Evolution Debate ...

[peapod]

thanks Machjo, no matter how I might come across, my only concern is that this is not science, its religion. And if they want to enter the realm of science than they should have to meet the same standards as science. For a brief moment when I was a kid, I did think if I went to far out on the water I would fall off the planet. But that only lasted for about a day :wink:

 

[Machjo]

thanks Machjo, no matter how I might come across, my only concern is that this is not science, its religion. And if they want to enter the realm of science than they should have to meet the same standards as science. For a brief moment when I was a kid, I did think if I went to far out on the water I would fall off the planet. But that only lasted for about a day :wink:

Why is it that lateley in Canadian Content I seem to be agreeing more with non-religionists than with religionists :?: I'm startiing to feel like a traitor :?

 

[Machjo]

Of course the post just above is just meant for humour. I don't feel bad at all about it and certainly don't feel like a tritor.

Now next question. How could those religionsists who see no conflict between science and religion, and all others who believe in science, work together to counter the literalist, or fundamentalists, or the superstitious, whtever you wnt to cll them?

 

[peapod]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Thats easy. You are an individual that has your religious beliefs and at the same time, your faith does not require you to undermine science. So in fact you are not a traitor, but a thinker.

 

[Machjo]

So what causes people tyo get so caught up in fundamentalism, literalism, superstition etc. in the first place?

I've never fully understood that myself. But the scary thing is, it's growing!

 

[peapod]

Well since you asked for my opinion I will give it to you, but there will be some they won't like it. I see a aging group of men, desperate to leave behind another generation that will carry on their work. Education and thinking frightens them. Why?

lots of bad spelling today

 

[Machjo]

Fear! Is that it? So how to alleviate the fear? I've never understood it myself. Heck, I'd even want my kids to learn about the world's different religions. Is it that deep down inside they know that their ideas don't stand up to reason, yet it seems easier for them to attack science rather than actually consider that their previous interpretation of their religious texts might have been wrong? After all, re-evaluating one's understanding of one's religion can only go one of two ways:

1. It can strengthen ones fait or
2. Through more doubt on ones faith.

Is that the fear possibly? I don't know. I'm just brainstorming here at 12:48am!

 

[snoproblem]

Immgine a clss on world religions studying the Book of genesis as literary text, with atheists, Christians, jews, Muslims, baha'is, Buddhists and others, all looking at all the various possible understandings of the text. After an hour of that, maybe the literalists would become a tad more humble in the face of science.

Heh, if those jokers knew the meaning of the word 'humility', they wouldn't be trying so hard to shove ID down the throats of our school boards.

And seriously, when are the college entrance boards gonna grow a pair and insist their science students have a general background in evolution theory? Let the ID zombie-spawn go to bible college, if they don't like it.

By the way, the idea that recent attacks on evolution are perpetuated by fearful, spiteful old men is spot-on, IMO.

 

[Jay]

Thats good Machjo. But what this really about for me is that a certain group of people want to undermine science. And I don't think I have to define science to you.

I am joe citizen, but I see something very dangerous and sinister here. I see a hidden agenda, and its a religious one, and it does not belong in science any more than it belongs in people's bedrooms. It belongs in the congregation. I for one am deeply concerned by this, more than I can express. I find the following article I read says it much better than I do.

With no track record to earn the respect of scientists and educators, ID is attempting to circumvent the accepted standards of testing and validation to sneak into our schoolrooms-it'scheating. It takes a great deal of hard work and persistence and time and evidence to establish a scientific idea, work that should not be shirked by taking the easy route and asking the government to legislate a concept into the schoolrooms. Yet this is exactly
the strategy ID proponents are following: spreading propaganda to persuade school boards and state education departments to insert the ideological dogma of ID into classrooms, in the absence of support from scientists and informed science teachers.

Contrast ID with how legitimate scientific work gets into the curriculum. There is an active ferment of new ideas,new experiments, and new evidence constantly bubbling up in the scientific literature. Many controversies work themselves out in the pages of Nature or Science or other journals, and prompt hypothesis testing and the gathering of new evidence. If an idea is
well-supported by the evidence, it gains wider currency within the
scientific community, and eventually works its way into the science textbooks, which are usually written by people with a solid research background in their discipline. Biology books are written by biologists, not by the hodge-podge of lawyers, philosophers, theologians, rhetoricians, and rare scientists willing to abandon scientific principles found in the ID movement. Textbook content should accurately reflect the general opinion of
the scientists who do real work in a field.

