the bible literacy project.

[Raithere]

I've debated this before, it was either you or Cato that conceded to the odds of natural selection being very low, but that they exist. And in the absence of any other evidence, logic says the theory with the most evidence (or the only evidence) is true. Do we need to debate this again?

It wasn't me that said it. It is incorrect. Seeing as speciation due to natural selection has been observed, the "odds" of natural selection being correct are 100%.

The odds for the right changes at the right time defy reason, but yet it happened, so it is possible (if the theory is sound). The sheer odds for the creation of life from amino acids took just the right conditions and influences are high enough before you consider how nature created a sentient being.

The odds in these now infamous calculations are based upon bad reasoning. There are two primary errors:

1) No matter the probability of a specific target the chance that any target would be hit is 100%. For instance, every time you deal a deck of cards in series the event that occurs has a chance of 52factorial or 1 in 8.065 * 10^67. This is the result each and every time you do so but if you add all those possible combinations up you get a probability of 100%.

To put it in logical terms life as it exists now on Earth is not a necessary result, it might have been different. Calculating the odds of a specific result as if it were a necessary result is invalid.

2) The universe is not random, events can only occur within certain physical limitations. Calculating the probability of, for instance, the weak nuclear force being what it is as compared to what it 'might have been' is simply an exercise in imagination and has no bearing on reality.

There are facts that support the theory of evolution, but conclusion that all life is the result of natural selection is still circumstantial. It would take millions of years to prove the theory of natural selection.

Even if it were proven that life on Earth began with a miraculous creation of a single celled organism this would not disprove Evolution. Evolution is certain. It has been observed. It's mechanisms have been observed. It is not dependent upon a historical reconstruction of the past. I don't know how much more simply I can say this.

~Raithere

 

[Silas]

As to the Bible being taught in public classrooms, I say sure. Just as long as we don't forget to leave out the Quran, the Tao Te Ching, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Satanic Bible, the Talmud, the Vedas, the Buddhist Sutras, and the Humanist Manifesto... just to begin with.

That is, of course, the only viable solution to appease all. However, it is a powderkeg of intolerance in that parents would not allow their children to be part of classes if "the other" religions were being taught.

Would a Christian parent actually allow their kids to learn about the Quran and vice-versa?

I actually don't think that it is that necessary to cover all the other works, certainly not to give them equal weight. This is the Western World, and the Bible has been the cornerstone of a great deal of our culture and history for at least 1700 years. That is what justifies some bible literacy (not Christian dogma please note) being taught in schools. The other works have not been such a cornerstone for the dominant culture. That is why the minorities should learn about the Bible no less than everybody else. Of course, it's good to get an understanding of many of those works too, this is a multicultural world we live in. But in depth study should be restricted to Judaeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. I don't see any benefit to be derived from "the satanist bible", the Tao, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

[dr. cello]

silas: excellent point. i agree that it's important to study the religions which have shaped our culture, comparitively and objectively.

i went to a private christian school for the entirety of my educational career. while most of the 'bible' classes were sheer dogma and rote memorisation, when we finally reached the point where theology was studied, it was done from a very slanted perspective. by that time i could see the slant and edit it out, but i still regret that i have no real knowledge of any of the other world religions.

i was also severely disappointed with my theology text. it said that 'theology is a science, and does not simply invoke paradox or incomprehensibility.' a majority of the chapters in which some of the problematic aspects of God were discussed, most of the text was devoted to invoking paradox and incomprehensibility.

studying religions is akin to studying philosophers (though the Bible is woefully unphilosophical). even if we disagree with the teachings, their words have in one way or another shaped the way society was formed. it's useful knowledge to have.

 

[spidergoat]

These days public schools are in sad shape. They are intented to prepare kids for the work force, not make them well-rounded intellectuals, so comparative religion will never be considered that seriously, or the arts, philosophy, and music either.

A literary study of the bible will not teach it's influence in our lives, since it is the unique interpretation people make from it that are more important, and this is dangerously too close for comfort for many people. What interpretation to teach? Baptist? Calvinist? Protestant? Catholic?

Compared to other literary works like shakespeare, it falls pretty short, and there's precious little time in American classrooms.

 

[jayleew]

It wasn't me that said it. It is incorrect. Seeing as speciation due to natural selection has been observed, the "odds" of natural selection being correct are 100%.
~Raithere

Microevolution is not evidence of natural selection as the cause of humanity. To prove the process of natural selection, you need to perform an experiment of natural selection, which would take lifetimes. Natural selection occurs over countless years, not anything we could have possibly observed in our lifetime. If you believe in natural selection based on observed "specization", you are making an assumption based upon the evidence that there were no external influences of the process over the eons. Given how long it takes for nature to produce a sentient being, it is absurd to call that assumption, fact. That might be okay to do when we are talking about insects becoming resitant to chemicals, but an issue such as this is too important to take on an assumption.

Life adapts to the environment, genetic mutations occur. Where is the observed cases from which we can see where the frog grew fur? Bad example, but I'm talking about the major changes from species to species. I'm not talking about a mouse with horns. Where are the trillions and more, of missing links? Can we construct a complete tree of life that distinctly shows each microevolutionary change? One that we can, without a doubt, put each species in its place, without guessing just because the fossils look similar?

