Evolution

[JuniperWoolf]

I'll ask then; if creationism, abiogenesis and aliens are all false, what other option is there.

That's just it, we don't know. Whatever the answer is, we haven’t even got the slightest grasp. That would be like Aristotle just randomly guessing the periodic table, except that the events which led to the creation of life and the universe would probably be 1000000000x more complex than that.

You seem to seek "evidence", yet since abiogenesis occurred some ~4 billion years ago, we can't even replicate the world of that time aside from some very broad known data. The only evidence available will be if some scientist creates life, and even then, that would be no proof that it's how life began.

This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, except that you're wrong in believing that I'm seeking "evidence." It's exactly the opposite. I realize the futility of trying to discover how life and the universe came into existence. It's not going to happen. You described it perfectly when you said that this would be like asking a caveman to build the Hoover Dam. We don't have the knowledge, or the tools. We're wasting our time. When it comes to questions such as "how did life begin?" and "how was the universe created?" I have as much respect for religious hypotheses as I do for scientific ones: both are equally plausible, because both are not plausible at all. Neither is in any way superior to the other. Therefore, debate is pointless. As I've said before:

The whole "Creationism VS. Evolution" debate is silly, because evolution isn't a foil of creationism. Evolution doesn't even disprove religion, it just disproves the Christian creation myth that everything was made as-is. Evolution and intelligent design could co-exist.

[Nick Capozzoli]

This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, except that you're wrong in believing that I'm seeking "evidence." It's exactly the opposite. I realize the futility of trying to discover how life and the universe came into existence. It's not going to happen.... We're wasting our time. When it comes to questions such as "how did life begin?" and "how was the universe created?" I have as much respect for religious hypotheses as I do for scientific ones: both are equally plausible, because both are not plausible at all. Neither is in any way superior to the other. Therefore, debate is pointless. As I've said before:

How can you be sure that we will never be able to understand how life began (from non-living matter)? Certainly the question of how the universe began (or "was created") is even more difficult, but can you prove that these things are unknowable? And even if they are unknowable as you assume, why is the pursuit "wasting our time?" It was this pursuit of understanding that led to us being able to build Hoover Dam (your example of something beyond the ability of our ancestors), along with a whole lot of other modern marvels.

And there is a difference between religious and scientific understanding of the world. Both views depend on reason and even faith. The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc). The faith part of
religion is bigger than that of science, but there is also a qualitative difference. Science allows for experiment, which is the testing of scientific explanations of the world, which allows scientists to judge the validity of their understanding (i.e., reasoning of how things came to be and work.

It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.

Aquinas and Aristotle employed reason in their arguments. Neither were
scientists. They could be called philosophers or religionists. They employed plausible and convincing arguments to explain many things, but their explanations ultimately failed to conform to scientific reality.

Today we think of science as mathematical. Certainly mathematical reasoning is a powerful tool in understanding the behavior of the universe. But mathematics is just a form of reason. It reflects the way our minds work, and may or may not reflect the way the universe works. We can never be sure that the universe follows the patterns of our reason, but a scientist accepts that we can ask questions and perform experiments to see if the universe seems to follow the patterns of our reasoning.

Pythagoras was a great mathematician, his mathematical genius advanced science, but he was not an honest scientist (or even mathematician), if the story about his followers drowning a disciple who proved the existence of irrational numbers is true. Aristosthenes, who may have been a lesser mathematical genius than Pythagoras or Euclid was a far better scientist. He used geometry to measure the circumference of a spherical earth, and his calculation was quite accurate.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Aristosthenes...

Sorry, I mis-spelled it: Eratosthenes.

[Babbalanja]

The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc).

It's embarrassing to see such equivocation on the word faith. If you consider the assumptions of empirical inquiry exactly the same as the credulity that feeds religious belief, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more.

It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.

Religion only employs reason to formulate rational-sounding excuses for beliefs that weren't arrived at through reason.

