Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:47:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5815 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > I'm not a person who will say unequivocably that Evolution (macro) is
> > outright wrong. I am not a scientist, I don't study this stuff for years
> > and I do not know it to be true or false. My dabblings into it show that
> > there is micro evolution and I have seen it via text books and it makes
> > sense that this is so, to adapt to changes in the environment and the niches
> > in which the species survives. I have heard that there have been 'macro
> > evolution' fossils found, but on closer inspection, and with time (as with
> > the case of the caught fish off the coast of Madagascar, supposedly extinct
> > for millions of years) have been proven false or erronous or still in
> > dispute. The research into DNA is inconclusive to prove macro evolution,
> > even tho the DNA molecules are approx. 90 percent match between us and apes.
> > I mean, why not--we have bones, skin, hair, eyes, etc... Instead of looking
> > for what is similar between the species, look at what's different about them.
>
> "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are creationist terms, not terms
> used by scientists. That should tell you something right away. Further, in
> evolution, what you would call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than
Once again, the difference is jumping species. Whether it's 2 years or 2
thousand years, or 2 million years, a fish is still a fish. Sure, it
adapted over the course of those millions of years to climate changes, grew
a new fin to help it swim, but it's still a fish. What tells me something
right away is the substansive dismissal of any theory that doesn't fit the
required wordview. 'I believe that there is no god so I'm going to
interpret what I see today this way to prove there's no god.' Sure, the
reverse is true 'Oh there *is* a god and here's why we can say that...'
Whatever. I'm not a "Scientific Creationist", nor am I a scientist. I'm a
guy who gets paid to fix computers all day.
> "micro-evolution" over a very long time. This reveals the pernicious habit
> of Creationists: to cover their flaws, they attempt to corrupt another
> science, in this case, Geology ("the earth is only 6000 years old...oh
> wait...mere historians can prove otherwise.....ummmmm, let's fudge that out
> to six to ten thousand years old").
Chloresterol is good for you--oh wait, it isn't--oh wait it is, but only
certain types. Science fudges many many things. Smoking was considered
healthy at one time, so was heroin. Getting away from the biological
science, up until 1967 it was a scientifically held principle that the inert
elements (y'know, the ones at the end of the periodic table) could not,
under *any* circumstance, partake in a chemical reaction. That was the held
belief until an inquisitive student in some university showed that, well,
eys they could react. 1967. The year I was born. Don't go telling me
about fudging. Yes science is an evolutionary process, and the more we
learn the more we can 'fix' the underlying ideas of how and why things are
the way they are. But don't go knocking the 'Christian Scientists' for
something that 'regular' scientists have been doing for years.
>
> The Ceolacanth currently existing doesn't disprove evolution in any way.
> Why would you say that?
'cause the very word 'evolution' infers change. Things don't change, which
is contrary to the very concept of evolution. If we were to take the base
principles of evolution, that things must change, or adapt, as the world
changes--but wait--here's a fish that was supposedly extinct for millions of
years swimming around. 'But', the evolutionists say, 'mayhaps some fishes
stayed the same and others underwnent the change'. Well, that contradicts
the evolutionary process, 'cause if change happens because it *has* to
happen, and one thing didn't change, then none of the others would have had
to change, either.
> Chimps are something like a 98% DNA match to humans. Other mammals ("bones,
> skin, hair, eyes, etc.") do not reach that level. It is consistent with
> evolutionary theory. If a dolphin was a 98% match, and a chimp 90%, that
> would not be consistent and either there would be a problem with the path we
> thought evolution took, or the concept of evolution itself (but not
> necessarily the latter).
But the distinctness of the species, how they are different and there's no
'fuzziness' between the species, is just too specific to be the product of
randomness. If evolution, in its purest sense, is the adaptability of
creatures to the niches they are in, then there whould be 'gray' creatures,
caught between niches, for niches are not cut and dry--niches gradually
change from zone to zone.
>
> >
> > I have a faith that the universe has a purpose, a destination, and nothing
> > has a purpose unless there is a rational, intelligent mind behind it.
> > Naturally, due to entropy (as talked about earlier) things tend towards
> > disorder and chaos--to derive complex and structured systems takes a
> > rational push. We are here for a reason. What that reason is, who knows?
> > Should we endeavour to try and figure it out? Absolutely. Should we get
> > our knickers in a knot if someone is drawing a different conclusion from the
> > same inputs? Prob'ly not.
