[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]The thing we must always remind ourselves is that species, atoms, gravity are [i]models[/i], not absolute truths. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmmm... and yet some people people defend Darwin's Origin of the Species with as much fanaticism as some deep ended so-called "Christians"...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Hmmm... and yet some people people defend Darwin's Origin of the Species with as much fanaticism as some deep ended so-called "Christians"...
;) [/B][/QUOTE] I think that is purely as a response to the fanaticism with which some christian fundamentalists attack evolution.
It's like those evangelizing vegetarians that criticize meat eaters wantonly, they tend to get some equally rabid responses.
Anyway, people don't actually defend that book anymore, it's quite outdated, you know? The defense is for the staggering amounts of evidence for biological evolution that have accumulated since then.
I still don't understand why fundamentalists think evolution denies the existence of an all-powerful (biological evolution might be one of his powers) and all-knowing God and try to limit his omnipotency and omniscience in the matters of Creation to a few paragraphs in a book dumbed down for humans...
Lack of faith, I suppose.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]The only thing I can come up with right now is an experiment with a species of salmon that went extinct in the USA. Another species of salmon was introduced from Canada, and in just a few years, the new species had taken on several characteristics of the old species. Evolution in just a few generations. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's evolution, not speciation. I could do tell you almost verbatim the story of some finches on some island where there was a bad drought and their food disappeared and only the fittest (ie, beaks best adapted for killing dinner) finches survived. Years later the characteristics of the population had changed, but they were not a new species. If they resurrected the dead finches from generations ago they would be able to breed with the old finches, and thus they are the same speices.
That's right folks - species aren't made up, species aren't imaginary, there is a difference between you and a rabbit. You may try to have sex with the rabbit, but no offspring will occur. On the other hand, have sex with the human next to you, and as long as that human's a female and you're a male (or vice versa), there's a good chance offspring will occur. The definition of a species I'm working under is a population of organisms that can mate and produce reproductively viable offspring. So, if you want to know if something is or isn't your species, have sex with it, and if it gets pregnant, you've found a winner.
Evolution exists. Prove to me that it successfully models the origin of all the species on earth. I have no problem with saying, say, that NaOH and H2SO4 will neutralize each other to some extent because if you pour solutions of both into a beaker, to some extent, the acid and base will neutralize each other. Cheap, fast, easy to repilicate. Now, on a non-bacterial level, let's see someone evolve us an ecosystem of diverse and happily niched species. That's scientific proof - proof that it's possible, though, and not necessarily that that's how it happened! Proof and experiments, that's what science is about. Zealotry is zealotry, be it for an unproven model of the origin of life on earth or for a religion that tells you to go out and kill the infidels.
In a perfect world, the Christian right would find the ACLU championing to get intelligent design [i]into[/i] the curriculum, because the alternatives taught now are no more based in fact and because these alternatives violate the civil rights of the children in the public schools - by imposing science upon them [i]as[/i] a religion, and not showing them ample alternatives.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]That you believe proof is possible in science is evidence enough that your understanding of the discipline is tenuous and suspect at best. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]From Wikipedia.org[/i]
[B]According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you have a problem with my substitution of "empirically testable" with proof, then I apologize.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]That's evolution, not speciation. I could do tell you almost verbatim the story of some finches on some island where there was a bad drought and their food disappeared and only the fittest (ie, beaks best adapted for killing dinner) finches survived. Years later the characteristics of the population had changed, but they were not a new species. If they resurrected the dead finches from generations ago they would be able to breed with the old finches, and thus they are the same speices. [/B][/QUOTE]
Evolution = Speciation in the long term.
As I said, its the only thing I can come up with now. I aint got all the answers. Yet..
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]I find it rather retarded when a religion absolutely, positively needs a historical basis to validate it's message. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hear hear! If God can truly be contained in a few words on some pieces of paper, then is He really that great?
I argee, I have some friends that are very smart people but hold to the belief of the Bible as the absolute literal truth. I am taken aback by their belief that all there is about an omnipotent creator can fit in a couple thousand page book, when we can't even begin to describe how the human mind works in a thousand books.