If we can't do that, we have not observed the process of natural selection.

If natural selection occurred there should be countless fossils of unique species of life, but yet we can count the number of species that lived on the Earth. Just because we haven't found them all yet and are finding more everyday, doesn't mean that they are all there waiting to be found. It is too early to call evolution fact, not based on assumptions. Wait at least another millenium and then make the call. You have enough evidence to make a educated guess and logic defends your perception, but life is too complex and our knowledge too new to safely assume that natural selection is factually the cause of the origin of the human species.

Pure sciece makes no philosopical assumptions. Humans deduce reality from perception of evidence, philosophically.

Bottom line: We are here debating the absolute truth of evolution, when absolute truth requires that only science prove the theory. The problem is that natural selection requires science and philosophy to prove that it is the truth. Wherever philosophy is involved, there is going to be controversy and debate, and we can Google both sides of the controversy of this issue. Can anyone prove the process of evolution without using philosophical assumptions and deductions?

We can use philosophy to make decisions to live by, deduce the truth, and argue with, but it cannot empirically prove a scientific theory. Logic and rhetoric can deduce the truth, but cannot itself prove the truth. Gravity is explained by philosophy and science, science alone cannot explain gravity. There is controversy wherever philosophy exists.

There is overwhelming evidence that could be the result of natural selection at work. That is not scientific, empirical, proof of natural selection unless you have observed natural selection and know the effects of natural selection in the first place.

If you don't know what a deer looks like, and see a deer, you cannot say that it is a deer because you've never seen one before. But, you can philosophically deduce that it must be a deer. Does that make it a deer? That is essentially what you are claiming. Sounds reasonable, but it is not a fact until know what a deer looks like, then see a deer.

Am I asking that you be unreasonable and not piece the puzzle together? No, I'm just asking that you not call the process of natural selection as empirical truth. And that is the reason why we cannot teach evolution as undisputed fact. It must be balanced somehow, either at home or in school. Since, not many professing Christians even read the Bible, how can we expect that the child is getting properly educated enough to make a decision about the origins of life when he or she becomes an adult? All we are doing right now in schools is training blind atheists or agnostics, since they are not perpared to discuss anything else.

And when they find out that there is controversy to what they thought was fact, they will second guess the theories of natural selection, just like what happened to me.

So, I guess I should not be concerned that evolution is being taught in schools without intelligent design afterall.

 

[(Q)]

If you don't know what a deer looks like, and see a deer, you cannot say that it is a deer because you've never seen one before. But, you can philosophically deduce that it must be a deer. Does that make it a deer? That is essentially what you are claiming. Sounds reasonable, but it is not a fact until know what a deer looks like, then see a deer.

Funny how you don't apply that line of reasoning to gods?

 

[invert_nexus]

But the United States are going to provide fewer and fewer of those people as time goes on, and consequently are going to lose their world primacy, particularly in the (fairly important to Americans I believe) field of healthcare and general avoidance of death.

Let's add Italy to the list here since they've nationally banned the teaching of evolution in their schools (although, to give them credit, they've claimed that they'll bring it back because of the furor but have made no claims as to when and how.)

Pure sciece makes no philosopical assumptions. Humans deduce reality from perception of evidence, philosophically.

That's inductivism and is a dirty word... Bad boy! Bad! Go potty outside!!


Anyway. Look at all your arguments. You debate long and hard against evolution, but have nothing to say for creationism.
Funny that. (Expected though.)

You're like the church when they persecuted Galileo and denied Heliocentrism. They had this extravagant model of the motion of the sun and planets as they all went around the Earth in geocentric orbits... but their whole 'theory' was based on the model looking as if it were a heliocentric one as seen from the Earth's viewpoint.

Their geocentric model depended on a heliocentric model for all its predictions. They had nothing.


This is actually an interesting subject. It shows what it is that the church is interested in. Contrary to popular belief, the church didn't mind the heliocentric model being taught for its predictive value. They don't care about such things. They are out for control of more than physical models. They're out for control of the direction of the concepts themselves. They'll happily take all the predictive models science has to offer, strip them of their explanatory value by appending their 'intelligent design' aspect, and them hand them back to the public as 'God's Own Truth'. They're out for mind control. They want their stamp on everything. The GOD Brand of Science.

Intelligent Design is empty of any explanatory value. It's not science. It's a concoction. An attempt to brand evolution with the God Brand and make it kosher.
Sickening.


However, the subject isn't one of "Evolution vs Intelligent Design". It's "Evolution vs Bible Literacy". Two very different things. In fact, Evolution has nothing to do with Bible Literacy and this whole thread is a non-sequitur. It's another example of smokescreens and mirrors.

"Look," they say, "We just want to teach our children how to read the Bible. Nothing wrong with that, right?"

"Well..." say the scientists, "I suppose the children should learn a little something about their cultural traditions..."

"Aha!" cry the bible-thumpers, "Evolution is baseless and is a LIE!!!! You're all being lied to!! Come to Bible School and learn the TRUTH!!!!"


Fuck you and your Bible School.
Any real literary treatment of the Bible would show its contradictions and blatant violence.
Would you consent to a Bible Class that arms a generation of atheists with all the contradictions the Bible has to offer?

