Religion, Evolution, and stupid Republicans

[Throckmorton]

they set up morals based upon man making the most out of his life. No Gods helping.

Some of the great Greek philosophers credited gods/religion with being responsible for morals. Some Greek philosophers got in trouble for leaving gods out of their reasoning.

Look what happened the last time people put Gods as the establishers of morals.

Sectarian slaughter was what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Using ancient Near Eastern barbaric laws (The Koran and the OT) is a recipe for repression.

It aptly describes the way he depicts our nation though.

He's one of many on the right who think that everybody who disagrees with him is an enemy of the State. It's odd how the right wingnuts worship Reagan who was guilty of Treason (selling arms to enemies is treason as defined by the Constitution). The right doesn't seem to believe in personal accountability on the part of those they agree with.

 

[JohnGalt]

Okay, yes gods helped in Greek society. However, it was minimal, and it waned off the farther the Greek civilization got. The older the Greece civilization, the more the gods took part. Eventually, they were more or less "just there", maybe desiring some worship.

 

[Silas]

okrinus, there is no difference between the certainty of evolution and the certainty of any other well-attested scientific fact, the consequences of which we live with every single day of our lives.

Take the atomic theory. It is well known that all matter is made up of atoms, each of which consists of a fixed number of protons determining the element, with a number of neutrons which help maintain stability, but where different numbers of neutrons create different isotopes of the same element with varying levels of stability. To provide eletrical neutrality this nucleus is surrounded by orbiting electrons in varying numbers of shells, which electon shells provide the chemical characteristics of each element.

How certain are we of this atomic theory? Have we ever seen an atom? Have we observed the electrons in orbit? Subsequent theory has shown that in fact it is impossible even to do so. But the "circumstantial evidence" from which the atomic theory has been derived is unimpeachable. And the theory works because it made predictions of subatomic particle behaviour which was subsequently shown to match experimental evidence. So the theory fits the facts, and then subsequent facts you find out confirm the confidence in the theory.

When Darwin propounded the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, he didn't know about genetics. Among the objections he himself raised against his own theory was that even he could not see how inherited effects would not be "diluted" as the blood got mixed down the generations. Gregor Mendel's experiments with peas, however, later showed that genetic inheritance is digital - that is that genetic information comes in chunks which are preserved whole in the next generation, or not at all. The genetic information is not mixed together like paints, but more like lego bricks, where each brick has a 50/50 chance of being duplicated in the next generation. So the theory of evolution propounded by Darwin was not dismissed by the next level of scientific knowledge, but enhanced by it.

In the same way, okrinus, you have stated that there is nothing in evolution theory that confirms the existence of creatures for thousands, if not millions, of years. But evolution theory derived from examination of fossils which show the development of species across measurable time frames in geological strata. It is the consideration of the development of life across millennia and thousands of millennia that gave us the clues of what to look for in virus mutations a century and a half after the theory was developed. The theory depends on that early work relying on fossil evidence as much as it does indirect observation of viruses today. And if no theory of evolution had arisen in previous times, but was deduced from watching viruses, in the best traditions of science it would be seen as retrospecitvely applying to the development of early life, seeing as it fits it so perfectly.

 

[JohnGalt]

Also, to say more about Silas's last paragraph. It does not necessarily take millions of years for evolution, more, millions of generations. That's why we can see new strains of bacteria emerging very often. They are merely evolved, more competent forms of previous bacteria that were almost killed off by antibiotics. Those that are left, are resistant, and eventually, if enough resistances develop, it can become an entirely different bacteria, or a significantly "better" one. That is evolution, on a smaller, much more noticeable scale. But, it is still proven as you look millions of years back at other animals(such as the evolution of the horse or camel), and at humans.

 

[Silas]

The point about extending back millions of years, is of course to emphasise that scientific evidence conclusively denies the Genesis account of a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[Throckmorton]

Eventually, they were more or less "just there", maybe desiring some worship.

From what I understand the Greek philosophers tended to give a "nod to the gods" but they tended to base their morality on reason.

