<p>Semp (cletus),</p>
<p>There apparently needs to be a conflict between arrogant fools and reason, though as you say, Im sure There ARE VERY Intelligent and knowledgable ones out there you appear not to be one of them.</p>
<p>Chicagonobel (is this serious)</p>
<p>If, and I have no idea if this is the case, your parents had the bad fortune or judgment to subscribe to a particular religious belief that breeds (?) into its parishioners intolerance (which you seem to have adapted well to) and rigidity (ditto) I would think you could look at other metaphysical systems and make an educated judgment for or aginast metaphysical wisdom, or you could just whine about it.</p>
<p>icymoon,</p>
<p>reason and fanaticism do not mix. Your common sense comments will blow through the mind of a fanatic like wind through a screened door. The fallacy was in the question that started this thread. It is not identical but similar in character to have you stopped beating your wife? Science, as any scientist would know, does not make truth claims. It develops models that will explain facts, if they are facts. As often as some scientists have claimed to have come up with the end-all model, none are ever so complete as to have the last word on the subject. I believe religion has served as a regulating principle on many of the more totalitarian claims of history (including scientific claims), even if it has often been heavy handed in the process. Religion has often, as it tends to today, represented the democratic view, that is, the view shared by most people who will be expected to fall in line with what ever new model the experts may know better about. It's holistic and not specific.Think of The Dali Lama, Pope John Paul, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and there stand for the common man against totalitarianism of all kinds. Everything is to some degree imperfect, theories, religions and people .that is a model we have inherited from religion, thank god. The model we have inherited from science is called the scientific method, thank technology.</p>
<p>I think it's funny that if someone believes in intellegent design they're automatically labeled religious. And then anything you say is equated to your religious beliefs and labeled ignorant and old fashioned, b/c heaven forbid there should be a god involved in science.</p>
<p>I used to be a hardcore believer in the theory of evolution, but now I firmly believe in intellegent design. I am not religious; I just came to realize that after years and years of taking science, it would be impossible, just absolutely implacable to believe everything in existence in this entire universe is the result of random chance. It just seems so illogical. We got DNA randomly? Not just one strand, which by chance would be 1 to a sheer astronomical number indeed, but trillions and trillions in every cell, in billions and billions of different organisms? Absolutely perfect, each and every one? How could I believe in a theory that goes against the laws of thermodynamics, for starters? Evolution requires things to move continuously from a state of chaos to order. Thermodynamic laws state this is impossible. I could go on and on...my meager knowledge alone of string theory has planted in my mind the possibility of an intellegent creator. I'm not saying evolution is dead wrong. I do still believe in microevolution, and some aspects of Darwin's theories. I just have a problem with a theory, a theory with holes no less, being taught as fact. I feel the same with the creationist theory. I'm just saying that if we at 17,18, 19, 20 or whatever believe that we know more than scholars 50+ years our seniors -- who still struggle with the holes in evolutionary theory -- about the absolute truth of evolution, then we are fools indeed. We're all supposed to have open minds. I hear that's what Brown is all about. :)</p>
<p>USING THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS TO DEBUNK EVOLUTION IS THE BIGGEST FARCE IN ALL SCIENCE.</p>
<p>No. No. No. No. Thermodynamic laws do not claim evolution as an impossibility. Entropy makes the claim that a for a reaction to be spontaneous (i.e. no work done on it for it to occur) the disorder of its molecules must increase (move towards a gaseous state and increase temperature). Though the formation of molecules necessary for life results in an increase in internal energy (bond formation), the reaction is possible due to energy input via the sun. It is a nonspontaneous reaction, but with outside work being done on the system, the reaction is still possible.</p>
<p>If you want to at least pretend to understand evolution, don't make the claim that thermodynamics debunks it as a possibility.</p>
<p>
[quote]
icymoon,</p>
