Evolution

[Inverted Things]

I worded the question this way on purpose because evolution isn't really something to 'believe in.'

[John Dibble]

I agree with the general principles of the theory, yes. The specifics of it may differ.

[Ben.]

Yes as I understand it the theory of evolution or natural selection as much merit, however at the same time I have no problem with creationism or the notion that evolution is in fact evidence for the “argument for design”… I also have no problem with kids being taught both ideas so long as the majority of the people in the area have no problem with that… both theories or beliefs are valid it is just they are judged by different criteria one scientific one philosophical

[A18]

No, but I have no problem with it being taught in school. However, its flaws should also be taught, as well as intelligent design.

[angus]

check out National Geographic Magazine, November 2004.

it's cute.  the cover features a stunningly beautiful Jamaican giant anole, green and wide-eyed, probably staring at a delectible morsel of insect flesh.  and it has in big red font, on the cover, "WAS DARWIN WRONG?"

of course, on page 4 the story begins with a 120-point roman font "NO.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

Of course Darwin got a few details wrong.  He lived before modern technology.  But, interestingly, modern technology backs up quite a bit of what he got right.  And, more importantly, what Darwin did and didn't get right is not as earth-shattering as his overview. 

My kayaking buddy, the microbiologist gets his panties in little knots over this, and school board elections and such.  I guess I hadn't realized, until recently, that there were so many people out there who were loathe to accept the evidence for Darwin's theory of Evolution through Natural Selection.  Actually, science is tentative, and the theories should be questioned.  If you have a better hypothesis, offer it up.  But don't try to replace this pretty solid explanation with one that results from a literal interpretation of mythology.  That's downright insulting.  Darwin is not trying to supplant religions.  Understand this.

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will.  Many scientists are quite religious (Darwin, for example!)  And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter, and Darwin's theory of evolution through Natural Selection.

Calm down, folks.  Scientists need to be reminded that theories are, of course, widely-accepted, but tentative explanations resulting from years and years of study and experimentation.  Relgious scholars need to be reminded that they aren't in competition with science!  One requires facts, the other faith.  There's really no reason to ever demand the teaching of "intelligent design."  Anf frankly, the way I read it, such teaching is expressly forbidden in public schools, anyway! 

Feel the love   

[A18]

No one's saying Genesis should be taught in school.

Intelligent Design is a branch of science that deals mainly with probabilities.

[Bono]

check out National Geographic Magazine, November 2004.

it's cute.  the cover features a stunningly beautiful Jamaican giant anole, green and wide-eyed, probably staring at a delectible morsel of insect flesh.  and it has in big red font, on the cover, "WAS DARWIN WRONG?"

of course, on page 4 the story begins with a 120-point roman font "NO.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

Of course Darwin got a few details wrong.  He lived before modern technology.  But, interestingly, modern technology backs up quite a bit of what he got right.  And, more importantly, what Darwin did and didn't get right is not as earth-shattering as his overview. 

My kayaking buddy, the microbiologist gets his panties in little knots over this, and school board elections and such.  I guess I hadn't realized, until recently, that there were so many people out there who were loathe to accept the evidence for Darwin's theory of Evolution through Natural Selection.  Actually, science is tentative, and the theories should be questioned.  If you have a better hypothesis, offer it up.  But don't try to replace this pretty solid explanation with one that results from a literal interpretation of mythology.  That's downright insulting.  Darwin is not trying to supplant religions.  Understand this.

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will.  Many scientists are quite religious (Darwin, for example!)  And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter, and Darwin's theory of evolution through Natural Selection.

Calm down, folks.  Scientists need to be reminded that theories are, of course, widely-accepted, but tentative explanations resulting from years and years of study and experimentation.  Relgious scholars need to be reminded that they aren't in competition with science!  One requires facts, the other faith.  There's really no reason to ever demand the teaching of "intelligent design."  Anf frankly, the way I read it, such teaching is expressly forbidden in public schools, anyway! 

Feel the love   

Answers' in Genesis response to National Geographic

[Inverted Things]

No, but I have no problem with it being taught in school. However, its flaws should also be taught, as well as intelligent design.