It's odd that at one time philosophers were considered too secular by Greek fundamentalists. What's odd about that is that those who considered them too secular were Dionysis worshipers. This meant that it was the fundamentalists who insisted on drunken orgies while the philosophers recomended austerity.

 

[JohnGalt]

Dionysis. Was it Kant or Marx that had the analogy, between Apollo and Dionysis? The whole theme was that Dionysis was better, emotion should rule, reason is unnecessary.

You have a point. That was Dionysis-The God of drunken orgies/emotion. Of course it would be his followers that would find any way to bash the reason of most of the philosophers.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's odd to think of fundamentalists insisting that god's purpose for us is to drink wine and fornicate in groups......"Not that there's anything wrong with it".

 

[okinrus]

Religious rights? WE ARE STUDENTS(we have rights?)!! Also. Religious rights? It violates our rights to teach us evolution? It violates our rights to teach us FACT over FICTION?

I didn't say teaching evolution violates a student's rights. If a teacher forced a student to believe in evolution, then I'd believe that does violate a student's right. But if a teacher appropriately asks questions where the expectation is not whether the answer cooresponds to fact but to the theory, then students rights aren't violated. Of coures, I don't have a problem if a teacher believes evolution is a fact and says so. But it's not. To force students to believe it's a fact, breaches their religious rights.

The question of schools isn't about our rights being violated, it's about whether they teach us the truth or not.

The truth? Are you saying evolution has 100% proof? If it doesn't, then why should teachers teach evolution as if it does have 100% proof.

It may violate someones religious right for them to teach that you don't get sent to jail(in social studies/law class)for having sex before you get married.

To some degree definitions of what is religion are decided by society. How mankind was created is considered by many people a religious question.

It's not about rights, it's about facts. You can't bend reason/nature/logic to fit the dominant religious views.

I'm not following you here. When people decide the origins of how mankind was created, they bring a series of premises. Some of them will decide mankind was created by evolution, because they assume, in this situation, that the natural is more likely than the supernatural. Others will bring a literal interpretation of the Bible, and will decidely believe evolution never happened, likely assuming some supernatural explanation for the fossils. Both are logically consistent when the premises are made clear.

From what I understand the Greek philosophers tended to give a "nod to the gods" but they tended to base their morality on reason.

Throckmorton, many of their gods were unethical.

What's odd about that is that those who considered them too secular were Dionysis worshipers. This meant that it was the fundamentalists who insisted on drunken orgies while the philosophers recomended austerity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too secular".

okrinus, there is no difference between the certainty of evolution and the certainty of any other well-attested scientific fact, the consequences of which we live with every single day of our lives.

Silas, evolution is different because, for some creationists, it's a reliigous belief.

How certain are we of this atomic theory? Have we ever seen an atom? Have we observed the electrons in orbit? Subsequent theory has shown that in fact it is impossible even to do so. But the "circumstantial evidence" from which the atomic theory has been derived is unimpeachable.

Again, like evolution, your logical reasoning here is based upon a number of premises.

 

[§outh§tar]

To force students to believe it's a fact, breaches their religious rights.

Is it a breach of student's rights to insist that pi is not a rational number (as calculations in the Bible imply)?

 

[okinrus]

Is it a breach of student's rights to insist that pi is not a rational number (as calculations in the Bible imply)?

Any form of ancient construction would involve estimates. The ancient Isrealites couldn't have create perfectly round circle.

 

[§outh§tar]

Any form of ancient construction would involve estimates. The ancient Isrealites couldn't have create perfectly round circle.

That's fine and dandy, but would it be a breach of students rights?

***

Secondly, if a Geology teacher insisted the earth was not flat (as the Bible implies), would that too be a breach of rights?

 

[JohnGalt]

Ohh man.

Evolution is very well backed. Sure, it has some points that need more evidence, but so does the bible.