<p>reason and fanaticism do not mix. Your common sense comments will blow through the mind of a fanatic like wind through a screened door. The fallacy was in the question that started this thread. It is not identical but similar in character to have you stopped beating your wife? Science, as any scientist would know, does not make truth claims. It develops models that will explain facts, if they are facts. As often as some scientists have claimed to have come up with the end-all model, none are ever so complete as to have the last word on the subject. I believe religion has served as a regulating principle on many of the more totalitarian claims of history (including scientific claims), even if it has often been heavy handed in the process. Religion has often, as it tends to today, represented the democratic view, that is, the view shared by most people who will be expected to fall in line with what ever new model the experts may know better about. It's holistic and not specific.Think of The Dali Lama, Pope John Paul, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and there stand for the common man against totalitarianism of all kinds. Everything is to some degree imperfect, theories, religions and people .that is a model we have inherited from religion, thank god. The model we have inherited from science is called the scientific method, thank technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm flattered that you spent a whole paragraph dedicated to me, but I'm kind of confused by it all. When did I say reason and fanaticism mixed? What common sense comments? I didn't even talk about a "fallacy" that "was in the question." Did I ever say science made truth claims? I have no idea of what you're talking about, especially something directed towards me. Hmm. Did you even read my last post? It was about the kind of people where I live, especially about their open-mindedness towards everyone's beliefs and how we respect each other. So I don't know if you're arguing against me or something.. because you can't really argue against something that I'm saying exists in my community, since chances are you've never even been where I live.</p>
<p>well said amor caelestis
i'm glad to see that riled somebody up besides me :)</p>
<p>forget about evolution, by the same logic we would be contradicting thermodynamics right now by not spontaneously combusting.</p>
<p>Amor, the notion that entropy in thermodynamics could <em>possibly</em> engender such a complex thing as life to spontaniously appear in the gross complexity that it has on Earth, does not mean that is <em>would</em>, and is a non sensical loophole I used to use as a way of tapdancing around the issue.
People like you can go and say that this can possibly happen. However in doing so you get a number for likehood that is so huge it's virtually disregarded. A number that has over 2000 zeros behind it. Stephen J. Gould, the noted Harvard evolutionary biologist, has even said that the odds for life forming on this planet by pure chance are so astronomical they are, by the laws of our universe, completely impossible. But then again, there's always that <em>one</em> chance. Technically, it <em>could</em> be possible. An argument outside every iota of sensical reason. But this is what you claim, that there's a slight possiblity that it could have happened this way. All this idea is, is a literal hail mary and last refuge for those who have no desire to accept the idea of a god, or if you're not into that, an intellegent designer. You say "I'm not going to accept the idea of intellegent design. Therefore I'm going to believe in a theory that's virtually IMPOSSIBLE." And this is impossible by scientific standards. That's the only reason how you can think that this entropy thing is possible. Humans are here, therefore this must have happened. It's the only possible explanation, and it's a pretty shoddy one indeed. </p>
<p>But then again, you always have a 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 + 1970 more zeros chance. :)</p>
<p>what you are referring to (well, at least what stephen jay gould was referring to) is the fermi calculation for the odds of spontaneous generation.
darwin's theory of evolution is called "on the origin of species", not on the origin of life.
they are completely different things.
the true probability to look at if you want to discuss evolution would be the odds of advantageous de novo gene mutations--which, incidentally, are considerably lower. you only need three or four zeros</p>
<p>I agree with dcircle, evolution refers to a different question than the question of the origin of the universe/life. But it is easy to see why the confusion exists. It seems to me that those arguing that evolution is true (excluding dcircles arguments--sorry if I missed anyone else), are in effect (and probably in intent) arguing that only fools believe in intelligent design, or some other immaterial explanation for the universe (from ARISTOTLES TO LIEBNIZS theology) that could even encompass evolution for some. They are offended by the very possibility and want to demean those who disagree with them.
I also think that icymoon did not get the essence of kalidescopes thread. I believe he was complimenting you, but he can speak for himself.
