When it comes to science, religion is always wrong
Over the last two millennia, religion has opposed science on many different occasions. And every time religion has opposed science, regardless of the topic, religion has been spectacularly wrong, every single time. Evolution is no different.
There is no one who is more completely convinced of the validity of evolution than creationists. That’s why they argue against it passionately. That’s why they tie themselves into knots trying to come up with bizarre criticisms of evolution. They know two things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution is assuredly true, and evolution is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible. It doesn’t take a great logician to see where that leads you. If evolution is true, then the Bible is not.
For those of us who see the Bible as a founding religious document, no different from the Greek myths, the Bhagavad Gita or ancient Egyptian beliefs, it is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. However, for those who believe that the Bible is a privileged document that represents the literal “word of God,” evolution is bound to cause serious psychic distress. For those people, religious belief is a first principle. They start with the premise that religion is true, particularly their own subset of religious belief, and that everything else must be evaluated with reference to the truth of religion.
Religion fills important psychological needs. It is a defense against the unpleasant reality that there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering. In the immortal words of folk wisdom, “Shit happens.” There’s no reason for it, no purpose to it, it is entirely random, and most importantly, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. No amount of propitiating a “Creator” makes any difference, because there is no one running the universe and no one you can turn to for help. No one loves you, except your family (if you are lucky), and you are navigating this harsh world alone.
Simply put, religion isn’t truth. It is a made up story we tell ourselves to feel better in a lonely, dangerous world.
Evolution, on the other hand, is obviously true. We see the evidence all around us, and there is much more evidence buried in the ground. When we worry about drug resistant bacteria, we acknowledge evolution; when we perform scientific research on primates, we acknowledge evolution; when we search for genetic causes of disease, we acknowledge evolution.
Creationists are utterly convinced of the truth of evolution. That’s why they are trying so desperately to keep it out of the public schools and far away from children. It is so obviously true that anyone who learns about it will assuredly recognized that it is true. And if children will inevitably conclude that evolution is true, they might also conclude that religion is false. That must be prevented at all costs. The only way to do that is to prevent the teaching of evolution in school.
If evolution were “just a theory,” an equal among many competing theories, there wouldn’t be a desperate attempt to keep it secret from children. All the different “theories” could be presented and children (and older people) could judge for themselves. Creationists know that evolution is the only possible explanation for the world as it exists. No other “theory” can compete with it, and religious explanations sound foolish. Hence they fight strenuously to keep evolution out of school, and inevitably lose.
This is not the first time that this has happened. The “debate” over evolution is almost an exact recapitulation of the “debate” over Galileo’s demonstration that the sun is at the center of the solar system, not the earth. The Bible had located the earth as the center of the entire universe, to literally represent the role of man as the center of God’s concern. When it became apparent that the earth wasn’t even the central planet in our little solar system, religious authorities felt compelled to prevent anyone from learning the truth.
If it became widely known that the Bible was wrong about something as straightforward as the location of the earth within the universe, then it might be wrong about anything. Church leaders reacted as conservatives often do; they attempted to suppress knowledge. They tried to suppress Galileo (and Copernicus and others) not because they knew he was wrong, but specifically because they knew he was right.
Creationists have reacted in exactly the same way. They, too, are religious conservatives and they are attempting to suppress knowledge of evolution, not because they believe that Darwin was wrong, but specifically because they know he was right.
There have been many other, minor skirmishes between religion and science over the years. In every disagreement, religion has been wrong, usually spectacularly wrong. Every single time. Religion has never vanquished science and it isn’t about to start now. No one understands this better than creationists. Evolution is dangerous knowledge because it is true and that’s why they fight against it with all their strength. If evolution is true, then the Bible is false, and they will not, they cannot, acknowledge that.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks.
It is amazing to me that this issue is still being debated in 2009 when it was settled more than 100 years ago.
This is so...cogent.
While I admire your writing I am usually so caught up in your topics, ao engaged with the material, that I don't think to comment 0n your talent and style.
You write with straightforward clarity. Your word choices are not really poetic or artful, and you are not afraid (as I am) to use a sturdy, familiar phrase if it is clear and correct.
But even when you cover well trod ground as you do here you are never cliched. It is your Art that your ideas, the cases you make, are strong, effective and accessible.
Not that it is all familiar. You combine to great effect here, and there is a piece of brilliance in suggesting Creationists are such True Believers in evolution. Obvious, of course, but so much so it doesn't get discussed. Thanks for that.
The thing that is most impressive is your Voice. You seem familiar, personally, but more importantly your mind, the way you build an argument, is transparent and human and very much You.
And I like You.
If sheer logic and good prose could by itself diminish the astonishingly juvenile noise about ID being taught in schools, this post would do it. Would that it were so. Sigh.
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)
It is called: The Hidden Face of God.
It is a thoughtful and respectful opposite point of view and it is authored by a physicist and biologist trained at MIT. And once again, Mr. Einstien who needs no introduction:
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I personally know many scientists who are Catholics.
Thanks for the kind words
"Is it that people are trying to keep evolution out of schools or that they just want a chance to teach intelligent design as well as evolution?"
Both tactics are variations on the same theme. The theme is to undermine the teaching of evolution. They would prefer to keep evolution out of the schools, but they lost that judicial battle long ago. Therefore, they invented "creationism" in an effort to inject religion into the discussion.
"But then, the enemies of evolution are not to be swayed by such things as logic."