Not all creatures evolve. For example: sharks. They are perfict for their environment. Evolution only takes place to populations under stress. Speciation only happens when eveolution happens over a great deal of time. This is not a sudden change. I'm sure you can see the problem on defining what a species is. Also there is no major line for when populations are no longer able to reporduce with each other, as divided but still closly related populations will often not reproduce unless there are a lack of mates. Again do we [i]define[/i] them as different species? You gave very obvious, human and rabit, because there is stark contrast. What about Wolf and domestic dogs? they can breed but we [i]define[/i] them as different species. Species is a CONSTRUCT that humans invented. And like all human inventions it is not perfict nor an absolute truth.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]Obviously I'm stupid and have no grasp of science, so your subtlety is lost on me. [/B][/QUOTE]
Firstly, you're using a very skewed look on the subject. Science is, by nature, supposed to be disprovable through the introduction of new evidence. And even then, the previous theory isn't entirely disproven, but is woven into the newer, more solid theory.
In effect, someone working to disprove evolution, completely unbiased and without any ulterior motive, is [i]exactly[/i] what science is.
Science is, also, at it's core, a whole ot of "best guesses" extrapolated from experimentation via the scinetific method, and through direct or indirect observation. IE: we 'know' that at least [i]some[/i] gravity exists on distant worlds through the observable phenomenon on our own.
Evolution is exactly that, an extrapolation through observable evidence and phenomena. We have the fossil record, we have actual observable speciation in the wild (as you've pointed out), and have [i]extrapolated[/i] a model for the current and past states of all specied on Earth.
What it DOESN'T explain, nor has it ever claimed to, is the origin, or creation of life. Only metaphisics, which inherently cannot be (dis)proven, has claimed to have that answer.
If creationists or ID'ers ever came up with incontrovertable evidence that part or all of the evolutionary theory was false, likely after reviewing this, they will go "wow, good work!" and go on to a new theory incorporating the new information.
Second off, you're using a very rudimentary, and incomplete definition of species. For example, there can be completely seperate species of insect that are perfectly compatible on a genetic level, but due to geographic isolation from eachother, or more minor things such as preferred food-source and nesting area and whatnot, they do not mingle together in the wild.
thirdly I have no problem religion being in school curriculum. But, for chrissake, keep it the fuck OUT of the science class.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]thirdly I have no problem religion being in school curriculum. But, for chrissake, keep it the fuck OUT of the science class. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just one thing I'd like to point out that seems to have been missed in this whole debate, the reason why religion isn't allowed in public schools. The minute you do that you establish a state religion. Jimmy Smits from the West Wing summed it up best:
[i]"To hold together a country of many religions, the founding fathers decided that our official religion would have to be no religion at all. It was a bold experiment then, as it is now."[/i]
Perhaps when someone starts teaching the Intelligent Designer of life on earth was actually the ancient Vorlon god Boogi will the ID backers realize their mistake... then again, maybe not :angryv:
Science explains "how" not "why." How do these chemicals act together? How does this thing turn into that thing.
The underlying "Why" is for philosophy and religion classes.
You want ID in public schools? Fine, put it in the classes best suited to it.
"Gaps in the Theory of Evolution"? There are gaps in chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, etc. I don't see anybody pushing for "Magic Jesus Rays" making plants grow instead of photosynthesis.
Yep, They are going to be running the world soon.... One more reason I want to kill my self
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Re: As I posted in the Robertson thread....
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]You want ID in public schools? Fine, put it in the classes best suited to it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. It should fall under either religious studies or philosophy. Anyone know a high school that teaches either of these? Perhaps that's where the lack is.
Science is science. Science isn't religious studies. Science is "how things work," it is the study of events in order to predict the future. In order to accept ID, one has to believe that the future can't be predicted, that all of the future is "fate" and "predestination." This means that you have no free will, and if you have no free will, then what's the point of religion protecting morals? If there isn't free will, and if god didn't want you to do these things, you wouldn't. Therefore science must exist if you believe you need relgion as a moral compass, and if science must exist, then Darwinian Evolution is a natural result.
Hmm...
Funny, I just proved that if you need religion then you need evolution. If you have ID, then religion is superfulous.
