|
God vs Evolution, can't we all just get along? (NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial)
NOVA: Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial
Ok, so why does there have to be such a fight? Can't evolution and God come to terms? There should be no division.. Religious folks should accept that the observed reality of evolution could be the physical mechanism of the God(s) they believe in and the creation myths they venerate. Scientists should stop being so fucking up tight and let religious folks be, and further accept that much of evolution does also remain as much a theory as Genesis or some other creation myth, there is much evidence, true, but lets all understand that it is equally a matter of belief. I see no need for conflict. The theory of Evolution is not necessarily a fact, and people like myself who believe in God should NOT think they know Him so well that they know how and what exactly God does/did. A little humility goes a long way.. This NOVA special makes some good points, obviously the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not science, but what is called science is also over emphasized as an absolute fact when it its not the case. I think they should meet each other half way, the scientists should accept the gaps in their theory, and the religious folks should loosen up with all this 'they know everything about God' nonsense, nobody knows anything or everything about anything at all! We are ALL equally ignorant of true reality, we all just live in our own imaginative version of the universe, and we should spend more time sharing with positive and love rather than dividing with bullshit and schizm. Love goes even further than humility. peace and love habte selassie  |
"Evolution is a fact"
-Carl Sagan. *shrug* good enough for me Elaboration: I think it is a fact in that natural selection cannot be denied, that over the course of millions of years natural selection animals must inevitably evolve. There were some really interesting bits of the Cosmos series that spoke to the origins of life; millions of years ago when the earth was much different physically/chemically, the many different chemicals would combine to form different molecules that eventually grew so complex they began in effect replicating themselves (imagine it as something trying to reach equilibrium, but really I don't know all the science behind it). I don't believe in any deity. The origins of life hardly matter. I'm personally more interested in the origin of the universe. In the end, it is all unknowable and not worth any conflict it should create(or perhaps not worth knowing should it be the cause of serious religious/secular struggles). |
The problem is that the people behind the supposed "Intelligent Design" movement are largely fundamentalist wackjobs in sheep's clothing (which isn't too hard for them to find since they're always being told to be sheep anyway!) They aren't looking for a serious debate, or as you suggest a dualistic way of seeing things, they purely want to get "Creationism" taught in public schools as if it were science (which it isn't) as opposed to philosophy (which it is).
I'm with you that far too many scientists are reactionary to the other extreme, but it's the covert agenda of the "Intelligent Design" movement that brings that about. Personally, I believe in an Abraxian higher power who doesn't necessarily have a lot of time for the little ants on this planet who are just learning to dodge the magnifying glass lens that intermediary forces/entities are aiming at us. Those that don't get fried are slightly smarter, or at least quicker, than the other little ants, and that's natural selection! |
Why a higher power? Why not cut out the middle man? Can't the universe have always been?
|
i saw only a piece of that shit cuz i had to leave the house. there was this dumbfuck retired cop moron censoring science books on behalf of the school board. what a fucking dumbass fuck. retarded fucking moron. send him off to moron camp. who the fuck puts these turds in charge? on what authority? with what kind of qualifications? dumb, dumb, dumb fucking shitheads.
what suchfriends proposes in lines 2 and 3 is akin to the jesuitic interpretation of evolution. ah, jesuits-- without them, catholicism would be pure dumbfuckery, like that turd who was denying the holocaust the other day. it's the only perspective that makes sense if you want to stay religious and moderately reasonable. Quote:
thank you, and good night. |
Quote:
That would be the Abraxian higher power of which I speak. I believe the Universe to be conscious though on levels we can't begin to communicate with. The "always been" part, being a perfect example, because I don't know what that means at all, and neither do you. It's the whole damn chicken - egg conundrum (though of course the egg came first, since chickens evolved from Tyranosaurs!) |
the Theory oF Evolution THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION does not discount the possibility of there being a god, or gods, or deities, but it DOES discount pretty much every single thing that has ever been said, written, or preached regarding the actual doings, achievements, creations, involvements of these aforementioned god, gods, deities, etc. that is why it scares the livin shit out of nearly everyone concerned with organized religion and making sure a new generation of humans keeps buying their bullshit.