In a curious way, creationists are swayed by logic. They understand that evolution is logical and creationism is not. Hence the effort to keep evolution out of schools completely, if possible, or to undermine it if it must be taught.
"When you have prematurely arrived at your answer, you are hardly 'investigating an answer'."
Exactly. Creationists like to complain that evolution is "only a theory," but creationism doesn't even meet that standard. To be a scientific theory, an idea must be falsifiable in theory, and creationists will not admit that their beliefs are even falsifiable, let alone false.
"I have posted a rebuttal"
If you need to believe in religion, that tells us about you. It does not tell us about the truth of religion.
Face it, every time religion has criticized science on empirical grounds, religion has been wrong. Every single time!
"I personally know many scientists who are Catholics."
So what? That tells us nothing about anything.
If you need faith, and it helps you, that's fine. Just don't pretend that what you need to believe is empirically true.
The entire dramatic theater of falling in love, having a baby,falling out of love,getting a divorce,loosing custody,falling in love again and repeating over and over with scattered ruined lives and violence being quite obviously the norm in our culture. And considering the huge burden this places on limited resources in every facet- Is now perhaps the time to look at sterilization at birth?
"Is now perhaps the time to look at sterilization at birth?"
I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at. Why would we sterilize anyone against their will?
"Firstly I wish that you had stated that this was the situation in America"
You are correct. At the moment, religion is more popular in the US than in Europe and creationists wield more political power. The general point, though, is that creationists are afraid of evolution, because they know that it is true.
The Theory of Evolution is one of the best tested scientific theories of all time. However, there's at least one scientific principle that is even better tested, and far more of a threat to the religious viewpoint than evolution: The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy.
It states, directly, that "creating" the Universe is completely impossible. All the mass-energy that exists today must always have existed for all time, according to this law.
Most theologians conclude that evolution is completely compatible with the Bible. But this one's a doozy. You can't accept this law without admitting that God, as Biblically defined, can't possibly exist.
Why is evolution such a boogyman?
If I were to ask a neonatal urologist to give my baby a vasectomy he/she would probably decline, yet they would happily circumsise
him.
"Why is evolution such a boogyman?"
I suspect that it is the focus of attention for the same reason that the heliocentric theory of the solar system was a focus of attention: it is easy for any lay person to understand the implications.
Most people don't understand physics beyond basic mechanics, so they are less likely to worry about the implications.
"The unfortunate result of this struggle at the edges is that science teachers are loathe to address the issue for fear of riling parents. They just skirt around it as much as they can. Which is sort of mind boggling in any kind of biology class."
You're right. And that is a victory for creationists, and robs our children of the opportunity to learn the truth.
"Not all religious people are fundamentalists."
No, of course not. I am referring specifically to people who are creationists, not to all people who are religious.
For those that expect a literal translation of every single word of the bible of today to be true and that finding even one error means the whole thing is now wrong, then yes, evolution does create a huge problem for these people...this is a very small group since it's universally recognized that we've had lost documents and errors in reproduction and translation; there are a great many believers who see God as the cause for the Big Bang and evolution can definitely co-exist with their faith. Science has certainly not disproved the existence of God nor God's bringing about the Big Bang.
Even if one was to prove God does not exist, it does not lead to your conclusion that: there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification...no reason for it, no purpose to it, it is entirely random, and most importantly, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. Evolution is entirely contrary to that belief. Evolution plays out the way it does because there is meaning, there is a plan, there are reasons and purposes; we do not evolve randomly (that's not to say that random events do not also exist) but evolution definitely has a very non-random component with plenty of reason and purpose.
I'm not saying any of this justifies proof for an existence of God; for anyone who puts every bit of scientific reasoning and evidence to consideration and realizing the full magnitude of that evidence in making a decision on which is most likely, to still come out believing in favor of God's existence, you have reached a pinnacle I can only hope to achieve. And for all science can ever prove and tip the scales against the likelihood for the existence of God, science will never be able to disprove God.
The greater question is how do we live? Should the existence of God affect how we live our lives? The ultimate test of integrity and those who can pass that test are clearly the most evolved.
Anyway, you're bang on about Conservatives being afraid of evolution because they secretly believe it. If your only reason for believing the truth of the Bible is that the Bible says it's true, then any fault within it causes your whole belief structure to collapse. Yet no person who is 1) honest 2) reasonably intelligent 3) has read the Bible can reconcile the internal conflicts and manifest errors.
On the other hand, you're presenting a false dichotomy of choices. It's not valid to say that because the Bible contains errors it is automatically valueless. The Bible is testimony, pure and simple, a record written by actual human beings. The entire testimony of a witness at trial is not invalidated because she incorrectly remembers the color of the victim's shirt. Both you and the Creationists are wrong about the "implications" of evolution.
1.) Can we all agree that the cartoon that accompanies the posting is embarrassingly lame? This is on a par with the "editorial" cartoons that accompanied certain conservative blogs that showed the world of the "secular" future as peopled by cross-dressing, cloned, gay-married people feasting on aborted fetuses. I mean, going back to believing in a flat earth? Really??? And leaches ARE being used again to a very limited degree.
2.) I agree that many of the people who fight evolutionary teaching in the schools also believe in it. But they are not "fighting" their belief in it, they are simply not owning up to it in any public forum, just as Bush never owned up to the fact that he had no particular beef with gay people, but needed to appease his base by seeming to agree with their homophobia.