I've been hearing a lot of 'put ID in schools, just not in science!'
I really do not like this. The problem is not with teaching religion in school. I have no problem with it coming up in a history or even a theology class. The problem is that anyone who wants ID taught in schools doesn't want it taught academically; they want it taught as religious education. In science class or not, this is a clear violation of separation between church and state.
[i]A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."
"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.
"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."[/i]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I love the fact that lecturers are lining up to help out. :D
[quote]Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.[/quote]
Comments
[B]The thing we must always remind ourselves is that species, atoms, gravity are [i]models[/i], not absolute truths. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmmm... and yet some people people defend Darwin's Origin of the Species with as much fanaticism as some deep ended so-called "Christians"...
;)
[B]Hmmm... and yet some people people defend Darwin's Origin of the Species with as much fanaticism as some deep ended so-called "Christians"...
;) [/B][/QUOTE] I think that is purely as a response to the fanaticism with which some christian fundamentalists attack evolution.
It's like those evangelizing vegetarians that criticize meat eaters wantonly, they tend to get some equally rabid responses.
Anyway, people don't actually defend that book anymore, it's quite outdated, you know? The defense is for the staggering amounts of evidence for biological evolution that have accumulated since then.
I still don't understand why fundamentalists think evolution denies the existence of an all-powerful (biological evolution might be one of his powers) and all-knowing God and try to limit his omnipotency and omniscience in the matters of Creation to a few paragraphs in a book dumbed down for humans...
Lack of faith, I suppose.
[B]The only thing I can come up with right now is an experiment with a species of salmon that went extinct in the USA. Another species of salmon was introduced from Canada, and in just a few years, the new species had taken on several characteristics of the old species. Evolution in just a few generations. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's evolution, not speciation. I could do tell you almost verbatim the story of some finches on some island where there was a bad drought and their food disappeared and only the fittest (ie, beaks best adapted for killing dinner) finches survived. Years later the characteristics of the population had changed, but they were not a new species. If they resurrected the dead finches from generations ago they would be able to breed with the old finches, and thus they are the same speices.
That's right folks - species aren't made up, species aren't imaginary, there is a difference between you and a rabbit. You may try to have sex with the rabbit, but no offspring will occur. On the other hand, have sex with the human next to you, and as long as that human's a female and you're a male (or vice versa), there's a good chance offspring will occur. The definition of a species I'm working under is a population of organisms that can mate and produce reproductively viable offspring. So, if you want to know if something is or isn't your species, have sex with it, and if it gets pregnant, you've found a winner.
Evolution exists. Prove to me that it successfully models the origin of all the species on earth. I have no problem with saying, say, that NaOH and H2SO4 will neutralize each other to some extent because if you pour solutions of both into a beaker, to some extent, the acid and base will neutralize each other. Cheap, fast, easy to repilicate. Now, on a non-bacterial level, let's see someone evolve us an ecosystem of diverse and happily niched species. That's scientific proof - proof that it's possible, though, and not necessarily that that's how it happened! Proof and experiments, that's what science is about. Zealotry is zealotry, be it for an unproven model of the origin of life on earth or for a religion that tells you to go out and kill the infidels.
In a perfect world, the Christian right would find the ACLU championing to get intelligent design [i]into[/i] the curriculum, because the alternatives taught now are no more based in fact and because these alternatives violate the civil rights of the children in the public schools - by imposing science upon them [i]as[/i] a religion, and not showing them ample alternatives.
[B]That you believe proof is possible in science is evidence enough that your understanding of the discipline is tenuous and suspect at best. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]From Wikipedia.org[/i]
[B]According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you have a problem with my substitution of "empirically testable" with proof, then I apologize.
it's an [i]important[/i] one.
[B]That's evolution, not speciation. I could do tell you almost verbatim the story of some finches on some island where there was a bad drought and their food disappeared and only the fittest (ie, beaks best adapted for killing dinner) finches survived. Years later the characteristics of the population had changed, but they were not a new species. If they resurrected the dead finches from generations ago they would be able to breed with the old finches, and thus they are the same speices. [/B][/QUOTE]
Evolution = Speciation in the long term.