Doubt it.


One last thing:

If natural selection occurred there should be countless fossils of unique species of life, but yet we can count the number of species that lived on the Earth.

Oh? We can count them, can we? Really? How do you count n+1? There's new fossils being found every day. We're even finding fossils from an age when there were only soft bodies. Bilaterians. Amazing.

So. I offer you a challenge. If we can count all the species that have been on the Earth, then give me that number. And I'll show you one more.

Also, this whole tangent is another smokescreen. You're no longer talking about evolution here, but rather about the odds of fossilization. Circumstances have to be just right for fossils to be made, you know. Everything doesn't just become fossils when it dies. The vast majority of life decomposes completely.

 

[jayleew]

Anyway. Look at all your arguments. You debate long and hard against evolution, but have nothing to say for creationism.
Funny that. (Expected though.)

The argument in question is: Evolution is 100% fact, not that creationism is fact. For all intent and purpose of this argument, creationism is 100% false. In context of this thread, if evolution is not 100% true, it should not be taught as such, but still explored and explained for what evidence we have, not for the assumption the evidence points to. For all we know, aliens could have guided the process of evolution by influencing the environment.

Oh? We can count them, can we? Really? How do you count n+1? There's new fossils being found every day. We're even finding fossils from an age when there were only soft bodies. Bilaterians. Amazing.

That was my point, we don't have the complete picture yet and any conclusion based upon evidence that we assume we will have later, is not a 100% factual conclusion. In context of how many species there should be (if the process of natural selection is true), we have only found a small fraction of lifeforms. For all we know they don't exist, but we assume and deduce that we will find more because we find more everyday. It would help make a better scientific conclusion when all the evidence has been gathered. Stating that evolution is fact is premature, because we are a young species.

I don't mean to cause you to divert your attention to subject, but the validitaty of the natural selection theory is in question, and that is why it should not be taught in schools as fact, or at least balanced....or should it?

 

[(Q)]

For all we know, aliens could have guided the process of evolution by influencing the environment.

Ok, so where did the aliens come from? Did they evolve? If so, why couldn't we?

It would help make a better scientific conclusion when all the evidence has been gathered.

How much is all? Are not the mountains of current hard evidence not enough? How much more will you need to be convinced?

Stating that evolution is fact is premature, because we are a young species.

Sorry, but 'young species' is hardly an argument against evolution.

 

[invert_nexus]

The argument in question is: Evolution is 100% fact, not that creationism is fact.

Evolution happens.
What's to argue?
There are areas of evolutionary theory to be worked out, absolutely. This is the nature of science. Nothing is ever '100%'. Ever.

For all we know, aliens could have guided the process of evolution by influencing the environment.

Yes. But there is nothing to suggest that this is the case and so adding this to the theory would be similar to the case of the Church vs. Galileo. "Aliens are influencing evolution on the planet Earth but do it in such a way as it appears to be brought about by natural selection." (And even if it were the aliens leading evolution, it's still evolution. This is the idea behind intelligent design, isn't it? That god is behind the changes that take place in evolution rather than natural selection and other factors? That it's all planned rather than chaotic?)

An error you're making is by equating evolution with 'survival of the fittest'. There are many more factors that come into play than natural selection. Some of which we presently know about, some of which we don't.

That was my point, we don't have the complete picture yet and any conclusion based upon evidence that we assume we will have later, is not a 100% factual conclusion.

But what does evolution have to do with bible literacy? You're throwing up more smokescreen.

In context of how many species there should be (if the process of natural selection is true), we have only found a small fraction of lifeforms. For all we know they don't exist, but we assume and deduce that we will find more because we find more everyday.

There are 'missing links' here and there, but at the same time there are links that aren't missing. The odds are that our picture of Earth's past will never be 100%. It's the nature of the medium. However, there is enough evidence to corroborate the theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me ask you something. Is your objection that horses evolved from earlier, more primitive creatures? Or is your objection solely centered around man?

It would help make a better scientific conclusion when all the evidence has been gathered.

And how do you know when 'all the evidence' has been gathered?
What is n+1?
According to your system, we'd better just stick to biblical fairy tales because it, at least, doesn't require evidence to support itself. It spins itself from pure cloth and is therefore somehow better than incomplete systems.

Stating that evolution is fact is premature, because we are a young species.

Evolution happens.
What is premature is saying that we understand the mechanisms by which it happens completely. And nobody is saying that.

I don't mean to cause you to divert your attention to subject, but the validitaty of the natural selection theory is in question, and that is why it should not be taught in schools as fact, or at least balanced....or should it?

To subject?!
Ha! Right.
You've ignored everything I said 'on subject'.
The real issue is that you're throwing up this smokescreen. You start a thread on 'bible literacy' as a means to dispute evolution.
What does one have to do with the other?
You're saying that we ought to teach the bible in school because evolution isn't '100%' and therefore something that isn't even science is just as applicable.

Again. Bible literacy and evolution have nothing to do with each other. Attempting to join the two as you have only shows the depths of your motivations.

A valid comparison would be "Creationism vs evolution" or "Intelligent Design vs Evolution" but you have already said that creationism is 100% false and therefore you've switched to this 'bible literacy' garbage.