|
Quote:
Actually, it's not that threatening to Hinduism which has quite a few parallels. But yeah, it does make that Yaweh dude a lot more allegorical than most sheep can flock to. |
as far as a personal day to day involvement in the universe and it's workings
|
Quote:
Absolutely. Most mythical deities seem pretty puny when you consider this little planet to be the speck of dust it really is in the cosmos. |
Quote:
Truthfully, I don't see the difference in believing in a god, or a conscious universe. Of course, I don't know what a universe that has always been means, but that is exactly why I have no belief on the matter. I think it is completely secular, there is no 'magic' behind it, and it can't be known. Why believe in anything? Speculation seems a lot more rational. All I know is that the universe is here, and that it obeys laws of physics and science. How it got here hardly matters (to my day to day life). It's all probably a bunch of math anyway. And in any case, you don't know what an Abraxian higher power means since we can't even begin to communicate with it. Why must I know what a universe that has always been means? |
The only rational of faith in God that I really respect is a personal existential dialectic of the unknown. This conception of God as the wisdom of the unknowable is largely irrelevant to the origin of the physical world (or I should say that the origin of the physical world is irrelevant to this God) as this God plays a role in being and nothing more. It's bad theology to suppose that an old man shat out the universe as is, God is a concept that frames being and, in turn, frames knowledge. Supposing it as an objective entity is to misunderstand the purpose of God, like a user of a computer using google in order to find that the user does or doesn't have fingers to type with.
Also it is weird talking about empiricist philosophers with scientists (or science enthusiasts). They take themselves so given that many are ignorant of what they are about! |
Quote:
You don't have to ask my permission not to know anything! Abraxian was my personal extrapolation from Abraxas which is to say, that I am embracing the concept but not the individual myth. I draw more from Hesse's Demian than the Gnostic texts (which I haven't even read, but I guess that's where Hesse got the idea). Just that I don't think a power that is really universal (i.e. the universe) can be looked at as either "good" or "evil", because those are purely human concepts. So yeah, just a personal myth based upon gut feeling and a way of looking at things. I put no more stock in it than you and your big questions that you pefer to not have answered unless it's by Stephen Hawking in a book without too much math. I look at things that way too, actually. |
I wasn't asking permission. I was making some sort of point, I suppose.
I read Hesse's Siddhartha, a different AP lit class read Demian. I liked the former, and I've heard the latter is good. But at any rate, we seem on the same page. Good night. |
Quote:
Ah, what is the sound of no fingers googling? Bravo! I had to keep starting your post over while reading it because every time I saw the words, "God is a concept" I'd hear John Lennon singing my favorite song from the Plastic Ono Band! |
"Concept" isn't the best word. What I may mean is that it is an a priori concept like time or space. As evidence suggests, there is no distinction between the two but that distinction is made anyway. Thus, God may or may not empirically exist but preconditions existence.
|
Quote:
Somehow, knowing you really do have a goatee makes it alright! |
I would have been stroking the beard but I can't type with one hand easily. :(
|
Quote:
Ah, what is the sound of one hand stroking...? |
Quote:
They do. |
the "gaps" are where they do RESEARCH
the "gaps" are where the questions lie. we will never run out of "gaps" or questions, and that is BEAUTIFUL!!!!! |
I meant they accept the gaps in that they accept that there are gaps and things that still need to be solved even in a theory like evolution.
|
Quote:
I was agreeing with ya! |
Oh right, I wasn't quite sure if you were or not so I thought I'll clarify what I meant.
