Way OT: Introduction to fact, theory and evolution

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The basic facts of science are observations and measurements. Things we can observe and examine directly or indirectly. By themselves, these facts are "meaningless" in a scientific sense. They just are.

So we notice that whales have bone structures for hind legs. Why? We notice the humans have an appendix, yet we have (so far) found no biological use for this organ. Why is it there? Someone mentioned eyes, and the human eye is kind of inside-out -- the optic nerve goes right through the retina, resulting in a blind spot. Why? The octopus eye is a much better design. There are large encyclopedias full of such anomalous observations.

Humans are curious creatures. We aren't satisfied with mere observations; we want some explanation for what we observe. The fundamental rule of explaining is, the proposed explanation must be consistent with all relevant observations. If an observation contradicts the explanation, then one or the other must change to retain consistency.

Theories are simply proposed explanations for observations. They are attempting to answer all those "why" questions. The observations (the facts) are the "what". Facts and theories are very different categories of things. The first is an observation, and the second is an explanation. In NO sense is a theory just a kind of "doubtful fact". Even if we are all satisfied that our explanation is accurate and complete, it remains a theory. It's simply considered a correct theory.

As an example, gravity is a fact. We observe it. But what causes it? How does it work? Newton proposed a theory of gravity that worked pretty well. This does NOT mean that gravity itself is "theoretical" and might not exist. And in some very special cases, we observed violations of Newton's theory (mostly astronomical observations). Einstein developed a very different theory of gravity from Newton, which explains these violations. We now consider Einstein's theory to be superior to Newton's. But gravity remains a fact, and we continue to struggle to understand gravity better. Someday, Einstein's theory may be superseded by a better one. And gravity will STILL be a fact.

Similarly, evolution (like gravity) is a fact. The mass of supporting observations (which fill huge libraries) is as comprehensive as the evidence that gravity is a fact. Evolution is an observation (more acccurately, a collection of millions of observations).

But what *causes* evolution? Why does it happen? Darwin (and others) proposed an explanation -- that the process that drives evolution is reproductive success. Those individuals (of any species) that survive to breed pass their genetic information to their offspring. There are variations among individuals, and some variations are advantageous within the local environmental constraints. The individuals possessing these favorable variations will tend to survive (and breed) with relatively greater frequency so long as the environment does not change too much.

Recently, the sum of our observations (mostly paleontological) has highlighted a phenomenon for which Darwin's explanation falls short. In the Darwinian model, evolution *ought* to be a steady, constant process, so that all species ought to be undergoing slow but steady change. Eventually, a subgroup isolated in a somewhat different environment will change to a degree no longer permitting interbreeding with the original population. However, that's NOT what the evidence shows. Instead, the evidence shows that when new species appear, they tend to do so over a relatively brief period of time (a few thousand years), and then tend to remain almost completely unchanged until they become extinct.

As a result, Darwin's explanation is being challenged and extended. A new explanation (theory) is now being developed that does a better job of explaining our observations. This process is an accepted part of science -- that superior explanations are always possible, and that existing explanations can be disproved. Meanwhile, the underlying facts never change, they are what they are.

Explanations (theories) also have predictive power, often essential in guiding our observations. IF a theory is a good one, THEN certain things should be observed under appropriate conditions. So we set out to look for those things, and observe them. If what we observe does not fit the theory, then the theory must be improved or discarded. For example, evolutionary theories have predicted a great many "intermediate forms" for which fossil evidence was lacking. And over the last century, we have indeed found exactly those forms, as described by the theory. (In fact, in many cases we had *already* found them, but had no explanation for them yet! When we knew what to look for and went searching, we found them in museums.)

For ANY scientific theory, there *must* be some agreed-upon way to prove it false or insufficient. A large part of scientific advance has been motivated by conflicting theories, whose adherents attept to make observations which support one theory or contradict the other. In many cases, both theories are partly right and partly wrong, leading to a new theory incorporating the best parts of all prior theories. Then we set out to disprove or extend the new one. And any explanation that no observation can disprove is really an assertion of faith.



-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999

Answers

So what's your question?

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.

I am interested to hear why you posted this here. It reads like the preface of my college biology text. I appreciate the time you took to write it (if it's your's), but curious are your motivations.

-- semper paratus (always@ready4.anything), October 18, 1999.

Yeah, Flint, what the heck does this even REMOTELY have to do with Y2K?????

Have you flipped????

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 18, 1999.

Hey, I labeled it WAY OT. Yes, I wrote it. I just felt that some of the discussions of scientific method and evolution needed some ground rules and definitions of terms. There were too many totally wild misunderstandings being flung around for my taste.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

Flint - Arthur Koestler writes some mean observations on the holes in Darwin's theory. Other writers have written well thought out critiques of our popular theories in the physical sciences - one I remember well was written re the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I maintain there are massive holes in our conception of gravity.

Everything we know and are, including unalterable facts are teachings passed along generation to generation. The human experience is a learned experience. & it is at it's base, arbitrary.

"I'm a sensation." - "Tommy", The Who

All there is is mystery. We then explain away for millennia, forgetting that the map isn't the territory.

Brian brought up Time in his Tao post. Time is yet another of those brilliant inventions we use everyday yet has no more reality than that with which we invest in it. Spatial dimentions are yet another of the brilliant early human inventions.

"Reality, What a Concept" - 60's bumper sticker

"It's All Right Now" - Free

All of these early human inventions have one primary objective - to create the illusion of self-conscious separateness.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), October 18, 1999.



