Straw[head] Poll
May 3
The GOP candidates’ debate included questions e-mailed from citizens. One wanted to know whether John McCain “believed in” evolution - “yes or no”. McCain hesitated, then said “yes”, then tried to elaborate. Mercifully, the moderator cut him off first, broadening the question to the entire group and asking “Is there anyone here who doesn’t believe in evolution?”
Here’s the GOP’s finest on a fundamental question of factual knowledge as contrasted with religious extremist insanity:
For the record, that’s Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee volunteering for the moron platoon. (Frankly, that 70% of the field got it right is better than I expected from this group, but little enough to crow about.)
Hat tip, and screen capture: Silent Patriot at Crooks and Liars.
#1 by Big U at May 3rd, 2007
| Quote
The religion of evolution is going strong. Yay.
#2 by Tim at May 3rd, 2007
| Quote
WOW! I did not expect any hands to stay down on that one.
I would expect the eventual nominee however to take the bush43 position of “the jury’s still out on that one” of faux-moderation which allows both flat-earth and round-earth Republicans to think that the other group is the one being pandered to.
#3 by jrg at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
“The religion of evolution”. Yep, scientists meet every Sunday to confirm their belief in Darwin.
Let me know when religion comes up with a life saving medicine, a space ship, or a computer. Also, please let me know where Cain and Abel’s wives came from, and how long a “day” was before God created the sun.
Hate science? Intellectually Lazy? Don’t want to read? Fine, but don’t pretend that your views are as valuable as views held by the people who dedicate their lives to science, and don’t whine about being “oppressed” when your world view results in a life of flipping burgers at the BK.
#4 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Jrg > It takes a religious fervor to believe that evoloution is responsible for every living thing on the earth. Science is unable to explain it completely so a faith that the answers will be discovered sometime in the future is required. Faith is the basic tenet of any religion and evolution requires that type of faith.
I’m not saying evolution is impossible. Never have. Just saying that there are so many massively huge gaping holes that for anyone to say evolution is the be all and end all, they have to believe it with religious fervor and a significant amount of blind faith.
#5 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
BTW Jrg > when did space ships and computers evolve? I thought they were built by men.
#6 by tgirsch at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
I’m sorry, but your position on “huge gaps” just shows your ignorance of the issue. And your use of “faith” in this context basically waters down the term so far as to make it meaningless. If “faith” is required for anything that isn’t absolutely 100% certain, then absolutely everything is faith and absolutely nothing isn’t. A term that includes everything and excludes nothing has no useful purpose.
But comparing evolution to at least the Christian faith, there’s no comparison in terms of evidence for each belief. Whatever you think the gaps may be in the case for evolution, they’re infinitesimal compared to the gaps in the case for a guy being nailed to a pole for telling everyone to be nice to each other, then coming back to life three days later and saying “I’ll be right back,” while two thousand years later he still ain’t back yet…
#7 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Tgirsch > let’s be clear here. I’m not advocating any religion be it Christian, Mulsim, Bhuddism, etc. right now.
What I am saying is that in all the studying and research I have done regarding evolution, it is impossible for me to accept as fact that every living thing evolved initially from one infinitesimally small organism because there is no clear proof. Only theory. This requires a great deal of faith to look past obvious gaps.
The zeal with which pro-evolution people preach their doctrine is as strong as any religious zeal I have ever heard or seen. Therefore, based on the lack of proof for so much of what is taught, the fervor with which everything is stated to be a fact, and the way anyone who does not agree is attacked, I have no option but to come to the conclusion that evolution has passed the stage of theory and moved into the realm of religion.
#8 by Bigeasy at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
You need to do more research.
#9 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Bigeasy, are you saying there is now proof that everything came from one single point of origin? I would be thrilled to see it. Please provide links. Thank you.
#10 by jrg at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Big U,
Evolution never claimed “proof that everything came from one single point of origin”, it describes a process of biological change over time. The process or condition that initially created replicating organisms must differ substantially that the process of “evolution”, which is a by-product of that replication.
Your questions seem valid. I don’t think anyone knows the answer for sure.
However, the question posed was regarding whether John McCain “believed in” evolution - “yes or no”. Only one answer is supported by mountains of archeological evidence.
It’s a very divisive question. If I were a Republican, I’d me more upset about this closed question than any response the candidates could come up with.
But then again, “Live by the sword, die by the sword”.
#11 by Ivan P. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
“fundamental question of factual knowledge as contrasted with religious extremist insanity”
The burden of proof that science requires of something to be called “factual” is incredibly high. While this is often expounded on by the Right (as in “Its only just a theory, so you don’t have to acknowledge it….”), it is a limitation that is incredibly important to scientific progress. For there to be progress, its neccessary to be able to admit that past ideas were flawed, if only in minor ways. So, calling current scientific thinking “factual” has typically been something that most scientists are very leary of.
To paraphrase a quote from a book from Carl Sagan:
“Science is the bussiness of finding ever closer approximations of the truth”
I couldn’t agree more.
Now, that distinction is at the heart of the “Evolution Debate” (such as there is of it) in this country. Modern science almost never a matter of open-and-shut, 100% certainty. Statistical uncertainty is at the heart of all modern scientific research (cosmological, genetic, etc). This seems to be something that very few people are willing to face up to and acknowledge. It is difficult for a mortal being to live his/her life according to principles and precepts that they KNOW might (and most likely will) be wrong. For that reason alone, many people will always resort to belief systems where uncertainty doesn’t exist (ie religion). And I have to side with Big U on this, calling a modern scientific theory “factual knowledge” is not only ignorant, but counter productive to scientific progress. I have met a great many people who have created a personal religion for themselves centered around the idea that Evolution is True.