As I said, its the only thing I can come up with now. I aint got all the answers. Yet..
[B]I find it rather retarded when a religion absolutely, positively needs a historical basis to validate it's message. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hear hear! If God can truly be contained in a few words on some pieces of paper, then is He really that great?
Jake
[B]Obviously I'm stupid and have no grasp of science, so your subtlety is lost on me. [/B][/QUOTE]
Firstly, you're using a very skewed look on the subject. Science is, by nature, supposed to be disprovable through the introduction of new evidence. And even then, the previous theory isn't entirely disproven, but is woven into the newer, more solid theory.
In effect, someone working to disprove evolution, completely unbiased and without any ulterior motive, is [i]exactly[/i] what science is.
Science is, also, at it's core, a whole ot of "best guesses" extrapolated from experimentation via the scinetific method, and through direct or indirect observation. IE: we 'know' that at least [i]some[/i] gravity exists on distant worlds through the observable phenomenon on our own.
Evolution is exactly that, an extrapolation through observable evidence and phenomena. We have the fossil record, we have actual observable speciation in the wild (as you've pointed out), and have [i]extrapolated[/i] a model for the current and past states of all specied on Earth.
What it DOESN'T explain, nor has it ever claimed to, is the origin, or creation of life. Only metaphisics, which inherently cannot be (dis)proven, has claimed to have that answer.
If creationists or ID'ers ever came up with incontrovertable evidence that part or all of the evolutionary theory was false, likely after reviewing this, they will go "wow, good work!" and go on to a new theory incorporating the new information.
Second off, you're using a very rudimentary, and incomplete definition of species. For example, there can be completely seperate species of insect that are perfectly compatible on a genetic level, but due to geographic isolation from eachother, or more minor things such as preferred food-source and nesting area and whatnot, they do not mingle together in the wild.
thirdly I have no problem religion being in school curriculum. But, for chrissake, keep it the fuck OUT of the science class.
And excellent points WHY.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]thirdly I have no problem religion being in school curriculum. But, for chrissake, keep it the fuck OUT of the science class. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just one thing I'd like to point out that seems to have been missed in this whole debate, the reason why religion isn't allowed in public schools. The minute you do that you establish a state religion. Jimmy Smits from the West Wing summed it up best:
[i]"To hold together a country of many religions, the founding fathers decided that our official religion would have to be no religion at all. It was a bold experiment then, as it is now."[/i]
Perhaps when someone starts teaching the Intelligent Designer of life on earth was actually the ancient Vorlon god Boogi will the ID backers realize their mistake... then again, maybe not :angryv:
"Intelligent" Design is not science.
Science explains "how" not "why." How do these chemicals act together? How does this thing turn into that thing.
The underlying "Why" is for philosophy and religion classes.
You want ID in public schools? Fine, put it in the classes best suited to it.
"Gaps in the Theory of Evolution"? There are gaps in chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, etc. I don't see anybody pushing for "Magic Jesus Rays" making plants grow instead of photosynthesis.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]You want ID in public schools? Fine, put it in the classes best suited to it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. It should fall under either religious studies or philosophy. Anyone know a high school that teaches either of these? Perhaps that's where the lack is.
Science is science. Science isn't religious studies. Science is "how things work," it is the study of events in order to predict the future. In order to accept ID, one has to believe that the future can't be predicted, that all of the future is "fate" and "predestination." This means that you have no free will, and if you have no free will, then what's the point of religion protecting morals? If there isn't free will, and if god didn't want you to do these things, you wouldn't. Therefore science must exist if you believe you need relgion as a moral compass, and if science must exist, then Darwinian Evolution is a natural result.
Hmm...
Funny, I just proved that if you need religion then you need evolution. If you have ID, then religion is superfulous.
:D
I really do not like this. The problem is not with teaching religion in school. I have no problem with it coming up in a history or even a theology class. The problem is that anyone who wants ID taught in schools doesn't want it taught academically; they want it taught as religious education. In science class or not, this is a clear violation of separation between church and state.
The University of Kansas strikes back!
[i]A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."
"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.
"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."[/i]
[quote]Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.[/quote]