I think Flint made a boo-boo. He was typing an essay for his Science class and he thought he was typing in Microsoft Word, but his cursor was still in the Forum text box.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 18, 1999.

Yes Flint:

Pray tell us why mankind is exempt from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific proof, not opinion, please. I'd also like to direct your attention to the following website, which offers a $250,000 prize to people who can offer scientific proof. If you really believe your posting, you should take the challenge:

http://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article1.htm

Good luck.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.


haha:

As was already well explained on another thread, the 2d law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, and the Earth is far from a closed system. You should not base your assertions on obviously false premises.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Ok Flint:

Take Hovind's challenge if you really believe in what you say. How about it?

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.


"The earth is far from a closed system." Excuse me? It is just seems to be an open system. Sure there is a hell of a lot of energy being pumped into the system in the form of photons each day. Without that the earth becomes an EVEN more closed system.

But other than meteorites and that 'rain' of space dust, precious little enters or leaves the system. It is arguable that a planet is one of the MOST closed systems in the universe. I won't go into a long explaination of the fact that eventually everything is swallowed up by a closed system.

Think on it a second, flint. The "earth" of which you speak is a layer of inhabitable space approximatly 20 miles thick, stuck to the outside of a ball about 4000 N.M. in diameter, hurtling thru a vacume at some crazy assed speed. It is a tiny microspeck of dust in an indescribably vast universe whose nearest significant neighbor is nearly 2 light seconds away...

Yep, were an open system all right.... oh yeah.

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.



haha:

OK, I went to that site and looked at this "challenge". It reflects abysmal ignorance of evolution, and of science as a process. (It also doesn't say who gets to *judge* any entries, but *does* urge us to thump the bible).

Let make make some comments about some of the statements on that site:

"Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet."

Chuckle. Appears to whom, him? Scientists in the various biological fields don't try to "rank" forms of life in terms of advancement. There is no yardstick. What do you count or measure? Man isn't the largest creater. Doesn't have the most cells or organs. Isn't the strongest or fastest. Hasn't been around the longest. But if man is doing this ranking, he puts himself on top.

"The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed."

This is a compound statement. Evolution as commonly understood concerns itself with the *mechanism* through which life forms change. It has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe came into being (try cosmology for that). And no, we don't know what caused the universe to come into being. We have quite a few competing speculations right now. Cosmology is a field boiling with new ideas right now. None of which have anything to do with evolution whatsoever.

"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing."

Absolutely false, as I said above. Surely this man knows better. Cosmology is a different subject. "Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)"

Same objection. And he also bandies terms around loosely. I agree that the word "evolution" has been "borrowed" by many, to describe any process of change or development at all. But that's not the usage of the word he's challenging here. "Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution)."

Nope. We don't know how life started, and our current theories of evolution don't address this issue at all. Some hints are suggested by current studies in complexity theory and the organization of complex adaptive systems. But again, he's misusing the term.

"Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves."

Getting warmer. We can certainly speculate that there may have been many primitive life forms that lacked such capability or interest, and didn't survive. It would be reasonable that those that happened to have these attributes were more likely to last and change. And of course, the vast majority of life forms that have ever existed on Earth are extinct today. "Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)."

Yes, this is the crux of evolutionary theory. We are still observing and debating actively as to what the root mechanisms are for diversification. It seems clear that we just don't know enough yet. I believe our current investigations are into the nature of genetic alteration. Without doubt, our current evolutionary theories don't explain our observations as well as we'd like.

"People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true"

First, this is a flat (and false) assertion. But more important, it confuses two different meanings of the word "evolution". We know that biological changes happen. We don't know precisely how. The more we learn, the better our explanations become. They will never be perfect, unless we decide to stop observing and learning altogether.

And that's one of the key fallacies behind this "challenge." He's asking for "scientific proof", and that has always been a misnomer. By definition, the closest any theory can come to "proof" is if there's a time when nobody seriously questions it. But perhaps there was a time when nobody questioned the theory that the universe revolves around the Earth. *At that time*, the earth-centric theory was as close to proof as science can ever come.

As I said in my posted essay, evolution is a fact, an observation. HOW it happens is a theory. There can never be "scientific proof".

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Flint wrote: "Similarly, evolution (like gravity) is a fact. The mass of supporting observations (which fill huge libraries) is as comprehensive as the evidence that gravity is a fact. Evolution is an observation (more acccurately, a collection of millions of observations)."

Postulating that evolution or gravity are facts is erroneous. They are actually suppositions derived from observations. That the supposed effects of gravity or evolution may be demonstrated does not mean that gravity or evolution is a concrete reality, but simply a convenient catchall word for contextualizing a series of observations. These observations that may be highly prejudiced by the observers' pre- or mis- conceptions. In that regard, I submit that one would be hard-pressed to find a religion more dogmatic than Science with its godhead of Knowledge, high priests and attendent faithful.

I further submit that evolution is disprovable by the commonest of observations. Numerous well-reasoned arguments against the theory have been raised, and anyone with an open mind who wishes to settle the issue can do so in a few evenings research. This is not the forum in which to pursue a lengthy debate on this subject, so I will not attempt it. However, you might want to consider the following:

Evolution and its stepchild, Marxism (with all its socialist manifestations) are exactly the sort of philosophies that are tailor-made for creating a slave state. Evolution denies the existence of a special Creation, thereby making man no better than an animal. The denial of Creation denies the Creator as well. With religion thus relegated to the scrap heap, a void exists that can and will be filled by the benevolent State, who becomes god. Life is precious for those with no hope of life everlasting, thus the State is able to fully consolidate its authority through fear of death. This is why evolution has been taught so virulently in the public schools. It has nothing to do with the Truth, but everything to do with power.