Doctor Tuteur is a little gullible (another problem) if she thinks that the people who are pushing for the teaching of evolution really don't believe in it. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in my neck of the woods. I had the dubious distinction of discussing the tactics being used in my daughter's high school to push the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution with one of the "pushers." After an hour of pretty pointless arguing, she said, "Look, only an idiot thinks the world is only 5,000 years old, but most of believe that God had a hand in evolution too, and we want that taught in the schools." I also know that getting intelligent design into public school curriculums is a way to get discussion of religion in through the back door. Don't get sucked into an evolution vs. religion argument, because that was never the issue to begin with.
And you are likely to lose ground once the blazingly wrong past "theories" of science are trotted out in all their glory. Remember the one about the placenta being able to filter out alcohol? That was one of the "greatest hits of science" told to my mother 50 years ago.
3.) Then we have this tidbit:
If it became widely known that the Bible was wrong about something as straightforward as the location of the earth within the universe, then it might be wrong about anything.
Huh? I'm not even going to comment on this statement, since it is just wrong in so many ways, even within the belief system of the average evangelical believer.
4.) But then we come to the real WTF paragraph:
Religion fills important psychological needs.
Do tell!
It is a defense against the unpleasant reality that there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering. In the immortal words of folk wisdom, “Shit happens.” There’s no reason for it, no purpose to it, it is entirely random, and most importantly, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. No amount of propitiating a “Creator” makes any difference, because there is no one running the universe and no one you can turn to for help. .
This is only an argument for the "other side" Dr. since anyone who REALLY buys into your bleak assessment is probably planning a quick exit via a gun or that tall building downtown. What you are basically saying is that the world is so chaotic, random and meaningless that the only people who are truly happy are the people who can delude themselves that it isn't. If that is the case, I will take the deluded religious people over the heroin addict (who is happy as long as they are high) or the guy in the tinfoil hat . At least the deluded religious person is less likely to steal my purse. I need the money.
No one loves you, except your family (if you are lucky), and you are navigating this harsh world alone.
Is this what you tell your patients?
Of course any theory that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible will threaten the beliefs of someone who believes every word of the Bible is literally the word of God. There are a lot more theories in the scientific world that do just that, but they are much harder to comprehend and apply to a biblical context. I could drone on.
We love simple answers. It's easier to explain that God created the world, (even though the two Biblical stories have different methods, means, and outcomes,) than to follow the extremely challenging mathematics and physics inherent in general relativity, special relativity, and possibly superstring theory. However when we dive into these subjects, they are inherently more beautiful and satisfying. Just look at a couple of the TED talks: Brian Greene, "The Universe on a String", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M or George Smoot, "The Design of the Universe," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c64Aia4XE1Y
Your point that the concept of evolution is now where the heliocentric theory was several hundred years ago is likely correct. Most of us don't want to wait that long. It is a matter of time and education, however it is extremely frustrating and disappointing to see a highly educated nation reverting to more fundamental beliefs than it did in general 50 years ago. I thought I would see the change forward in my lifetime. Unfortunately I don't think so...
"Evolution is entirely contrary to that belief. Evolution plays out the way it does because there is meaning, there is a plan, there are reasons and purposes;"
No, that is 100% false. There is actually a word for this type of falsehood. It is "teleology." Teleology is defined as "the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization."
The claim that evolution has an ultimate goal, with meaning and purpose is just a very sophisticated form of creationism. Evolution does not require, not does it have any goals, meaning or purpose.
Evolution is guided by principles, the most well known being "survival of the fittest." That means that for a given environment, the animals most suited for success in that environment will, over long periods of time, have a competitive advantage. That's it. Since the environment changes over time in unpredictable ways, what was a competitive advantage in the original environment can become an disadvantage in a decade or century later.
In addition, the Earth is subject to major asteroid hits that have repeatedly wiped out almost all life. For example, in the Permian extinction, approximately 250 million years ago, over 96% of species were killed. Everything that exists now comes from those 4% of species that survived. In a single instant, the course of evolution changed dramatically and irrevocably.
"Nature is bloody in tooth and claw" is no more than simple truth. On a day to day basis, it is all about not being eaten, and getting enough to eat. Over time, some species are more successful in the existing environment than others. Over time, the criteria for success are constantly changing. Over time the environment itself is constantly changing. There is no plan, and there certainly is no goal.
Evolution is entirely random
"It's not valid to say that because the Bible contains errors it is automatically valueless."
I didn't say that it is. I am simply pointing out that for those whose religious faith instructs them that the Bible is the literally word of God, scientific facts present serious philosophical problems.
It makes no difference to most of the world whether the stories in the Bible are true. Most of the world doesn't believe in the Bible anyway. And it makes no difference to those who have not been taught that the Bible is the literal word of God, since there is no conflict for them in noting that a document written by multiple human beings approximately 3000 years ago reflects the misunderstandings of people who lived 3000 years ago.
It is only a problem for those who were taught to believe that the Bible is literally true.
"What you are basically saying is that the world is so chaotic, random and meaningless that the only people who are truly happy are the people who can delude themselves that it isn't."
No, I've said nothing of the kind. Many people are happy without being religious, and many religious people are quite miserable.
There are those who argue, in fact, that religion offers a way to convince people to accept their perpetual unhappiness by believing 1. that there is meaning in their unhappiness, and 2. that there can be no happiness in this life, but only in some purported existence after death.
Religion, in other words, does not make people happy, nor does it even try to do so. It merely convinces people to accept their unhappiness.
"disappointing to see a highly educated nation reverting to more fundamental beliefs than it did in general 50 years ago."