The problem with intelligent design, which is a perfectly reasonable theory, is that it is not science. In order to be a science, a theory must not assume the existence of any gods.

For instance, if I were to say to you "When you stir salt in water, a bunch of angels come by and break up the salt to make it part of the water," you'd think I was nuts. There is no need to appeal to unseeable beings to explain this chemical phenomenon. Likewise, there is no need to appeal to unseeable beings to explain life.

Another reason intellegent design is not science is because it's lazy. Any inquiries into the specifics of intellegent design result in answers similar to "God is unknowable." This is unacceptable in a science.

What I'm saying is intellegent design is a valid theory, and it could very well be right, although I tend to doubt it. It is not a science and has no place being taught in a science class.

[A18]

I'm not sure you fully understand what the intelligent design theory is.

It concerns itself with probabilities, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with God -- except to say that some form of intelligence designed us, but it doesn't go any deeper than that.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

[The Duke]

I believe in natural selection, but not in biological evolution.  To get biological evolution requires not only the shedding of useless traits and the promotion of superior ones, but also the creation of new genetic traits through mutation.  Since no adequate mechanism for these mutations has yet been presented to me, I reject that evolution has been proven.

Creationism, at least in the Genesis sense, is less valid than evolution, however, and should not be taught in schools seeing as it has no relation to science as I understand that term to be.

[John Dibble]

I believe in natural selection, but not in biological evolution.  To get biological evolution requires not only the shedding of useless traits and the promotion of superior ones, but also the creation of new genetic traits through mutation.  Since no adequate mechanism for these mutations has yet been presented to me, I reject that evolution has been proven.

Mutation is pretty much random as far as we know. Sometimes it is caused by environmental factors, or something else, but for the most part there is no one way it happens. Some mutations are good, some are bad, but the vast majority do nothing useful or detrimental - for instance eye color may change a shade. Of course, the bad ones are likely killed off through natural selection, and the good ones prosper and propagate by the same rule. And of course there has to be many mutations before a full new species can come about. Most heritable mutations would occur in the womb, when the mutation is likely to spread throughout the entire body. Like I said, pretty much random chance. I don't think any solid mechanism would be necessary.

[The Duke]

I believe in natural selection, but not in biological evolution.  To get biological evolution requires not only the shedding of useless traits and the promotion of superior ones, but also the creation of new genetic traits through mutation.  Since no adequate mechanism for these mutations has yet been presented to me, I reject that evolution has been proven.

Mutation is pretty much random as far as we know. Sometimes it is caused by environmental factors, or something else, but for the most part there is no one way it happens. Some mutations are good, some are bad, but the vast majority do nothing useful or detrimental - for instance eye color may change a shade. Of course, the bad ones are likely killed off through natural selection, and the good ones prosper and propagate by the same rule. And of course there has to be many mutations before a full new species can come about. Most heritable mutations would occur in the womb, when the mutation is likely to spread throughout the entire body. Like I said, pretty much random chance. I don't think any solid mechanism would be necessary.

This is the only argument I've ever heard for the mutations, and I find it as unconvincing today as I ever did.

[Kodratos]

You can't argue with some parts of evolutionary theory, but I disagree with a lot of evolutionist views.

So neither no or yes for me.

[angus]

okay, let's pretend that we are allowed to teach "creationism" in school.  do I get to pick which one?  If I'm Hindu, can I request the great sea version in which Sree Rama is floating on a leaf?  If I'm Maya, can I request the version in which Hun Hunahpu's disembodied head spat into Xquic's hand impregating her with the first life? 

You do see the problem with all this, don't you?

No one expects religion to challenge science.  See, they work in different realms.  One is corporeal, the other is spiritual.  They need not conflict.  Surely, if priests, rabbis, religious scholars of every stripe can respect the separation, then we can too.  That separation is one of church (where you can practice whatever religion you want, even if it involves mass orgies to make the gods happy so it will rain, or even if it involves psilocybin mushrooms or peyote or whatever, with Jefferson's blessings) and state (in which federal and state coffers are opened up to teach your children, and mine, the best we can, and that best should certainly include modern science.)