Again. I ask you. Would you be cool with a Bible class that arms a generation of atheists with knowledge of the multitudinous contradictions and blatant horrors that are so often glanced over in the Bible? Any honest treatment of the Bible would be scorned by the religious sects because it couldn't help but treat it as literature rather than a Holy Relic.

Would you be cool with a class that examines the Bible analytically rather than dogmatically?

I repeat: I doubt it.

but the validitaty of the natural selection theory is in question, and that is why it should not be taught in schools as fact, or at least balanced....or should it?

How is it in question? Do you realize how science works? Disprove it and then it will no longer be considered science. Until then it is.

And how would you 'balance it'? With something that you've already said is '100% false'? Oh. With 'bible literacy'. Which has nothing to do with evolution and therefore balances shit.

What is your point here?

And what of the cartoon? Don't you think that churches should balance out their teaching of their doctrine with evolution? Or teaching of the teachings of other religions in a fair and unbiased manner?

Your argument is nonexistant.


Edit:
Oops.
*shamefaced*
You didn't start this thread. Charles Cure did.
Anyway. All the rest stands.
Evolution has nothing to do with bible literacy. They're two completely different subjects. One doesn't balance the other.

 

[jayleew]

There are 'missing links' here and there, but at the same time there are links that aren't missing. The odds are that our picture of Earth's past will never be 100%. It's the nature of the medium. However, there is enough evidence to corroborate the theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

You just said what I've trying to say over and over: We make a reasonable assumption, based on the evidence of evolution, that the human species has a common ancestor with other species. It is not yet black and white, but we can make an educated guess because of the mountain of evidence that corroborates natural selection. I disagree with the philosophy of the theory, but that is just my opinion. I understand where you are coming from and just ask that you all admit that you are combining philosophy and science to make the conclusion that the process of natural selection which results in humans among other species. And because it is not pure science, just the science needs to be taught in schools, until college level where children can handle philosophy.

I'm not here to disprove evolution, for the last time! That debate is done enough on sciforums as it is! I am questioning natural selection's probability and how that we cannot be 100% sure that it is how species came into existence, but it is philosophy that we use to deduce that we can be sure. And such, the argument is not scientific and subject to debate, so should not be taught as the only explanation of the human species.

Kids, here's the information we have on evolution. This is probably how we came to be, but we invite you to explore the research and draw your own conclusion.

 

[charles cure]

Science has uncovered many pieces that point to natural selection, but it is far from reality. Sure, logic says that in the absence of evidence, an argument is false since there are an infinite number of improbabilities. I just want to correct your equating "reality" with evolutionary theory. Natural selection has a lot of evidence, but is still missing crucial pieces. In the absence of any alternative viable evidence, it can be assumed, but assumptions are not reality.

evolutionary theory is reality. its based on observable phenomena occuring in a natural setting. what keeps evolution from being a natural law is that the theory is incomplete. each year that passes fills in more of the gaps in our evolutionary theory with evidence and new information that supports it. the validity of evolutionary theory is in fact a reality. it can be seen, documented, and proven. the only thing that has not been established to everyones satisfaction is the small evolutionary gaps in the progression from ape to human. this does not invalidate the idea as a whole.

Eighty percent of Americans are reportedly of a type of Christianity. Are we not doing an injustice by not allowing those eighty percent the opinion of intelligent design? Young minds are very impressionable and treat a teacher's word as absolute truth. I was not given a choice, and I bought into it without giving much thought of my position of the origins of man. I was a Catholic who believed in evolution because my teacher told me it was undeniably fact. They have a right to an opinion of the origins of man, and that is something the current curriculum does not allow.

first of all i dont think that every christian believes in intelligent design. if they did evolution would have been discarded as a theory despite ample evidence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the origins of humanity, but teaching something that is supported by no fact whatsoever does a larger disservice to all of the children than teaching them the only theory that we have any kind of ability to prove. also, teaching evolution does not deny or disparage the belief in intelligent design. you can choose to ignore the doctrine of evolution if you wish and turn to the bible for all the answers you need about the origin of mankind. the reason that intelligent design isnt taught in schools and also shouldnt be taught is because it doesnt hold up under critical analysis in an academic setting.

Turn the tables, and you would be arguing against the Bible being taught in schools and that evolutionary theory be introduced as a provable alternative. Of course, I would be fighting against it, as you are fighting me. So, for the children's sake, let them choose and we not choose for them and let us agree to disagree. If evolutionary theory is so evidenced we need not worry, let them learn of it in college and make an educated decision. Then perhaps they will see that they have been lied to about God and be all the more against the Bible's teachings.

thats a pretty fallacious statement. the whole concept of education is that people learn about the different aspects of the world around them through facts and critical analysis. we learn about techniques and processes by which you can make things or by which nature perpetuates itself. education is fact-based by nature. what you are describing is something like this: say there is a class in elementary school where the kids learn to make a sweater. the teacher is teaching them how to make a pattern for the sweater and then how to sew it together using the pattern, and what is the best technique of sewing it to make sure that the sweater is durable. then someone comes in and says wait a minute, what if my kid wants to learn how about how god made sweaters out of solid gold thread using only a shard of rams horn? how come you are teaching him this secular way of making a sweater? i know that everyone who has ever attempted to make a sweater using gods method has had their sweater fall apart or its has been deformed and useless, but i want my kid to decide which one has more merit despite the fact that your process, if done right always results in a sweater. thats idiotic. kids can accept the insanity of the bible's explanation for the origin of humanity if they want, but until theres fact to prove it, they should be taught what can be substatiated at least in some way.

