BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:18 PM

Bev and Jerry:

You are right. Moons of Jupiter they are. Rings of Saturn they are. Robomatic confus'ed was.

I should also add that the term 'Descent of Man' comes from the title of a book Darwin released years after Origin of the Species, and he DID get into the races of man. You can find it on the web, and it is absolutely fascinating. At the time Darwin was writing, there were serious proponents that man was divided into species. This includes published works with 'evidence' that half breeds were sterile like mules. There was way more 'evidence' going the other way, and Darwin is not only putting forth his own ideas in the light of natural selection, but also 'going through the literature'. He did not miss the fact that there were several areas of the globe with major 'interbreeding' and no lack of virility. He did not miss the fact that while an isolated photo of an African tribesman might appear to indicate major differences with the white race, familiarity with ANY race accustomed one to major diversity within any population. He also had met and conversed with people of widely different races in his travels, and felt that behaviorally all men were more similar than not.

Grok, your questions are welcome argumentative or not. I would repeat what has been said twice above. Evolution is simply the way we express that there is plenty of evidence that things have changed among life forms over time. Skeletal remains of animals that no longer exist, remains of animals that look like animals we know, but have radically different size, shape, proporitons. Evidence of major changes over short periods for humanlike critters, and evidence of negligible changes for animals such as crocodiles, which pre-dated dinosaurs. You can call it all the whim of the lord and case closed. You can put a bit more work into it, as Darwin did, and come up with Natural Selection.

When I was browsing a bit earlier, I saw that Lamarckian theory of evolution, which was 18th century, was attacked by Lyell in the early part of the 19th century. There was an 'evolution' of the theory of evolution, and there is one major camp remaining among creditable scientists, that of Darwinian or Natural Selection. There is ONE camp, with a few subdivisions as more of the theory is teased out. creationism is not a viable camp. The mere fact that a creationist can open a book of evolution and look for unanswered questions, and then repeat them in a meeting of non experts and insist this is a sign of the utter wrongness of the theory is not unlike coming from a society that cannot build its own aircraft, commandeering an aircraft from a more advanced society, flying it into a building, and using this as a sign that one is superior over the more technological society.

Think about it. That question I asked upstairs about speciation is not capable of being derived from the creationist camp. They have to borrow the very language of the Evolutionists in order to challenge them, because their way hasn't even advanced the concepts.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:30 PM

If I showed you Mt. Rushmore and said this happened purely by chance over millions of years, by the action of wind erosion, you would call me nuts. Yet, if a scientist told you that the actual physical bodies of the Presidents, which were infinitely more complex than the carvings, came about purely by chance over billions of years, from nothing, why would you want to believe that?

Found this on the 'net.

Comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,George W Bush
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:38 PM

I want you to know that I DO believe in elevation.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 09:30 PM

comments? sure!

The Mt. Rushmore example doesn't doesn't cut it. Rocks don't "evolve".
If I found a complex carving, or modern machine in 1,000,000 year old strata, then this WOULD cause me to wonder, but humans are complex because they are entities built of 'stuff' that is inherently able to evolve.

The error in the example involves 'equivocation', which means that different types of 'complexity' are being compared under rules which don't apply to both.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 09:43 PM

www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/ tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution23.asp

www.bible.ca/tracks/ dino-human-coexistence-implications.htm

www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creationism_footprints.HTM

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 09:55 PM

Evolution is probably the Divine Plan. Creationism is a Halmark greeting card.

Bush will pander to anything the so-called religious fundamentalists say.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 10:01 PM

Can W spell evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 12:21 PM

Thanks for the websites, Grok. They're great.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 07:06 PM

Welcome robo. You got a good thread off the ground, buddy. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 12:17 AM

Bill D,
         When God, in his infinite wisdom wants to test us he does not always use the one that seems rational to our finite minds. For example, our patrirach Abraham waits until his old age (he was 100 & his wife Sarah 90), to beget his son Issac, from whom God promised that the Jewish nation would descend. He is then asked to take this son and sacrifice him on the altar as a burnt offering. Abraham, knowing full well God's prohibition against human sacrifice ( it was a common practice of idol worshippers), has to make the most gut wrenching decision of his life. Does this sound very rational ? No.
But that was the greatest test that a human being was ever put through and passed. The test of evolution pales in comparison to this. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 12:23 AM

Rabbi,

You speak eloquently to the evolution of the human spirit. To my mind, that's infinitely more important than scientific announcements and guesses. Shalom aleichem.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 02:34 AM

Maybe just this once we should go easy; after all, evolution seems to have passed him by----

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 02:36 AM

And Jephthah's daughter?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 02:58 AM

Disregard that last post of mine. Discussing it will lead to nothing. I was thoughtless.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 10:26 AM

Rabbi Sol...I read Kierkegaard's anaylysis of Abraham's test many years ago in "Fear & Trembling", and it is still a regular topic for debate in classes on Ethics and Religion. The "teleological suspension of the ethical" is the formal name for what Abraham is supposed to have done. Indeed, that IS a test of the highest faith.

But the point is, that Abraham was supposedly told directly by God to go forward with this sacrifice....that is, the order came down in a voice that was unmistakable..etc. The problem is, every year or two we read of someone in custody for murder who also claims they got "direct orders from god". How are we to tell, if God chooses to speak only to the ones directly involved? I daresay, if someone came by and found you or I preparing for a sacrifice of a son, they would likely call the police and the 'test' would be terminated.

I can only refer to my earlier post..*IF* your first premise is that God does make the rules and can subject us to these tests, *then* almost anything you do in His name is explained by definition. I simply see no way to identify which, if any, of the many claims abounding in this complex world do reflect "infinite wisdom".

It boils down to this: An omnipotent God would presumably be able to clarify his power and wishes in ways that leave no room for doubt...but he seems not to have done this for a couple of thousand years. If he made his subjects fallible and subject to doubt and confusion, but with minds capable of logic and analysis, then he really ought to post reminders a bit more often. If every Sunday (or Saturday, in your case) the clouds parted and "words were writ" on the sky with the 'reminder of the week', we would not be having this debate.

None of this 'proves' your position is wrong, it merely explains why mine is NOT disproven.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 07:02 AM

One can see very clearly in this thread the difference between testable and untestable theories (or belief systems). To put a scientific theory making predictions on par with a belief system is nonsense. Judge Overton's decision in the McLean vs Arkansas trial is a fine reading for those who don't differentiate between the two.