And what is the state of modern evolutionary biology? Thriving, growing, and more productive than ever. To name a few examples, in paleontology within the last year, we've had the amazing discoveries of Homo floresiensis, the Indonesian "hobbit", and remarkable finds from Dmanisi, Georgia. The human genome project, and genome projects analyzing other organisms, has been yielding research dividends as this wealth of data is analyzed from an evolutionary and comparative perspective. We are beginning
to tease apart the genetic differences that make human brains different than those of chimpanzees. Molecular studies of protists are revealing the roots of multicellularity. We study oncogenes, genes that when damaged can cause cancers in humans, in nematode worms. Epidemiologists study looming disease
threats, such as bird flu and the Marburg virus, using evolutionary
principles.

My own discipline of developmental biology has been revolutionized in the last few decades as we've embraced evolution more fully than before; new papers in the rapidly growing field of evo-devo, or evolutionary developmental biology, pile up on my desk faster than I can read them. This
is a genuinely exciting time to be studying biology, at a time when new syntheses of various disciplines with the ideas of evolutionary biology are fueling new innovations, new discoveries, and invigorating evolution yet further. When students ask me about the hot fields that promise great
careers, I steer them towards evo-devo (and developmental biology in general, of course), bioinformatics, proteomics, and genomics, all fields in which knowledge of evolution is indispensable.

Note that I do not and cannot recommend anything to do with ID.

ID is a sterile philosophy whose proponents spend their time lobbying school boards, producing nothing new, and with no promise of new ideas for the future. Asking our schools to teach ID is like suggesting that they offer instruction in buggy whip manufacture-it's a futile exercise that is going to leave the students unprepared for both college and the real world.
As a university instructor, I want my incoming students to be well versed in the fundamentals of biology, which includes evolution but not the empty pseudoscience of ID, so that we can move quickly to the real.

Intelligent Design (ID) has failed to meet even the minimal standards of evidence and scholarship we should expect of the science we teach our children. Teaching it steals time from more vital subjects in which our kids should be grounded.

Science is a conservative process. Most college-level introductory textbooks contain only material that has stood the test of time and has been confirmed independently. ID proponents have not only failed to provide any evidence for their thesis, they aren't even trying. There are no labs doing research on this subject; all the papers the Discovery Institute has tried
to publish are exercises in spin, in which they try to distort biology researchers' work to fit their preconceptions. With no established body of results, no current work, and no promising prospects for future research, why should ID be supported? It's a dead end. It is absurd to propose that our kids learn about a subject that no legitimate scientists are pursuing and that has no utility.

researchers' work to fit their preconceptions. With no established body of results, excitement of modern biology...which is almost entirely informed by the concepts of evolution.


I hope you read this, and really understand why I feel the way I do. T

Hmmmm, I’ve been listening and reading some of the ID's ideas, an they were all scientists, and not once did they suggest science was necessarily wrong, but that the interpretation derived by scientists might be wrong; big deal. It is interpreting the material, not forcing religion on ppl. It's questioning things, and not taking everything science says a literal fact, when we don't know all the facts. Weird how science is telling us to not examine things under a certain light. This is not to mention the very rude mud slinging tactics used by "scientists" to get their point across. I for one, find some of the things ID people are saying to be very simple ideas and worth pondering. If this is all so easily provable that there is only way to think of things, go out there and prove it. You will make a fortune doing it. It would appear the world isn't as black and white as we would all like it to be.

 

[Laika]

Freud (I think? Or maybe it was Nietzche?) said that repression leads to fundamentalism. Perhaps religious fundamentalists are a resonse to the rising popularity of secular humanism, atheism, etc. For some people, it is very difficult to abandoned the beliefs that have had a significant impact on their lives.

 

[peapod]

Who is asking them to abandon their beliefs. And even if they were, you think the correct response to that is deceit, and repression of common sense. I simply want them to keep their beliefs in their church, not bring it into the government, and worst try to undermine legitmate science. And I say the creationists have a hidden agenda. And I think it can be proved. Its not about any kind of legitimate science, its about religion. Religion does not belong in science. Science answers the how not the why.

 

[Machjo]

Well, I can understand that if the bible is literal, that they'd naturally feel that any teaching to the contrary would be a threat to their held interpretation of the Bible, at which stage they're being forced to either try to understand the bible a different way or challenge science itself. If they chose to go the route of rejecting science, then they certainly won't appreciate the public school system teaching something which blatantly conflicts with their firmly held interpretation of the Bible.

At this stage, science itself becomes a religious issue. So then the ball is in the scientist's court. Among the options I could see there are:

1. to try to suppress the person's faith, or:
2. to try to help them see their scriptures in a different light.

Considering the power of faith, I wouldn't really see 1 as an option. Add to that that it could then be viewed as an end-times prophecy of oppression of Chirstians, and then they'll really go berzerk! Maybe some anti-science majority government might end up sitting in parliament, then you'll really want to pack your bags and join me here in China pronto!