-- PKM (.@...), October 18, 1999.


Michael:

Stop and think, because you contradict yourself. You write:

"Sure there is a hell of a lot of energy being pumped into the system in the form of photons each day. But other than meteorites and that 'rain' of space dust, precious little enters or leaves the system"

Uh, Michael, how about all that energy? It's the "hell of a lot of energy" being pumped INTO the system that makes it an open system. And life USES that energy to organize itself. It's even been shown recently that the creatures who appeared to live near the deep oceanic vents and draw their energy from the heat of the earth, also require sun-based energy (in the form of falling food).

You can't sensibly argue that the Earth is a closed system *except* for the exception that makes all the difference, otherwise it's closed. Get real.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Flint:

Then you'll take the challenge, eh?

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.


Nice bit of writing PKM. You obviously think. Flint, tolerance of others views, no matter what you think of them is the beginning of wisdom. I subscribe to the idea that evolution is a scientific fact. I also subscribe to the idea that science is that which brought us where we are today. Flint, you say that there is no documentation of what was before the universe. I say that you have got to step outside of your temporal reference (outside of time) atleast in your thoughts. Do that for a while. You will begin to understand that at the very most evolution is a tool used to describe something that would have been whether Darwin existed or did not exist.

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


Flint:

I'm not going to allow you to sidestep this one. It looks like you're dodging him.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.


PKM:

Before you blundered off into an irrelevant political rant, you played a little word game. I'll address the word game, not the rant. You write:

"Postulating that evolution or gravity are facts is erroneous. They are actually suppositions derived from observations."

I was careful to equate observations with facts. Yes, it's true that we don't always make good observations. It's also true that we sometimes give names to phenomena that turn out not to exist (like that "ether", or like "N-Rays"). And sometimes we're not quite sure if we've made an observation or not (like cold fusion). That's why I emphasized the sheer volume of observations. Beyond a certain point, a certain number of consistent observations without exception, we come to the (always in some sense tentative) conclusion that there *really is* an underlying physical phenomenon to be understood.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Stop, go back and reread what I wrote. The earth is neither "FAR from a closed system" nor a completly closed system. It is one of the MOST closed systems of which I can think.

Yes that energy is pumped into the system. Yes life uses that energy to organize itself.

Read more, I won't even begin to explain that eventually all systems are swallowed up in a closed system, unless of course you subscribe to creationism (and perhaps even then).

Flint, I am simply poking you to see what sort of stuff you are made from so don't get to upset.

"Get real." Is anything real in cyberspace?

:)

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


At it again, eh, Flintstone? Might have known you'd be a Marxist dupe enough to deny your creator. Probably the same mentality to lead you to believe that anyone that has a differing worldview is *just* another one-book wonder. For the record, what I know about the fed is from VOLUMES and years of research, not the party-line espoused by the public fool system, (lest I become a (flintstone@minddrygultch.non)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 18, 1999.

Flint -

Okay, I'll keep the pot boiling. While I am not *repeat not* a biologist, I did take 'intro to' in college. One of the more interesting questions posed about the theory of evolution is that if it is true, then there should be fossil evidence of the intermediary forms. In fact, since there ought to be MANY more intermediary forms than terminal forms, and even more 'dead end' forms which led nowhere evolutionarily speaking, these should be even more prevalent than the fossils of the 'normal' terminal forms. Yet none have ever been found.

Now, I realize that this doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything, whether it be the 'wrongness' of evolution, or the 'rightness' of creationism, or any other theories. But it does seem to shoot a rather large hole in the statement of evolution as 'fact'. There is, from what I have read, still a raging argument in the life sciences over just what this does mean. All sorts of 'revisionist' theories, pockets of recidivist evolutionaries, cabals of recalcitrant creationists, and elements waiting for the smoke to clear so they can come down 'authoritatively' on the side of whatever theory seems to be 'winning'.

Just my two cents worth, you understand, and offered in order to stir the pot just a bit. ;-)

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 18, 1999.


haha:

I responded in great detail. Did you read it? That guy is asking for what's impossible by definition, and then he's the judge of whether you performed the impossible. Can you say "sucker bet"?

Please read my final paragraphs about how science works. This dude is a bible thumper. He wants ABSOLUTES. Sorry, we're all out. We have to settle for the best explanation available until a better one comes along.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Flint, "Bible Thumper", is that like "Nigger", "Spade", "Spick", "Mick", "Hick", "Bitch", "Ho", "Honkey", or what exactly. What is it about practicioners of the "Religion of Science" that gives them the right to define for other people their status in society?

Just asking.

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


All right, Flint.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.

just another:

If you're interested in this fascinating subject, I welcome you to dig in and bring yourself up to date. Intermediate forms are now being found in large numbers -- recently four different discoveries were made of a creature that meets all the criteria for a "proto- whale", one of the big missing links. I find it very exciting.