To teach creationism alongside evolution is an insult. Sure, if you were to depict the way the ENTIRE universe BEGAN, creationism may be necessary. However, with the issue of humans, and our Earth in recent years(as in, several million, but not quite a few billion), creationism falls short. Student's aren't asked there opinions on pi, pythagorean theorem, or atoms. Yet, we ask for it on evolution, letting them decide which to follow.

You had one fatal statement, which brought the whole thing down on your head(to me). You said(and I quote)"Some of them will decide mankind was created by evolution, because they assume, in this situation, that the natural is more likely than the supernatural'. But, of course it is, there is no rational basis for the supernatural(if there is a supernatural)in this instance.

 

[okinrus]

That's fine and dandy, but would it be a breach of students rights?

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.

Secondly, if a Geology teacher insisted the earth was not flat (as the Bible implies), would that too be a breach of rights?

The Bible doesn't imply the earth is flat. What the Bible does is use terminology. Much like we say the sun rises and sets, the Bible can use the same terminology. It doesn't mean the sun literally rises and sets, but that the sun rises and sets according to our perspective. Again, whether the earth is flat or not isn't a religious question.

Student's aren't asked there opinions on pi, pythagorean theorem, or atoms. Yet, we ask for it on evolution, letting them decide which to follow.

John Galt, it's a matter of what's practical. A student is likely to find pythagorean theorem practically useful, but teaching the theory without the proof and restrictions is useless, I think. With atoms and evolution, you'll never have a mathematical proof; so why not teach students about the evidence, leaving them to decide whether it's true or not? Why would a teacher teach evolution as fact when it's just a theory based upon evidence?

 

[Silas]

As I have said time and time again, okrinus, they teach evolution because knowledge of evolution is crucial and essential to understanding the world today, the world in which we are trying to eliminate cancer and feed the world using our knowledge of evolutionary genetics.

Teachers teach evolution as fact because it's as much fact as what happens when you switch lights on. They teach the atomic theory which explains why the light bulb reacts in the way that it does, and why the computer you are using to read this works the way that it does. But the atomic theory is no more (nor less) 100% certain than the theory of evolution.

Teachers teach evolution for the same reason they teach the atomic theory and indeed any scientific fact. Because it is by educating the young in all aspects of scientific knowledge that a nation's economic future is secured. The United States of America (the only Western democracy where this is even an issue) is being rather short sighted if it does not recognise this importance, since it is America which is most intent on pursuing healthcare in all its forms, which spends the most money on it, and has the most to lose by not using the right sort of education.

 

[§outh§tar]

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.

It's almost quite amusing how you refuse to simply answer either this or the next question. If you indeed have some authority to speak for the 'majority', then I would like to see some substantiation of that claim. Just where did you hear that 'consensus' from the 'majority' of fundamentalists?

It really would be simple if you would just answer.

The Bible doesn't imply the earth is flat. What the Bible does is use terminology. Much like we say the sun rises and sets, the Bible can use the same terminology. It doesn't mean the sun literally rises and sets, but that the sun rises and sets according to our perspective. Again, whether the earth is flat or not isn't a religious question.

I implore you to show me the context of any verse related to 'flat earth' which indicates that the Biblical writer means to use 'the same terminology' "much like we say the sun rises and sets." I have found no such indication in the Bible and if you are unable to provide any textual substantiation, I would advise you to keep this as a personal interpretation. But here I speak of the theist who sees the Bible's unequivocal statements as truth. Are his rights breached in class for this reason?

 

[okinrus]

It's almost quite amusing how you refuse to simply answer either this or the next question. If you indeed have some authority to speak for the 'majority', then I would like to see some substantiation of that claim. Just where did you hear that 'consensus' from the 'majority' of fundamentalists?

What we call religion is decided among ourselves. Most people would say how mankind was created is religious question. Christians and Jews believe in some type of Adam and Eve interpretation. Muslims believe in another interpretation. Hindus perhaps believe in some other kind of creation story. Point is, what we call religion is often decided only by popular opinion, often only by the religions themselves.