I agree. It is also disappointing to see those with fundamentalist beliefs trying to impose them on everyone else.
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)
As a man of both science and logic, I'll take Dr. Einstein's words over this particular take any day.
People have opinions, they all differ.
Respectfully
Religion and faith are two very different things. Religion may be at odds with science, but faith isn't. I think the problems come when people haven't figured out how to believe in both things. I believe that we have a physical world and a spiritual world. I believe in evolution, I believe in science, and I also believe that there's an entire universe of spiritual existence that we just can't see very well.
No need to argue whatsoever, in my opinion.
"No need to argue whatsoever, in my opinion."
That the crux of the matter. It's not that fundamentalists don't believe in evolution. It's that they feel compelled to ensure that no one else believes in evolution. In other words, they want and need to argue.
I don't think that's true at all, especially if you look at the human genetics movement early in the 20th century, typically called "eugenics":
"The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area. Thus, the first edition of Principles of Genetics can talk very casually about people whose stock ought to be eliminated on the basis of their contributions to society. The senior author, Edward Sinnott, became a professor at Columbia, and later, dean of the Yale Graduate School."
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html
While it is true that many religious leaders embraced eugenics -- it was, after all, the science of the day -- the Catholic church opposed it, along with some conservative protestants. I think it's even fair to say that the Catholic church was the only major American institution to oppose eugenics.
So I suppose you could say that eugenics wasn't "true" or "good" science, but it was the science of the day; in fact, its scientific provenance was perhaps the major selling point, though there were scientists who were critics and skeptics. Many scientists were involved in eugenics research, and various institutes and university endowed chairs were established around the world.
Sometimes science gets it wrong, very wrong, and in this case it became one of the inspirations of the Final Solution.
"Simply put, religion isn’t truth. It is a made up story we tell ourselves to feel better in a lonely, dangerous world."
That is such a monumentally shallow view of religion that I have a hard time believing that you actually think that. There are different kinds of truth, and not all truth can be cooked up in a test tube or seen with a telescope. This "made-up story" to which you refer is what helps people to understand how they should live and treat other people, both topics about which science has little to say.
"especially if you look at the human genetics movement early in the 20th century, typically called "eugenics":"
To my knowledge, the Catholic Church did not criticize the "science" of eugenics, it criticized the philosophy. In that way, it is similar to the Church's condemnation of the Pill. The Church does not claim that the Pill doesn't work; it claims that you shouldn't take the Pill even though the science behind it is sound.
"Not all people of faith are anti-science, as has been acknowledged here, and yet antitheists cling to that characterization rather than acknowledging that religious groups do raise valid ethical questions."
The title, and the post, makes and empirical claim: every time that religion has denied the scientific truth of a scientific claim, religion has been wrong. No one has yet provided any counter example.
I am not claiming, nor would I, that religion has been wrong about its ethical criticisms of science or certain scientific claims. Ethics is the province of religion; making claims about scientific facts is not.
I'm not going to argue. I just see a great deal of social harm in judging any group by its extremes.
It is about evangelical Christians wanting to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Thank you for another enlightening post.
Perhaps that bit of mischief will eventually find its way onto Obama's to-do list.
All the best, David
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -- Douglas Adams
"I have to disagree with you when you say that ethics are the province of religion."
I'm sorry I was not clear about that. I mean that ethics is a province of religion, but I don't mean that it is exclusive to religion. In my personal opinion, the study of non-religious ethics is more compelling than religious ethics.
The six-day Creation stories in Genesis belong to the realm of Myth, and I mean that in the traditional sense of the word: not literally factual, but stories which nevertheless illustrate a truth. They're poetry, they're literature, but they're not science and they never originally pretended to be.
However, science can neither prove nor disprove whether there is an organizing principle behind it all. The fact that we cannot see or understand something does not necessarily mean that it does not exist any more than believing in something necessarily means that it is real and not a delusion.
"The fact that we cannot see or understand something does not necessarily mean that it does not exist"
No, it does mean that it does not exist. Until there is some proof, it is merely the product of someone's imagination.
Religion has been forced to fall back on claims that there is a reality beyond what can be perceived by the senses, just as it has been forced to fall back on claims that justice exists in a place where we cannot see it (after death). It's no different than the Greeks who created myths about fickle gods fighting in the heavens to explain what they could not understand. The fact that they didn't understand natural phenomena did not mean that supernatural explanations made sense or were required.
http://www.venganza.org/
Sure, some people debate whether the decline in pirates has led to global warming, but I think the data is quite convincing.
I think you're changing the argument somewhat. The title of the post is the more general "When it comes to science, religion is always wrong," and the first paragraph reads "Over the last two millennia, religion has opposed science on many different occasions. And every time religion has opposed science, regardless of the topic, religion has been spectacularly wrong, every single time."
So we've gone from "regardless of the topic" to the much narrower "denied the scientific truth of a scientific claim." Fair enough.
First, I would note that "religion" per se does not affirm or deny anything, but religious people can and do. That said, relatively few religious people deny relatively few scientific truths, and most of those have to do with origins and cosmology. Religious people in general are not protesting the Periodic Table, nor are they calling photosynthesis into question. It is true that the Catholic church denied certain scientific truths some centuries ago, but that was when science was in its infancy, and there was little in the way of philosophy of science, and no formal system of evaluating scientific claims.