As for dead end terminal forms, the Burgess Shale is cram-packed with them. As far as we can tell, EVERY SINGLE physiological form fauna comprise today can be found in the Cambrian explosion -- no new *basic* forms appear to have evolved ever since! The vast majority of these forms were unsuccessful, and the successful forms have of course undergone tremendous variation in the interim. But even chordates existed at that time.

Even when your text was written, we had many intermediate and terminal lines, but our taxonomy was inadequate to categorize them properly. After all, most of what we had were teeth, so it's not like we have a time machine.

Also, as I wrote, Darwin's explanation is undergoing vigorous challenge, since it fails to match observation closely enough. Fun times today.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


"Before you blundered off into an irrelevant political rant,"

By your choice of words, it is apparent that your position is indefensible.

"I was careful to equate observations with facts."

Observations are not facts. Please re-read my original statement.

"I emphasized the sheer volume of observations. Beyond a certain point, a certain number of consistent observations without exception, we come to the (always in some sense tentative) conclusion that there *really is* an underlying physical phenomenon to be understood."

Ah, but there are exceptions to these "consistent observations", and anyone willing to think for themselves and research the matter can find them. "Tentative" is a grand understatement. As for the amount of information, well... if a lie is monstrous enough, and repeated loudly enough, for long enough (your 'sheer volume of observations'), it will become a 'fact' that no amount of reason can destroy. Such faith - and I emphasize "faith" in it religious connotation - in numbers, the feeble, easily-swayed powers of human observation and the religion of Science are a testament to the power of such 'facts'.

-- PKM (.@...), October 18, 1999.


And by the way Flint, please keep your religion-hating, anti- religious epithets to yourself. I've seen you bash religion before in this forum. Why can't you accept that some people will have religious beliefs which differ from your own?

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.

so.........after all that, are you fer it or agin' it?

i don't agree with one or two of your statements regarding evolution. evolution is a theory agreed. much of the basis for evolution, however, is OLD science. many components to darwin's theory have now been proven false because of advances in science and greatly increased knowledge. some of the so called proof to components of his theory were proven to be out and out fraud. yet, what is interesting is that even though parts of his theory and some of the proof has been disproven, they are still included in the science that is taught in schools. amazing. seems we must hang on to our humanism and the belief that there is no god for fear that there is a god. i can deal with evolution being taught as long as it is taught as a theory and along side other theories (hey, we always say we want to be "tolerant" and not "narrow-minded" so why not in this area too) as opposed to being taught exclusively. here is a good web site that shares ideas of one of the "other" theories that exists regarding creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org

-- tt (cuddluppy@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.


I sense the impending arrival of a LONG and poorly reasoned argument about how STUPID I am. I think I shall terminate, without prejudice.

Good night flint. I am going home now.

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


I sense the same, and shall follow suit. Good evening to all.

-- PKM (.@...), October 18, 1999.

"If you're interested in this fascinating subject, I welcome you to dig in and bring yourself up to date. Intermediate forms are now being found in large numbers -- recently four different discoveries were made of a creature that meets all the criteria for a "proto- whale", one of the big missing links. I find it very exciting."

Flint,

Any books or URL's that you would recommend in order to pursue this further?

-- Fascinating Thread (wow@xxx.xxx), October 18, 1999.


PKM:

Those observations were collected by hundreds of thousands of people in hundreds of different disciplines and walks of life, over hundreds of years. Yet you lump ALL of them together as being part of a "monstrous lie". Are you seriously arguing that they were all part of some centuries-long conspiracy, and that YOU have the sole truth? They didn't know each other, nor speak the same languages, or anything. Indeed, it was a long time before people gathered all these observations together (into those libraries) and tried to make sense of them. We're still trying to make sense of them, and probably always will.

haha:

Sorry, I'm not anti-religion at all. You may know that I am suspicious of absolutes, since they seem to change so much. And many people of deep faith are involved in the effort to improve our evolutionary theories. They accept the fact of evolution, but want to understand how it *works* better than they do.

Your challenger was NOT interested (IMO) with understanding the ongoing process of discovery and explanation. He was interested in ridiculing it. I admit I have no respect for such people. But my own faith is not threatened by this process, but rather made deeper.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Patrick:

I don't follow you. I don't need to deny my creator to try to understand the process of evolution. Some of our finest evolutionists have been priests.

Fascinating:

This is a hot topic. Read Science magazine, or Natural History. Read any of the books by Stephen Jay Gould, and any of the references he footnotes. There are some expensive journals covering the topic, but that's what libraries are for. And enjoy!

And someone else, sorry I can't remember everyone's handle:

Your talk of what we are taught in school makes me cringe. Textbook writers tend to copy older textbooks, and errors get propagated for generations! Combine this with the common notion that children want simple answers and can't handle complex ideas, and you end up with, uh, Patrick? [grin]. As Paul Simon wrote (in his song Kodachrome) "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school / It's a wonder I can think at all". I'm with you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


Hi, Flint,

VERY interesting discussion. A little less thumping than I've experienced before when this subject has been brought up.

Wish I had time to write a bit, but mama's due home soon, and I have to make dinner.

Suffice to say, I agree with your statement that evolution is different the explanation for where the universe came from. For you religious types, isn't it possible that god created evolution?

As far as what was here before the universe was created, maybe it's always been here. Or maybe our brains aren't quite developed enough to be able to understand the change from nothingness to somethingness. I know MINE isn't.

Someone mentioned man's being superior to animals. I disagree. Man is an animal, and, as you said, Flint, whether man is the "best" animal depends on who is defining "best". I'm not sure that we are even in the running in any catagory except intelligence and arrogance.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 18, 1999.