Now, let my be clear here. I think the three candidates who raised their hand should be forced to live in mud huts like 11th century serfs. To me, the Dark Ages were entirely predicated and lengthened by the way of thinking that has begun to pervade the US. (Belief = All) I have seen far to many people disregard evolution entirely simply because there is no 100% proof of its truth. (and since science is wrong, the Bible must be true….yada yada yada) Our grasp of the physical world has progressed not because of a lack of certainty and 100% proof, but because of it.
Now, people are free to believe whatever they want. And I won’t call them morons, even if they don’t agree with my worldview. As far as political debate does, “Do you believe in Evolution” is a worthless question. If, instead, they had asked “Do you believe that Intelligent Design (Creation) should be taught in American science classrooms?”, its another matter. Anyone who answers “yes” to the above question has absolutely no understanding or appreciation of science and technology. As such, they should not be allowed to use or benefit from its fruits. No computers, airplanes, internal combustion engines or incandescent lightbulbs. They obviously don’t “believe” in such things.
However, nobody can say, from a scientific position, that Evolution is true.
#12 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Ivan P.,
I must quibble. I think pretty much all scientists know what is meant by “scientific fact”, and what that means is not “definitely true”, but “very, very likely to be true”. It’s perfectly correct to call evolution (the change of populations over time) a fact, scientific or otherwise. It’s also perfectly correct to call the theory of evolution through natural selection (i.e. neodarwinism) a scientific fact. As such, it is inferior to, say, a mathematical fact. Scientists know that this is the nature of scientific facts. The problem is that many non-scientists don’t.
#13 by Ivan P. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M.
I couldn’t agree more. Now, in the course of a debate, online or otherwise, how am I to determine which variation of the term “fact” that a person is using? Insofar as I have no better method, I generally assume I’m talking with someone who doesn’t understand that delineation. No offense to the authors of this site, but they tend to ignore that line, and use the same term interchangably for both variations. Which, as you’ve just pointed out, creates certain problems in the discourse.
#14 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
BU,
I’ve got a question for you: Do you believe in (a) celestial mechanics, (b) quantum tunnelling, (c) Einsteinian relativity, and (d) black holes?
All of these things are well-established scientific facts. All of them are the consequences of large bodies of scientific theory (that is, coherent models that have been designed to fit known facts). Only (a) is even barely observable to the average Joe. The rest are pretty much invisible. However, if any of them turned out to not exist, it’d mean science as we now know it had screwed up.
Do you have any opinions about these? Have you tried to research them, prove or disprove any of them? Have you learned the body of scientific theory that underpins them?
If you don’t think these are unsubstantiated, why do you think so about the theory of commont descent (which is not the same as neodarwinism, but is in fact a consequence of neodarwinism)?
What has always confused me about the “evolution debate” has been its asymmetry with other science.
#15 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M. > I have little opinion about the four theories you have commented on because I have not studied them. I do have an opinion on evolution because I have studied it. I apologize if my breadth of knowledge is not wide enough for you to merit me being able to comment on evolution.
I’m going to use a very simplistic example here because I don’t have the time to get into great depth right now. Evolution teaches as “fact” that humans evolved from apes (unless my kids’ textbooks are really old and the teaching has changed recently). It is not presented as a possibility, but rather a fact.
No irrefutable evidence has been found of a clear evolution between apes and humans just alot of speculation based on studies of bones and skulls, etc. To believe that this evolution took place requires a significant amount of faith beyond the evidence.
It is evident if you travel around the world that you can get incredibly huge differences in skeletal shape, size and make up within the human species. And that is before you take into account intentional malformation. http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw309.htm
Finding one skull by itself in a remote location without knowing anything about diet, weather, lifestyle, etc., does not provide proof of anything. At best it is a tiny snapshot of one being at that specific point in time. And yet, this is seen as factual proof that it has happened. To me, that is a leap of faith. And it is the belief that some day down the road there will be enough evidence to prove it as fact that keeps scientists searching for more answers. How is this any different than people who have a set of religious beliefs that they continue to strive in hopes of someday finding evidence that they are right?
#16 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
sorry, “it has happened” should read “evolution has happened”.
#17 by SS at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
#18 by Rachel I. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Big U: To quote/paraphrase Orson Scott Card, “what [you] want is for every creature that’s ever lived to lay down on top of his daddy to die — and even then [you]‘d say they was only cousins!”
#19 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
You say “God’s creation”. How does that fit with the idea of evolution? Based on what I have read from most evolutionists, those two ideas are incompatible.
#20 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
SS, could you attribute that quote, or should that just not be in a blockquote?
#21 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
BU,
A creator god is not at all incompatible with evolution, evolution by natural selection, Darwinism, neodarwinism (Darwinism as tweaked by modern science), or even common descent, so long as the word “creation” doesn’t only mean “Zap! Poof! Voila!”. The theology of a creator god is consistant with the Big Bang, mechanistic physics, and natural evolution. Heck, a really smart creator god could even have designed natural evolution to yield the kind of beings it wanted!