It's okay to be a christian, muslim, jew, hindu, zoroastrian, shinto, pagan, taoist, buddhist, whatever, and cultivate greater mystic understanding, but then put those books down and pick up the textbook when Monday morning rolls around.  If you want your children to be competetive...  scratch that - you certainly have the right to raise your children any way you like, with my blessings.  Seriously.  But don't expect the electorate to give its blessings to replacing serious knowledge with mysticism.  It's unconstitutional, for one thing, and seriously damaging to society, for another.

[Bono]

okay, let's pretend that we are allowed to teach "creationism" in school.  do I get to pick which one?  If I'm Hindu, can I request the great sea version in which Sree Rama is floating on a leaf?  If I'm Maya, can I request the version in which Hun Hunahpu's disembodied head spat into Xquic's hand impregating her with the first life? 

THis is why public schools should be abolished.

[angus]

okay, let's pretend that we are allowed to teach "creationism" in school.  do I get to pick which one?  If I'm Hindu, can I request the great sea version in which Sree Rama is floating on a leaf?  If I'm Maya, can I request the version in which Hun Hunahpu's disembodied head spat into Xquic's hand impregating her with the first life? 

THis is why public schools should be abolished.

well, that's a valid point of argument.  In fact, I believe it is an extreme form of libertarianism.  Yes, one can say federal expenditure on public schooling is, in fact, a violation of that article in the US constitution (the 9th amendment?) which says you can't construe it otherwise.  ON the other hand, some will argue that Section 8, in one of the clauses, "...congress shall promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." I know that is generally meant to deal with copyright Law, but modern scientific authorship is just that, copyrighted material.  I'll have to think a bit about that.  Before, in a discussion with a libertarian, I remember trying to think of a way to defend public Ed. using the constitution, but alas, I admit I cannot. 

But, are we not better off with free public education, at the state-mandated level?  Can you honestly say that we are not?

Interesting article you linked, by the way.  I haven't finished reading yet, but I will have comments at some point after I do finish it.

[angus]

I have looked it over a bit more.  The problem is that holes in Darwin's early theories are in fact evident, now.  But the authors don't try to replace it with scientific evidence of their own.  They do, in fact, offer a literal interpretation of the first five chapters of the book of Genesis as an alternative.  They point to the presentation of the Archaeopteryx, and the subsequent erratum, as proof of some huge error in Natural Selection Theory, but fail to point out that NGM itself offered the statement of retraction, and explained their mistake very well.  I have collected this magazine for many many years, and when I get home I'll go back and look at it, but I'm sure they didn't defeat ideas of Evolution in that one.

Here's the thing.  I have no problem with religion.  In fact, I have consistently defended the religious against the bigotry of the Left.  But you cannot simply state that somehow some new evidence bugs you, in the sense that it inhibits a literal interpretation of mythology, and then not subject competitive theories to scientific rigor. 

For example, take the Parting of the Red Sea.  Very likely, if plate techtonics is to be believed -- and there's *tremendous* evidence that it's a pretty good theory of continental drift -- the horn of africa, at somalia was part of the same land as the Arabian peninisula (Al Jazirah, in arabic).  But eventually they probably pulled apart, sending in a rush of water, creating the Red Sea.  Initially, the sea was shallow, simply a depression not too deeply filled, and periodically there were likely land bridges between the african and asian continents.  One can imagine that in simpler times, men running from potential adversaries may very well have prayed to whatever gods they held powerful, and thus,if some tidal action allowed men to pass quickly, and others to drown, then this may have been held as a sign that a god had helped them.  A brilliant interpretation.  And an artful one, worthy of the number-one all-time best-seller in the history of books.  But still, a mythology.

Take for example, the Great Flood:  We know for certain that the Black Sea was separated from the Mediterranean by a land bridge that is now the Straits of Bosporus.  There is plenty of scientific evidence, in the form of decomposed freshwater organisms up to a certain depth, then above that, all brakish or saltwater organisms.  You can imagine how a rushing in of water, when the strait finally broke could lead educated men to believe that god was causing a flood. 