Flint, Some of our finest pederists have been priests as well, and I'm not overly surprised that you have a tough time following. Perhaps you've read the Reese commission report to congress from 1954 stating that our educational curricula had been handed over to the Soviets... can you say "fun with Dick & Jane," class. Perhaps that would go a long way in explaining the abysmal nature of the schools and texts. You remember the Reese report don't you? The one that found all of the great foundations, (i.e. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford etc.) had as their main objective the sovietizing of America in order to blend our country with theirs? And all of this at the height of the "cold war?" What a farce that all turned out to be... alas though, I'm sure you and Mr. Decker would just dismiss this information as more "conspiracy theory" rather than look in the records yourselves, as this would require some of that heavy lifting that Mr. Decker so abhors. Would you care for a little hint? In 1957 there was a huge debate going on for another important issue... go to the congressional record on Friday, June 7, 1957, say pages 8531 through 8563, pay particular attention to page 8559, left hand column. This is one tiny little piece of evidence for you, Flint; care to do any real research, or just dismiss someone as a one-book wonder again?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 18, 1999.

Go into the workshop for a few hours and look what happens.

Flint mentioned

"Nope. We don't know how life started, and our current theories of evolution don't address this issue at all. "

One theory I like is that life developed around undersea vents, even at the deepest points life will develop there.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 18, 1999.


Patrick:

I'm aware that McCarthy had supporters, some of them influential. But I'm trying to stay more on topic here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.


I just found the following link while doing a search on evolution - I haven't read through much of it yet but thought others might find it of interest.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution by Mark Isaak

-- Fascinating Thread (wow@xxx.xxx), October 18, 1999.


Flint, Again, your comprehension is found wanting... This is precisely on topic as this is how this abominable teaching was allowed to enter and then fester in the public, (read: government) school system. The expess purpose being the teaching of worshipping the creation as opposed to the Creator, (ye shall not surely die; ye shall be as gods). This entire argument is a moot point when considering that 1st was the "creation" as brought forth in Genesis, and then the very valid concept of evolution, but NOT the evolutionary teaching that has today become the religion of secular humanism. So the pinkies use a communist doctrine, (separation of church and state), to take the biblical precepts of creationism out of their schools, and replace it with the "religious" teachings of humanism. BTW - there is no separation of church and state in our constitution, the only place on the planet that it can be found is in the Soviet charter.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 18, 1999.

It appears that I misjudged. There was no "long and poorly reasoned argument about how STUPID I am.". That is nice, as I always hate hearing the truth.

I am not a "Thumper" as you have so put it. But we wander off into abstract points such as time before time, so...

I am a scientist, Computer Scientist to be precise. I am also a believer. I do not try to make anyone believe what I believe. I do care, and will discuss my "Lord" with anyone interested. I will not try to persuade as that is not my tasking.

From the perspective of faith, in particular mine; "In the beginning was God...", after much thought and "faith" has come (to me) to mean;

1) God exists outside of our temporal reference because he already "was" in the beginning.

2) Nothing else is mentioned in a significant manner therefore I assume (the operative word assume) there was nothing else.

Now Flint just be patient, I am going somewhere with this. Since "Science" seems unable to define anything before time, I obviously speak of something which MUST be accepted upon faith (science can not address it). Such is MY faith, yours is your own choice. I can not make your choices for you AND I HAVE NO DESIRE TO MAKE THEM FOR YOU. Therefore I expect you to have no desire to make mine for me. In other words, I ask you not to demean "people of faith" because your frame of reference can not encompass theirs. As an aside, an apology is in order for the name calling.

Basically I see it thus:

1) Science depends upon a calculus which requires the existance of time and therefore can only define our understand of things temporal.

2) Science depends upon measurements and observations made within a temporal reference and therefore can not describe or define things which exist (or do not exist for that matter) outside of the temporal reference framework.

3) The existance or non-existance of God will never be proven by science.

4) Evolution being nothing more (or less) than a small backwater branch of science (at best) will never be more than a tool to describe something which happened. Evolution is not embued with any real intrinsic value, for example, in defining why it is "good for people to treat each other as they wish to be treated."

5) It did not take a genius to develop the "Theory of evolution". Neiter does it take a genius to subscribe to it.

6) In NO way can evolution prove or disprove much of anything about God. It may (or may not) describe what he did. It will never do much more than that.

7) Evolution IS NOT a hard science, by that I mean a science which CAN be backed by that very same calculus which only describes things within the temporal reference frame. It is important that you realize this. Your belief in evolution is a FAITH for the simple reason that evolution is a theory. That is true because it is virtually impossible to prove that evolution is the CAUSAL agent that produced life as we know it today. Yes we can show that evolution is a functional theory but we can not show beyond a shadow of doubt that evolution is how we came to exist.

The bottom line, as this fool sees it? You are as big a "thumper" as I am.

On to other illogic, humanity has a few credits which seem worth mentioning to those of you who feel we are an arrogant species unworthy of standing on the top of the dung heap of life; Shakespear, Gandi, Homer, Euclid, Einstein, Paul the Apostle, da'Vinci, Florence Nightengale, Madam Curie, good Lord the list is long... so very, very long.

I'll tell you what. When a whale figures out how to put a whale on the moon, I will for sure be impressed, until that happens, please do a reality check.