I think it is being a bit to clever to act like the real issue behind this whole thread is anything other than: does evolution disprove theological explanations of life.</p>
<p>The answer is, in my humble opinion, no.</p>
<p>I'm not exactly a good christian, but I've never really understood the position people take that claims intelligent design/creationism and evolution are incompatable.</p>
<p>Take a look at the creationism of Genesis I. In this order there was:</p>
<p>God
Light/heaven/Earth/moon
Seas
Plants
Water Animals
Crawling Land Animals
Land Animals
Humans</p>
<p>Our best science tells us that formation and evolution occured in roughly the same order. It's a fairly odd coincidence considering they wrote long before theories of evolution. -- The old "what's a day to god" argument.</p>
<p>I personally beleive that the Judeo/Christian concept of god is severely skewed, but that's a whole different thread. As a matter of common sense, it seems to me as if such an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent guy wouldn't be so, you know, invisible.</p>
<p>Even if you completely disregard any shred of intelligent design theory, most people still want to assign first cause (prime cause) to something. EG Humans evolved from monkeys who evolved from x which evolved from y which evolved from z which spontaneously started living which was possible because of the earth which formed as a result of the big bang which was caused by the cosmic egg which was created by...?</p>
<p>Most people aren't willing to settle on infinate regress.</p>
<p>people who believe in id should be free to voice their opinions</p>
<p>but, they are quite dumb in that they confuse the popular meaning of theory as something uncertain with the scientific meaning of theory. their whole notion of id rests on a few ignorant scientists and is cloaked creationism </p>
<p>the earth being round is a "theory"
the sun being at the center of our solar system is a "theory"</p>
<p>face it religious hacks from the beginning have been averse to sciene( Galileo's house arrest) because it takes away from their power. If they are able to convince people that an almighty god created them then they will be able to lure them in to church. Funny how cults work isnt it?</p>
<p>well actually sempitern it was a wide known fact that the earth was flat before, and it was also believed that the universe revolved around the earth. there are so many different scientific theories from the past that have been disproved now (most of aristotles brand especially, lol, my physics teacher always yells at the little aristotles in the class, anyhow, i digress) what i'm saying is that while i totally believe in evolution and it seems like a fact to me, that doens't mean that a few centuries down the road we find something else out. we don't have all the answers yet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and is cloaked in creationism
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read what I wrote before. I don't see how any theory of where humans/earth/universe initially came from wouldn't be cloaked in creationism.</p>
<p>A couple posters have mentioned Galileo to support their views:</p>
<p>For the record, Galileo was mistaken, as we now know (or at least people who care about the facts and not bashing other peoples views/beliefs). What made him important to science was simply that he was less wrong than his scientific predecessors. His model of the universe was mathematically incorrect, but intuitively close to correct based on his observations with the aid of a telescope.
The Catholic church (I am not a catholic, or Christian) told Galileo that he was free to present his model as an alternative to the current view, but that he could not claim it to be the absolute and only possible view. He proudly declined and was placed under house arrest. Like many, he absolutely believed in his dicovery.</p>
<p>This is the direct quote of Cardinal Bellarmino addressing Galileos innovation:</p>
<p> It seems to me that Your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves to speak hypothetically and not absolutely to say that on the supposition of the earths movement and the Suns quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. .</p>
<p>Galileo, as Bellarmino implies, was not absolutely right, but simply more right, although potentially completely wrong as far as the authorities of the day could know.
Science looks for the best predictive models, whereas society at large is still concerned with the consequences and values of scientific innovation (think of Teller and the atomic bomb, or the neutron bomb or nuclear waste disposal etc.).
Im not anti-science, my graduate work was in bio-technology and I work in the field today.
But, contrary to posters like Sempitern555, I do not care to live in a Stalinist society where unpopular views are shouted down and condemned; particularly when the loudest shouts are heard from those who quite obviously do not have the facts to back up their harangues.
In Stalins USSR, Semiterns views were enforced. Theologians were shouted down, persecuted and executed for standing up against the dominant Darwinian view of not only the origins of the species, but the ordering of society. Mao and Pol Pot and others acted to similar effect in the 20th century. It has already been done, and nobody morns its horror passing away into the dust bin of history.
Democracy isnt really so bad, is it?
Many things we believe to be absolutely true today, will have been no more than a good guess tommorrow. Why not wait till all the facts are in to begin shouting down those who disagree with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In Stalins USSR, Semiterns views were enforced. Theologians were shouted down, persecuted and executed for standing up against the dominant Darwinian view of not only the origins of the species, but the ordering of society.[...]Why not wait till all the facts are in to begin shouting down those who disagree with you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but throughout history theologians have also been the biggest perpetrators of this and it continues to this day.</p>
<p>E.G. 1000 years ago people saw any attempt to understand the inner-workings of the human body and most forms of medicine and surgery as playing God and impious. People were burned alive for dissecting corpses in attempts to learn more about our anatomy. We now see this as inhumane and, for lack of a better word, crazy. </p>
<p>Now take the remarkably parrallel example of stem cell research. We must stop it because it is playing God and impious, right? In another 1000 years, if we're still around, I have no doubt that they'll look back on us as every bit as primitive and unfathomable as we look back upon midieval church ethicists.</p>
<p>Or even condoms...there was an AP article today about the church's view on condom use to stop the spread of AIDs in Africa. Condoms are also impious and playing god (becuase they interfere with his natural plan of sex and who gives birth!) This example, however, won't take hundreds of years to be thought of as antiquated. It's thought of stupid and primitive already.</p>
<p>Comrade22,</p>
<p>What part of what JHUway said are you disagreeing with? Are you disputing the qoute?