If there weren't any gaps left what the hell would humanity do with itself? |
my two cents:
Science today thinks it is the Gospel of the past. There are no absolutes, and scientists should not think so. The problem is that both sides of this debate believe they have access to the absolute truth, an the reality is that is simply absurd! as i said, no one truly knows anything and everything about anything. When talking about evolution and natural selection folks talk about millions and billions of years like they were there! News flash, fossils, DNA evidence and good ideas are not exactly a first-hand account... and religious folks talk about Creation and God like they were there to witness it.. News flash, God is a mystery, and if you could possibly know everything or even anything about God, then He would not be God. Science is not the Gospel, the Gospel is not a a science book, and neither of the two have any true proof that ALL of what they say is correct. The middle ground is where to stand in this regard, building a consensus rather then a divide. Both parties need to come down from the mountain where they think they are divine.. science, you don't know shit, you were not there millions of years ago, how do you know all of your good ideas are actually correct? religion, the whole point of religion is that you CANT know everything, then you'd be God instead of worshiping God. |
 |
This thread reminds me of this I read recently:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5654566.ece |
Beat this, God.
 |
Quote:
While I agree that this dude was dipshit, you must admit that his premise that the school should NOT teach Darwinian Evolution as if it were somehow an absolute and proven fact is DAMNED APPROPRIATE. Youth are impressionable and indifferent, if the teacher and the book says something, they will take it in passing as truth and move on. If the book says evolution is the all-pervasive truth, then the kids accept this, and that is not GOOD SCIENCE AT ALL, because it does not promote individual questioning of the facts.. I think that the science teachers SHOULD read statements like that dipshit from the school board had everyone read.. I don't agree with the book Of Pandas and People, nor of the sinister agendas of the ID lobbyists, BUT I also disagree with science folks thinking their absolute version is ok, but someone elses is a crock of shit.. there are no absolutes, and in A SCIENCE CLASSROOM, the truth should be ACCURATELY PRESENTED, and it should be ELABORATED that Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection, while eloquent and logical and supported by evidence, ARE NOT ABSOLUTE FACT, and SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT TO CHILDREN this way, as this is as much a misrepresentation of the realities and limits of science as much as Intelligent Design as promoted by the Right-wing agenda in this country is a pseudo-science.. When I was a kid, I just had to sit there and think this to myself when learning that evolution was absolute in biology or chemistry.. The teacher could have easily bridged this gap in introducing the lessons saying, "This is the THEORY of evolution, and while it is very well studied with much evidence, it remains a theory and is NOT necessarily the way the Universe was formed, but rather is a common belief accepted by many people today..." That would solve ALL the problems if you ask me.. |
Close to the stone age, when I was in junior high school, we were taught creationism. It took about 1 minute: "There are some people who believe that the creation happened exactly as described in the Bible." And then we went on to evolution.
Also, I think, in a manner of speaking, there are no gaps in evolution--just items that haven't been found or no longer exist. Also, do evolution deniers have to worry about bacteria that become resistant to anti-biotics? Also, I found it funny that my sister, who is a devote Catholic, didn't know that there are people that took the Bible literally--or at least that there were so fucking many of them. Also, when exactly did the Bible become the literal TRUTH? |
Quote:
The bible was NEVER the literal or absolute truth, at least that is how the Orthodox Church takes it.. And yes, there are countless GAPS in the theory of evolution, fundamentally the theory has no proof that it actually happened that way at all.. after all, while I accept DNA evidence and the fossil record, this is by no means a smoking gun.. after all, who measures DNA? Scientists (ahem, can we said BIAS?) and after all, how the fuck do we ACTUALLY know what fossils are, we are truly just accepting them as remains as much an act of faith as taking the Eucharist. The reality is that human beings do no know shit, we are just really fabulous story tellers, and evolution is the great story we tell in this era, just as creation myths before them, and just like religion of old, we all believe these stories because they sound so nice when we tell them, but truthfully, nearly ALL of the evidences is circumstantial to the bias of the observers.. People today believe in evolution with as much passion and faith as the people of old believed Creation stories, but in the end, as much as NOBODY EVER WANTS TO ADMIT, this theory is as much a matter of belief and faith as ANY other story ever told about the Universe.. Evolution is merely the religion, the faith, of the modern era, but it can never be a proven fact, because of the limits of human understanding.. I do not accept ANY absolutes, these cause too much division. |