Regards,

Istvan

[Gladys]

Religion only employs reason to formulate rational-sounding excuses for beliefs that weren't arrived at through reason.

Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?

[Dori]

how come the dominant ones haven't killed out the submissive ones? Why can some people murder without a second thought and others not be able to kill a fly?

I read this post, and while andave_ya has seemingly left the discussion, I still feel I should address this. There are several factors that influence aggression--neurobiology, hormones, environmental factors, etc. Take the case of Charles Whitman, a mass-murderer of the 1960s. After killing several people, he off-ed himself; the autopsy revealed a tumor in his amygdala. What do scientists gather from this? Maybe the amygdala has something to do with aggression...
(There's more proof behind that, by the way)

Whether you're evolutionist or creationist, everyone should be REQUIRED to learn a thing or two about the biology of human behavior. It certainly cleared a few things up for me.

[The Atheist]

Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?

Feelings are just as material as rocks.

[Babbalanja]

Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?

I have very strong feelings about my family, music, literature, and many other things. However, when we're talking about explanations for natural phenomena like species diversity, it's true, feelings count for nothing.

Regards,

Istvan

[Nick Capozzoli]

It's embarrassing to see such equivocation on the word faith. If you consider the assumptions of empirical inquiry exactly the same as the credulity that feeds religious belief, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more.

I wasn't equivocating and my comments about faith, reason, and experiment in religion and science were reasonable. Your response doesn't address the points I made. Please read my comments and tell me where you think they are wrong.

[blazeofglory]

How can you be sure that we will never be able to understand how life began (from non-living matter)? Certainly the question of how the universe began (or "was created") is even more difficult, but can you prove that these things are unknowable? And even if they are unknowable as you assume, why is the pursuit "wasting our time?" It was this pursuit of understanding that led to us being able to build Hoover Dam (your example of something beyond the ability of our ancestors), along with a whole lot of other modern marvels.

And there is a difference between religious and scientific understanding of the world. Both views depend on reason and even faith. The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc). The faith part of
religion is bigger than that of science, but there is also a qualitative difference. Science allows for experiment, which is the testing of scientific explanations of the world, which allows scientists to judge the validity of their understanding (i.e., reasoning of how things came to be and work.

It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.

Aquinas and Aristotle employed reason in their arguments. Neither were
scientists. They could be called philosophers or religionists. They employed plausible and convincing arguments to explain many things, but their explanations ultimately failed to conform to scientific reality.

Today we think of science as mathematical. Certainly mathematical reasoning is a powerful tool in understanding the behavior of the universe. But mathematics is just a form of reason. It reflects the way our minds work, and may or may not reflect the way the universe works. We can never be sure that the universe follows the patterns of our reason, but a scientist accepts that we can ask questions and perform experiments to see if the universe seems to follow the patterns of our reasoning.

Pythagoras was a great mathematician, his mathematical genius advanced science, but he was not an honest scientist (or even mathematician), if the story about his followers drowning a disciple who proved the existence of irrational numbers is true. Aristosthenes, who may have been a lesser mathematical genius than Pythagoras or Euclid was a far better scientist. He used geometry to measure the circumference of a spherical earth, and his calculation was quite accurate.

You are right to a considerable point and not after that. For what we know thru science today is phenomena on a micro level and beyond that the universe remains a mystery. This length and breadth of this cosmos is immeasurable and what time is something indefinable and we have no instruments to gauge all this. There are zillions of galaxies and all with uncountable numbers of stars.

Of course we keep on exploring into the depths of the cosmos and will indeed do something more than what today we have like the Internet, Cellphones and the likes of them.

I of course science thru ages have done something our ancestors could not dream of even and which could not come to their wildest imaginations. But all this does not indicate the world can be fully explored. The deeper the explorations will go the vaster the cosmos may appear to us and we kind of will completely remain in the same state of unknowability or mystery as we are now even after a thousand years.

If think science can explore the fathoms or the mystery of the universe and I may think science cannot and this debate will go eternally and there is no midpoint at which we can meet and agree.

