Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[TomOfSweden]

That is my choice, and as long as I live life fully while serving God, I will have no complaints. I am happy with my life and who I am.

It is actually possible that I am totally wrong about the way to serve God, whiloe being right about there being a God.

So how do you reconcile these two statements?

Here's a Roman quote that I think is very apt:
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable."
- Seneca

[Rhabbi]

I do not have to, the simple things is that i can admit that I could be wrong, something that you seem unable to see in yourself.

[Rhabbi]

Sorry Rhabbi, I'll get back to answering your earlier posts. I'm a bit pressed for time. I thought I'd add this real quick since it's relevant. I got an answer from my PhD friend in molecular biology and I'll have to interpret since she's Swedish.

There's a long list of observed speciasation that has occured both in laboratory and in nature. She didn't go into detail but Diane Dodd proved it without a doubt in 1989. There's always critique about every experiment, especially if it gets this much attention. Just because a scientist words some critcism about a method doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. Nobody has been able to invalidate her experiment which is the important detail. Her experiment has been repeated many times and we always get the same result. Dodd did it on fruit flies and it's been done many times after that with other creatures and plants.

And then she went on about how sick she is of religious fanatics and militant vegans, which are a nuisance in her field. She also said that most of their results get miss-quoted in the press to make better head-lines. You really need to read the reports themselves to get a fair picture of what they are doing. Admitedly you also need to have studied the field to understand the terminology.

She didn't write this in the letter but I know from earlier that she moved to Australia, (from Sweden) because it's the most liberal place to do genetic research. That and South Korea.

Citations please.

[Rhabbi]

You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.

That is a persuasive argument, but as of yet no one has proved that certain compounds have to combine in certain ways. Chemical reactions are predictable, but the leaps of faith that I need to go form complex chains of molecules, to the interactions that drive life seem to be almost impossible. To take your anology, that quarter seems to be coming down on its edge way to much to be random.

All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.

I can find a number of researchers that would disagree with that. You are letting your bias show here. If Christians controlled the purse strings the way you think they do i could name at least one major grant that exists in the US that would cease to exist.

Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.

This does not sound like Fundamnetalist language. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=owner%3Aarn

According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

There is only one way to answer that, it is total rot.

Actually, you might be surprised about the level of controversy that exists inside the scientific community outside of the western world over Darwin's theories. We do not have the freeedom to challenge the icons of science here in the west the way they can in China, for example.

[Rhabbi]

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

[anonymouse]

True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, including their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

Interesting way of putting it, and it sums it up for me. The people who scare me are the ones that are sure they are right, those are the ones that start little tussles like the inquisition.

[anonymouse]

Interesting way of putting it, and it sums it up for me. The people who scare me are the ones that are sure they are right, those are the ones that start little tussles like the inquisition.

That's the same for me. I rather like Leo Tolstoy's 'Christian anarchy' idea as well. It was actually Tolstoy who inspired Ghandi and his peace movement.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Citations please.

It's Swedish so a translation is the best I can do. Beside Diane Dodd she didn't give me any references. She wasn't hard to google either. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...rticle//evo_45

My friend was pretty dismissive though. As if the whole US evolution debate is a non issue, not worthy of her time to explain. A completly synthetic discussion.

It makes sense though, since I haven't heard the same debate in any other country anywhere. It's as if nobody else understands where the ID people get their scientific suport. If we trust my friend, it's because they maybe don't have any.

edit: to be perfectly clear here. I only asked my friend about speciasation. Nothing else. There may be other problems with evolution. Speciasation just isn't one of them.

[TomOfSweden]

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Do humans have free will or not?

[anonymouse]

Do humans have free will or not?

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Yeah, I know. I'm just fucking with Rhabbi. It doesn't take a lot of philosophical study to figure out we don't have free will. People who believe we do just haven't given it enough thought.

It's just another one of those christian bullshit issues that really don't exist outside the church.

I think what you are refering to is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?

[anonymouse]

I think what you are refering to is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?

Actually, my mistake. It's knows as 'speech-act' theory. Wiki introduction HERE.

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

It's Swedish so a translation is the best I can do. Beside Diane Dodd she didn't give me any references. She wasn't hard to google either. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...rticle//evo_45

My friend was pretty dismissive though. As if the whole US evolution debate is a non issue, not worthy of her time to explain. A completly synthetic discussion.

It makes sense though, since I haven't heard the same debate in any other country anywhere. It's as if nobody else understands where the ID people get their scientific suport. If we trust my friend, it's because they maybe don't have any.

edit: to be perfectly clear here. I only asked my friend about speciasation. Nothing else. There may be other problems with evolution. Speciasation just isn't one of them.

Interestingly enough, I read the article you cited, and it was pure speculation and admitted it. Although adaptation to environment and food occurs, I still do not see a distinct species.

[Rhabbi]

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

Actually, the debate about free will goes beyond language. I personally do not have an authorative answer to the question, and will argue either side based on my whim of the moment. From a Christian perspective, I will tell people that if we have free will, then God is not omniscient, nor does predestiantion exist. I have seen so many convoluted arguments and rationalizations that all I can say is, "I don't know."

[TomOfSweden]

Interestingly enough, I read the article you cited, and it was pure speculation and admitted it. Although adaptation to environment and food occurs, I still do not see a distinct species.