Rabbi Sol brings the hilarious (sorry, if you did mean it serious, Rabbi; I hope you didn't) #4 example of an unrefutable belief system. Another would be that God made the world yesterday. Yes, of course complete for instance with all the postings here that look older and with all our memories that we have met each other and of course complete with all the signs of ageing in my (more in me than in that human my implanted recollection tells me is my daughter). God only has implanted all those signs (yes, of course, even such a book as the bible looking as if 200+years ago there were already people here believing in a god) to test my faith. As irrefutable as the 5000 + years theory that is. Both are belief systems and not scientific theories.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 10:28 AM

I am a biologist who believes in evolution. It does not follow that someone who supports Darwinism must believe that man decended from apes! Darwin was a devout Christian.

Here is a statement from a Jewish scholar who is much more articulate that myself:
______________________________________________________________________________________________


SCIENCE AND REIGION

Science and religion used to run hand in hand with each other, but now common conceptions make us choose between one or the other. Often, we feel that this choice is necessary because the two provide us with very differing opinions. I will attempt in this discussion, to show that this is not in fact the case.

That this year the 1995 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion went to a scientist (Professor Paul Davies) is significant. Fans of Stephen Hawking will know of his final statement in "A Brief History of Time" in which he says that by understanding quantum mechanics, mankind will know the mind of G-d. Science is again moving towards religion, just as religion is taking a more scientific view.

The most controversial of all science vs religion debates is the creation story. Scientists will claim that the Universe started as a Big Bang - a singularity which spontaneously exploded, releasing the matter from which the Universe was to be made. It is significant to note here that in this singularity, no known laws of physics are claimed to have been conserved. But why?

What we must remember as we look at this debate is that "Laws of Phsyics" is a misleading phrase. It implies that we have set rules by which physical processes occur. This, as most scientists will testify, is untrue. What we have are theories which closely match observed physical data. We have Einstein's Theory of Relativity, so named because at first Einstein calculated what we might see to occur, and then the data was observed to fit. The astronomer's ultimate goal is to find the GUT, the Grand Unified Theory, at which point all scientific knowledge will be known. But note this is just a theory.

As I move through this argument, I do not intend, as I should state here, to work against the validity of science. I am not saying that science is wrong, I am merely proposing that science is theory. So, it is impossible for us to state with certainty what goes on in a physical process. As my Astrophysics lecturer said "We do not yet understand the full process of stellar evolution, but the main theme is clear". We cannot observe astronomical processes fully, just as we cannot observe microsopic processes fully. We cannot observe reactions that occur over millions of years, just as we can only guess as to the contents of the atom, leading us to quarks and fundamental particles, which seem to always contain more fundamental particles!

Here, I turn back to Creation. I shall write the translation from the Hertz Chumash and shall add in points which I regard as relevant to this debate.

>   "In the beginning, G-d created the heaven and the earth. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the waters."

These first two verses are the start of biblical/scientific controversy. The first verse (first sentence), is a summary of what is to happen, and not a description. In the second verse, "the deep" comes from the Hebrew tehom, meaning the abyss. This deep space contained nothing, a perfect vacuum, as it were. This is similar to the Interstellar Medium, which we prefer to call outer space (which is not a perfect vacuum).
The Hertz Chumash brushes over the word ha-mayim, the waters. It is possible that it is assumed that this is water in the sense as we know it. However, I believe that we already need to turn to science to help us in our understanding. As far as scientific theory dictates, clouds of dust and gas are forced to collapse into protostars and then into stars and planets. These dust clouds, which we observe as nebulae, consist mainly of ionised hydrogen (H I) molecules, which we observe as the reddish colour of many dust clouds. However, some clouds have a noticeable greenish tinge because of a coupling of O III (Oxygen) molecules. Any chemist will tell you that two molecules of hydrogen plus one of oxygen will form water as we know it. Therefore, we have a cloud of water, yet to be created.

>   "And G-d said: 'Let there be light'. And there was light. And G-d saw the light, that it was good; and G-d divided the light from the darkness. And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

The separation of light from darkness, I believe, is a purely observational thing. That light itself had to be created is obvious, we reap it's benefits all the time (particularly while reading this!). What science fails to tell us is why light was created. We can create light by exciting photons from an atom, but we cannot say why light was first created, from this singularity. Religion tells us it was the word of G-d.
The next major discussion is of the presence of a day. That the whole creation story is on the timescale of days, whereas astronomers try to observe stellar evolution over millions of years, seems to be a great debate. This argument is solved by the fact that the Sun had not yet been created, and hence a day as we know it did not exist. Indeed, it is not until the fourth day when the Sun is created, so yom, the Hebrew for day, should be read as era, or epoch. This is similar to the debate as used by Muslims to explain the creation story.

>   "And G-d said:'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters'."

This refers to a separation of heavy elements to form the Earth and some other planets and the light elements to form the Sun and the rest of the planets, such as Jupiter.

>   "And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day. And G-d said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and let the dry land appear'. And it was so."

Here, we have again a new separation of seas and land on the Earth.

>   "And G-d called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of the waters He called the Seas; and G-d saw that it was good. And G-d said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the Earth'."

This is a most challenging debate. That the Sun is required for photosynthesis means that its presence seems to be necessary for this to occur. But we have already assumed that the Sun is being formed, and if we assume that it is now burning on its own accord, as what is known as a pre-main-sequence star, it is possible for this to happen. On the fourth day, when the Sun is truly created, it moves onto the main-sequence stage, and burns much stronger.

That is just a sample of how the very difficult debates can be turned to show that science and religion do, in fact, agree greatly. To go on further, the Bible gives us the story of the Evolution of Man. Although many people take this whole of the first part of the Torah as being metaphorical, we could take it literally and compare it to scientific theories. However, up to the day of his death, Darwin disliked his Theory of Evolution. Indeed, nobody has conclusively proved that man descended 'from the apes', as we like to say, because there has been little evidence to support this (although I am not discrediting the fossils found that may provide some links as to the stature of an early man). Hence, we have nothing to compare it to (yet).