I implore you to show me the context of any verse related to 'flat earth' which indicates that the Biblical writer means to use 'the same terminology' "much like we say the sun rises and sets." I have found no such indication in the Bible and if you are unable to provide any textual substantiation

The authors purpose is to convey prophesy. If they started to use a model of the earth unfamilar with his readers, would this convey the prophesy better than using a well understood idiom? Second, you cannot show any textual evidence to indicate the author didn't want to use the idiom. Even in English, "four corners" is an idiom with a meaning quite different from implying a flat earth. OK, so did the Israelites and Greeks also use this same idiom? I think so. As you know, this series of words appears more than once in the Bible; therefore, it's likely the author wanted to convey a map-like picture rather than the true physical depiction. Last of all, the earth isn't even a true sphere. Where is the equivalent and accurate expression to "four corners"? I doubt you can find a version as poetic.

But here I speak of the theist who sees the Bible's unequivocal statements as truth. Are his rights breached in class for this reason?

I don't see any reason for forcing a student to believe the earth is round. Of course, there's a lot of evidence for the earth being round. If a student wishes to disregard the evidence, then that his problem.

 

[staples disconnected]

Sorry to butt in okinrus,

But,

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.

Evolution is not a religious question either, but a biological one.

Also,

I don't see any reason for forcing a student to believe the earth is round.

Interesting analogy, but I think it falls down some around the fact that a student would have to have a preconceived notion that the world was flat in order to be forced to believe something else. The reason the student would not have this preconceived notion is because his parents would have been too stupid to reproduce to be able to confer their belief that the world was flat onto their offspring.

I think the situation is somewhat similar to that of religion and evolution. I was not taught religiousness as a boy, but when I started to learn about it, it was around the same time that I started to learn about evolution. Needless to say, I found one completely lacking, and the other totally amazing, no guesses for which or why. My position was fairly unique, and one I feel privileged to have experienced.

staples

 

[Tiassa]

Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45303-2005Apr11.html
Title: "Backward Evolution"
Date: April 12, 2005

Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post:

The tortoise we wanted to see, Lonesome George, so-called because he is apparently the last of his subspecies, was in hiding. In a sense, that's appropriate, because almost half of the United States cannot see any of the Galapagos for what they are: the home office of evolution. This is where Charles Darwin got his bright idea ....

.... It is odd to amble around the Galapagos and see the handiwork of evolution yet at the same time bear in mind that many Americans do not accept evolution at all. It is belittled as a mere "theory," which is a misunderstanding of the scientific term, and even in some places where it is grudgingly accepted, it is supposed to share the curriculum with creationism, as if that is an alternative theory ....

Washington Post

Okay, just a little more:

Back in 1999 Bush was asked whether he was "a creationist," and he responded by not responding: "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." In other words, it's all the same: evolution, creationism and maybe something else from another religious tradition. This proves you can go to Yale University and learn nothing--not about evolution, mind you, but about intellectual integrity.

Washington Post

Something strikes a familiar chord there. It's reasonable to expect in the near future to see me repeat a phrase I've bludgeoned before, "It's all the same". Equivocation. Generalization. Simplicity. I'll leave it at that, for now, since it spills far and wide and into irrelevance to the current topic, but Cohen has tapped a very important theme.
____________________

Notes:

Cohen, Richard. "Backward Evolution". Washington Post. April 12, 2005; page A21. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45303-2005Apr11.html​

 

[Throckmorton]

To force students to believe it's a fact, breaches their religious rights.

Would you say the same about atomic theory? The Pythagorean theorum?

How mankind was created is considered by many people a religious question.

You think science classes should make exceptions for anything that anybody considers to be religious?

Throckmorton, many of their gods were unethical.

The God of the Bible is extremely unethical at times. He causes people to sin and then punishes other people for that sin. (2Samuel 24 and several other places as well) According to Revelation God slays most of the people on the planet and sentences them to eternal torment......how unethical can you get?

I'm not sure what you mean by "too secular".

What the Greek fundamentalists meant was ethics based on reasoning rather than religion.