 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:27 PM By the way... I have reading one of Gould's books (the one discussing in overwhelming detail the Burgess Shale), and there is more relevant analysis in just one chapter on just 'how to think about science' than I can possibly condense into a few paragraphs here. He does not just assert 'truth', he explains at length how science work, how 'scientists' work and fail to work, and how corrections are done & recognized. I will not expect you, Pete, to go read that book, but I would wonder how, in your view, all those translations & interpretations of scripture are corrected & correlated? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:34 PM If you'd care to dip into the basics, this review is pretty good (scroll down to Opabinia if you want the very brief treatment) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:48 PM Pete, please cut and paste where you think the article I posted does the bait and switch thing you mention. I don't agree that molecular evidence in dna diversion can be alternatively interpreted if it is properly understood. I don't think they are talking about what you think they are talking about, to paraphrase The Princess Bride. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:52 PM I was about to mention the amazing variations in translation - respected translations - but have none at my fingertips. The usual claim is that while some idioms have been "modernized" or "can exhibit more than one shade of meaning," the "essential meaning" of every verse is identical across translations since before KJV. In my experience this is not always true. I do not have examples at hand, but someone else might look into it. BTW, I grew up as a "spiritual person." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:37 PM One simple example of differences of interpretation is regarding the age of Methuselah... and by extension, other ages and calculations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:28 AM "methinks ,shimrod you are forgetting, that it was you that said your areas of science were not relevant [or similar wording] to evolution. like I sais.....own goal." And 'methinks', pete that you have NO scientific qualifications(?)So using your own 'reasoning', how is it that you are uniquely qualified to discuss science with scientists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:44 AM I could add, how many here are qualified to deal with pete? I'm certainly not a trick cyclist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:30 AM suggestion: why not concentrate instead on ALL the other religions and philosophies out there and their take on evolution? As a greatly lapsed Catholic, I'll start with them from wiki: Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. uhmmm no problems here... guess they learned a lesson with the Galileo mess... knowledge 1 inquisition 0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:44 AM What I don't understand is that while mainstream Protestantism and Judaism have no problem with evolution, many people insist on creationism - even though creationism (and as far as I know *even a literal interpretation of everything in the bible*) is not a requirement of basic Jewish or Christian faith. (Islam is a different case.) And there are all those other important religion followed by millions. I was once told, rather sternly, by a Native American with a college degree that "evolution" was a white man's myth. Other Native accounts were similarly wrong. The Crow account of creation was the truth, recognized as such since the birth of the Crow nation in the immemorial past. It was *absolutely* obvious to her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:01 AM Interesting, science geek. My parents enrolled me in Christian church education when I was a youth (I was never too eager to attend). I do not recall any teachings nor material mentioned, challenging evolution. I did not see it to be an issue, until the creationist stuff was raised in the media in recent years, mostly from the southern USA, if I recall correctly. Locally, it is a non-issue, except possibly it is discussed in private, among folks in some small religious groups. While the notion gets media attention, as it is odd, I suspect that few Christians or others, actually subscribe to such an strange interpretation of Christian documents. Taking it farther, and rigidly challenging the basis of important science, IMO, is just weird. But, then, weirdness is certainly not exclusive to this case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM So in February 2010 the Church of England declared that evolution and faith are compatible. Wonder if Pete went to spoil their little "Agreefest"? Am I correct in presuming that the King James version of the bible is the one approved by the Anglican Church? Maybe Pete should check out his version. The blurb is below: The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science. Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area." He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons. The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith. Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain. Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists. "Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis. Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist." In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. "We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." Zimmerman, who is leading "The Clergy Letter Project," says those who promote "narrow religious views" and reject the compatibility of science and faith do not speak for all of the world's religious communities. "Evolution Weekend shows that the disagreement is actually not between religious leaders and scientists, but rather between those who believe that their particular religious views should be incorporated into the science curriculum and clergy who recognize and respect the diversity of different faith traditions," he noted. The compatibility, or lack thereof, of evolution and faith remains a hot debate among Christians. Prominent evangelical theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. has said he finds it impossible to reconcile the two. While he does not deny that changes do take place in the animal kingdom and that there is even a process of natural selection, he firmly rejects theistic evolution and the argument that the process is entirely natural and in no case supernatural. "God was not merely fashioning the creation of what was already pre-existent, nor was He merely working with a process in order to guide it in some generalized way, nor was He waiting to see how it would turn out," Mohler has said. Evolution Weekend is scheduled to be celebrated in conjunction with Charles Darwin's birthday and the anniversary of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:06 AM ah yes... our Native People of North Ameica... at least since the last glacial retreat. Have you noticed that most tribal names translate out to "the People" and other tribes are the "not People" or often derogatory terms. Classic US vs THEM.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM Hi pete, May I just remind you of this recent exchange? "methinks ,shimrod you are forgetting, that it was you that said your areas of science were not relevant [or similar wording] to evolution. like I sais.....own goal." "And 'methinks', pete that you have NO scientific qualifications(?)So using your own 'reasoning', how is it that you are uniquely qualified to discuss science with scientists?" So come on, pete, what scientific qualifications have you got?? What's the matter - Old Testament prophet got your tongue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Doug Chadwick Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:19 AM Religion and science are not adversaries, ...... God said "Let there be light" and e equalled mc2. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:27 AM just a thought, Shimrod, but since pete is very clear about his lack of qualifications in science and keeps referring to biblical references, perhaps we should really be inquiring about his qualification in that area... a divinity degree perhaps. Surely something more than the occassional Sunday school session or weekly visit to the local church... what ecclesiastical scholarship does he have... or is merely parroting of some creationist propaganda site? I'll wager that he is unlikely to disparage the scientific training of any medical staff that provide him with treatments or forego such treatments as a testament of his faith.... the same science that developed said treatments also supports evolution theory. It does get a bit tiresome with their "I want to have may cake and eat it too" attitude. If you want scientific progress, you get a complete package not some adulterated piece of garbage. That's the problem with truth and reality... it gets uncomfortable at times... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:31 AM But when did he say it Doug? Cause and effect. Before e equalled mc2, there was no time, so nothing could have caused it. Time is a result of the Big Bang, not a prerequisite. A bit of a bugger for superstition when it was deduced that you didn't need a god to create the universe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:35 AM Re the 0902 post. What a spectacularly pusillanimous & question-begging copout. As ever in attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, both positions come out as untenable. ROTFL. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:37 AM "Us" vs "Them" is a deeply ingrained universal pattern of thought. You're born into a family: "us." A little later you identify most strongly with your tribe - religion - nation - etc. Outside there's everybody else, some of them scary and threatening, all of them more or less unpredictable. Realistically, what other mindset was possible? (Of course the contempt of some Mudcat Brits for Americans - see the "gun control" thread - remains inexplicable by reason.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:40 AM A propos -- I remember some years ago OP-ing a thread called "What went Big Bang?" It ran & ran -- Sep 09 to Nov 12; but no satisfactory answer ever emerged. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:43 AM Unjustifiable drift, Lighter. We do not contemn you; simply think you mistaken about the social desirability of guns. If we can't say that much without being accused of showing "contempt"- why, deary-me. what a sad world we do live in! Best regards ≈Michael≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 11:07 AM I didn't mean you, M. There are others, who need not be named. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Sep 14 - 11:28 AM Today there was an online article explaining the sequencing of Gibbons' DNA, the last primate species to be finished. There were some surprises of sorts, but even the unusual results gave some new insights into how continental drift and environmental changes affected the evolutionary model and made Gibbons divide into different sub-species very early.... like about 4,000,000 years early. This and other discoveries just add to our growing list of data which clarify the basic concepts of evolution. Pete... you, of course, hold to the view that 'scientists are making some basic mistakes, because no DNA/tissue can be more than a few thousand years old'. In all your defenses of that claim, you end up relying on 'faith' in a religious position which itself is defended by purporting to show 'scientific' studies disputing the majority. In a strange circular way, those who deny evolution depend on science to argue against science. When specific anti-evolution assertions are supposedly answered, the response is to demand *more proof* in ways that go against all standards of defining scientific method. There is a principle that: "The burden of proof is on the asserter." Standard evolutionary theories constantly add & revise THEIR evidence, while those who deny evolution never seem to have anything new to say, but merely re-state the same objections which have already been answered...or invent new definitions to suit their pre-defined conclusions. It's enough to make one dizzy......