More to the point, I'm not sure why religion and religious people are being singled out here. In general you could say that most every time that any non-scientist has denied the scientific truth of a scientific claim, that person has been wrong. Sometimes even scientists are wrong. Lysenko was wrong. I believe that deniers of global warming are probably wrong. Certainly many of the supporters of eugenics were wrong. People who said that cigarettes were harmless were wrong.
There are all sorts of people who have been and are wrong on science, and religious folk do not have the market cornered on that.
And yes, there are creationists, but these are even a minority among conservative Christians. The existence of creationists is not exactly news, and I don't think we learn very much about religion from them.
Was the earth flat until proven otherwise? Did the sun revolve around the earth until proven otherwise?
On a medical note: it was not until the invention of microscopes that we had real proof of the existence of bacteria and viruses. Was the bubonic plague merely the product of someone's imagination until that point?
I wasn't arguing that you should or should not believe in God, just that the question of God's existence or non-existence is, by its very nature, impossible to prove.
"I'm not sure why religion and religious people are being singled out here. In general you could say that most every time that any non-scientist has denied the scientific truth of a scientific claim, that person has been wrong."
Religion is being single out because fundamentalists are attempting to proselytize through the educational system and through political pressure. If they want to pretend that evolution isn't true in order to comfort themselves about their religious beliefs, they have every right to do so. As soon as they attempt to inject their religion into the education of my children, and the funding of science for all Americans, and the election of politicians to foist their religious views upon the rest of us, they are legitimate targets for opposition and scorn.
If a person wants to be religious, he should be free to do so. However, if he wants to proselytize, he better be sure that what he says makes sense, or be prepared for legitimate criticism.
"you cannot possibly be serious when you write, "Until there is some proof, it is merely the product of someone's imagination."
I am completely serious. Expecting anyone to accept a claim without proof is wrong. Logic does not require anyone to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that clouds are not made of marshmallows, but if someone wants to claim that they are, he must provide proof.
Similarly, if someone wants to believe that clouds are made of marshmallows, he has every right to do so. The minute he wishes to introduce his beliefs into the public space of education or politics, he better be prepared to provide proof.
Regarding your assertion that no one should be expected to accept an argument without proof, ummm....earlier you wrote, "...there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering. In the immortal words of folk wisdom, “Shit happens.” There’s no reason for it, no purpose to it, it is entirely random, and most importantly, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. No amount of propitiating a “Creator” makes any difference, because there is no one running the universe and no one you can turn to for help. No one loves you, except your family (if you are lucky), and you are navigating this harsh world alone."
Can you prove that? ;)
By this statement, do you mean that until there is proof of something, it should be treated as the product of someone's imagination?
Because scientifically and logically, that makes more sense. (Obviously things like microbes existed before we had proof of them or any idea that they were what was causing infectious disease.)
You are a very shallow, narrow-minded person to make such a blanket statement. I don't mind arguments of science against religion, but to say to Snap, "If you need to believe in religion, that tells us about you. It does not tell us about the truth of religion."
I would ask you, what does this blog tell us what we needed to know about you?
And sorry to say this but, not respectfully. It's not deserving.
In the case that you dont understand, anyone who thinks they know for sure the answer to the question for God or not, is simply a MORON! Scientist come down on both sides, so dont be a know it all horses ass!
"Can you prove that? ;)"
I don't have to prove it. The rules of logic mandate that no one has to prove a negative. In the absence of proof otherwise, we must assume that it doesn't exist.
"And sorry to say this but, not respectfully. It's not deserving."
I'm not sure why people are confused on this point. Just because someone disagrees with you, is not a sign that they "disrespect" you. It's a sign that you haven't proven your point. I really don't understand why you think you are owed agreement.
Ok, so your complaint is more about fundamentalism than it is about religion per se.
I think what many people object to is the idea that science is the be-all and end-all. Many times people make claims in the name of science that go beyond what science can actually demonstrate. For example, you say
"It [religion] is a defense against the unpleasant reality that there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering."
This is your personal opinion, perhaps inspired by science, but it is not a scientific opinion. There is no scientific experiment that demonstrates that, no scientific theory of which that statement is a part. In fact many scientists (e.g., cell biologist and Catholic Ken Miller) would disagree with you.
In the same way that you do not want conservative or fundamentalist Christians teaching their philosophy to your children, they would not want your philosophy taught to their children. It is important for science teachers to be clear about what is and is not the domain of science. And issues related to meaning, value, and ultimate ends are not the domain of science, though they would make for a very good philosophy class.
"anyone who thinks they know for sure the answer to the question for God or not, is simply a MORON!"
And that is simply the sign of someone who cannot defend their own point of view. Go ahead and believe what you want. Just don't proselytize to the rest of us.
"Wow, I am honestly sorry that I wrote a blog in your defense."
I hardly considered it a defense. It was filled with stuff that you made up to suit yourself. You never even bothered to find out the truth.
"Ok, so your complaint is more about fundamentalism than it is about religion per se."
It was intended to be about fundamentalism, but in addressing the comments, I have come to realize that it is also about proselytizing. Creationism is just stealth proselytizing.
"I think what many people object to is the idea that science is the be-all and end-all."
I don't know. It seems that what they object to is the idea that there could be something beyond science is not greeted with the admiration that they would like.
People don't simply want me to respect their desire to believe what they want. They want me to say that their beliefs are reasonable, and that I am not about to do. Hence the charges of "disrespect."
Progress on this front when measured over the recent centuries has been impressive, people that don't float are rarely called witches and in many countries you can worship any god without social penalties.
