths, outright lies and innuendo wrapped in pseudo-scientific babble, not respond to actual questions.
Quotes taken out of context to construct a personal attack. A favorite tactic of the demagogue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>I believe in ID, and I have been educated at one of the top schools in my country. I have been taught all about evolution, and still fail to see how it is exclusive of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------
Educated in what? Arts? Religious Studies? Architecture? PR?
Who taught you "all about" evolution? Science is an ongoing process; that you claim to know "all about" evolution is a strong hint that you are no expert.
Your post begins with an appeal to authority, an authority that stays conveniently unnamed. May it get the attention that it deserves.