If we are open-minded, we can work with science AND religion to find true answers, and until we know the full truth from both, we are only guessing anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:04 AM

Darwin was a devout Christian (pdq)

That's a half truth, at best. The young Darwin was, but he changed his mind when getting older:

I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....
....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true (old age Darwin, in his autobiography)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:26 AM

Wolfgang - Would it make you happy if the line read "Darwin was a devout Christian when he wrote 'Origin of Species'"? Odd that you would pick on a point in my introduction and ignore the body of the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:29 AM

it is SO easy to suggest wrong conclusions with a little careful quotation out of context. In the long copy/paste article above, the Jewish scholar says,

"Fans of Stephen Hawking will know of his final statement in "A Brief History of Time" in which he says that by understanding quantum mechanics, mankind will know the mind of G-d. Science is again moving towards religion, just as religion is taking a more scientific view."

note that this REFERS to a quote from Hawking, with little detail, and the last part 'Science is again moving towards religion', is NOT a Hawking quote OR view. Those who would like to see support for religious views among well-known scientists have repeated this quote endlessly, and many articles have been written explaining what Hawking was really saying. Indeed, I saw a program just recently where Hawking himself explained that his most recent theory about the universe did not require any sort of creation at all!

In the original statement in "A Brief History of Time", Hawking was using "the mind of god" in a VERY metaphorical way, and later he has been at pains to clarify that he was NOT championing a religious view. He understand very well that humans are awed by the discoveries they are making, and often need a poetic way to express it all, but that is far from injecting a really religious attitude into his attempts to work out scientifically how thing actually happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:04 PM

pdq,

when I post something to a little point in a long post that just means that I have something to say to that little point. Period. You shouldn't read from that that I'm ignoring or agreeing with or disagreeing with the main part of the post.

Had you used the other formulation I wouldn't have posted.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:32 PM

Wolfgang - Thanks for reading the article.

Most of the scientists I know are religious believers.

The point of the post was to limit acrimony, not to promote it.

Here is the last line again:

   " If we are open-minded, we can work with science AND religion to find true answers, and until we know the full truth from both, we are only guessing anyway! "

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:47 PM

What science actually address is what we CAN know about the universe.

pdq:

I was moved to write you with the same message as Wolfgang. Darwin started out as a religious person because that was his upbringing. Over a great deal of time his views changed, and he wrote about them. He also said that his views changed incrementally, so how you can be so positive that he was 'devout' when he wrote OOTS is beyond me unless you are better read than you appear to be on the subject. Wolfgang's quote is to the point. Many people with a dogmatic religious agenda have tried to attack or reinterpret Darwin on this basis. An American evangelist popularized the notion that on his deathbed Darwin had become a Christian and repudiated his theories. This was a fabrication that gained widespread publicity and required testimonials on the parts of his relatives who were really at his deathbed to refute.

You say you are a biologist, pdq, who believes in evolution, but as we mentioned above, evolution is fact, Darwin is notable because of his theory explaining the mechanism of evolution. You don't write with attention to detail. Natural Selection does not say that man descended from apes, it does surmise that humans and the great apes derive from a common ancestor, just as it links many creatures through morphology (and now DNA sequencing). Darwin didn't discover this. Human beings have noticed for millenia that certain animals are more like other animals, i.e. jaguars and pumas and lions and housecats are more similar to each other (despite variations in size, habitat, and behavior) than they are to mice, rats, and beavers, which are like each other. There had already been a very strong classification movement way way before Darwin, after the scientist Linnaeus. This system pre-dated Darwin, and exists to this day. It's where we get the conepts of Species, Class, and Genus.

As for Hawking, he is repeating a concept voiced many times by Albert Einstein, who talked about his interest in physics as 'knowing the mind of God'. He also used God in a famous quotation when he objected to concepts giving rise to quantum physics "God does not play dice with the universe". Less well known is the reply Niels Bohr made to Einstein: "It is not for you to decide how God chooses to form the universe!"

So the idea of science coming to religion is kinda like the mountain coming to Mohammed. They may get together, but only when dogmatism is abandoned.

As for open mindedness, science has open mindedness built in, in the form of forums in which ideas are discussed and tested, the idea that experimental results must be repeatable.

Religion is not inherently openminded in that all the major religions insist on the correctness of their divine texts. The Torah is the word of God. The Koran is the ineffable unalterable, and final word of Allah transmitted through Mohammed his (illiterate) servant, same with the New Testament and the Book Of Mormon.

There are two really good concepts straight out of our religious texts. There is an ancient Hebrew prayer against idols: "They have eyes, but they see not, they have ears but hear not..." An American minister modified and modernized the concept to: "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE, none so deaf as those WHO WILL NOT HEAR." I return in my mind to those people, presumably blinded by the Church of Rome, who would not look through Galileo's telescope lest they see something of which Archimedes had never known.

And of course, from the Newer Testament: "When I was a child I thought as a child.....But when I became a man I put away childish things." (It's also the last line spoken by Elmer Gantry in the film about a wayward evangelist).

Again, what science actually address is what we CAN know about the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:57 PM

pdq,

if you want to know what I think of the main part, here you go:

I like most of the first part and agree with it (Bill's remarks nonwithstanding), as long as the guy talks science. There are so many gaps in the knowledge and, yes, it is about at this moment best fitting theories which will be followed by others, better fitting, and not about absolute truths.

I disagree with about everything he writes from that moment on when he turns to creation and says so. I feel no need in my life to fill the gap of not knowing many things by postulating the construct of a god. That's my way of looking at the world. I'm an atheist, or, at best, a deist in the sense like I understand Hawkins and Einstein: 'God' shows in the laws, but doesn't interfere at all at any later point.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 01:33 PM

Thanks, Wolfgang and robomatic.

Some points:

    It is a religious concept that man has a soul. Apes do not. I feel it is disrespectful to devout religious people to call "man" a slightly improved ape.

   If someone believes that the Universe (including the process of evolution) was created by a higher power, that is a statement of faith. You cannot prove or disprove it, and attacking such a person is abusive.

   As to the origional post, what President Gearge W. Bush thinks about evolution is not important. If his opinions work their way into legislation, support or oppose such a bill on substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 02:54 PM

Man is a lot more than a slightly improved ape.

For millions of years species have come and gone as natural selection has done its work. Now we have a species that is so adaptable that it can live anywhere on earth and even off the earth. We have a species that can profoundly change the environment so that other species are dramatically affected. It can even cause its own demise.

Since there is no evidence that such a species has ever existed before, the evolution of man could signal the end of natural selection as we know it. At the very least the rules of natural selection have changed.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 03:16 PM

If someone believes that the Universe (including the process of evolution) was created by a higher power, that is a statement of faith. You cannot prove or disprove it, and attacking such a person is abusive. (pdq)

I agree with what you write and I agree that no person should be attacked for a faith. But when I read the sentence before that I'm not completely sure I agree with what you mean.