I say teach neither the Bible nor natural selection, or teach them both. Otherwise, we are not giving the child a chance to weigh the evidence and make a decision.

youre missing an even larger point here. teaching the bible alongside of evolution wont make things equal. what about muslims? what about native american tribes? what about hindus? all of these religions have a creation myth that is about as patently unproveable as the christian one. so what youre saying is that if theres a kid of any other religion besides christianity in the class, then you have to teach their religions creation myth alongside of the bibles and evolution, which is not only unrealistic but assumes that evolution as a proveable and solid theory of observable natural processes is only as valid as a myth that has no factual basis and has only ever been supported by one book ever written which also handily provides no evidence within its pages for it. thats ridiculous. you cant say that something real is only worth as much as the most popular fantasy in the country. that would chuck both the concepts of equality and education out the window.

 

[invert_nexus]

what keeps evolution from being a natural law is that the theory is incomplete.

Uhm. Not quite. It'll never be complete. That's the nature of science. Science is never '100%'. Ever. Theory is as good as it gets. And all it takes is a few observations to poke holes in the best theory.

The only thing that is '100%' is religion. And it's only 100% because "God said so." (In other words, you can't knock it down no matter how much evidence to the contrary accumulates. That's the nature of Faith.)

wait a minute, what if my kid wants to learn how about how god made sweaters out of solid gold thread using only a shard of rams horn?

Nice analogy.

youre missing an even larger point here. teaching the bible alongside of evolution wont make things equal.

Teaching the bible alongside evolution is apples and origins. (Hmm. Muahaa!!! That was purely unintentional. But I LIKE it.) Only the first tiny bit is about creation. The rest is morality and laws and whatnot. If you taught the bible version of creation, you'd have a class that lasted a couple of hours (if even that) and then everyone would go home with A's (or they'd go to hell with an F.)

I've never actually looked at any Intelligent Design textbooks, but the whole idea is pure idiocy. If you want to believe that God is behind it, then fine. Believe it. Just don't waste precious school time on it. It gives nothing to the theory of Evolution. Nothing but making it the 'God Brand of Evolution'.


Jayleew,

You just said what I've trying to say over and over:

I know. But that was the least of what I said. The important bits were about how evolution and bible literacy have nothing in common. One doesn't balance the other.

Nobody is saying that Evolutionary Theory is 100% complete. Nobody's even saying it's ever going to be. This is the nature of science. We can never truly justify our knowledge. Science is based upon falsification. Until a theory is shown false, then it is true (as it gets.) Does this mean that we shouldn't teach science at all because it's not 100%?

I guess all those physics classes that depend on Newton's physics are gone. And so is relativity because it doesn't show the whole picture. And quantum theory, out the window. Let's go through the list and remove everything that isn't 100%. Guess what we're left with? Nothing. Nothing but religious faith (if you have faith in it.)

(You might think that you would still have mathematics, but that's not so. Godel knocked mathematics off of its foundation. There is no such thing as justifiable knowledge.)


Now. As to your point of how it is taught. This was already agreed to earlier in the thread and is pretty much obvious. There is problems in teaching in that teachers often teach science as if it were dogma. It's simpler this way. But it pushes the wrong ideas across. There should be more emphasis on the very nature of science. The tentative aspect of all its theories and laws. That all it takes is one enterprising genius to come along and knock down all the old paradigms and replace them with new.

But, the answer isn't to teach the bible as a 'balance'. The answer is to teach science properly. To teach the scientific method above all.

 

[charles cure]

Uhm. Not quite. It'll never be complete. That's the nature of science. Science is never '100%'. Ever. Theory is as good as it gets. And all it takes is a few observations to poke holes in the best theory.

The only thing that is '100%' is religion. And it's only 100% because "God said so." (In other words, you can't knock it down no matter how much evidence to the contrary accumulates. That's the nature of Faith.)

actually science is 100% sometimes. the laws of gravity and inertia are 100% and you cant poke holes in them as they apply to matter on the earth. what makes evolution a theory is that it remains partially unexplained as it applies to all species. whether it will be complete or not remains to be seen.

and in terms of logic, religion is 0% not 100%. because saying "because god said so" actually isnt proof of or a reason for anything.

thats just how i see it though.

 

[invert_nexus]

actually science is 100% sometimes. the laws of gravity and inertia are 100%

That gravity exists is an extremely low level explanation of the phenomena. A higher level explanation would attempt to explain gravity. Why gravity acts as it does. And this explanation could never be 100% correct. (Or perhaps that should be the other way around. The low level explanation would explain the nuts and bolts. The high level explanation would satisfy itself with the apparent effects of gravity on the Earth and its environs.)

Same with inertia.