This right here should tell any reasonable person that it's politics and not truth.
Leviticus 20:2
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Leviticus 20:1-3 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
Masturbation is a capital offense.......God wants us to kill each other over masturbation...
There is a big difference between saying that "there is just not enough evidence for me at this time to accept that this thing exists," and "there is no hard-and-fast proof of this thing's existence, ergo, this thing does not exist." The first is entirely logical and scientific, the second is a logical fallacy.
"but there is also plenty of evidence that there is meaning in the universe"
Here's what I don't understand: why isn't it enough for you to believe it? Why do you feel the need to try to change my mind?
Some of the people who reacted so viscerally to this post seem to be insecure in their own faith. It's almost as if they feel that they must have validation from others in order to be content. Why isn't their own faith enough?
First, "belief" in a scientific principle has no standing in the scientific community. You "believe" in evolution as others "believe" in God. No one can confirm or deny a belief, it is all in your head. What a scientist can do is confirm facts about scientific hypothesis, perhaps to a point that others are convinced they are true.
For example, I posit the earth is spherical in shape. I don't "believe" that; it's my hypothesis, and I want to prove it. I might disprove it. That's the breaks. I make measurements toward that end, and behold the earth is an oblate spheroid. That is my conclusion. This process is called the scientific method.
You talk about believing in the theory of evolution, and state
'Evolution is guided by principles, the most well known being "survival of the fittest." ' Actually, the best known principles of evolution are natural selection and genetic drift. Survival of the fittest is a shorthand phrase that is used more by population researchers than biologists. But lay folk use it too, so I guess, in your non-scientific blog your use of the term is acceptable. Just don't try to superimpose it over the actual principles of evolution.
The hypothesis that living things (not just animals by the way) have over time become different from their forebears requires no "belief." It is something that can be posited, tested, and proved. I don't "believe" in it, I know it to be fact. Plato set up this difference between "belief" and "fact" when he defined knowledge as justified true belief on his dialogue "Theaetetus." The study of philosophy and the history of science is very rewarding, and I recommend it to anyone who is putting themselves out there as an expert in a field of science.
Intelligent design cannot be proved when subjected to the same critical testing of the hypothesis, and thus fails the scientific analysis.
That does not mean one don't "believe" in it, however. To believe in something means that a person takes a leap of faith. A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere belief in God is just as valid for a person's personal philosophical system as your sincere apparently sincere belief that there is no God, and that intelligent design is wrong.
Just as belief in God requires faith, not knowledge, there is no reason to expect anyone will ever try to apply the scientific method to his existence. But that does NOT nullify that person's belief system.
You are messing in philosophy in this post, and in epistemology. You have muddled your terms. True scientists keep their belief systems totally separate from their factual knowledge.
I always question the use of the term "always" in your title. A broken watch is precisely correct twice a day. Even though non-functional, it is not always wrong.
A wise crack response from you of "So what?" is anticipated. I believe that will occur. But I don't know it for a fact.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"
Einstein, 1954, in a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt
"Einstein was not a religious man, not in the sense that most people mean when they say religious - he did not believe in a personal God, he did not believe there is a purpose in life, he did not believe in an immortal soul. This is well documented by reliable sources, though many religious people have tried to co-opt his comments, take them out of context and demonstrate that he was a true believer."
Thank you for pointing that out.
Einstein was not even religious, let alone a fundamentalist and he would have had no patience with creationism.
Clearly you're smart enough to know what I'm saying.
Your paycheck depends on the continuation of the reproduction game regardless of how devastating it is to us. Well at least you're willing to acknowledge the biblical influences....
Dr Amy-earlier I posted 2 links that people could use to read about science in The Bible and also about the argument against evolution and for creationism. Where did they go? Is that how you debate those who do not agree with you? This speaks volumes.
"Where did they go?"
I rarely delete anything, but I do delete links to websites that proselytize.
On the other hand, I've experienced miracles in my life that aren't explainable by science, such as instantaneous faith healing, dreams and foreknowledge of future events (including 9/11), and answers to some occasionally bizarre prayers.
Is there a God? I see some evidence in my life. Is the Bible the literal word of God? Probably not.
I am sorry, but it seems that this is more a case of "the kettle calling the copper black." Express your theory, please, but to then say no one else can do the same seems to me a bit srange in the context of this debate.
"In fact, evolution has a very determined purpose. It is using up the order that came out of the Big Bang and star and planet formation."
I don't follow you at all. Could you supply some scientific explanation for your ideas?
"Yes, if we are all wanting a scientific approach, why not allow all theories to be examined together"
Creationism is not a theory. It does not meet the most basic definition of a theory, which requires it to be falsifiable. Proponents of creationism do not acknowledge any possibility that it is falsifiable. It is a religious fairy tale masquerading in "scientese."
Religion without science is lame."
Albert E
Like all of us, I think you have some more reading and thinking to do. You attempt to criticize Dr. Tuteur’s understanding of science by flaunting your own ignorance of evolution and you attempt to correct poor Terry’s interpretation of the Bible by offering up your own interpretation.
There are some excellent books on evolution. I would suggest that you try reading and attempting to understand just one that is not recommended by a theist, proselytizing website. I’d recommend the Blind Watchmaker, but I imagine you would rather read the Qur’an than anything written by Dr. Dawkins! So pick another. Ask other OS members for suggestions.
Some things to think about:
Maybe, Terry was right in his interpretation.