So i think option 2 would be the best. But the only way I can see that as a solution would be to introduce world religions in school.

Problem? Fundamentalists are the most opposed to such ideas, and they're already quite a political force in Canada as is, even though more hidden and subtle than their southern counterparts.

 

[Wetcoast40]

Who is asking them to abandon their beliefs. And even if they were, you think the correct response to that is deceit, and repression of common sense. I simply want them to keep their beliefs in their church, not bring it into the government, and worst try to undermine legitmate science. And I say the creationists have a hidden agenda. And I think it can be proved. Its not about any kind of legitimate science, its about religion. Religion does not belong in science. Science answers the how not the why.

Well stated, Peapod! Succint and to the point. Regrettably, it's an unwinnable arguement with those who choose to believe. As you can see by the past 40 or 50 comments, you go around and around and end up back where you started.
But, nice try anyway.
Cheers,

 

[peapod]

I suppose your right westcoast. It still boggles my mind why you cannot have a religious belief and common sense. But I only assume this of fundies. I have known and know many people with a religious belief that they can seperate from government and science. Maybe that is the key, the individuals that are able to do this.

 

[Wetcoast40]

I have known and know many people with a religious belief that they can seperate from government and science. Maybe that is the key, the individuals that are able to do this.

I think this is the 'key'. You would have to hope that well read, intelligent people can separate science and religion. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that no 'scientist' could have religious convictions and we know that isn't the case.
I'm an agnostic, but lately, I have been interested in the foundations of the three related religions; Christianity, Judaism and Muslim. A couple of books made this interesting and enlightening: Walking the Bible and Abraham; both by Bruce Feiler. I guess a lot of this stems from the current Middle East situation and my trying to understand it better.
Anyhow, I enjoy your posts, even though I have to equip myself with a cattleprod to keep my attention to the botanical details at a reasonable level.
Cheers,
Coaster

 

[Machjo]

I wonder about literary criticism.

We do learn that in school and not just in university but in high school too. Yet it seems literary criticism is thrown out the window when it comes to sacred texts for the convenience of literalism. So what if the Bible itself were used to teach literary criticism? Certainly I'm not implying we say that the teacher force the student to tear the b ible to threads in literary criticism, or that he must reject it. Only that he must learn to apply what he learns in English class to his sacred texts too, thus forcing him to consider a more rational understanding of them?

 

[Jay]

Who is asking them to abandon their beliefs.

Evolutionists are.

...…..and repression of common sense.

So it is repression of common sense to suggest all this doesn't come from nothing? I don't think so.

Is it common sense to simply believe what scientists say when you need a PhD to understand half if it, and can't reproduce the experiment or investigation yourself, and not to mention everyone in the field we are talking about doesn’t agree on everything? I don't think so. Interpretations are going to be questioned.

I simply want them to keep their beliefs in their church, not bring it into the government, and worst try to undermine legitmate science.

I want a lot of ppl to leave their beliefs at home and stop forcing idiot ideas on me through government. They don't seem to take this into consideration when writing idiot laws though....guess we will just have to live with it.

And I say the creationists have a hidden agenda.

I say atheists have a hidden agenda. They wish to remove the idea that inalienable rights are from God, they believe they can and should strip you of them. Actually it isn’t hidden is it? They do it blatantly in front of you, my mistake.

And I think it can be proved. Its not about any kind of legitimate science, its about religion.

Prove it. I say the ID ppl I've been listening too lately have more education than most around here, and have simple valuable ideas for pondering....unless your going to run around saying "I'm not listening to that".

Religion does not belong in science.

But what if it does, and we just don't know it?

Science answers the how not the why.

Q: Why are there different kinds of Finches, within a local environment, like the Galapagos Islands?

A: Natural selection, and environmental adaptation.


Doesn't that answer why and how?

 

[no1important]

If the bible is such a great book, why so many contradictions in it? Why is there more than one version of it?

 

[peapod]

Jay creationists do use scienctific methods to come to their conclusions. Where are the labs jays? where is the research? where is the observation? Prove it Jay, that is science. What you are talking about is religion. I would be interested in how you would define science.

 

[Machjo]

That's why I think compulsory 'Eorld religions' classes...

If the bible is such a great book, why so many contradictions in it? Why is there more than one version of it?

... would be good. It would force the student to take a closer look at their sacred texts. Whether they continue to believe in the book or not would be their business, but at least they'd have to be willing to consider more rational understandings of such texts.

if we just leave religion out of schools altogether, then parents can effectively teach all kinds of religious prejudice to their child, and there's no counter-blance. Some might say that religion is a personal thing...


...until the fundamentalists grow to become a political force in the land.