Quote:
If you're saying that evolution shouldn't be taught in the classroom then really what you are saying is that no science should be taught because all science taught in the classroom is presented in the same way. In my experience no science teacher has ever told me that anything they have taught is absolute fact; all science is always a theory. |
Quote:
I didn't say evolution should not be taught in the classroom.. I said that the Darwinian theory of Evolution, (ie, the process of natural selection, that the origin of all things is a result of this process) should not be taught as an absolute fact, when it is no fact at all, but rather a great great theory which I also accept, but not as an absolute fact, because I could never ACTUALLY know about evolution the way I can know about other principles of science which I can observe and experience directly. I can put light through a prism and KNOW for a FACT that in white light is all the colors of the rainbow, but how could I ever know that I evolved from sulfur bacteria at the bottom of the ocean 3.5 billion years ago? Good science asks questions, and the way evolution is presented today in biology books DOES not encourage questioning.. today science folks get as defensive about evolution as religious folks get about the Bible, it is fucking ridiculous.. |
Quote:
Same here, not every teacher, or prof I had has said that it was absolute truth. |
Quote:
i'm going to stop right there and answer to this before anything else and say BOLLOCKS. the dumb book-burning cop's premise is utterly wrong because it simply doesn't apply to the teaching of science. if he wants to teach in bible school that science is wrong or made a mistake about evolution because the word of god says differently, by all means he is free to do it (though he'd be the worst kind of dumbass incompetent theologian by doing that). but he needs to keep his filthy paws off the science curriculum. he doesn't know or understand science. science teachers don't go to sunday school to say that the bible is bullshit and that science proves it. keep science and religion separate. they are different endeavors. your statement that science does not promote individual questioning of the facts is either blatantly or willfully ignorant-- science is based on questioning ane experimentation, and it revises its truths constantly-- that's the essence of science. those who confuse science with a secular gospel either do not understand science at all or never had the luck to receive a proper education. i'll check the rest of your post a little later cuz i don't have time to answer the rest right now. |
Quote:
No proof?!! There's fucking loads of evidence! You're confused, there is no ideology in science, there is just the search for truth, and that way individual scientists may have biases but not all scientists in the way people of a perticular religion would. Who else is going to "measure DNA" (whatever you mean by that, I don't understand it) apart form scientists? Would you rather we had some priests with no scientific training to do a share of scientific research just to make things less biased? And anyway there are plenty of scientists who are religious. Quote:
What you call the evolution "myth" is not a myth in any way. It does not serve the purpose that myths or religions do. It's not a form of entertainment, it has not morality, it is not comforting etc. |
What are you talking about? As I mentioned, evolution happens all the time--inside our own bodies for crying out loud! Bacteria evolve and become resistant to anti-biotics. There really is no difference between bacteria and people--we share a lot of the same DNA
|
And, to answer the q in the subject: no, apparently we can not get along.
(we haven't evolved that far) |
Quote:
I said that current science EDUCATION in public schools does not necessarily promote individual question in regards to the theory of evolution, not that science does not promote questioning. My whole beef is that science DOES promote questioning, and so that mainstream science education should ALSO promote this questioning, but it is clear from any 9th grade biology text book that this is not the case, them say the Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection IS how the universe came to be, not that is is a POSSIBILITY. Kids need to know that not everything the book or adults say is true, and science of all subjects is supposed to be the subject which encourages this, but that is not the reality of many science classrooms today.. |
Quote:
IT IS NOT TAUGHT AS ABSOLUTE FACT! STOP LYING! With the prism how do you know that actually some other phenomena is happening? Maybe instead of splitting the light it is actually changing the colour of the light and the angle that the light goes through the prism decides this? I'm not actually doubting that the light is split but I am demonstrating your hypocrisy and willful ignorance. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content ©2006 Sonic Youth