It is a very thin line from untestable statements of faith (like creation of the physical laws) to testable statements about what we can observe in nature.

If people following a faith would only stick to untestable statements their opinions/beliefs never would be attacked by me, even less so the people stating them. However, too many faiths claim that a certain opinion about the world is the correct one according to their faith and therefore should not be questioned. I do not accept that argumentation.

There are some people that read in the old testament (when god showed one prophet all kingdoms of the earth from the top of a very high mountain) that the earth according to their faith has to be flat (there are still such people in the USA). For me that is a testable statement of fact and therefore I would not hesitate a second to call such an opinion rubbish even if one person declares that belief as a part of their faith.

If some indigenous American (Australian) religions declare that they according to their religious traditions have been on that continent from the beginning of the world, I would not hesitate to attack that opinion. Whenever a religion comes out of the untestable basic faith tenets into the world of testable predictions they themselves make them a legitimate target for critical scrutiny. They then have transgressed what they can say without being criticisable.

With the man/ape question, the thin line for me is as follows: When someone declares that man cannot come from the ape or (better) that they do not have a common ancestor he goes out into the world of in principle testable statements and must be prepared to hear other opinions. 'Religion' is no shield from such well deserved attacks. When someone thinks that on that way from apelike ancestors to man god has interfered at one moment in time to make humans have a qualitatively different type of soul than animals, then this is, in a very deep (and in a shallow) sense not my business.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 03:58 PM

GROK,

I don't know whether you still read this thread, but I have one point to make regarding your Mount Rushmore analogy.

It is always dangerous arguing with analogies. You seem to try to make the analogy that when we see Mt. Rushmore we conclude that what we see has no natural cause but has been created and that therefore when we look at humans we also must conclude that they have been created.

But I know no religion that would say each new human is created from scratch. In the Mt. Rushmore pictures noone would say that after the first was created the others were recreating themselves in a natural way. Similarly, noone would assume that the Mt. Rushmore pictures have been created by a supernatural act of will ("and there be Lincoln and there was Lincoln"). If we look at these and other artifacts we conclude a creative but completely natural way of production.

Usually I know that analogy with watches. You look at a watch and you are sure that is has not been created without intelligent interference. That's a fine analogy. Let's see how far it carries. If you go into a shop with many different watches you would not assume that each watch has been made by the same intelligence, would you? You'd bet that different people have worked on different watches. So what tells us this analogy about the 'creation'. Different animals have been made by different gods. That analogy leads straight into polytheism, but it usually is used by people arguing for monotheism (and one particular). From that analogy I'd opt for different gods for different animals.

That was just for to tell you what is unconvincing in your analogy.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:43 PM

Evolution is not a belief. It's a scientific fact. Some would call it a scientific theory but it is really is accepted by every scientist who is credible as a reliable view. Creationism is not a scientific fact and if Bush believes in it,
it will impair his view of running the country. Creationism is dogma and is based on some pseudo-Christian interpretation of the bible. It requires that one who believes it operates on "faith". Scientists do not operate on faith.
Empirical evidence is what is important. So, if Bush operates on this "faith" called Creationism, it has implications for the running of our country.

It's amazing that after all these years the ghost of William Jennings Bryant
resurfaces at the revisiting of the Scopes Trial. You would think that Darrow put that to rest.

I don't know whether Bush has a position on Evolution. I do know that the so-called Religious political right that he panders to is trying to force Creationism into the science classes of the public school system. Bush may be behind this.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 05:48 PM

at least Wolfgang notes that he actually read something I posted. I feel sometimes like I am just exercising my fingers in this discussion....

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 07:14 PM

I'm reading everybody on this thread with great attention, whether I agree with 'em or not.

Again, evolution is a fact, in the sense that we find a great deal of evidence that the population of the planet has changed a great deal over a great deal of time more than allowed for in the Genesis story (By the way, there is evidence of other creation myths that predate Genesis, on which Genesis may be a riff <-good music analogy, what?>. (This of course treats the Bible as a man-made text capable of analysis in relation to other writings of earlier times, which of course may not be acceptable to some folk). In any case, the theory part is what makes evolution work. Lamarck thought it was the will of a critter to be faster, reach for a higher branch, shorten its tail. There is an allegedly true story of experimentalists who chopped the tails off mice and then bred them to find out if their progeny had shorter tails. This made sense if somehow mice could control their tail lengths by wishing it so. Anybody who knew the history of circumcision among various peoples of the world could have predicted the useless ness of this experiment! (Nevertheless go look up George Bernard Shaw's Preface to the play: "Back To Methuselah" Shaw wrote wonderful prefaces that were often as long as his plays, and he wrote a lot more plays than is commonly supposed. In Back To Methuselah he defended this Lamarckian theory). There were other theories, but since Darwin came along, they are also rans. Darwin was influenced by a well known writer of his day, Malthus. Malthus made some basic observations. Life forms reproduce their kind at high rates. Look at Dandelion seeds, tree fruits, cats, rats, and even the relatively slow but intense reproductive rates of humans. But the source of all food is based on acreage, and acreage don't usually grow. So there must be a high rate of death out there. Thus is born the notion of the struggle for existence, and when you throw mutation in there, you've almost got the whole shootin' match. Darwin put these observable facts together and came up with Natural Selection.

Bev and Jerry: I would refine your statement a bit. The human critter is undifferentiated in being not particularly swift, not particularly strong, yet a huge amount of resources go into the brain. Humans use their brains not to adapt to the environment, but to adapt the environment to them. There are other critters that do that, in particular ants, termites, mole rats, and prairie dogs. They socialize and build or form dwellings. Nevertheless, none has done it to the extent of humans. But the scientific basis of evolution won't change, they will just form another balance of nature that either includes man in, or 'includes man out.'

pdq, not to cast about for blame, but I don't think I referred to man as a slightly improved ape, and I don't mean to be respectful (to either man or ape!). Mark Twain said that "God invented man because He was disappointed in the monkey!"
Mark Twain also said that "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

I don't think that evolution, or science in general, has anything to say about the immortality of the soul. I do think that within science in general, there is no meaning to the soul concept. That is strictly religious, or subjective to each one of us. It is not a testable notion insofar as I know. So either you don't have to worry about it, because it's got nothing to do with science, or you do have to worry about it, because it's got nothing to do with science.