Maybe, if your god is omniscient then surely he already knew “His people from the inter-marrying, the idol-worship and all of the other bad habits they had picked up in Egypt”. I mean, come on, he created them all. Right?
Maybe, He, being all omnipotent and everything could have come up with a better plan than “them wander in the desert for 40 years”. Let’s see: 1. create everything in six days. 2. cleanse all evil from the world by 40 some odd days of flooding. 3. Filter the good folks from the bad by 40 years of wandering. Kind of looks like he is losing his touch.
I know, I know, he works in mysterious ways! And so loving! Nothing says love like letting you wander and die after forty years in the dry heat of a desert.
Creationism is not a theory. It does not meet the most basic definition of a theory, which requires it to be falsifiable. Proponents of creationism do not acknowledge any possibility that it is falsifiable. It is a religious fairy tale masquerading in "scientese."
Whether that be true or not, there is a huge leap from that statement to then declare that evolution is the only concept that any one should accept. This seems to me to be a leap of faith on YOUR part, rather than a logical scientific presentation. Besides, in true scientific fashion my post is acknowledging the importance of listening to all scientists, though never mentioning Creationism. YOU are the one that mentions crationism in an apparent attempt to proseletise any who believe anything different to yourself. Once again, there seems to be an absence of logic here that is dissappointing when I see your qualifications stated in your bio. I appreciate that there may be something in the background unknown to this public post which may explain your dogmatic position against any differing from you, but from what you have posted I have difficulty being able to trust what you may say untill this is explained. Sorry.
"...Evolution is entirely random."
AmyTuteurMD
February 11, 2009 07:21 AM
Incorrect. Mutations are random. Genetic drift is random. Natural selection is not random.
Stick to medicine.
"So what?" [so mature Dr.....]
I've felt very sorry for you lately, so many people fling rude little barbs at you, and I've read your posts-they've never seemed worth the vitirol before. I've even rated one or two.
But now it seems that you're determined to make all of the 'cool kids' here on OS change their opinion of you, and the best way to do that in your mind was to come here and write a post that's basically a put down of everyone who is beneath you-everyone who is STUPID enough to believe in God.
The cool kids still don't like you Dr. Amy. Childish attempt -pathetic, actually. Now all of the sweet kids and newbies who were willing to ignore all of the Amy bashing; we're all gonna scoot wayyy down on the bench next time you try to sit next to us in the cafeteria.
"The idea behind the second law of thermodynamics ..."
Sorry, that's another bogus creationist claim betraying both a lack of understanding AND a lack of physics.
"Whether that be true or not, there is a huge leap from that statement to then declare that evolution is the only concept that any one should accept."
All the existing evidence supports evolution. NONE supports creationism. Evolution is scientific theory that can and will change in response to new information that is discovered (that's a basic principle of science). Creationism is a religious fairy tale that does not even rise to the level of a scientific theory.
"Natural selection is not random."
It is random because the timing and type of mutations are entirely random and mutations are the mechanism by which evolution occurs.
"The cool kids still don't like you Dr. Amy."
But, as we all learned in junior high school, all the "cool kids" are losers. Their biggest "achievement" in life is pretending that they are cool.
"well I guess you should take that up with the professors who gave me A's in graduate statistical mechanics."
Getting an A in statistical mechanics doesn't change the fact (indeed doesn't have anything to with the fact) that your claim is a bogus creationist claim that was demolished back in 1973 when it was first asserted.
As biologist PZ Meyers wrote recently:
"One of the oldest canards in the creationists' book is the claim that evolution must be false because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, or the principle that, as they put it, everything must go from order to disorder. One of the more persistent perpetrators of this kind of sloppy thinking is Henry Morris, and few creationists today seem able to get beyond this error."
"without even knowing the facts either."
It's isn't me. No credible scientist agrees with your "understanding" of the role of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in evolution. I simply looked it up and learned that it was a bogus creationist claim. Indeed, it is found on most creationist websites and demolished in all scientific publications that address the issue.
Why are you arguing with me? You're wrong. No amount of arguing with me changes that. Take it up with the physicists and biologists who have written extensively on the subject.
There is no "purpose" to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, just like there is no "purpose" to the Law of Gravity. Claiming that the "purpose" of the Second Law is to create entropy is like claiming that the "purpose" gravity is to cause apples to fall off trees. In both cases, what we observe are the results of the law, not it's "purpose."
This isn't even my fight anymore, until the Dr.'s meds kick in. You're welcome to comment, but truly, I'm outta here and the horse you rode in on.
Peece! DJ
"But that is the GOAL of the second law of thermodynamics."
Scientific laws do not have goals. They explain observable phenomena. You are confusing the concept of a "result" with a "goal."
The Law of Gravity results in apples falling off trees. Apples falling off trees is not a "goal" of the Law of Gravity. See what I mean?
Goal implies deliberation and purpose. Scientific laws have neither.
It is a defense against the unpleasant reality that there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering.
Simply put, religion isn't truth. It is a made up story we tell ourselves to feel better in a lonely, dangerous world.
At first I thought your words between those two passages were simply conceit. I now think you said exactly what you meant. If so I can understand why yours is a "lonely, dangerous world."
The Bible had located the earth as the center of the entire universe, to literally represent the role of man as the center of God’s concern.
I've heard that before so I investigated. My research didn't bear out your stated conclusion. Instead, like many beliefs credited to the Bible this theory seems to have propagated from creative interpretations of a few selective verses. The conflation of "Onanism" with masturbation is another example. I acknowledge people will continue to interpret scripture in ways that support their beliefs, but presenting the "center of the universe" view as de facto Biblical belief weakens your thesis and the following arguments that rely on that slanted view.