What natural evolution suggests is not that there was no creator, but that the creator doesn’t spend its time explicitly designing each and every kind of creature and then bringing them *poof!* into existance. Evolutionists are really just saying that there was no poofing involved, and that’s convenient because we can understand biology that doesn’t involve any poofs, but we’d really be fucked if we had to guess at every juncture whether there was a rational natural cause or if instead there was some big mojo twiddling things in ways that we can’t predict.
#22 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Rachel. That is not what I am saying. All I am saying is that evolution has all the principles of a religion. For the record, I have no problem acknowledging that species adapt to their surroundings.
SS > “While the fossil record fully supports this idea, the genomic record really leaves no doubt.” I guess I have to take it on faith that you are right because until someone can recreate evolution from one species to another or find evidence of one species changing to another, all that is left if belief that it happened in spite of no proof. I am aware of some of the research you have sited but I do not understand how it explains the jump from one species to an entirely different species requiring a complete remapping of the species DNA. If that is all that it takes, once the genome is tracked in two different creatures, it would stand to reason that a scientist could create, say, a horse by pulling the required genes from a multitude of different sources and combining them.
“None of the evidence tears it down. I won’t say there are no disagreements among scientists about anything, but it’s all pretty much the fine points” So if evidence is found that shows something contrary to what evolution teaches what is that? (i.e. the coleocanth which was sited as an ancestor to several of our fish until it was found to actually exist now) That was evidence that a theory that had been taught was proven to be wrong but it was then just explained away with “oh, we were wrong” even though prior to the discovery, it was “fact”. to me, that is just one indication of evolution being viewed as a belief system and a religion.
“I believe that those people who teach against evolution teach lies, and thus sin”. By this you seem to be saying that evolution is 100% infallible because anyone who questions it or says there are problems with it is sinning. How on earth is that not a religious position?
#23 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
BU,
Also, my point is asking about those other theories wasn’t to disparage your knowledge or to suggest that they warrented your research. The point is that their importance to everyday life is pretty similar to that of the theory of common descent. There are specialists for whom each of the five theories matter very much, and there are every-day items that depend critically on the bodies of knowledge that undergird them. In order (counting common descent as (f)), satellite communications, computers, airplane navigation, space travel (okay, not so every-day), and medicine depend on the science that yields these results. The particular results aren’t the interesting part; the correctness of the theories, however, is critical.
Why is it that the theory of common descent (or other parts of the theory of natural evolution) is worth the trouble of people outside the revelant fields learning just enough to form an opinion without learning all the science that supports the theory? If you really are interested in the consequences of evolutionary theory, either study the extensive genetic science that proves common descent, or believe the people who have studied it. That, or don’t pretend to draw conclusions about the theory. That’s what most people do with the other four scientific facts.
#24 by Big U at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M. > okay, now I’m getting confused. You are saying a creator god could have had the ability to start everything and may have even decided to use evolution to get to this point but could not have actually created everything? If a “smart creator god” decided to use evolution to arrive at the creatures it wanted, why could it not have just created them? I really don’t follow your reasoning.
If a creationist says God started everything, that is compatible with your comment that “a creator god” could have started everything. Where you diverge is in how all the species were arrived at. How is it that the creationists process (God did it) differs from your process (the creator put a process in place planning to have it result in what we have) to the point that one is scientifically possible and the other is insanity?
#25 by Rachel I. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
BU, please reevaluate my comment in regards to you saying this:
Evolution is not a religious belief any more than gravity is a religious belief. Granted, there was that one Jack Chick lackey who thought gravity was the result of the Earth spinning on its axis, but that’s another matter…
All evidence points towards gravity being a force that pulls masses together; it’s pretty darn clear that the theories work on the human scale, and even on the solar-system scale or farther. If it turns out that the universe is expanding because gravity inverts at vast distances, that detail will be worked into the equations. Likewise, if it turns out that life on Earth originally developed on Mars and only jumped here later, that will also be worked into evolution.
What religion is willing to learn like that? I mean, not counting Buddhists, seeing as the Dalai Lama actually likes science. Hell, if science disproves the Buddhist understanding of ’souls’, he’s promised to adjust his beliefs to match what’s real. Christianity, on the other hand, seems to at best adopt physical reality a few centuries after the too-little-devout, agnostic and atheistic scientists do.
#26 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
“All I am saying is that evolution has all the principles of a religion.”
This is incorrect. A belief in the results of evolutionary theory (Not just evolution, which you do accept as fact.) shares one feature with religions. That’s the same feature that is shared with, say, the amortization of your mortgage: You have to belief the conclusions drawn by another person, a person whose specific job it is to draw concludes about the particular field. Amortization is easy enough that anyone who knows algebra and has learnt all the relevant banking ruless can figure it out himself, but the same cannot be said for the theory of natural evolution or its particular consequences, such as common descent. What most of us accept “on faith” is that we’ve not been lied to about the thousands and thousands of experiments that have been done to check whether the theory is correct or the thousands and thousands of papers that have been published about the theory actually inply the results that are usually taught as “evolution”.
We admit it! Those of us who support science use that much faith.
#27 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
“You are saying a creator god could have had the ability to start everything and may have even decided to use evolution to get to this point” …
Yes! That’s exactly the stance of most Christians, including at the very least the Catholic Church.
“but could not have actually created everything? If a “smart creator god” decided to use evolution to arrive at the creatures it wanted, why could it not have just created them?”