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:13 PM Me Lighter! Name me! Look at me! I crave attention! Mind you, I don't have contempt for Americans. After all, the vast majority seem to share my disgust at the gun lobby and what it says about reason, democracy and progress in the modern world. Come to think about it, try getting on in US politics without pretending to believe in god... He says, Dragging it back to the thread... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:15 PM OK, so, why is it that the Americans, alone of the educated world, have gone back to clinging to mythology? The Scopes trial was, what, in the 40's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:25 PM What I meant to add was, and then there were generations where science was taught as normal, and then what happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:52 PM what happened? good question, Mrrzy, and one we ask ourselves... how did the REpublican Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower turn into the pack of Tea Party clowns we have today??? politics, money & power are a good start. JFK's shooter was perched atop the Texas Book Depository... A giant warehouse that was owned by a private firm that stocked and distributed textbooks for public schools in north Texas and parts of Oklahoma. A single buyer with tremendous purchasing power and able to influence education in accordance with their own personal agenda. What publisher is going to offend a major customer like that? No one has ever accused the Bible Belt of being socially progressive... heck they used the Bible to defend slavery, while the Abolitionists used the very same Bible to condemn slavery. They spawned the KKK, segregation and worse following the American Civil War. It's their legacy that continues to bedevil our country... and influence others like our friend Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM The Scopes Trial, just in interests of accuracy, was in 1925. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM > they used the Bible to defend slavery, while the Abolitionists used the very same Bible to condemn slavery That should tell you something about biblical literalness right there. Of course, the reply could be that slavery didn't matter because the soul is more important. The bible is not a political manifesto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:30 PM "..." try getting on in US politics without pretending to believe in god... Pretty much true.... sadly.(well, above local, anyway) Dwight Eisenhower was a major example. He 'may' have had some sort of faith- or not- but when he was nominated, he had to quickly go looking for a non-controversial church, and he & Mamie 'attended' semi-regularly. I'd love it if the media would refrain from even mentioning a candidate's religious leanings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM I'd love it if the media would refrain from even mentioning a candidate's religious leanings. .... I'd love it if they actually got their facts straight. As for FOX News... sigh ... they've turned freedom of speech into freedom to slander. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:12 PM In the past, I suspect Christians, and many other religions, and non-religious folks condoned slavery, for one convenient reason or another. The research link below gives some historic Christian information. Christianity and slavery |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM another group heard from: United Methodist Church General Conference, the only entity that speaks for the United Methodist Church, makes these three statements regarding evolution: • "We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." (¶ 160. F. The Book of Discipline 2008) • "The General Conference of The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools." (Resolution 5052 of The Book of Resolutions 2008) • "[The United Methodist Church] endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science, and urges United Methodist clergy participation." (From resolution 1027 of The Book of Resolutions 2008) WOW Christians who recognize that Creationism is not only NOT Science, but should be kept out any science curriculum. Nice to know that there are those who want to avoid a repeat of the Dark Ages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:50 PM Generally speaking, the vast majority of slave owners thought slavery was a great idea. "It worked for them." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:57 PM a couple weeks ago I rewatched Amazing Grace and last night rewatched Amistad... sobering though I will admit watching the special features for Amistad and going fan girl on the ships and Mystic Seaport... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:58 PM ""It worked for them"" Depends on which "them". :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:55 PM Notwithstanding that the bible was written by men with an agenda. It is whatever you want it to be, which is why it is of interest as an historical book of tales but otherwise irrelevant to anyone with the benefit of education and the heritage of sophistication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:02 PM If you insist, American slaveholders thought it was to everyone's benefit, not least the slaves'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:06 PM ""Anyone with the benefit of ....the heritage of sophistication"" Would this refer to the Royal family? I mistakenly understood that Eliz 2 was the head of the Church of England? Silly bunt was I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:11 PM I suspect slave holding was in existance longer and broader geographicaly than in the USA. And, many of the slaves were likely delivered by ships from the enabling motherlands. But, indeed, the