Now I expect the next thing will be a long whine about how we are destroying our environment, I will nod in agreement. I will sigh with you and wish it weren't so. Tonight I will have my steak, I will take off my leather shoes and watch my television. I will sleep under my electric blanket. In the morning I will eat my eggs and burn a gallon of fuel it took a very long time to produce. The hydrocarbons that produces will pollute the air I breath and ever so slightly enlarge the hole in the ozone over Peru. I will go through my day typing on a plastic keyboard that will never "bio" degrade. When I get home I will not even spend a moment thinking about any of it BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TODAY.

Well, I think I'll go clean my guns and spend the rest of the evening reflecting on how great it is to have evolved into the most dangerous creature on the planet.

:)

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


It appears that I misjudged. There was no "long and poorly reasoned argument about how STUPID I am.". That is nice, as I always hate hearing the truth.

I am not a "Thumper" as you have so put it. But we wander off into abstract points such as time before time, so...

I am a scientist, Computer Scientist to be precise. I am also a believer. I do not try to make anyone believe what I believe. I do care, and will discuss my "Lord" with anyone interested. I will not try to persuade as that is not my tasking.

From the perspective of faith, in particular mine; "In the beginning was God...", after much thought and "faith" has come (to me) to mean;

1) God exists outside of our temporal reference because he already "was" in the beginning.

2) Nothing else is mentioned in a significant manner therefore I assume (the operative word assume) there was nothing else.

Now Flint just be patient, I am going somewhere with this. Since "Science" seems unable to define anything before time, I obviously speak of something which MUST be accepted upon faith (science can not address it). Such is MY faith, yours is your own choice. I can not make your choices for you AND I HAVE NO DESIRE TO MAKE THEM FOR YOU. Therefore I expect you to have no desire to make mine for me. In other words, I ask you not to demean "people of faith" because your frame of reference can not encompass theirs. As an aside, an apology is in order for the name calling.

Basically I see it thus:

1) Science depends upon a calculus which requires the existance of time and therefore can only define our understand of things temporal.

2) Science depends upon measurements and observations made within a temporal reference and therefore can not describe or define things which exist (or do not exist for that matter) outside of the temporal reference framework.

3) The existance or non-existance of God will never be proven by science.

4) Evolution being nothing more (or less) than a small backwater branch of science (at best) will never be more than a tool to describe something which happened. Evolution is not embued with any real intrinsic value, for example, in defining why it is "good for people to treat each other as they wish to be treated."

5) It did not take a genius to develop the "Theory of evolution". Neiter does it take a genius to subscribe to it.

6) In NO way can evolution prove or disprove much of anything about God. It may (or may not) describe what he did. It will never do much more than that.

7) Evolution IS NOT a hard science, by that I mean a science which CAN be backed by that very same calculus which only describes things within the temporal reference frame. It is important that you realize this. Your belief in evolution is a FAITH for the simple reason that evolution is a theory. That is true because it is virtually impossible to prove that evolution is the CAUSAL agent that produced life as we know it today. Yes we can show that evolution is a functional theory but we can not show beyond a shadow of doubt that evolution is how we came to exist.

The bottom line, as this fool sees it? You are as big a "thumper" as I am.

On to other illogic, humanity has a few credits which seem worth mentioning to those of you who feel we are an arrogant species unworthy of standing on the top of the dung heap of life; Shakespear, Gandi, Homer, Euclid, Einstein, Paul the Apostle, da'Vinci, Florence Nightengale, Madam Curie, good Lord the list is long... so very, very long.

I'll tell you what. When a whale figures out how to put a whale on the moon, I will for sure be impressed, until that happens, please do a reality check.

Now I expect the next thing will be a long whine about how we are destroying our environment, I will nod in agreement. I will sigh with you and wish it weren't so. Tonight I will have my steak, I will take off my leather shoes and watch my television. I will sleep under my electric blanket. In the morning I will eat my eggs and burn a gallon of fuel it took a very long time to produce. The hydrocarbons that produces will pollute the air I breath and ever so slightly enlarge the hole in the ozone over Peru. I will go through my day typing on a plastic keyboard that will never "bio" degrade. When I get home I will not even spend a moment thinking about any of it BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TODAY.

Well, I think I'll go clean my guns and spend the rest of the evening reflecting on how great it is to have evolved into the most dangerous creature on the planet.

:)

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


It appears that I misjudged. There was no "long and poorly reasoned argument about how STUPID I am.". That is nice, as I always hate hearing the truth.

I am not a "Thumper" as you have so put it. But we wander off into abstract points such as time before time, so...

I am a scientist, Computer Scientist to be precise. I am also a believer. I do not try to make anyone believe what I believe. I do care, and will discuss my "Lord" with anyone interested. I will not try to persuade as that is not my tasking.

From the perspective of faith, in particular mine; "In the beginning was God...", after much thought and "faith" has come (to me) to mean;

1) God exists outside of our temporal reference because he already "was" in the beginning.

2) Nothing else is mentioned in a significant manner therefore I assume (the operative word assume) there was nothing else.

Now Flint just be patient, I am going somewhere with this. Since "Science" seems unable to define anything before time, I obviously speak of something which MUST be accepted upon faith (science can not address it). Such is MY faith, yours is your own choice. I can not make your choices for you AND I HAVE NO DESIRE TO MAKE THEM FOR YOU. Therefore I expect you to have no desire to make mine for me. In other words, I ask you not to demean "people of faith" because your frame of reference can not encompass theirs. As an aside, an apology is in order for the name calling.