Damned if I know; i’m not a god. The point is that what a particular god could have done doesn’t matter. What matters is what it looks like happened in reality. Scientific study says, decisively, that a rational understanding of what is and what was, assuming no supernatural mucking around, that common descent of all species has occurred. Maybe a god went poof and made everything as it currently is, but if that’s true, part of what it made was a complete and coherent body of evidence that suggests that the universe has contintued through mechanistic physics and natural evolution to yield the common descent of all terrestrial life. If you want to believe that there was is a creator god who is messing with us, go ahead.
“How is it that the creationists process (God did it) differs from your process (the creator put a process in place planning to have it result in what we have) to the point that one is scientifically possible and the other is insanity?”
Simple. “Creationism” does not mean and has never meant a belief that a creator god was involved in any arbitrary way. If it did mean that, pretty much every theist out there would be a creationist. Creationism means the belief that the creator explicitly designed (for some meaning of that word) each and every species and that the set of species has not changed over time. Researches create new species in the lab all the time! Geological evidence shows that there used to be different species around, both ones that have ceased to be and ones that did not used to exist. Genetic evidence shows how those species are related over time, and in particular show that all species have branched from a single root species.
Yes, perhaps a creator god created the world is such a way that all this evidence is available but is fake, while a single incoherent pile of writing that some Jews stole from the Babyloneons explain how it really was, but all the evidence of that was created away (?). Fine. Scientists don’t care, and moreover, it doesn’t mean anything to say that this is “fact”.
Evolution is science. Creator gods, meddling or distant, are not. That is the point.
#28 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
Oh sysops of LeanLeft, have mercy on us and install some software with the power of preview!
#29 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
until someone can recreate evolution from one species to another or find evidence of one species changing to another
You mean like this?
#30 by Dan M. at May 4th, 2007
| Quote
“ the coleocanth which was sited as an ancestor to several of our fish until it was found to actually exist now”
Did your grampa die just because you were born?
#31 by tgirsch at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
All:
I’ve done some editing to fix formatting, and deleted some comments apologizing for bad formatting.
Dan M:
You have to belief [sic] the conclusions drawn by another person
But that’s where the similarities end, because even with a subject as complex as evolutionary biology, you could learn about it and verify those conclusions for yourself, if you wanted to.
If you want to believe that there was is a creator god who is messing with us, go ahead.
There are some who argue that Satan planted evidence of evolution (and also of ancient geology) in order to weaken our faith in creation (and in the self-evidently 6,000-year-old age of the earth). I’m not making this up, although I wish I were.
Big U:
Your problem as I see it is one common to those who would deny evolution: you focus far too much on what we can’t currently explain while ignoring what we actually can. The problem is, this leaves you in a God-of-the-Gaps position. As our understanding improves, you’re left with fewer and fewer gaps to point to in order to find God. The sensible position, in my estimation, is to say that God doesn’t lie to us (and Satan hasn’t somehow tricked us) and that the natural world pretty much is how God made it appear to us. Understanding the inner workings of the world He created should strengthen your faith in Him and deepen your appreciation for Him, not challenge those things.
Otherwise, until God explains why He gave men nipples (not to mention a tailbone), evolution seems like a reasonable explanation.
For what it’s worth, you’re also conflating evolution with abiogenesis in your argumentation, even though these are two very different concepts.
#32 by Big U at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
what seems to be missing here is that everyone seems to be thinking I am arguing against evolution. I am not. I am stating that evolution has turned into a religion. If something is found that discredits parts of it (ancient cave drawings and pottery that have been discovered showing pictures of dinosaurs for example) it is completely ignored or thrown out, much like the Catholic church threw out anything that went against it’s beliefs in Galileo’s time.
If something is proven wrong (the VERY strong teaching that Coleacanth grew legs millions of years ago and became a mammal and was no longer a fish), then excuses are made to get around the uncomfortable position of admitting that that idea was 100% wrong). Again it sounds very familiar to the church being unable to logically explain something from the Bible so they just brush it off.
These are just a couple of examples where the believers in evolution come across as religious nuts.
Using the theory that it is science and can be proven, we just haven’t proven it all yet sounds very familiar to what has been said about the Bible in many instances.
Several Old Testament historical items (such as Ninevah) were scoffed and said to not even exist but as excavation has proceeded in the Middle East, archeaology is proving more and more of the Bible accurate.
Now someone will argue “what about the miracles?” That is where faith comes in. But how is that different than the question asked of evolutionists “how does nature massively remap an entire genetic sequence in a biological creature to turn it from a fish into a land animal (for example) simply by chance?” And the only answer is, we don’t know yet but science will provide an answer in the future once we learn more. To me, that is where faith comes in.
If you look up the definitions of faith and religion in the Bible, you can see how evolution fits them. There is as much or more evidence to prove the Bible accurate than there is to prove evolution accurate. There is also much more corroberative evidence from outside the Bible to prove it accurate but all the evidence of evolution comes from within scientific theory.
As an aside, what is your theory on dragons? Were they dinosaurs?
#33 by Big U at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
“if you look up the definitions of faith and religion in the Dictionary”
#34 by tgirsch at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
I am stating that evolution has turned into a religion. If something is found that discredits parts of it (ancient cave drawings and pottery that have been discovered showing pictures of dinosaurs for example) it is completely ignored or thrown out, much like the Catholic church threw out anything that went against it’s beliefs in Galileo’s time.