And I do care what 'W' believes about Darwin's theory, but I suspect as others stated he is being quite cagey about the issue, which simply means he's a smart politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:12 PM

I agree with your statement about the use of that metaphor, and I think that the use of ANY metaphor in argumet leads to misunderstandings. But please consider that for those relatively few who understand, the math was sufficient to 'see' Einstein's work or Heisenberg's work. But for the public at large, explanations required the use of similies and metaphors. So, while it is prudent to discout the ne I cut and pasted about Mt Rushmore, it is not prudent to do away with them altogether.

Having said that, what I have not yet done on this thread is state my 'beliefs' to do with the debate. Much like robomatic, I enjoy the back and forth from so many very well-spoken people, and it's neat to see a thread that has maintained a civil voice throughout.

I know that science and scientific method have much to offer us and our understanding of the world/universe. I think that 'spirituality' does, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:16 AM

I, and probably heaps of other catters, are reading and learning from your comments, Bill D, wolfgang and others. here#s my two bits worth!

we don't really know whether other species have a soul, as we can't communicate with them. or even whether plants or other organisms do. we can measure intelligence in our own species - but is a soul measurable, and does it equate with intelligence?

religious groups have a history of persecuting scientists because of their beliefs (look what happened to poor old galileo when he said the earth was not the centre of the solar system). it just seems to take religious groups a few centuries to catch up.

governments and religions prefer to create their own dominant realities in order to control. be controlled or be scientific - its a choice. people choose science at moments that are convenient for them, eg when having an operation, when walking into a lift, when driving a car. but they reject science at other theoretical moments, eg when thinking about evolution, because of their own personal faith and loyalty to a set of dogma.

whoever wrote the bible probably wouldn't have believed in ironing at the time the bible was written. does that mean we should walk around in wrinkly clothes?

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 10:13 AM

Freda and others:

What I have noticed in conversation with folks who want to advocate a religiously dogmatic point is that they insist on bringing in words such as 'historical' and 'scientific' to buttress their positions. It's a bit of wordplay that I feel I should call them on.

There are also fewer people who actually understand the philosophy of science than one might suppose. Most people see the results of scientific thought but don't understand the process. Then the broadcasters and a few folks behind pulpits (not all) take advantage of this ignorance in order to preserve it.

One of the great principles of American society has been the separation of church and state. It has been very good for both.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 11:51 AM

we don't really know whether other species have a soul, as we can't communicate with them. or even whether plants or other organisms do. we can measure intelligence in our own species - but is a soul measurable, and does it equate with intelligence? (freda)

Some of us are not even sure about our own species (:-)

I'm not sure that communication is the problem I rather see the problem in the lack of a clear and testable definition of 'soul'. The concept that, for instance, Amos has of the soul, is in my eyes untestable and therefore off limits for any scientific approach. That doesn't make Amos' ideas about soul wrong or unworthy, far from that. Of all interesting questions life has only a subset is open to scientific inquiry.

Once the question is clear enough, communication isn't the limiting factor. Does a species have colour perception? That's answerable (though the details may be difficult). How does it feel for the animal? That's unanswerable.

For Aristotle, psyche (soul) was what made the difference between living and not living matter. His definition went like that:
(1) able to move on its own (local in plants, like growth; more than local in animals and humans)
(2) ability and necessity of intake of nourishment (both animals/humans and plants)
(3) perception (animals and humans)
(4) thinking (humans only)

That's one of many ways to define components of 'soul'. Little Hawk would disagree I guess. I don't not see that we can reach anything close to an agreement what are constituents of a 'soul'. For some scientist who have tried to define constituents one vital component is 'egoception', the ability to see the self as different from the environment and the sense of perpetuity, that is that the 'I' knows that some time ago the same 'I' has already been there.

Such questions can be tackled with some expectation of success but the result will be far away from what Amos means when he speaks about 'soul'.

Even in very simple questions, the communication between scientists and lay persons is difficult, for they often uee the same words and mean something different. For most lay persons all words are value laden, scientists try to avoid values.

In a simple example. Do men or women drive better? In Mudcat, such a question could lead to storm of insults. For a scientist, the first problem is to look at this question as value free as possible and then find a workable definition of 'better'. One definiton could be: "Able to drive faster through a circuit with obstacles". Once such a definiton is found, the scientist is glad, for that question can have an unequivocal empirical response (my guess: men drive 'better'). Another could define 'better' by 'less accidents per 10 million miles' and is glad as well, for there is an unequivocal response (no need for me to guess here, for I that the response to the question put this way is women drive 'better'.

Both are possible and not at the first glance silly definitions of driving 'better' which in this case probably lead to different results.

Now, the communication problem rears its ugly head. The scientist writes an articles and doesn't want to be bothered to print the long definition ('we have measured quality of car driving by having our participants drive around a circuit of 500 m length with five obstacles and two bends with a Toyota under the condition of dry weather with good visibility....') each time anew. So he writes the definition one time and then says 'I shall call that from now on driving ability'. He and others from his ilk know that the result may depend upon the exact definition and that the short 'driving ability' makes only sense when read in the context of the definition.

Journalists, however, on the search for a new research result with some entertainment value will title 'Oxford Professor finds men to be better drivers'. Lay persons read that and may think that the finding is relevant for their personal view of 'good driving'. Some may even remember they have read the opposite finding just one year ago and may blame scientists for the contradictory findings and say that they all only find what they are paid for and that, therefore, they are entitled to think whatever pleases them anyway without listening to finding from research.

We communicate usually in words with many facettes and definitions (and hope we understand what we mean), words like 'better', 'driving ability', 'love', 'soul'. For everyday purposes that is good enough. Scientists use the same words for daily communication, for anything else would make communication too tedious. But whoever sets out to measure something, even something as easy (at the first glance) as driving ability, has to define it in a way to make it unequivocally measurable.

Behind each result you read there is an unequivocable clear definition (well, nearly always) which is in the small print of the articles. The translation of the measuring definitions into your daily language may be different from how you would define a concept.

That was a very long digression about measurement and communication difficulties, but to come back to the soul. The problem here would be much greater than in the driving ability example. I do not see any agreement on a definition that would make unequivocal measurement possible. But for parts of what some may think constitutes a soul (for instance, the ability to learn or the existence of a memory system or the ability to recognise oneself in the mirror, or.....), research will be possible and even a question like which species do have that ability will be answerable.

Amos still would be deeply disappointed by all such answers, because for him all answers together still would look like a black and white photo of one part of his home town in comparison to what he smells, sees, hears, remembers wehn he thinks of his home town.