USA south could have been better at it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 11 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM > I suspect slave holding was in existance longer and broader geographicaly than in the USA. As a matter of fact it was. I don't see your point. Slavemasters like to have slaves do the work. In the American South, the owners believed that they were doing the slaves a favor. If they weren't slaves, they'd be non-Christian heathens in Africa at the mercy of lions and hyenas, living the lives of primitives. Slavery was said to be better: it taught them Christian values (including the virtues of work) and it protected them from wild nature. Did other slave-holding societies think that way? Undoubtedly some did: Brazil, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 11 Sep 14 - 07:48 PM My point was thatslavery was not limited to the USA , directly, or indirectly. Nothing more deep than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:46 PM Slavery got its start here in the Triangle Trade, but when the cotton gin was invented, it became profitable to grow LOTS of cotton, and cheap labor was needed. When large amounts money was involved, moral concerns got rationalized. Religious rationalization was easy to work in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:30 PM Slavery was old, old long before the triangle trade, probably long before hte evolution of white people. People have been selling their neighbors on one side to the neighbors on the other side since there have been people; thousands and thousands of years of prehistory involved taking and selling slaves. The old testament has instructions on how to do it, the code of hammurabi says how to treat slaves and it's thousands of years older than that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:31 PM Oops I missed the word "here" there - you were talking US slavery. Very recent. And they think they have a monopoly on it, but that's a whole 'nother thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM WOW Christians who recognize that Creationism is not only NOT Science, but should be kept out any science curriculum. Nice to know that there are those who want to avoid a repeat of the Dark Ages. Also Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, ........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 12 Sep 14 - 06:49 AM "But I would really like to talk about the "elephant in the room" - whatever it is that we profoundly disagree about." This is the most pertinent point in the entire thread (in fact ion all these threads) and deserves further consideration. Funnily enough, I was thinking about this very issue on the train on the way home yesterday morning, so it's great it's been raised. The answer to this isn't as simple as it first appears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 12 Sep 14 - 08:18 AM We disagree equally on many things, including epistemology, ontology, theology, and teleology. Where to begin.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 12 Sep 14 - 08:46 AM well, I really do not think that the elephant in the room is belief or disbelief in a diety... though that does get dragged into it by both sides. using scientific method I have to base this conclusion on observation... my own personal observations. My own college advisor was a wonderful person who encouraged his students to explore and seek answers. He taught ecology and used evolutionary theory as one of the tools to understand the natural world as it is today. He and his family also attended services at the local Unitarian church. Trying to be a "good Catholic" as a school child, I tried to reconcile the Inquisition with the ideals taught by Christ... how could anyone imagine that torture and brutal execution was part of the teachings of Christ... yet there they were, cross and bible in hand burning heretics. Then there were the sad examples of the burning of witches... We were taught about the mayrterdom of saints... what can we make of those murdered at the hands of Christians? Was this the work of the devil? Did I even believe in the devil? In my case the answer is no... I neither believe in a supreme being nor an eternal adversary. So if you can have two individuals who accept evolutionary theory... one an atheist and the other a believer... then the conflict is not intrinsic to that issue. I would say that it is only a small, but very vocal, group that are offended by the thought that they are not the sole reason for the existence of the universe. Call it pride or hubris, but it is their egos that can't abide the threat to their own self styled "godhood"... made in the image of god... follow the rules and you will be exhalted in heaven. I was eleven years old when I came to the conclusion that if heaven existed and was filled with the hypocrites I observed around me, then hell probably attracted a better class of people. I decided that I was a good person and for anyone else to say I was going to hell because not agreeing with them made me a "bad" person was an example of the real evil in this world. The desire by humans to control other humans. Older now, I see positive actions than improve our condition and negative actions that harm ourselves and others. No good ... no evil. I'm Ok with htat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 12 Sep 14 - 09:45 AM More discoveries... Scientists report first semiaquatic dinosaur Very rare find, which will mean some careful analysis to work out where it fits in the evolutionary scheme. One more piece of evidence for Pete to explain as inadequate to prove anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 12 Sep 14 - 10:02 AM IMO, while the argument- often for arguments sake, seems big, I suspect differences among most here are small. "The elephant", may be the desire to argue and put other folks down- those folks, for one reason or another,merely see things differently, or whose perspectives (sometimes unreasonably determined), pose some type of threat? |