It isn't clear at all. As far as I can see, only JHUway and dcircle have brought any real facts to the table.
You say things like
"1000 years ago people saw any attempt to understand the inner-workings of the human body and most forms of medicine and surgery as playing God and impious"</p>
<p>I suppose they may have. They were people after-all. Is your point that in the past "people" were more generally harsh and superstitious than now?
I think everyone knows that. Governments were. Guilds were. Soldiers were. Religions were. Shop-keepers were.</p>
<p>Governments make policy.
Soldiers fight their wars.
Corporations create and distribute the drugs and armaments.</p>
<p>Religions have beliefs.</p>
<p>You may disagree. But you can't force people not to have them, comrade.
Historically, religion was the last refuge of the people.
Marx was right when he said religion was the opiate of the people, if by that he meant the only thing that they could turn to in the face of the horrors of industrialism, and the secular wars of our time (Civil,WWI,WWII,Korean,Vietnam,Iraq) was religion.
Religion has done plenty of crap, every institution has.
I hardly think it is the boogey man of our time...more, the strawman of our time.</p>
<p>Your post is largely incoherent, but I'll address what I can understand.</p>
<p>Calling me "comrade" on the same thread I attempt to argue for biblical creationism a few posts earlier. That has to be some sort of record!</p>
<p>I wasn't disagreeing with him at all. As I read it, he was implying that there have been other abuses (RE: shouting down of ideas) by other institutions throughout history and that their abuses compare to what the church has done. Reading it again, I realize was mistaken. It wasn't his point. </p>
<p>I was just trying to point out that the Church has been responsible for most of the roadblocks put in the way of scientific advance, these roadblocks are still being erected today, and in the future people will see these as just as primitive as we look back on ethical Midieval medicine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if by that he meant the only thing that they could turn to in the face of the horrors of industrialism and the secular wars of our time (Civil,WWI,WWII,Korean,Vietnam,Iraq) was religion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...Or sex, opium, pot, gallows humor</p>
<p>
[quote]
Religion has done plenty of crap, every institution has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the point I thought he was making. Literally, it's right, but it misleads to the point of not presenting religion as the primary source of "crap" (when "crap" is defined as roadblocks to scientific progress).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Historically, religion was the last refuge of the people.
[/quote]
Not true. Religion has served as many purposes as there have been civilizations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hardly think it is the boogey man of our time...more, the strawman of our time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Boogey Man? Nope, but I was pointing out it's still doing the same things it been doing for thousands of years. I used the example of medicine. 1200 years ago surgery was immoral and impious. Now its acceptable. 750 years ago dissecting a non-condemned corpse (for medical endeavor) earned you a date with the stake and torch. Now it's acceptable. 30 years ago genetically treating Hunington's disease was impious. Now its accepted. Now studying stem cells is impious. See a pattern?</p>
<p>...or I guess you could use the example of sex. Awhile ago, the church specified the times, places, and, ahhem, positions, you could engage in it (for the sole purpose of childbearing, of course). Now that seems silly, but condoms for people in Africa are morally wrong? Millions of children will be orphaned, and this will, in the end, be seen as every bit as silly.</p>
<p>A long history suggests the Church has been far from a straw man. They're costing lives every day.</p>
<p>"and in the future people will see these as just as primitive as we look back on ethical Midieval medicine."</p>
<p>Er, while I semi-agree about the Catholic Church being an impeder to scientific progress, there remains quite a difference between cutting open flesh and tampering with a damn zygote.</p>
<p>Oh, and I hate to break up the debate, but where are you from, nattiebee?</p>
<p>They are probably not costing lives in soup kitchens. I hate to think of MLK and Mother Theresa as having "cost lives."</p>
<p>You paint with a very broad brush.</p>
<p>There is good and bad in every large cultural institution.
It takes very narrow vision to see only one or the other.</p>