Einstein once has said All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike
and this quote is loved by people disliking the scientific approach to knowledge gathering and prefer other approaches. They conveniently forget that the quote continues like that:
-and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

I think I have made clear enough that I do not deem questions that cannot be answered unequivocally worthless. But whenever possible I prefer the way of science. The question I have cited at the beginning of this post will have no empirical response in my eyes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 12:48 PM

that was an excellent explanation and good examples, Wolfgang.

To add a bit, from the philosoper/logician's view, much of the difficulty in communication and some of the common errors used by non-scientists are explained by reference to the logical fallicies, especially the "Fallacies of Ambiguity" I link to. (Much more explanation on the pages, but here are short definitions)

Equivocation (The same term is used in two different ways)
Amphiboly (The structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations)
Accent (An emphasis suggests a meaning different from what is actually said

People very commonly make mistakes of Ambiguity in their discussions, and arguments, and it can take quite awhile to understand what makes an argument 'valid' or not. A 'valid' argument has nothing to do with truth or reality, but merely refers to the internal structure.
.....Thus, it is possible to be 'right', but for the wrong reasons and with invalid arguments, or to be 'wrong', using perfectly 'valid' (internally consistent) arguments. This is why I constantly say things like "If your premises are correct, then your conclusions make sense." Too many of the discussions/debates here get heated as a result of BOTH logical fallacies and people accepting different beginning premises.

Science tries to work with the idea that ALL theories start as equals, but some fail because they break the rules of internal logic even before they are tested objectively. Simply saying "well, WE have a different kind of test and different concept of 'proof'" doesn't stand up. There's no way to stop folks from saying that, or from accepting 1st premises that in principle cannot be tested, but perhaps they will gradually soften their rhetoric about their subjective experiences having the same standing as those which are empirically testable......perhaps.....

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:05 PM

Wolfgang and Bill D: I thought I had something useful to say, but your posts have made my brain hurt...
Oh, wait, yeah...
I would add that 'metascience' which may be the same thing as 'metaphysics' where we consider science to be a subject in itself, addresses the topic of 'epistemology' which I think should be taught in grade school, and is more important than ever with the advent of the internet.

"HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW" which also can be stated:
"HOW DO WE EVALUATE INFORMATION".

I think both Wolfgang and Bill have touched on this, Wolfgang when he describes what is meant by 'better' in the testability of whether men or women drive 'better'. and Bill with his attention to language.

This subject comes up over and over again, all through life. My roommate once told me my father had called. This sounded pretty simple and definite. Only my father had not called. How did my roommate know my father called? He heard the word 'Pop'. What my roommated didn't know was that I had an Indian Classmate named Pap Dallal. (My roommate was also an idiot).

There is a danger of turning people off with the polysyllables, so I keep things simple, and fun. When I'm hiking and we've run out of songs (or the good singers), I tease my fellow walkers with these simple puzzles (which I've just decided to use in another thread).

the most famous of them starts out: "A man walks into a bar and asks for a glass of water. the bartender pulls out a gun and points it at the man. The man says thank you and leaves." You can ask questions that elicit a yes or no response, and you have to come up with an explanation that makes the story make sense.

Well, exploring the world is a lot like that. We see a lot of stuff, we don't immediately know why certain things happen, and nature has proven that 99.9% roughly of her progeny don't NEED to know the why.

I would submit that mankind is nature's experiment to see if a creature that asks why can profit by the need.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:28 PM

yeah, robomatic...I agree. It does get to sounding a bit dense and wordy. All those ideas gotta have some special words or they will just be even more misunderstood. It's not necessary to memorize the details in order to realize that there ARE ways to settle some of this, and that you don't get exempted from the rules just because you refuse to look at 'em..*grin*

(I just looked at your puzzles, and I know a couple of those, and may have a couple to add.)

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Another Guest
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 09:15 PM

Grok, Rabbi, et. al.: PLEASE read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins - an excellent, authoritative, easy-to-read explanation of how complex living organisms can, did, and do evolve from simpler ones and how ultimately the simplest ones evolved from non-living materials.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:45 PM

I thought THIS one had snuck away during the hurricanes, but here we go again...*sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:55 AM

I think "W" is a genetic mutation. pity this one got to the top.
but as to whether "W"belives in evolution, better ask Dick Cheney!

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: BO in KY
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:37 AM

A couple of observations and questions to throw into the soup:

As for science being "open-minded", I think there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. "Inherit the Wind" is one of the most simplistic, stereotype-laden pieces of propaganda I have seen. I would argue that if the movie were made today, it would be the "evolutionists" that would be marching around with signs, condemning anyone who would dare question their hold on the educational establishment. Talk about dogma! Even the title of this thread is telling - If W. doesn't "believe" in the proper manner, he is condemned to being ignorant or worse. Sounds a bit inquisitorial to me. Witch hunt for "creationists", anyone?

Darwin wrote his theories with the assumption that there was no God. Indeed, that may have been the impetus of his research - how do we explain origins without positing a purposeful creation? His conclusions flow logically from this premise, but I would question his premise. If the "scientific method" must by definition remain mute about evidence for a Creator, then it is based on a philosophical postulate that is as debatable as any other philosphical starting point - including the idea that "there is a God". It seems a bit ridiculous to me to start with the presumption that there is no God, then lift up your conclusions as "proving" that there is no God!

Biology (and particularly micro-biology) is much more complex that many popular "evolutionists" (and many "creationists") give it credit for. I suppose it depends on your definition of "evolution". If you mean simple adaptation, then you could say evolution happens every time a baby is born. But that is a long way from the conclusion that evolution can bring about new species, let alone its capacity to bring life from non-life.

Our knowledge of genetics also brings the "natural selection" premise into question. Genetic mutation, when it happens randomly, 99% of the time is fatal. It is almost never "advantageous" to an organism. Then there is the difficulty of "passing on" the mutation. I find it stretches credibility to think that such a mechanism could produce an organ such as an eye, no matter how many millions of years you give it.

DNA/RNA is, basically, coded information. We are only beginning to decipher the code; the most elegant explanation for a structure such as DNA is a programmer, a designer, a "Creator", if you will. But a "dogmatic" scientist would likely torture reason rather than consider such an idea.

That said, I agree that it is a dangerous thing when religious people start trying to dictate what science can say. I would argue that it is equally dangerous when scientists start trying to dictate what religion can say.