I think it has more to do with the authors careful use of language rather than any personal convictions. Maybe your only seeing what you're looking for.

[Rhabbi]

I think it has more to do with the authors careful use of language rather than any personal convictions. Maybe your only seeing what you're looking for.

The author speculates on the possiblity od allotropic speciation, and indicates that if it happens, the lab experiments involving fruit flies would be the first step of that process.

Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Although this is carefully couched in a scientific way, it is nonetheless speculation. IOf anyone is reading into this, it is you and all the others who are so anxious to believe in evolution that they accept even the flimsiest of evidence as proof.

[TomOfSweden]

Although this is carefully couched in a scientific way, it is nonetheless speculation. IOf anyone is reading into this, it is you and all the others who are so anxious to believe in evolution that they accept even the flimsiest of evidence as proof.

It's not a question of wanting to believe. It's what we have to chose from. I don't know how many times I've said it in this thread. ID isn't a theory. It's evolution or nothing.

And on top of that evolution is suported by massive amounts of evidence. There are no holes. The more I read about this the more asstounded I get that this is at all an issue in USA. ID doesn't exist. It's a big debate about a non-issue. It's desperate fundamentalists who not only ignore common sense, but also facts to find suport of their religious text. What this thread has taught me is that Christians are a lot more dangerous I previously thought. They need to be taken a lot more seriously, and fought every step of the way, or we'll never be rid of them.

But good luck with being a fundamentalist. It seems to make you happy. I'm out of here now.

[Rhabbi]

It's not a question of wanting to believe. It's what we have to chose from. I don't know how many times I've said it in this thread. ID isn't a theory. It's evolution or nothing.

Actually, my point is that evolution is anything but a theory. I only pointed out that ID is a possible alternative, yet you want to think that that is what I believe. The fact that there is not an alternative to evolution does not make it true.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, my point is that evolution is anything but a theory. I only pointed out that ID is a possible alternative, yet you want to think that that is what I believe. The fact that there is not an alternative to evolution does not make it true.

The only proponents of ID are the religious. What does that tell us about the theory? Seriously now. If it would be a real theory it would hold water no matter what perspective or prior faith you have. But it doesn't because it makes no claims.

The sooner you realise that they're the Talibans of America the better. It's a dangerous road you're travelling down and a dangerous door you're keeping open.

Anything is possible. Space aliens could have placed all the fossils on earth and Diane Dodd, (and all the other scientists who've reproduced her experiment) could all have been controlled by comunist orbital mind-control lasers. This is the level ID is on. It's pure farce.

edit: And just to be perfectly clear here. I'm not anti-christian or anti-religious. It's only the magic I question. Christianity and the Bible is and can be a great ethical and moral guide for people. I'm sure it is of the simple reason that so many are christian. I'm convinced that these are the real reasons people turn to the church. I think the hokus pokus and the rituals is just the stage show to keep the 1-minute-atention-span crowd from losing their focus.

Go jesus!

[anonymouse]

Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics.

Apologies, Rhabbi, for this pasted quote from your sig. (I've just changed my own viewing settings and hadn't seen it before now)

I agree to a point with the sentiment of it however, I am also reminded of something (I think it was Voltaire) said, "Anything too stupid to be said, should be sung." It's kinda a bookend for your own quote The math/art dichotomy...

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

Apologies, Rhabbi, for this pasted quote from your sig. (I've just changed my own viewing settings and hadn't seen it before now)

I agree to a point with the sentiment of it however, I am also reminded of something (I think it was Voltaire) said, "Anything too stupid to be said, should be sung." It's kinda a bookend for your own quote The math/art dichotomy...

anonymouse

Since I am quoting someone, I do not think I can object to you quoting me. The truth is though that my math knowledge is what convinces me that evolution is wrong. I could be misunderstanding the acual oddds because we do not know all the dynamics of the chemical proccesses involved, but the known combinations make the odds agains even simple unicelluar life so lng that I cannot accept it.

[Rhabbi]

The only proponents of ID are the religious. What does that tell us about the theory? Seriously now. If it would be a real theory it would hold water no matter what perspective or prior faith you have. But it doesn't because it makes no claims.

Actually, the first propnents of ID were people who proposed that the Earth was seeded my aliens who are conducting a vast experiemnt. Idiots, to be sure, but not religious.

ID has flaws, the biggest of which is that we have to explain where the designer came from. As science it is acceptable to me only because it shuts up the creationist who want me to believe that the Earth was created in 7 days 5000 yeras ago.

edit: And just to be perfectly clear here. I'm not anti-christian or anti-religious. It's only the magic I question. Christianity and the Bible is and can be a great ethical and moral guide for people. I'm sure it is of the simple reason that so many are christian. I'm convinced that these are the real reasons people turn to the church. I think the hokus pokus and the rituals is just the stage show to keep the 1-minute-atention-span crowd from losing their focus.

Go jesus!

Actually Tom, I never really thought you were anti-christian, though I do appreciate you saying so. Most people who call themselves christaians have no more idea wht the Bible says than a 2 year old child. That is why churches need to use the hocus pokus to keep peoples attention, they do not want them to know the truth.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, the first propnents of ID were people who proposed that the Earth was seeded my aliens who are conducting a vast experiemnt. Idiots, to be sure, but not religious.

I love Raëlians. They're doing what the Flying spaggheti monster never can.