> >
> > We have the ability to reason. That ability, imho, is given to us by our
> > Maker. My personal stance is not to put Reason above any other part of my
> > life--'I think, therefore I am' maybe a good starting point, but it is not
> > the end all of all of creation.
>
> Opinions are fine, just don't make the mistake of calling them science.
And don't make the mistake of saying that evolution is science. Science is
based on what can be shown today--evolution happened a long time ago.
>
> >
> > I hate quoting movies (no, not really) but Star Trek had 2 things to say
> > about the pursuit of knowledge 'n such...
> >
> > The first movie, where a giant 'supercomputer' (won't go into details about
> > whatever...) reached the limit of information--it had gathered all physical
> > data thru the known galaxy and thought 'is this it? is there no more?' It
> > takes a leap of logic, a leap of faith, to find that physical data, that the
> > world that can be measured thru the 5 senses, is not even close to being all
> > that there is. This is where my leap of faith comes in--I fundamentally
> > believe that there is something outside the scope of the 5 senses, and that
> > it isn't like 'all darkness, nothing, and/or insignificant'.
>
> Star Trek was about philosphy, not science. I don't think you want to quote
> it in any way in regards to science.
I'll quote Shakespeare or Douglas Adams if there is relevance or if they
summed up a thought more succinctly than I could have. In the case of Star
Trek, the point was 'don't put all your eggs into one basket' and it seems
as if rationalists put all their eggs into the rational basket--that there's
nothing outside the basket that has any relation or importance to what's inside.
>
> >
> > We build newer and more powerful telescopes to probe farther out into the
> > universe, and are now seeing original energies from the 'Big Bang'. We make
> > microscopes that 'see' atoms now, and we have the ability to move them
> > around and place them where we want them. I love science, I love rational
> > thought processes, I love that we have the ability to do these things. But
> > seeing super far things, or super small things, only improves our sense of
> > sight, just as radio 'betters' our sense of hearing. There is nothing
> > outside the 5 senses that Science can even remotely find out about, and it
> > is arrogant to say, 'if there is something outside what we can touch, taste,
> > smell, hear, and see, it's not as important as what science teaches us.'
>
> We have to reduce information to something that our senses can comprehend,
> true, but I cannot sense magnetism. Oh, I can see it's effects given the
> proper equipment, but I don't sense it directly.
You don't think there will come a time when we develop something that can
help us view the true magnetic field (instead of just iron filings on a
piece of paper). My point here, obviously missed, is that we can measure
and quantify stuff in the quantifiable universe. We use more and more
powerful and accurate measuring instruments, and we use mechanisms to
manipulate matter on bigger and smaller scales, from the future asteroid
mining, to moving atoms around, but all that stuff is the logical extension
of our senses. To say that the universe is limited to what we measure with
the 5 senses (with or without the mechanisms of humankind) is
reductionistic. To perceive something outside the physical realm takes
faith. Elevation of Science (rational thought) to the exclusion of all else
is making Science a god. Not only a god but the only god, and that is why
some scientists get so vehemently opposed to anything else that may question
their scientific endeavours. When your god is threatened is when these
discussions come out. Yes, the same can be said of thiests, but right back
at ya.
> Same for radio waves. So
> science does find out things that are outside our five senses. It isn't
> just a case of super-vision, or super-hearing. Science doesn't say what you
> claim it says. You are using an emotional argument, not a scientific one.
It is a scientific arguement--the pursuit to observe, measure, quantify.
That science is 'above' the rest is where the issue is. Science is on the
same plane as all other aspects of life. To say it's better is elevating it
to godness.
> >
> > This is my issue.
> >
> > Spock said it in ST6-"Logic (rational thought, whatever) is the *beginning*
> > of wisdom, not the end of it".
>
> Wisdom strays into the realm of philosophy, not science. We do not always
> use science wisely, but the science itself is there independent of wisdom.
Science is independent of wisdom as Spirituality is independant of a divine
being. Without the latter, what's the use of the former?
>
> >
> > There was another quotation attributed to a 'real' person in history (can't
> > remember who)--"a little knowledge inclineth a man's belief to athiesm, the
> > continuing pursuit of knowledge inclineth a mans mind to spirituality"
>
> I've no doubt that there's is an aphorism that states the opposite. Too
> many cooks spoil the broth, many hands make light work.