Saying it doesn’t make it true. The theory of evolution (just exactly what mechanisms are at play, how they work, etc.) is constantly being refined in the face of new evidence. The fact of evolution (that it occurred) is unchanged by this. If evolution were like religion, then anyone who dared to contradict The Origin of Species in any way would be cast out as “heretics.” Instead, those who can build compelling cases for their postulations win fame and fortune — and the more different they are from what was previously thought, the better.
In religion, the “big money” is made defending the status quo, the traditional, and the way things have always been. In science, the big money is made proving the status quo wrong.
To compare evolutionary biology to religion does a huge disservice to both.
(And for what it’s worth the “cave paintings of dinosaurs” thing was not thrown out because it contradicts evolutionary theory — it was thrown out because it was thoroughly debunked B.S. It’s an important distinction. If religion started discarding crap that’s been thoroughly debunked, maybe I’d be a bigger fan. Instead, it takes centuries for them to say “Sorry, Galileo…”)
#35 by tgirsch at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
There is as much or more evidence to prove the Bible accurate than there is to prove evolution accurate.
Sorry, but that’s just laughably false. Just to use one comparison: we have scads of archaeological evidence to support evolutionary theory. Guess how much archaeological evidence we have that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt? Virtually none, despite the fact that the Egyptians were meticulous historians and exceptionally curious about foreigners in their lands. (And I swear, if you try to feed me the old BS about the Egyptians destroying such records because they were embarrassed by the defeat, I’m going to scream…)
The fact is, the Bible says all kinds of stuff that’s patently false. Pi isn’t 3, rabbits don’t chew their cud, it isn’t okay to beat your slave as long as you don’t kill him, etc. (For that matter, the Bible says all kinds of stuff that contradicts the Bible… Pop quiz: Who incites David to take a census?)
#36 by Big U at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
Re: the rabbit thing:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
Several theories about hebrew people in Egypt exist outside of the Bible. They carry as much weight as the idea that we all came from the same ancestor as apes.
more later
#37 by Dan M. at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
Just to open yet another can of worms:
The link about rabbits amounts to “It’s a mistranslation; the original is correct.”.
Compare this to the teachings about homosexuality. Note that all blanket prohibitions of such, and even those just prohibiting male homosexual acts, are known to be based on incorrect or intentionally fraudulent translations.
Heh.
#38 by Big U at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M. The link about rabbits does nothing of the sort. Based on the knowledge of the day, it makes perfect sense to describe what rabbits do as chewing their cud. The fact that our current knowledge of digestion was not available 6000 years ago would go a long ways to explaining the difference.
The Biblical teachings about homosexuality are pretty clear but they are part of an overall teaching about a lot of things to do with sex. Not just homosexuality.
Again I ask, were dragons dinosaurs?
Where is the clear, irrefutable evidence that apes and man had one common ancestor?
#39 by Dan M. at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
What part of this does not mean “the original words do not mean ‘ruminant’”?
I agree that Biblical teachings about homosexual acts are quite clear, though the early Christian understanding is rather more muddy. Prostitution, idolatry, and magic are forbidden. Being gay, hot man-on-man action, and butt sex are fine, except that priests should wash afterwards.
#40 by Dan M. at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
What more do you want? The actual PRC electrophoresis results for each species? Complete gene sequencing of each species? Do we need to ressurect the common anscestor?
#41 by Dan M. at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
And what the heck are you going on about dragons for? What do you even mean by “dragon“?
#42 by Big U at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
I guess if I need to use faith, I would rather place my faith in a God, than in an ever shifting belief system based on evolution.
The fact is, evolution at it’s base element indicates that all living matter came from one source and then despite the statistically impossible action, genes and chemicals decided to bind together randomly to create every living thing (or randomly evolve specifically into each living thing. Having studied rudimentary statistical probability in school, I can’t accept that as being possible. There is too much that had to evolve perfectly at the exact same moment for any creature to even live.
Re dragons: there are clear and articulate drawings and stories in many cultures all over the world of dragons. These cultures never interacted when this developed and yet there is striking similarity amongst all of them. Were they real? If so, would they not have been a type of dinosaur?
#43 by Big U at May 5th, 2007
| Quote
Here is an example of the statistical possibility I mentioned.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/statist.htm
#44 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
“I guess if I need to use faith, I would rather place my faith in a God, than in an ever shifting belief system based on evolution.”
That’s all well and good, but you don’t need any more faith in evolutionary theory than you do in say, your auto mechanic or your computer manufacturer. Gods are, at the very least, much harder to sue when they fuck you over.
#45 by Ivan P. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
If evolution were like religion, then anyone who dared to contradict The Origin of Species in any way would be cast out as “heretics.” Instead, those who can build compelling cases for their postulations win fame and fortune — and the more different they are from what was previously thought, the better.
Yeah, that’s how its supposed to work. To paraphrase Tgirsch, that doesn’t exactly make it so. Science, at its foundation, is built on repeatable experimentation. Without that, there is little separating it from politics or religion. Unfortunately, in many of the realms that have reached the public (climate change, evolution, cosmology), repeatable experimentation has become more and more difficult to find.
Have any of you read “Faster than the Speed of Light” by Joao Magueijo? On its technical merits, its rather putrid IMHO. It spends far more time harping on the problems and inefficiencies of the current scientific establishment than on his hypothesis (Sadly). And that certainly could be illustrative here. When you have an idea that strongly counters the current thinking of the science community, how do you get funding for your experiments when the professors who control the money have no interest in listening to you? How do you build a “compelling case for their postulations” when all of the cards are stacked against you? Trouble getting funding. Trouble getting major journals to publish your results. Trouble getting other professionals to spend their time and money so you can get repeatable evidence? (One successful trial is generally meaningless. 10 trials by multiple teams constitutes proof.) While science is supposed to work as Tgirsch imagines it to, it often does not. Scientists, in their fallible human selves, can be just as dogmatic as any theologian.