Peace,
Bo

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:18 PM

>>As for science being "open-minded", I think there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. "Inherit the Wind" is one of the most simplistic, stereotype-laden pieces of propaganda I have seen. I would argue that if the movie were made today, it would be the "evolutionists" that would be marching around with signs, condemning anyone who would dare question their hold on the educational establishment. Talk about dogma! Even the title of this thread is telling - If W. doesn't "believe" in the proper manner, he is condemned to being ignorant or worse. Sounds a bit inquisitorial to me. Witch hunt for "creationists", anyone?<<

It isn't science that is dogmatic, but scientists, being human beings, are capable of all the folly of any other. However, scientists are unable to claim that they speak for God.

I like the movie "Inherit The Wind" because while it is simplistic, as you say, it has an 'in your face' progressive point of view which is unusual for its time. It has a tacked on love interest which is kind of forced, but a lot of its courtroom scenes are lifted from Scopes 'Monkey Trial' transcripts. And you've got to love Gene Kelly in one of his few non-dancing roles as a stand-in for H.L. Mencken! And a few great lines, such as: "Darwin got it wrong, man's STILL an ape!"

I chose the title of the thread to be deliberately but not offensively to-the-point. And yes, if 'W' doesn't believe in Darwinism, he is worse than ignorant. If you read through the thread, I believe several people hold to the viewpoint that 'W' purposely skirts the issue, which is the sign of an intelligent politician.

>>Darwin wrote his theories with the assumption that there was no God. Indeed, that may have been the impetus of his research - how do we explain origins without positing a purposeful creation? His conclusions flow logically from this premise, but I would question his premise. If the "scientific method" must by definition remain mute about evidence for a Creator, then it is based on a philosophical postulate that is as debatable as any other philosphical starting point - including the idea that "there is a God". It seems a bit ridiculous to me to start with the presumption that there is no God, then lift up your conclusions as "proving" that there is no God!<<

I disagree. Darwin wrote a LOT of books on a lot of subjects. He also wrote about his own intellectual development. It is pretty clear that he was the product of a very good education, including the standard Church Of England doctrine, and he believed in it. Over the period of a long life he eventually questioned his early beliefs, religion included. However, The Origin Of Species, his first major work, was not written because of a disbelief in God.

In a larger sense, The Darwinian Theory does not deny God, it denies certain people's beliefs in how God works. So, with respect, Bo, I'm not denying God, I'm denying you.

Science investigates what we CAN know about the universe. It doesn't address God as necessarily being or not being. As mentioned above, Einstein thought of physics as understanding the mind of God.

>>Biology (and particularly micro-biology) is much more complex that many popular "evolutionists" (and many "creationists") give it credit for. I suppose it depends on your definition of "evolution". If you mean simple adaptation, then you could say evolution happens every time a baby is born. But that is a long way from the conclusion that evolution can bring about new species, let alone its capacity to bring life from non-life. <<

'Real' scientists as opposed to 'popularizers' and creationists, are well aware of the complexity of life, it's why there are laboratories, and millions of bucks spent on their work, not to mention whole lifetimes of study and endowments and magazines full of articles I can't even pronounce, let alone read. As mentioned above, 'evolution' is not in question here. Evolution is a fact. When you find bones in the ground of critters that are not living now, and are totally different from critters living now, when you find remains of ancient critters EXACTLY THE SAME as some living now, and others that are not quite the same as those living now, it follows that there are forces it might be interesting to understand in the history of biology, particularly when you can relate them to geological events. There were many theories of why such variation (and occasional non-variation) should occur, and Darwin's version explains things the best and is the current pop favorite.

>>Our knowledge of genetics also brings the "natural selection" premise into question. Genetic mutation, when it happens randomly, 99% of the time is fatal. It is almost never "advantageous" to an organism. Then there is the difficulty of "passing on" the mutation. I find it stretches credibility to think that such a mechanism could produce an organ such as an eye, no matter how many millions of years you give it.<<

There are plenty of evolutionists who'd agree that we don't have a hard answer, but theories are constantly being proposed and discussed, such as the observation that light sensitive organs exist of differing degrees of development in thousands of different creatures. There are theories of how eyes could evolve, and my favorite, wings. And doesn't it stretch credibility in creationism that a creator would develop so many defective critters and people and saddle us with parts that have little or no use such as adenoids and appendixes? Not to mention what does this creator need with mutations?
As far as genetic mutation being fatal 99% of the time, it's probably higher than that. Nature (or God) performs more abortions than any number of clinics). The forces of production are so high that 99.99% of mutations can be fatal. All that is necessary is that some be successful. The productive capabilities of life will take care of the rest. As for the problem of passing on the mutation, there is no problem if it's genetic. It's already there. That is exactly HOW it IS passed on.


>>DNA/RNA is, basically, coded information. We are only beginning to decipher the code; the most elegant explanation for a structure such as DNA is a programmer, a designer, a "Creator", if you will. But a "dogmatic" scientist would likely torture reason rather than consider such an idea.<<

Isn't it interesting that you couldn't come up with this idea without the scientists who tortured out the chemical and structure of DNA to begin with. Ain't no DNA in the bible! (Seriously, there is no argument here. DNA is one of the ways God does His work).

>>That said, I agree that it is a dangerous thing when religious people start trying to dictate what science can say. I would argue that it is equally dangerous when scientists start trying to dictate what religion can say.<<

I think it's dangerous when anyone advances his or her personal agenda in the name of God. The first two of the Ten Commandments are among the most important and most abused by folks claiming religious orthodoxy. God exists because it ain't YOU and it ain't ME. More than one God does not exist because ONE's ENOUGH.

>Peace,
>Bo

Bacatya, Bo, a real pleasure to read your work

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:20 PM

Ebbie posed a question in another thread wondering why two people could see something and come away with completely different impressions (paraphrasing). An excellent example of that relates to the blue clicky bagpuss posted. One reader thought it was a great website, I think it is probably in the poorest taste possible.

I doubt anybody here knows how GWB feels about evolution. Right now might not be the best time to ask him though. He's rather busy.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,Augie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:04 AM

I spent six years of my life studying molecular biology and eventually even got a couple of pieces of fancy paper with my name on them to attest to that fact. To me, it is simply incomprehensible that a system so complex and so intricate and so interwoven could have evolved in the absence of an intelligent designer. Does microevolution exist? Well, dah..of course, but macroevolution? Well,I've seen about as much proof for that as I have for the existance of weapons of mass destruction. Do you need to agree with me? Of course not. And what does W believe?
Man who cares? I care about what he's going to do to provide a safe, clean, sustainable country for my children and grandchildren to live in, and what he's going to do to foster an economy that will let them generate a disposable income so they can,like me, waste a disproportionate amount on acoustic guitars and folk and jazz recordings. W and evolution? It matters about as much as "boxers or briefs".