[Babbalanja]

I wasn't equivocating and my comments about faith, reason, and experiment in religion and science were reasonable. Your response doesn't address the points I made. Please read my comments and tell me where you think they are wrong.

Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

I have very strong feelings about my family, music, literature, and many other things. However, when we're talking about explanations for natural phenomena like species diversity, it's true, feelings count for nothing.

If you believe that, then you have a very limited grasp of biology. Emotion has nothing to do with species diversity? I don't mean to be rude, but that's very silly. EVERYTHING relating to life is the result of natural selection. Both emotion and species diversity are obvious examples. Natural selection acting on emotion leads to species diversity, allowing complex organisms to even exist in the first place. "Feelings count for nothing?" That's a laugh. Without emotion (fear to remind us to flee from predators, happiness to tell us that something is good for us, sexual desire to incite procreation, etc.) there would be no complex organisms, and therefore very little species diversity. Feelings are really ALL that matter. Feelings are what drive the scientist to ask questions in the first place. They're also what get us out of bed in the morning.

This is just my opinion, but you seem to be ignorantly biased against anything that you percieve as "non-scientific." You might want to try to get over that. This same stupid mindset drove the eugenicists, and also the behaviorists. Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).

[billl]

Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.

Regards,

Istvan

I don't think Nick needs the help, but:

self-defeating?

The word "faith" would probably appear as a great insult if a combative approach were one's main habit in these matters, but that is by no means the only reasonable perspective from which to see the word, or approach the discussion. I think someone interested in promoting the scientific perspective might arguably be considered appropriately forthcoming if they went ahead and used the word "faith" in reference to the smidgen of uncertainty that we naturally overcome, when availing ourselves of both common sense and the scientific method. After all, it is something (whatever you call it) that a Creationist, et al. is likely to point to--and getting defensive about terminology looks like weakness. Why not spend one's energy explaining the difference between science and Creationism while addressing this supposed stumbling-block (in the minds of the religious-minded), instead of pointing at honest and respectful discourse as if it were some rhetorical gaffe that might cost us the game?

I don't want to overstate the case--no doubt, some religious arguers are equally combative, and might reflexively equate the common sense "faith" in how gravity makes the dropped apple fall every time, with the faith in an untestable and contradiction-riddled story from millenia ago. But talking around the issue, or instead using some word like "assumption" is no way to win the point.

[Babbalanja]

"Feelings count for nothing?" That's a laugh. Without emotion (fear to remind us to flee from predators, happiness to tell us that something is good for us, sexual desire to incite procreation, etc.) there would be no complex organisms, and therefore very little species diversity. Feelings are really ALL that matter. Feelings are what drive the scientist to ask questions in the first place. They're also what get us out of bed in the morning.

Straw man alert!

This is a completely different point than the one I was disputing. I never said that the emotions of modern humans don't derive from our evolutionary heritage. Of course they do. And everyone has feelings, as I said: we feel strongly about our families and the subjects that inspire us.

What I was saying is that how we feel about explanations for natural phenomena is totally irrelevant. Does the heliocentric theory of the structure of our solar system seem to de-emphasize our importance in the universe, by reducing Earth to a watery rock orbiting the Sun? Too bad. Does evolution by natural selection downgrade the importance of Homo Sap by making him a late arrival to the scene, just another fortuitous accident in the scheme of things? That's too bad too.

These theories are well supported by evidence, and how we feel about them is of no consequence.

This is just my opinion, but you seem to be ignorantly biased against anything that you percieve as "non-scientific." You might want to try to get over that. This same stupid mindset drove the eugenicists, and also the behaviorists. Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).

Since you called me ignorant, closed-minded, and a crypto-Nazi here, I feel justified in saying that you could use a more thorough education in the history and philosophy of science. You might benefit from actually understanding the basis of empirical evidential inquiry instead of just winging it.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Atheist]

Just a quick note.

This is a thread about evolution, a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it, so let's keep our own emotions in check.