Many modern religious thinkers don't have qualms with any of this.  They take the First Five Chapters, for example, as a metaphor.  Hindu people do too.  Jews too.  Many people, of religious persuasion, understand the mythological parts of their religion to be metaphorical, while they still hold to the decent, noble, and graceful values of peace, mercy, and submission taught by their religions.

I will continue to defend the religious (muslims and christians alike) on this forum against the bigotries of the left.  But I must also, defend the teachings of modern science against those who would create an Ayatollah's Iran in the USA.  I can't tell you what your god wants of you, and I won't try, but I know for certain Christianity doesn't require abdication of scientific knowledge.  Frankly, I do not believe Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or the rest, do either.  Science and religion do not attempt to explain the same phenomenon.  Religion deals with the Unknowable, whereas science offers tentative, testable explanations for observed facts.  You don't have to buy into anyone's scientific theory, but whether or not you buy into a scientific theory should have *nothing* to do with religious notions.  They are not incompatible.

[Bono]

okay, let's pretend that we are allowed to teach "creationism" in school.  do I get to pick which one?  If I'm Hindu, can I request the great sea version in which Sree Rama is floating on a leaf?  If I'm Maya, can I request the version in which Hun Hunahpu's disembodied head spat into Xquic's hand impregating her with the first life? 

THis is why public schools should be abolished.

well, that's a valid point of argument.  In fact, I believe it is an extreme form of libertarianism.  Yes, one can say federal expenditure on public schooling is, in fact, a violation of that article in the US constitution (the 9th amendment?) which says you can't construe it otherwise.  ON the other hand, some will argue that Section 8, in one of the clauses, "...congress shall promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." I know that is generally meant to deal with copyright Law, but modern scientific authorship is just that, copyrighted material.  I'll have to think a bit about that.  Before, in a discussion with a libertarian, I remember trying to think of a way to defend public Ed. using the constitution, but alas, I admit I cannot. 

That part about the arts etc, it says "Promote the progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Only by that, it does not prescrive anything else.

But, are we not better off with free public education, at the state-mandated level?  Can you honestly say that we are not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

THe Weak Case for Public Schooling, offers arguments that we are not.

[Bono]

I have looked it over a bit more.  The problem is that holes in Darwin's early theories are in fact evident, now.  But the authors don't try to replace it with scientific evidence of their own.  They do, in fact, offer a literal interpretation of the first five chapters of the book of Genesis as an alternative.  They point to the presentation of the Archaeopteryx, and the subsequent erratum, as proof of some huge error in Natural Selection Theory, but fail to point out that NGM itself offered the statement of retraction, and explained their mistake very well.  I have collected this magazine for many many years, and when I get home I'll go back and look at it, but I'm sure they didn't defeat ideas of Evolution in that one.

Here's the thing.  I have no problem with religion.  In fact, I have consistently defended the religious against the bigotry of the Left.  But you cannot simply state that somehow some new evidence bugs you, in the sense that it inhibits a literal interpretation of mythology, and then not subject competitive theories to scientific rigor. 

For example, take the Parting of the Red Sea.  Very likely, if plate techtonics is to be believed -- and there's *tremendous* evidence that it's a pretty good theory of continental drift -- the horn of africa, at somalia was part of the same land as the Arabian peninisula (Al Jazirah, in arabic).  But eventually they probably pulled apart, sending in a rush of water, creating the Red Sea.  Initially, the sea was shallow, simply a depression not too deeply filled, and periodically there were likely land bridges between the african and asian continents.  One can imagine that in simpler times, men running from potential adversaries may very well have prayed to whatever gods they held powerful, and thus,if some tidal action allowed men to pass quickly, and others to drown, then this may have been held as a sign that a god had helped them.  A brilliant interpretation.  And an artful one, worthy of the number-one all-time best-seller in the history of books.  But still, a mythology.

Take for example, the Great Flood:  We know for certain that the Black Sea was separated from the Mediterranean by a land bridge that is now the Straits of Bosporus.  There is plenty of scientific evidence, in the form of decomposed freshwater organisms up to a certain depth, then above that, all brakish or saltwater organisms.  You can imagine how a rushing in of water, when the strait finally broke could lead educated men to believe that god was causing a flood. 