Basically I see it thus:

1) Science depends upon a calculus which requires the existance of time and therefore can only define our understand of things temporal.

2) Science depends upon measurements and observations made within a temporal reference and therefore can not describe or define things which exist (or do not exist for that matter) outside of the temporal reference framework.

3) The existance or non-existance of God will never be proven by science.

4) Evolution being nothing more (or less) than a small backwater branch of science (at best) will never be more than a tool to describe something which happened. Evolution is not embued with any real intrinsic value, for example, in defining why it is "good for people to treat each other as they wish to be treated."

5) It did not take a genius to develop the "Theory of evolution". Neiter does it take a genius to subscribe to it.

6) In NO way can evolution prove or disprove much of anything about God. It may (or may not) describe what he did. It will never do much more than that.

7) Evolution IS NOT a hard science, by that I mean a science which CAN be backed by that very same calculus which only describes things within the temporal reference frame. It is important that you realize this. Your belief in evolution is a FAITH for the simple reason that evolution is a theory. That is true because it is virtually impossible to prove that evolution is the CAUSAL agent that produced life as we know it today. Yes we can show that evolution is a functional theory but we can not show beyond a shadow of doubt that evolution is how we came to exist.

The bottom line, as this fool sees it? You are as big a "thumper" as I am.

On to other illogic, humanity has a few credits which seem worth mentioning to those of you who feel we are an arrogant species unworthy of standing on the top of the dung heap of life; Shakespear, Gandi, Homer, Euclid, Einstein, Paul the Apostle, da'Vinci, Florence Nightengale, Madam Curie, good Lord the list is long... so very, very long.

I'll tell you what. When a whale figures out how to put a whale on the moon, I will for sure be impressed, until that happens, please do a reality check.

Now I expect the next thing will be a long whine about how we are destroying our environment, I will nod in agreement. I will sigh with you and wish it weren't so. Tonight I will have my steak, I will take off my leather shoes and watch my television. I will sleep under my electric blanket. In the morning I will eat my eggs and burn a gallon of fuel it took a very long time to produce. The hydrocarbons that produces will pollute the air I breath and ever so slightly enlarge the hole in the ozone over Peru. I will go through my day typing on a plastic keyboard that will never "bio" degrade. When I get home I will not even spend a moment thinking about any of it BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TODAY.

Well, I think I'll go clean my guns and spend the rest of the evening reflecting on how great it is to have evolved into the most dangerous creature on the planet.

:)

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 18, 1999.


IMHO, if the disputes regarding the belief systems colloquially called evolution, not to be confused with other phenomena also called evolution, could be settled in a venue such as this, they would have been settled long ago.

Such "hard" sciences as physics and chemistry have, over many years, developed a track record of accomplishments that brought about great respect for "science". Practitioners of some other fields of study which use, and/or mimic, a subset of the methods of the hard sciences would like to share in such respect even though their methods are not as conclusive. Proponents of some inconclusive notions of some such fields of study may hope to "coattail" on the respect earned by the hard sciences by, among other things, suggesting superficial analogies such as: "Similarly, evolution (like gravity) is a fact."

BTW, Flint, nowhere in my studies of physics have I seen any report of anyone having observed gravity. Hmmmm. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), October 18, 1999.


Ahwwww Man! Flint! HaaaHaaaa

I get what you were trying to tell every one... You where tellng them that you have gotten you optic nerve crossed with you rectum nerve, giving you a CRAPPY (the word really begins with an S) out look on life...!!!!! But we all knew that already Flint!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), October 18, 1999.


My friends suggested I look at this site and I read all this with great interest and much laughter. I don't have anything to add except that I, for one, am glad I'm at the top of the food chain. You guys are really funny. By the way, I'm quite proud to be a "far right, radical, tongue-talking, bible-thumping woman-of-God!!!" That's God --- with a capital G. Ha! As if you can proove eveloution. Ha.

Later, Becky

-- Becky Martinovich (dannbecky@integrityonline.com), October 19, 1999.


Michael:

I think if I repspond to your points individually, you'll have a better idea of my position.

1) I'm not sure I follow this one. In most respects, we observe that time passes. Some mathmatical treatments don't require or involve time, but subjects of investigation involving causality (the large majority) imply the passage of time. Some relationships (you being your parents' son, for example) don't involve time directly, but they exist.

2) I don't know what to say about this one, really. Of course our observations are made in a temporal reference. Science is a process of making and explaining observations. What cannot be observed in principle falls outside the purview of science.

3) Absolutely correct, I agree. The existence of God is not properly susceptible to scientific investigation.

4) Agreed, evolutionary theory is only one branch of science. There is no branch of science properly concerned with the observation or measurement of morality. Morality falls within the purview of religion and not science. And in my opinion, religion is a necessary requirement for this purpose.

5) I don't see the relevance here. "Genius" is a loaded word. It took people with knowledge, intelligence and vision to formulate our various integrations of the facts of evolution. You could equally claim that Einstein wasn't a genius because time and gravity are obvious to everyone.

6) I agree. Whether or not you view the mechanics of evolution as one of the works of God, science is concerned with understanding exactly what those mechanics are as well as possible. The question of WHY they are that way isn't really a scientific issue, at the highest level.