I’ll take an example from modern physics. Thirty years ago, it was generally believed that the “Standard Model” of particle physics was generally correct. (And for all we know, it still is). Now, however, much of the research is focused on higher-dimensionsal theoretical formulations (the much advertised string theory and its bigger brother M-Theory). It took decades for that change in thinking to occur. The first proponents of these ideas were scoufed at and mocked by their seniors in the scientific community. In some cases, progress for a given idea is only possible when a well entrenched faculty member retires. (Not that I’m saying string theory is true or anything, it may be wrong as well).
So while I can say with some certainty that the scientific method will eventually reach the correct conclusion, it is utter human hubris to assume you are on the right track at a given point in time. A couple weeks back, #9 kept professing that “there’s no such thing as a denier, only skeptics” which is just plain BS. However, anyone who is a friend to science must keep themselves open to new ideas. Everyone who is going to prognosticate on scientific topics needs to be open to the ideas of skeptics as well as tuning out the idiots. Lest they prove themselves to be a close minded dogmatist themselve.
#46 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Dragons vary widely between cultures. What remains are prototypes.
#47 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
“statistically impossible”
Frankly, this phrase, especially with the link you’ve provided, shows that you have a very great deal to learn about math and science, and should stop making any claims against it until you go learn something.
The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that a very small amount of randomness produces variation, from which successes can be preserved. I can’t accept that all life, in all its complexity, sprang into being by blind chance, either. No evolutionist thinks this. Evolutionary theory doesn’t claim it. Science doesn’t support it. Heck, gods may even be a good alternative to it.
Go read The Origin of Species. Or any introductory work on evolution. Take a class. Anything, please. What you’ve just said shows that you’ve missed something critical, and it’s not an error that can be corrected over a blog.
#48 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Ivan P.,
You make a good point. But, on this particular topic, note that the field has been solidly moving in one direction for well over 150 years, while the String Theory and its kin are a third that age and not very successful even now. Also note than nobody was really satisfied with the Standard Model. It was good, but everyone knew that it needed more work. Religious objections aside, the same doesn’t really apply to evolution, except around the origins of life, which, again, very few evolutionists are satified with.
Should we fund wacky ideas about non-nucleotide heritablity, eukaryotic orgenelle absorption, and studies of the proteins of cellurar machinery? Yes! Should we fund studies of which dinosaurs are pictured in drawings by Neanderthals? No.
#49 by Ivan P. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Big U
In reference to that “statistical possibility” you linked to, I would respond with “hahahaha”. Thats a good one. I’m going to guess the author of that piece is friends with William Dembski. They both seem to think that showing a lot of numbers (any numbers!)in a presentation is proof of an idea. The math he shows is numerically true, however, it doesn’t remotely relate to the topic hes talking about. First of all, you’ll need BILLIONS of monkeys with typewriters (I hope you’ve got government funding lined up
Second of all, the number he arrives at in his example specifically excludes a selection mechanism (which is at the heart of evolution, after all). Lastly, he tries to relate a given trial outcome with a statistical probably.
2.3 million billion billion years.
It would take the monkey that long to once, by chance, type the above sentence correctly.
In his ridiculous example, it would take his monkey that long ON AVERAGE, not in a given instance. That’s an incredibly important distinction. Anyone who has ANY knowledge of statistics would know that difference.
#50 by Ivan P. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M.
Again, I find myself agreeing with you. However, I guess my post was mostly aimed at authors of this site. They seem to be certainly less open to varying ideas. Looking at several of the threads on Climate Change, (a topic which is far less established) they seem to think that we have found “The Answer” (capital T, Capital A) which is utter presumption. This may not have been their intent, but their writing style certainly contains a certain amount of hubris and overconfidence in the utter INFALLIBILITY of science.
The reason I argue against this stance, is that it gives an opening to the wacko’s on the other side. Science can never make the same claims of absolute knowledge that religion does. Any time it does, you get people talking about an equal fitting on belief and faith. Which of course leads to pointless debates like…oh…..the one in this thread.
#51 by Steve at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
My question for all the “scientists” on this board is simply this: Where did the first creatures come from? At some point in time, something had to come from nothing. Please explain how this happened.
Now, before I get a synopsis of the Big Bang Theory or some other theory, let me say that they don’t explain how something came from nothing. Please explain how something came out of nothing.
#52 by Rachel I. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Steve,
I’m not a “scientist” per se — got part of an engineering education, but my knowledge of evolutionary details and the origins of the Universe comes mostly from biologist friends and Scientific American — but I believe the current area of study is into the “primordial pizza” hypothesis. The idea is that some mineral surfaces may have provided a location and the catalytic encouragement for organic molecules to bind and mutate until self-replicating patterns developed. If you look at some of the most basic forms of life or pseudo-life, it becomes easier to see how such molecular formations could eventually become actual organisms: bacteria and other prokaryotes (single-celled organisms without organelles), viruses, and prions (self-replicating proteins such as the protein causing Mad Cow Disease). While we mostly care about viruses and prions that depend on living things to reproduce, an otherwise-lifeless mineral surface on the early Earth could provide all the needed materials for early prion- or RNA-life to develop on its own.