Many modern religious thinkers don't have qualms with any of this.  They take the First Five Chapters, for example, as a metaphor.  Hindu people do too.  Jews too.  Many people, of religious persuasion, understand the mythological parts of their religion to be metaphorical, while they still hold to the decent, noble, and graceful values of peace, mercy, and submission taught by their religions.

I will continue to defend the religious (muslims and christians alike) on this forum against the bigotries of the left.  But I must also, defend the teachings of modern science against those who would create an Ayatollah's Iran in the USA.  I can't tell you what your god wants of you, and I won't try, but I know for certain Christianity doesn't require abdication of scientific knowledge.  Frankly, I do not believe Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or the rest, do either.  Science and religion do not attempt to explain the same phenomenon.  Religion deals with the Unknowable, whereas science offers tentative, testable explanations for observed facts.  You don't have to buy into anyone's scientific theory, but whether or not you buy into a scientific theory should have *nothing* to do with religious notions.  They are not incompatible.

The problem with that view is that the proper Bible says all scripture is God-Breathed. Now, can we hold God to be a deciever, telling us He did something one way, when He actually did it in a totally different way?

[opebo]

I have looked it over a bit more.  The problem is that holes in Darwin's early theories are in fact evident, now.  But the authors don't try to replace it with scientific evidence of their own.  They do, in fact, offer a literal interpretation of the first five chapters of the book of Genesis as an alternative.  They point to the presentation of the Archaeopteryx, and the subsequent erratum, as proof of some huge error in Natural Selection Theory, but fail to point out that NGM itself offered the statement of retraction, and explained their mistake very well.  I have collected this magazine for many many years, and when I get home I'll go back and look at it, but I'm sure they didn't defeat ideas of Evolution in that one.

Here's the thing.  I have no problem with religion.  In fact, I have consistently defended the religious against the bigotry of the Left.  But you cannot simply state that somehow some new evidence bugs you, in the sense that it inhibits a literal interpretation of mythology, and then not subject competitive theories to scientific rigor. 

For example, take the Parting of the Red Sea.  Very likely, if plate techtonics is to be believed -- and there's *tremendous* evidence that it's a pretty good theory of continental drift -- the horn of africa, at somalia was part of the same land as the Arabian peninisula (Al Jazirah, in arabic).  But eventually they probably pulled apart, sending in a rush of water, creating the Red Sea.  Initially, the sea was shallow, simply a depression not too deeply filled, and periodically there were likely land bridges between the african and asian continents.  One can imagine that in simpler times, men running from potential adversaries may very well have prayed to whatever gods they held powerful, and thus,if some tidal action allowed men to pass quickly, and others to drown, then this may have been held as a sign that a god had helped them.  A brilliant interpretation.  And an artful one, worthy of the number-one all-time best-seller in the history of books.  But still, a mythology.

Take for example, the Great Flood:  We know for certain that the Black Sea was separated from the Mediterranean by a land bridge that is now the Straits of Bosporus.  There is plenty of scientific evidence, in the form of decomposed freshwater organisms up to a certain depth, then above that, all brakish or saltwater organisms.  You can imagine how a rushing in of water, when the strait finally broke could lead educated men to believe that god was causing a flood. 

Many modern religious thinkers don't have qualms with any of this.  They take the First Five Chapters, for example, as a metaphor.  Hindu people do too.  Jews too.  Many people, of religious persuasion, understand the mythological parts of their religion to be metaphorical, while they still hold to the decent, noble, and graceful values of peace, mercy, and submission taught by their religions.

I will continue to defend the religious (muslims and christians alike) on this forum against the bigotries of the left.  But I must also, defend the teachings of modern science against those who would create an Ayatollah's Iran in the USA.  I can't tell you what your god wants of you, and I won't try, but I know for certain Christianity doesn't require abdication of scientific knowledge.  Frankly, I do not believe Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or the rest, do either.  Science and religion do not attempt to explain the same phenomenon.  Religion deals with the Unknowable, whereas science offers tentative, testable explanations for observed facts.  You don't have to buy into anyone's scientific theory, but whether or not you buy into a scientific theory should have *nothing* to do with religious notions.  They are not incompatible.