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: BO in KY
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:17 AM

Thanks Robo for a reasoned and interesting reply.
I don't "believe" in creationism or Darwinism or any other "-ism" - I do believe in God. Perhaps that's faith and a different thing. Semantics. But attacking someone (even W.!)for their beliefs, no matter how distasteful, seems a mite disingenuous when one is arguing for being "open-minded".

>>Science investigates what we CAN know about the universe. It doesn't address God as necessarily being or not being.<<
Doesn't that beg the question of whether God is a knowable part of the universe? I have read brilliant theologians who can elucidate this in great detail. I'm all for an open definition of the scientific method, which will consider the possibility of God. My only criticism is in response to scientific "popularizers" who let their philosophical biases show (I am thinking of Dawkins in particular, but also Sagan and Gould, among others).
I am also bothered by the simplistic, dogmatic way that evolution is taught as absolute "fact" - you know the poster, where the hominid starts on all fours and eventually leads to an upright Homo Sapiens. It implies that the connections are all there, and that such a thing is "proven"; this is misleading at best, propaganda at worst in the name of a definition of "evolution" that is at least as mythological as the opening chapters of Genesis.

>>When you find bones in the ground of critters that are not living now, and are totally different from critters living now, when you find remains of ancient critters EXACTLY THE SAME as some living now, and others that are not quite the same as those living now, it follows that there are forces it might be interesting to understand in the history of biology<<
What about those critters that are exactly the same - do they not throw a wrench in the "natural selection" postulate? Are they exempt from natural selection? Why are there still amoebas around anyway??

>>God exists because it ain't YOU and it ain't ME. More than one God does not exist because ONE's ENOUGH.<< Amen. :-) And believe me, I'm not wanting to be God. I got enough junk to deal with as it is.

I guess the other question is: does it matter? I would suggest that it does, in the manner that origin stories always tell us about people's views of the nature and destiny of humans and the earth. To those who would easily meld creation and evolution, I would counter that there is a great gulf, in implication if nothing else, between the ideas that: 1) humans are blessed creatures made in the image of the Creator, or 2) humans are the result of random, possibly anomalous biological events.

Sorry to drift somewhat off topic, but you have prompted an entertaining and engaging debate in this thread. Thanks, Robo!

Peace,
Bo

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 06:54 AM

Science is a method of posing questions to nature (and the theories and facts derived by that method) and not a belief system. Science and belief systems can coexist peacefully if they know their limitations. Science will never tell you something about 'shoulds' (individual scientists may tell you but that is a completely different thing), you have to turn somewhere else to get responses to such questions. Belief systems, on the other hand, should keep their mouths shut about facts and theory testing, for the very nature of a belief system precludes effective testing of the basic tenets.

A god in a deistic sense is easily reconcilable with the scientific approach, a god in a theistic sense leads to bad science and therefore a theistic god has no place in a scientific theory. In that sense, no valid scientific theory will ever postulate a god as part of the theory whatever the scientists believe privately. The way a god's properties are described in belief systems there exists no possibility to prove the nonexistence of a god starting from a scientific approach. All they ever can hope for (or, perhaps, fear) is that the existence and interference of a god turns out to be an unnessessary hypothesis in the sense of Laplace.

'There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene.' (S. Hawkins)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 06:20 PM

What HE said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(I agree)

first a message from your sponsor:
HELP PLEASE: I've noticed some people, like Wolfgang above, can put their fonts into italics. It would really help me out if someone would either insert a message with the secret or give me a link or an email explaining how I can do this, too. The angle brackets are better than nothing but I'd love to have italics and fonts and colors...........robomatic

Bo, I'm going to skip copying your stuff and just insert some (hopefully relevant) comments in the same order in which I read yours.

1) I think Science and religion cover separate subject areas. A physicist friend of my father's who is religiously observant once said he kept religion and science "in orthogonal spaces" meaning they didn't interact with each other. This means that creationism, which I maintain is not scientific at all but of religious origin, is impinging on science much as the Pope did on Galileo.

2) The fact that some creatures such as crocodilians and certain insects, have not changed since before the dinosaurs is absolutely fascinating, but doesn't logically change any of the arguments above. Darwin's theory of natural selection is very simple. It simply says that that which survives reproduces. In the meantime we will have mutations, and some may be useful, and lead to new critters. It doesn't mean the old critters will die out. One could make the argument that some creatures have stayed the same because their habitat has remained constant. On a more precise note, we can't detect if their internal blood chemistry or nerve structure may have changed over the millenia.

Natural Selection does not say things get better, or necessarily more complex. It simply defines a 'successful' critter as one that is adapted enough to its environment to start the next generation. There are theories that whole species have died because of a temporary change in weather due to volcanoes or meteorites. We know that whole species have died off because they've been hunted to death by our species.

Another story, supposed to be true, about mathematics and theology. The Swiss born mathematician Euler was called upon to refute an atheist. He confronted the man and said: "e to the i Pi = -1, therefore God exists!" and the poor atheist, having no math skills, could not make ready reply."


I love origin stories. I have heard that the one we are most familiar with, in Genesis, is similar to tales found in earlier societies, particularly in what we call Asia Minor. Supposedly there are flood stories from the same region as well.

Meanwhile, you may have heard this story but I can't resist including it here: A young missionary was introduced to his first shaman in one of the Pacific Islands. By way of introducing his subject gently to the Bible, he first asked the old man for his conception of what the outside world looked like. The old man described that the earth rode on the back of a giant turtle, that it's motion caused all the tides and weather and earthquakes. With an inward smile, the visitor inquired as to what the old man thought the turtle might be walking on.

"Very clever, my boy, very clever," answered the shaman, "But it's TURTLE ALL THE WAY DOWN!"

I often think that no matter how bright we may think we are, when we venture on these wonderful dormitory hallway conversations, we eventually end up with an answer very similar to the shaman.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 08:01 PM

robomatic.... italics is easy

you type this


<i>italics is easy</i>



and you get italics is easy

for colors and sizes, I cheat and use a helper program

I used another helper program to show how to type italics without MAKING italics....I could learn to do it, but I like automatic transmissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 08:05 PM

the part in blue...if you put 'b' instead of 'i', you get bold, if you put 'u' instead of 'i' you get it underlined ....there are some others, but why give you ^too much at _once?