In these ways, we could look to see that evolution exists. But the mechanisms by which evolution takes place is uncertain.

you cant poke holes in them as they apply to matter on the earth.

Bet?

and in terms of logic, religion is 0% not 100%.

Logic is another matter entirely. It too is prone to incompleteness just as are all other formal systems.

Anyway. I wouldn't necessarily call religion 0%. It all depends on the context. If you're asking for the origins of man, well, you could interpret the bible to fit the theory of evolution precisely. Note the arguments made in the Stokes Monkey trial.

That's the interesting thing about theory. No matter what is thrown against it, you rarely have to discard the whole theory. It can always be modified this way or that to make room for the new observations. However, over time, these slight modifications might add up to huge contortions and you end up with the geocentric theory which has contorted itself so completely that it exists only as a shadow of heliocentrism...

 

[Silas]

Erm, that's Scopes monkey trial, but no matter.

Microevolution is not evidence of natural selection as the cause of humanity. To prove the process of natural selection, you need to perform an experiment of natural selection, which would take lifetimes.

Not true. You can easily do it in the laboratory with viruses of RNA and DNA. Natural Selection has resulted in the "breeding" of a virus that was resistant to an amazingly high concentration of acid.

Natural selection occurs over countless years, not anything we could have possibly observed in our lifetime.

Natural selection occurs over a very large number of generations. In order to see it in action you just need something that can turn over generations very quickly. Evolution requires natural selection but it also needs mutation. Mutation is easily demonstrated in the laboratory. Then you only need Natural Selection. But Natural Selection scarcely even needs any proof. That's why it has the word "Natural" in it. It is impossible to even conceive of a circumstance under which Natural Selection would not occur, since all it consists of is "stuff that is fit to survive, survives" - which is a truism. If a mutation occurs that is harmful, the organism won't survive and the mutation won't be passed on. If it does, it will. The complexity that has arisen after trillions of generations is due to the fact that mutations don't water each other down or intermingle, they are cumulative.

If you believe in natural selection based on observed "specization", you are making an assumption based upon the evidence that there were no external influences of the process over the eons.

Since there is no evidence for external influences (presumably you mean an Intelligent Designer), there is no reason not to make the assumption that there weren't any.

Given how long it takes for nature to produce a sentient being, it is absurd to call that assumption, fact. That might be okay to do when we are talking about insects becoming resitant to chemicals, but an issue such as this is too important to take on an assumption.

On the contrary, it is absurd to consider any other theory as fact, given the mountain of evidence and the fact that no new development in biology has thrown the smallest doubt on it. When Darwin proposed Evolution by Natural Selection, nobody knew about genes, nobody knew the mechanism of how characteristics were inherited, nobody realised that the way populations are distributed for a particular species was not necessarily random, nobody had the tiniest clue about DNA. That's just a small sample of the wide variety of developments in biology over the past 146 years, every one of which has bolstered the concept that all living things are related, and not one of which has put any doubt on the matter.

Life adapts to the environment, genetic mutations occur. Where is the observed cases from which we can see where the frog grew fur? Bad example, but I'm talking about the major changes from species to species. I'm not talking about a mouse with horns. Where are the trillions and more, of missing links? Can we construct a complete tree of life that distinctly shows each microevolutionary change? One that we can, without a doubt, put each species in its place, without guessing just because the fossils look similar?

Not for everything, but for some things, I'm sure that it can be done. In any case, evolution does not rest alone on fossil evidence. On the other hand fossil evidence does not contradict evolutionary theory.

Pure sciece makes no philosopical assumptions. Humans deduce reality from perception of evidence, philosophically.

Bottom line: We are here debating the absolute truth of evolution, when absolute truth requires that only science prove the theory. The problem is that natural selection requires science and philosophy to prove that it is the truth.

As I've hoped to show, this is not the case. Natural Selection does not require philosophy, but is in fact underpinned by a lot of hard mathematics. Life and death are absolutes, and NS cannot be avoided.

Wherever philosophy is involved, there is going to be controversy and debate, and we can Google both sides of the controversy of this issue. Can anyone prove the process of evolution without using philosophical assumptions and deductions?

The fact that evolutionary theory is not simply "believed" but actually used in real life situations, from development of antivirals to the discovery of oil and coal fields, shows how ludicrous it is to pretend that, just because we are arguing about it here at the behest of the religious, makes evolution a "philosophy." It is not. It is a hard science with real-life consequences. It is not debated in philosophy seminars, it is utilised in the real world. As the failed attempt to wipe out the Australian rabbit plague with myxomatosis proved, NS cannot be ignored or disbelieved in - it is a fact of life.

We can use philosophy to make decisions to live by, deduce the truth, and argue with, but it cannot empirically prove a scientific theory. Logic and rhetoric can deduce the truth, but cannot itself prove the truth. Gravity is explained by philosophy and science, science alone cannot explain gravity. There is controversy wherever philosophy exists.

There is, in fact, plenty of empirical evidence which proves evolution by analogue. Scientific theory does not, in fact, require empirical proof to be regarded as "fact" or as near to fact as makes no difference. The theory of evolution is far closer to being considered fact than Relativity or the Quantum theory. There is no doubt that under certain circumstances those theories fall, since they are mutually incompatible. Those theories are known to be incorrect, and yet they are as near to fact as we can currently measure - for the large, with General Relativity and for the small with Quantum Theory. But there isn't anything in the theory of evolution which conflicts with any known physical law, which again and again succeeds in explaining and predicting the facts of Life.