7) This one is hard to parse! Evolution, like astronomy, is an observational discipline, not an experimental one (except for things like selective breeding and gene splicing). Without question our observations tell us that life forms have changed over time. Again, evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the mechanisms that cause this. Belief applies here only tangentially. I accept the observations, and I don't believe that those making them were somehow implicitly conspiring in some "monstrous lie". I understand that explaining them is not easy, and over time our theories improve as we learn more.

But this is true of ANY branch of science. Even the "hardest" scientific fields are constantly undergoing investigation and their various theories are changing (hopefully improving!).

We postulate that there IS one or more causal agents involved in the diversification of life forms over time. And IF there are such agents, we try to understand what they may be. Like ANY scientific discipline, NOTHING is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a scientific principle. You can regard science as the organized process of deliberately doubting. This is the essence of science, that there must ALWAYS be doubt. ANY scientific theory must in principle be subject to replacement or improvement, otherwise it's not science anymore.

So let me summarize a bit here. I do not see any conflict between religion and science. Science is concerned with the mechanics of how things work, in as much detail as we can reach. Science does NOT properly address morality, or proper behavior. It concerns itself with true and false, but NOT with right and wrong. Science does not concern itself with what existed before the universe, or what happens to us after death, or the nature of our souls. These are all very important subjects, but science makes no claim to being the proper tool to address them.

Evolutionary theory has become controversial (while gravitational theory has not), because of what I regard as an allegorical tale written in the Bible. There is a sizeable chunk of the population for whom the Bible is their holy book, who choose to interpret that tale literally. When they do so, it appears to contradict an immense body of observations and a 150 year old effort to explain those observations. This subpopulation would prefer to discard all of these observations and explanatory efforts, *rather than* change their interpretation of that biblical tale. And this leads to conflict.

IMO, just as there are subjects properly part of religion and to which science does not apply, just so there are subjects properly within the scope of science and not religion. Science cannot investigate morality and should not try. Religion should not provide guidance about what can be observed and measured in the physical and temporal world, and should not try. I regard attempts by religion to step over the line and attempt to inhibit knowledge and understanding in a properly scientific discipline to be out of bounds.

So I regard religion as necessary and important to address issues appropriate to religion. Evolution is not properly one of them.

Footnote: To me, "thumpers" are those who insist on simple, absolute answers. It should be clear from my many posts that I don't share this preference.



-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.


An interesting book review by Richard Dawkins, on science and religion: Snake Oil and Holy Water Forbes Magazine, 4 October 1999

-- Satan himself (devil@incarnate.com), October 19, 1999.

Flint; I see that you are an articulate and intelligent individual. I am impressed with your clear understanding of the roles of science and religion.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position in such a clear and detailed fashion.

I take issue only with a few minor points you make and will not lengthen this thread with those.

There is only one point I want to make. I take upon faith the idea that where science and our interpretation of the Bible divulge are simply places where our understanding of the observed data (in the case of science) or our understanding of the interpretation (in the case of Scripture) are incorrect in one or the other case. In other words as a Christian, I long ago learned that there are no perfect people, no perfect interpretors and no perfect observations.

I take on faith the idea that one day all of these issues will be resolved and we will all see clearly, as opposed to, 'as through a glass darkly'. I am a man who has for many years worked at my understanding of God in the same manner that I have worked at my understanding of systems. I have discovered that systems are much easier to understand than God.

You are a gentleman. Thank you for taking the time to make me think a bit more.

Good day. The tax man calls for my paperwork... He will not be denied. -m-

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 20, 1999.


Satan himself wrote:

An interesting book review by Richard Dawkins, on science and religion: Snake Oil and Holy Water Forbes Magazine, 4 October 1999

Thanks for that link...

One paragraph particularly stood out for me:

...At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Amen to that! ;-)

-- Fascinating Thread (wow@xxx.xxx), October 20, 1999.


More heresies (from another "Marxist Dupe"):

Did a historical Jesus exist?

Problems with Creationism

A short history of the Bible

Thomas Jefferson on Christianity & Religion

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion

History to consider

-- Fascinating Thread (wow@xxx.xxx), October 20, 1999.


Flint,

Your statement about gravity, i.e. "We observe it", suggests either a misstatement of what you have in mind, or a misunderstanding of gravity and its relationship to that which we do observe, or a new perception of gravity that has not yet percolated through the scientific community. Perhaps you would clear up the picture for us.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), October 20, 1999.


Jerry:

I'm uncertain what question you are asking here. If you know something I don't, I'd be delighted to learn. I'm always interested.

I concede that if you wish to get very technical, you could say that we have coined the term 'gravity' as a shortcut to describe a constellation of observed phenomena which so far appear closely enough related to justify the coining of the term. The precise mechanism for these phenomena is a long way from being understood.

However, this same objection could be made to a very large number of terms for which there is a common understanding. And to be sure, we must beware of reification -- the belief that a 'thing' has an objective existence simply because we have a name for it. While it's true that everything that exists can be measured (in principle), it's not the case that everything that can be measured must exist. So we should be cautious that any observed phenomenon may be an artifact of our measurement devices and techniques of observation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 1999.


Flint,

Your reply suggests that you would, for example, interpret the analytical efforts of Newton with respect to gravity as consisting merely of "coining of the term" for what had already been "observed".

Your reply also suggests that you may have a concept of "observation" that includes analytical work which, for example, researchers in the hard sciences would distinguish from observation.

Thanks for your reply.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), October 20, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