Two aphorisms that I love but neither relate to this discussion that I see,
contrary to mine, which even has the elements of the scientific pursuit
first pushing one away from God, and continued pursuit bringing one back to
God, unless I missed the relation of the quotations to the discussion at hand.
>
> >
> > Like the fish swimming, wondering "Where's the water--I can't see it!"
>
> What? The fish can't feel it?
The quotation was meant as more of a parable--Does a fish 'know' it's in
water--does it consider the water in its dealings in everyday life? If
someone were to point out the water to the fish, would it even realize that
the water's there? As in--if God is everywhere, do we consider that in our
dealings in life?
> >
> > Just because something cannot be measured, quantified, and placed
> > in a proper place in the periodic table, does that negate the importance of it?
>
> No, just don't confuse it with science. Don't try to teach it as science.
And don't try to teach evolution as science. Science, either biology,
chemistry, and physics in high school, doesn't have to have *either* theory
taught at all for the children to succeed in these classes. My
understanding of a weight falling 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't need either theory.
Saying that 2H2 + O2 = H20 + energy certainly doesn't need it, and the
concept of photosynthesis certainly doesn't need either. High school is no
place for either of these theories to be taught.
When you're off at university, and you're quite settled into your own little
worldview and you're comfortable there, and you have the option of taking a
Creationist or an Evolutionist course, then by all means, go ahead.
> >
> > Compassion is something I think about alot--No where in the Darwinist world
> > does compassion find a place. Survival of the fittest negates compassion.
> > And yet we have it. Not only do we have it, but we seem to be getting more
> > of it as humankind evolves--if evolution is the defacto standard.
>
> If compassion helps to have your offspring survive to the point where they
> can reproduce, then yes, it does have a place.
No it doesnt for it goes againt the very nature of the survival of the
fittest. Compassion is opposite that idea.
>
> >
> > Love--again does not fit into evolution. Sure some can live without it but
> > they're missing something.
>
> I rather imagine that love helped us get where we are, so I don't see how
> that is inconsistent with evolution.
Again, love is what it is--pretty much undefinable--but evolution would have
the 'alpha' people fighting over who gets to procreate--nothing to do with
love at all.
>
> >
> > I know that some evolutionists say that the emotions of fear, trepidation
> > and such came from a healthy understanding of the ramifications of getting
> > eaten by a sabre tooth tiger years ago, and we still have the basic sense of
> > survival in us (hence most phobias like the fear of heights 'n such). Sure
> > I can accept that hypothesis, but that in no way explains the overall sense
> > of self, sense of consiousness, sense of being that we humans have. If
> > evolution is the defacto standard, why not other species? The mouse may be
> > smart and run thru a maze, the spider may be a great architect when it makes
> > a web, and dolphins have the ability for communication and they even *play*
> > :) , but are they conscious? Do they have a soul? I dunno. Again, just
> > because we can't measure it with our instruments does not mean that it isn't
> > there or that it isn't important.
>
> Perhaps other species do have that but don't have a mode of expression that
> is conducive to us to figure it out. Personally, I think my dog qualifies.
> My bird is about as smart as a two year old human - does a two year old
> qualify? Even my stupid cats (not that I think cats are stupid, just the
> pair I currently have are monumentally stupid even by cat standards) have a
> sense of self.
It's the spirit, it's the 'je ne sais quoi', it's the things that can't be
scientifically measured that are just as important as science.
> > Living without God is like living without anything--it can't happen.
>
> This is an opinion. It's an interesting philosophy. But I will note that
> it doesn't have a darn thing to do with science, much less evolution.
It is my opinion, true. Just as it is my opinion that evolution has less to
do with science as it does in forcing a theory of why God doesn't exist on
the public masses.
>
> Bruce
Dave
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its' environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary Theory. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) <...> (...) <...> (...) Dave, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolutionary theory is. I would encourage you to step back from the evolution:creation debate, and try and look at the theory of evolution from within a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Once again, the difference between species isn't something magical, or even obvious. It's (usually) merely a matter of reproductive capacity. There are many, many examples of two species that are so similar that only recently have scientists (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Of course a fish is still a fish. I mean, what else would it be? If you are trying to state (but not quite saying it) that a fish can never evolve into another species, that's easy to answer: yes it can. I think you are really trying to say it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are creationist terms, not terms used by scientists. That should tell you something right away. Further, in evolution, what you would call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evolution" over a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