Am I asking that you be unreasonable and not piece the puzzle together? No, I'm just asking that you not call the process of natural selection as empirical truth.

Something I have just done, frequently, and justified it every time. Now I'm asking you to stop lying about the theory of evolution. Even if that means that you stop lying to yourself.

And that is the reason why we cannot teach evolution as undisputed fact. It must be balanced somehow, either at home or in school.

It is the best theory and the only theory that successfully explains every aspect of life, and does so without regard to the supernatural - which after all should not be taught in science class in any case. Please give an example of any other field of knowledge in which it is required that, in the absence of empirical, repeatable experiments, there must always be two competing theories taught, no matter if one of them holds water and has supporting evidence and the other does not? Are you advocating that every Shakespeare class be balanced by a class which only teaches that Shakespeare did not write his works? Are the schools to be split between Oxonian schools and Baconian ones? Or do they need every candidate for Shakespeare's authorship to be taught? Are we to teach in our schools that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, showing all the film, artefacts, blueprints and actual testimony and then say, "There is a theory that all this stuff we just saw was faked and the astronauts are lying. You decide."

Since, not many professing Christians even read the Bible, how can we expect that the child is getting properly educated enough to make a decision about the origins of life when he or she becomes an adult? All we are doing right now in schools is training blind atheists or agnostics, since they are not perpared to discuss anything else.

Since they are not going to get a "proper" education as to the origins of life from reading the Bible, I think we expect that the child is getting a "proper" education as to the origins of life by learning about everything for which we have actual evidence for. Not gradually, piecemeal, (first the fish, then the insects, then the larger animals) over a period of six days, a mere six thousand years ago. But a single life organism from which everything eventually descended, probably formed in a single instant, three billion years ago.

And when they find out that there is controversy to what they thought was fact, they will second guess the theories of natural selection, just like what happened to me.

For people who actually use the theory of evolution to do their day to day work, from doctors to agronomists to petroleum geologists, there is no controversy. Evolution is a fact, and we teach facts in school in science class.

The only controversy comes from people who can't let the Bible go. Having failed to learn from history they believe that faith in God derives solely from believing every word in the Bible to be the unvarnished truth, even though it can be proved wrong, ill informed and inconsistent on practically every page. There is a lot of good stuff in the Bible, don't get me wrong, and it provides what it is supposed to - a moral guide. Not a scientific treatise.

 

[jayleew]

You all have some good points on why the Bible should not be taught in schools. I will concede, but if I were given a chance to vote, I would vote for it, but that is just a gut feeling and possibly a way to honor my God.

Not true. You can easily do it in the laboratory with viruses of RNA and DNA. Natural Selection has resulted in the "breeding" of a virus that was resistant to an amazingly high concentration of acid. Natural selection occurs over a very large number of generations. In order to see it in action you just need something that can turn over generations very quickly. Evolution requires natural selection but it also needs mutation. Mutation is easily demonstrated in the laboratory. Then you only need Natural Selection.

And saccharin causes cancer in laboratory mice, but we have no evidence that it does in humans. First of all, the laboratory is a controlled environment, the world is unstable. I'm not sure we can trust that type of an experiment. Second, at what point do we define a new species? When it mutates? Humans mutate, but we are still a single species and have not diverged. What species have diverged in our lifetime? Viruses are not technically even alive and are far from being a organism, we cannot equate everything we observe in viruses to humans because nature is predictably chaotic.

If science can establish what defines a new species, and provide a living example today that has performed a divergence into a verifiable unique lifeform, macroevolution could have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, it is just as likely that there was inter-species breeding that was stable and not sterile.
Sort of like making a donkey, but only fertile by chance.

Microevolution cannot be refuted. Macroevolution can because there is no observed divergence. Such a divergence takes too long to observe in many lifetimes. Otherwise, you are making an educated guess, which is hardly fact.

I am not saying that macroevolution did not occur, but I am waiting for the right evidence to make a decision like that. I am not willing to have that much faith in science because it has let me down before. Laws can be broken by chaos theories.

 

[jayleew]

The only controversy comes from people who can't let the Bible go. Having failed to learn from history they believe that faith in God derives solely from believing every word in the Bible to be the unvarnished truth, even though it can be proved wrong, ill informed and inconsistent on practically every page. There is a lot of good stuff in the Bible, don't get me wrong, and it provides what it is supposed to - a moral guide. Not a scientific treatise.

You are right that we can move forward in this discussion if Christians remove God from the Bible box. A lot of ID scientists believe in God and that macroevolution is God's tool. I am neutral to the idea right now, but I am skeptical of macroevolution because we lack an example of it, which I can never see because the process takes too long. Science asks me to believe in something that has proof. That is reasonable, but if we are talking about eternity that my god promises, I am not willing to gamble unless it is a sure thing. Does it even matter? Does the theory of macroevolution even conflict with creationism? I believe in God because of what he has done in my life, not for what anyone says, whether it is Darwin or Moses.