The problem with that view is that the proper Bible says all scripture is God-Breathed. Now, can we hold God to be a deciever, telling us He did something one way, when He actually did it in a totally different way?

No, because 'god' doesn't exsist.  Your figments can behave however *you* want them to - decieving, not decieving.  Its all quite up to you, unlike reality.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Both evolution theory and Genesis are taught in Finnish public schools. Most teachers teach Genesis as allegory of birth of universe and evolution. But I know that there are still left some conservative teachers who teach Genesis fundamentalist way. Religion is not dead yet in the Old Continent.

I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't exclude existence of hand of God.

The abolition of public education would be a dreadful thing. Do it and your country will fall into the third world economically and socially! How many children would be left without any education if all education were paid? Do you really think that economy will prosper? 

However, I don't see any reason why education should be PRODUCED by government, local or nationwide. The clue is that government should ensure it for all children. Education could be private as far as it will be financially
ensured by government. Government should also order some basic pedagogical standards of education in the private schools.

[angus]

Both evolution theory and Genesis are taught in Finnish public schools. Most teachers teach Genesis as allegory of birth of universe and evolution. But I know that there are still left some conservative teachers who teach Genesis fundamentalist way. Religion is not dead yet in the Old Continent.

I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't exclude existence of hand of God.

The abolition of public education would be a dreadful thing. Do it and your country will fall into the third world economically and socially! How many children would be left without any education if all education were paid? Do you really think that economy will prosper? 

However, I don't see any reason why education should be PRODUCED by government, local or nationwide. The clue is that government should ensure it for all children. Education could be private as far as it will be financially
ensured by government. Government should also order some basic pedagogical standards of education in the private schools.

that's all part of  the George Bush domestic agenda.  He's reputed to show a distinct lack of intellectual curiosity, but he's also a patriotic american, and wants what he thinks is best.  I don't buy into the notion that he's a merely a blueblood aristocratic retard, or a "corporation disguised as a human being" (though I do like the line

I am aware that in many societies Genesis is taught in public schools.  I do not believe that is wise (ir legal) here.  We are not a cultural monolith, and we'd have to offer equal time to all religious persuasions if we begin to recognize the histories of one.  Therein lies a huge time commitment which would cut into the teaching of other important subjects.

In any case, quotes can be taken out of context which give the impression the original writers are disrupting evolution, presenting individual scientific mistakes as evidence that all science is mistaken, selected factoids that presented as supporting their position that are neither relevant to their argument nor disputive of evolution.  But in the absence of a better theory than Natural Selection to explain evolutionary trends, we can't just dismiss it all out of hand.  Like all good theories, it can be modified as necessary. 

Bono, I can't address your specific comments about the desires of God.  I do not know God, or what is in his mind or in his plan.  But I do know there are many wise and thoughtful people who are very religious, but who are able to accept as evidence for hypothesis much of what is offered without compromising their deeply held moral beliefs.

[??????????]

God started evolution. I believe in both.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, but it was God-ordained

Dave

[Bono]

Both evolution theory and Genesis are taught in Finnish public schools. Most teachers teach Genesis as allegory of birth of universe and evolution. But I know that there are still left some conservative teachers who teach Genesis fundamentalist way. Religion is not dead yet in the Old Continent.

I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't exclude existence of hand of God.

The abolition of public education would be a dreadful thing. Do it and your country will fall into the third world economically and socially! How many children would be left without any education if all education were paid? Do you really think that economy will prosper? 

However, I don't see any reason why education should be PRODUCED by government, local or nationwide. The clue is that government should ensure it for all children. Education could be private as far as it will be financially
ensured by government. Government should also order some basic pedagogical standards of education in the private schools.

Did you even bother to rea the essay I linked? Take Massachusets, for instance. The fact is that before public education was introduced, literacy rate was 98%, and as of 1995 it was of 91%.