As far as the universe itself goes… This is where it actually becomes worthwhile to let religion step in until science catches up. (Really, I feel religion is perfectly useful for things which are not explainable at a point in time… the problem is when science catches up and religion refuses to cede a subject.) With our current methods of looking at the universe, the Big Bang is as far back as we can make useful hypotheses about. There are some guesses out there — the formation of a black hole spits out into a new universe, or there’s a superverse which somehow generates universes — but for now, it’s just as reasonable to assume that the Big Guy set up some laws for a new universe and went Bang!… and be ready to read, criticize and possibly accept new hypotheses as they develop into full theories.
#53 by Frank at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Brownback was playing to his base, probably having realized that his chances of becoming president of all the Koch brothers are only marginally better than mine. (I’m from Kansas, and I’m not sure my wife would vote for me.)
From the Lawrence Journal World, in 9/05: “Of those who say they know what intelligent design is, 54 percent statewide supported teaching it. In Douglas County, that figure was just 41 percent.”
“That lower figure could have been affected by the higher number of residents with post-graduate degrees in Douglas County (location of KU) compared with the rest of the state. The poll showed the higher the education level, the less likely a person would support intelligent design.”
#54 by Frank at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Hey, Big U…
Where did you get your degree? Regent University, the Grand Academy of Ladoga, or was it the Close Cover Before Striking Institute of Advanced Theological Pseudoscience?
I found that picture of Adam and Eve and Cain you’ve been looking for, by the way. I’m not sure what happened to Abel: http://www.worldwildlife.org/apes/images/chimps.jpg
#55 by Big U at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Frank > Let’s see - I have no degree regarding evolution so your comment is somewhat useless.
Dan M. > I should have used the phrase statistical improbability rather than impossibility.
Ivan > Your comment regarding the number of monkeys is irrelevant.
Take the lottery for example. If 6 numbers are to be chosen and the numbers 1 through 49 are used, the odds of guessing the correct six numbers are 1 in 13 million. Now, let’s say someone lines up 13 million machines and draws 6 numbers out of each. Guess what, the statistical odds of guessing the correct 6 numbers stays at 1 in 13 million each time. The higher number of machines does nothing to reduce the odds of those specific 6 numbers being chosen.
Now, when taking a look at the complexity of the human body alone, what would you expect the statistical possibility of it coming about by chance?
Dan M. If evolution occurred via anything other than random chance along with natural selection, then some form of intelligence and purpose HAS to be involved. If that is the case, then the randomness is greatly reduced.
I go back to my original contention that to believe that evolution is responsible for humans and everything else on this planet evolving from one original item requires a faith that is far beyond anything any religion requires. The way a person such as myself is attacked and denigrated for not blindly agreeing that evolution is how we came to be in spite of all the holes and gaps is evidence that there is a religious element to evolution.
Take a look at evolutionist’s insistence that “Lucy” walked upright simply because they “believe” that was how she walked. Sounds like a faith to me with an effort being made to fit the evidence to the belief rather than to fit the belief to the evidence.
#56 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
“If evolution occurred via anything other than random chance along with natural selection, then some form of intelligence and purpose HAS to be involved. If that is the case, then the randomness is greatly reduced.”
The reduced randomness is exactly natural selection. Evolution with natural selection, requires neither intelligence nor a great deal of randomness. What you’re arguing against just isn’t evolutionary theory. Stop arguing about the improbability of evolutionary theory until you actually know what the theory is!
“The way a person such as myself is attacked and denigrated for not blindly agreeing that evolution [...]”
You’re being denegrated for not knowing what you’re talking about. We have no problem with you not blindly agreeing to your wacky fantasies about evolutionary theory. We have a problem with you concluding that real evolutionary theory is wrong on the grounds of those fantasies.
“[...] all the holes and gaps [...]”
…are due to your misunderstanding. You’ve earned the disrespect your receive. Now go learn something about what you’re talking about.
#57 by Big U at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M. >
1. Are you saying that natural selection and randomness combined can be used to prove that we arrived at the point we are at now starting from one strand of DNA or RNA in the ocean?
2. Are you saying there are no gaps or unknowns in evolution of any significance whatsoever?
#58 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
BU
(1) Yes.
(2) For normal definitions of “science” and “significant”, yes.
Don’t ask me to prove it. I’m not an evolutionary biologist, and you don’t know enough for someone who is to start telling you how it works.
#59 by Rachel I. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Big U, I already answered your “1.” in my response to Steve.
You seem to be ignoring my comments.
#60 by Big U at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Sorry Rachel. It wasn’t intentional. I can see what you are saying is possible, but the ingredients still needed to come from somewhere. And it still does nothing to explain how things got from that point to the complexity we have now. Your reference to the possibility of a “Big Guy” out there setting things up is contradictory to everything evolution sites. However, if it can be accepted as possible, I guess I don’t see how we can arbitrarily judge where a god’s involvement would end.
Dan > I guess you have more faith in science than I have. I also find it interesting that you will criticize the Bible as inacurate regarding the Hebrews leaving Egypt because there are no clear Egyptian records stating it happened and yet you willingly accept as accurate a record that has time gaps of 100’s of thousands or even millions of years. To me, that is a faith. Maybe I would be more easily convinced and less skeptical if every find was not stated as fact by scientists. (i.e. Brontosaurus, Lucy) only to be proven to be less than authentic later. Things are not presented as theories, but rather as fact. (Much like the science surrounding climate change is sited as “fact” even though most the expected impact is derived from computer models designed with the assumption that something bad will happen).