 

[charles cure]

That gravity exists is an extremely low level explanation of the phenomena. A higher level explanation would attempt to explain gravity. Why gravity acts as it does. And this explanation could never be 100% correct. (Or perhaps that should be the other way around. The low level explanation would explain the nuts and bolts. The high level explanation would satisfy itself with the apparent effects of gravity on the Earth and its environs.)

Same with inertia.

In these ways, we could look to see that evolution exists. But the mechanisms by which evolution takes place is uncertain.



Bet?



Logic is another matter entirely. It too is prone to incompleteness just as are all other formal systems.

Anyway. I wouldn't necessarily call religion 0%. It all depends on the context. If you're asking for the origins of man, well, you could interpret the bible to fit the theory of evolution precisely. Note the arguments made in the Stokes Monkey trial.

That's the interesting thing about theory. No matter what is thrown against it, you rarely have to discard the whole theory. It can always be modified this way or that to make room for the new observations. However, over time, these slight modifications might add up to huge contortions and you end up with the geocentric theory which has contorted itself so completely that it exists only as a shadow of heliocentrism...

right i understand that there are situations and levels at which the laws of gravity and inertia may not apply in the same way or to the same extent that they do normally, however that does not mean they are not in effect at all. regardless of that i was making a point that 100% or not, evolution is a reality. the law of gravity is a law because it can be (or could be at the time) shown to almost uniformly apply to all bodies of matter. evolution is not exactly the same and is a little harder to produce all of the material proof the would be needed to fully explain the process, if only because of the fact that much of it has disappeared a long time ago. regardless of that fact, it doesnt mean that the theory of evolution is only supported by sets of evidence that are "questionable" or "disputable" in any real material sense. thats what makes the theory of evolution different from the creation myth of the bible. i didnt really mean to get into a debate about whether gravity applies in all situations.

in addition to this i think that you should read the book of genesis over a couple of times again if you think that theres a way you could interpret it to square with the scientific theories of the creation of the earth and the speciation that followed. its a long stretch to get that to work from the text of the bible, a long enough stretch in fact to pretty much distort both versions of events into some other completely unrecognizable form. i know people have tried to do it before, with varying degrees of success but most of them kind of just come out as half-baked theories put forth by apologists for the bible who would like to legitimize a belief that christianity hasnt made a claim that contradicts scientific evidence at nearly every turn.

 

[invert_nexus]

Jayleew,

If science can establish what defines a new species, and provide a living example today that has performed a divergence into a verifiable unique lifeform, macroevolution could have a leg to stand on.

So. If there has been examples of speciation in the modern day then you'd be behind evolution?

Well. Guess what. Time to burn that bible of yours...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That is reasonable, but if we are talking about eternity that my god promise...

Your church, you mean.

Does the theory of macroevolution even conflict with creationism?

Depends on how literally you want to take the bible. If you interpret it broadly as in the Scopes Monkey Trial (thanks, Silas) then it doesn't conflict. But if you insist that every word is literally true (which is blatantly and logically impossible as it contradicts itself in so many places) then it does contradict evolution.

Now. If you look at the reaction from the religious to the theory of evolution then you'll see that it seems many do feel it contradicts with their beliefs.

I think that the problem most people have with it is that they don't want to be in the same category as monkeys and dogs. People want to be something apart. They don't like the idea of being animals. Too bad for them. Because animals is what they are.

Do you think you're an animal?


Charlie,

i didnt really mean to get into a debate about whether gravity applies in all situations.

And you didn't. I never said that gravity doesn't apply in certain situations. As far as we know it applies everywhere (although, there is always the chance that we'll learn differently someday). What I'm talking about is mechanisms. The mechanisms of gravity are highly theoretical. Just as the mechanisms of evolution are shaky. We know evolution happens just like we know gravity exists. It's the how it works that is theoretical.

in addition to this i think that you should read the book of genesis over a couple of times again if you think that theres a way you could interpret it to square with the scientific theories of the creation of the earth and the speciation that followed. its a long stretch to get that to work from the text of the bible, a long enough stretch in fact to pretty much distort both versions of events into some other completely unrecognizable form

Not that much of a stretch. You just have to look at the bible metaphorically rather than literally. Days could be any length of time, in fact, they could blend into each other. A day might not even refer to a period of time so much as a sequence of events. Man is made from dirt because the dirt (stuff of the Earth) is where life originated. Etc... It's not so much that you have to distort the bible, you just have to view it as taking very broad and general swipes at explanations.

Note. I'm not saying that bible says any such thing. I'm just saying that, in order to stop this ridiculous denials of science, it could be viewed as such by the religiously entrenched. If they only let go of the literal mindset in which they are ensconced.

Man is a beast of abstraction. Our greatest skill. Religion works against that (strangely, because it is a work of abstraction itself, abstraction solidified...). Religion was a necessary step in man's evolution to his present state of understanding. Religion allowed us to delve into concepts that were hitherto unknown to the species. It gave us insights into morality and into a larger world picture than we'd ever known. But, man has outgrown religion and must, like all children who come of age, put away his toys and be a man.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things."

(Muha! I love using the Bible against itself.)