For my part, I find it immensely statistically improbable for the human body with all it’s complexities to have evolved to this point from a single RNA or DNA strand regardless of the number of years involved. And that still does nothing to explain where the items to create that strand came from. I believed the scientists when they found Lucy and thought “wow, now there’s something” only to be severely disappointed when I discovered the manipulation of evidence involved to achieve their goal.
#61 by Ted at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Big U, you are correct in assuming that it is statistically improbable that the human body would evolve from primordial ooze. However, that is not the same as assuming it is improbable that it did happen. Let me explain.
Using your “pick six” example from above, it is statistically improbable for any one pick made before the number is generated to be correct. However, after the number is generated, there is a 100% probability that that specific number is in fact the one that was generated. This relates to evolution in that there was no prescribed outcome, but rather a semi-random outcome that became less random as time passed and evolution exerted its influence on the outcome. Humans on earth are one specific outcome (and as it happens, the outcome that did occur), but there could have been billions of other outcomes here on earth. And, to the best of our knowledge, there are billions of planets out there, and ours might be the only one with higher life forms. Those barren planets, along with all the potential life forms that did not evolve on earth represent the 12,999,999 numbers that did not get generated. Humans on earth are the one in 13,000,000 that did. When you look at it that way, I believe evolution is much easier to accept.
As for The Beginning, evolution does not address that issue so the fact that evolution does not explain it is entirely expected, and completely meaningless.
And one more thing, in your pick six example, you are off by a factor of 1000. The number of unique outcomes is 13 billion and change, not 13 million (49 raised to the 6th power).
#62 by Big U at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Ted,
I can see where you are coming from and can accept to a point your hypothesis. (I still say it takes a lot of faith to accept something that can not be recreated in its entirety by science and thus be unequivically proven (such as gravity can, formation of rain can, etc.)
Re: the pick six, it is actually 1 in 13,983,816 so closer to 1 in 14 million. My bad. you are factoring in putting the ball back into the mix and the possibility of having the same number drawn 6 times.
#63 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
Ted,
13 million is right. In Pick 6, numbers can’t be reused and order doesn’t matter, so the probability is 1 in (49 choose 6), which is (49!/43!/6!), which my puter gives as 13,983,816.
#64 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
BU,
I only have the most oblique knowledge of the Egypt thing. That was Tgisch talking about that.
#65 by Dan M. at May 6th, 2007
| Quote
BU,
You continue to demonstrate that you don’t even know what science claims about evolution, and apparently haven’t even heard a competent theologian talk about science, never mind an actual scientist.
Now, I have to admit that scientists have purloined some venacular, and that causes some of the confusion. In particular, a scientfic fact is not an everyday fact (see comment #12).
Also, I hope it was hyperbole to say that you don’t think humans could evole regardless of the time it took, since the chance of anything developing over the course of three billion years is rather better than the change of it developing in six thousand. Think about that. Cellular life is three billion years old. That’s a lot of time for humans to evolve.
#66 by tgirsch at May 7th, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
I’m out of town on business, and haven’t been able to keep up with the thread as much as I’d like to, but I feel the need to say this: Never, never, never link to Answers in Genesis if you expect me to take you the slightest bit seriously. They’re crackpot the-earth-is-six-thousand-years-old types with essentially zero credibility. Because of their stance that everything in the Bible must be literally true (because, after all, the Bible says so…), they’ll bend over backwards to come up with the most laughably thin rationalizations you’re likely to see on just about any subject.
On the statistics, Ted’s dead on. That a particular outcome is exceptionally unlikely is only important when that outcome is specified in advance. Probabilities help us predict the future — they’re not terribly useful for discerning what happened in the past. The other issue is that as unlikely as a particular outcome is, all the other possible outcomes are equally unlikely. Look at winning the lottery. The chances of a particular person winning the lottery jackpot are tiny. The chances of a particular person winning the lottery jackpot twice are microscopic. And yet there have been at least three people who have done exactly that — hit the jackpot twice. That the odds of this happening were only one in a zillion doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. It clearly did.
#67 by Ted at May 7th, 2007
| Quote
Sorry, I don’t play the lottery. I occassionally see the local drawing on TV, and balls are reused, and order does matter, much like the building blocks of DNA. I didn’t realize some lotteries do not respect order. Now that I know that, I’m gonna go buy me some numbers!
#68 by Big U at May 7th, 2007
| Quote
This states what I have been trying to say much better than I can. I should have posted it sooner.
http://www.rae.org/natsel.html
#69 by Dan M. at May 8th, 2007
| Quote
Okay, that is much more articulate, but it’s also quite long. It does indeed begin with a fair explanation of evolutionary theory, though it is rather mired in the theory of Darwin, which has been rejected by modern theory in important details.
About one quarter of the way through, it gets to more substantive claims, such as that “[B]reeding [...] has not produced a single undisputed new species in 400 years of experimenting[.]“. This is a vapid claim, because of the word ‘undisputed’. Every single result of evolutionary science has been heavily disputed, especially by cranks and religious idiots. Today, any serious university biology curriculum includes labs demonstrating speciation, and this is undisputed by comptent scientists.
I can’t stomach much for of this yammering, but it amounts to the arguments against Darwinism that have caused it to be replaced by the Modern Synthesis.