There have been many other, minor skirmishes between religion and science over the years. In every disagreement, religion has been wrong, usually spectacularly wrong. Every single time. Religion has never vanquished science and it isn't about to start now.
Every disagreement? Would that be five or five hundred or five thousand disagreements? Are you sincerely using hyperbole to make a point in a post that pits science against religion? Or were you going for irony?
Extremists exist everywhere you look. But most people of faith I know are not interested in vanquishing science. We view it as a blessing, but that doesn't mean we're always happy with how faulty humanity uses it. Your post stunningly presents your personal viewpoint on religion vs. evolution. But despite its flirtation with scientific notions, I don't thing the scientific community will be using it to bolster their arguments.
Creationism is not a theory. It does not meet the most basic definition of a theory, which requires it to be falsifiable. Proponents of creationism do not acknowledge any possibility that it is falsifiable. It is a religious fairy tale masquerading in "scientese."
---------------------------------------------------
I then said:
Whether that be true or not, there is a huge leap from that statement to then declare that evolution is the only concept that any one should accept. This seems to me to be a leap of faith on YOUR part, rather than a logical scientific presentation. Besides, in true scientific fashion my post is acknowledging the importance of listening to all scientists, THOUGH NEVER MENTIONING CREATIONISM. YOU are the one that mentions creationism in an apparent attempt to proseletise any who believe anything different to yourself. Once again, there seems to be an absence of logic here that is dissappointing when I see your qualifications stated in your bio. I appreciate that there may be something in the background unknown to this public post which may explain your dogmatic position against any differing from you, but from what you have posted I have difficulty being able to trust what you may say untill this is explained. Sorry.
--------------------------------------------------
Did you notice that I was not the one referring to creationism??? Did you notice that you were the only one using the word? Now here is your reply to this:
All the existing evidence supports evolution. NONE supports creationism. Evolution is scientific theory that can and will change in response to new information that is discovered (that's a basic principle of science). Creationism is a religious fairy tale that does not even rise to the level of a scientific theory.
----------------------------
Putting that all together, can you see that you are arguing against what you THINK is being said, not what was acually written. I speak obout the full range of scientific theories with no mention of creationism whilst you have assumed I must have said the "C" word so that ou can get back to your hobby horse. Can you see now why some of the people reading your blog are having trouble undestanding your logic? In any debate, it is crucial to both listen to others and seek to understand the opposing view if the debate is to be meaningful. Without listening the understanding cannot come.
In the medical world, can you see how dangerous it could be if a patient describes symptoms and the doctor then decides to treat for something completely different because he/she assumes they must have meant something different from what they said.
Amy, I am trying to put this nicely, but unless you can listen to what others are saying people will come to the conclusion that it is YOU that is the bigot, that it is YOU that is denying people the opportunity to discover new horizons whether it be scientific or any other topic, that it is YOU that is looking at the subject blindfolded without a care for the evidence, and that it is YOU that is being judgemental.
In fairness, however, on the basis that your bio indicates some scientific background, I am giving the benefit of doubt here. I am guessing that there is something deeper that must be troubling you and therefore clouding your judgement. As I have indicated earlier, I really do hope that you find a way through this time, and that you can find some support somewhere, though as you are not speaking of the background to your concerns I am at a loss in terms of what I might say without some measure of presumption.
But Darwin also recognised that his vaunted theory of evolution was dumb on the all-important question of creation-the mystery of what set the universe in motion and what force or forces launched life on its magnificent, ever-branching trajectory. Was that God's work? Might He yet exist?
---------------------------------------
Could it be that the origonator of the evolution theory came with more of an open mind than SOME (not all) of his modern day worshippers of the religion of evolution? I am only asking the questions of course, others may bring the answers.
"Every disagreement?"
Yes, every single one.
If you think otherwise, feel free to supply examples where religion has disagreed with an empirical scientific claim and turned out to be correct.
"I am trying to put this nicely, but unless you can listen to what others are saying people will come to the conclusion that it is YOU that is the bigot,"
It is never bigotry to point out the truth.
It is the central conceit of religious conservatives and their allies that they are victims of anything, let alone bigotry.
"Could it be that the origonator of the evolution theory came with more of an open mind"
No, Darwin was an agnostic if not an outright atheist.
Darwin had been studying to be an Anglican clergyman when he left on the Beagle. When he came back 5 years later, he felt that it was impossible to return to religious studies because he no longer believed in the Anglican faith.
Darwin hesitated to publish his work for approximately 20 years, because he anticipated correctly that religious leaders would understand that his work conclusively demonstrated that the Bible was filled with claims that were untrue, and resist them.
Look, you're still resisting them 150 years later, when Biblical theories of creation have been conclusively debunked.
Ultimately Darwin lost any faith he had had in God. The trigger appears to be the death of his 10 year old daughter after a long illness, probably miliary tuberculosis. That death convinced Darwin that the was no benevolent creator and no purpose to what happens.
You question Dr Tuteur’s knowledge and advise her that “if you plan to make a blanket statement like "Creationists are utterly convinced of the truth of evolution" you might want to know what Creationists believe and why”. But you ask a question “can you explain everything coming from, well nothing”. If you had actually read anything even remotely neutral on evolution you would know that evolution doesn’t attempt to explain first causes.
You want others to be educated about the topics they discuss yet you don’t feel the need to do the same because you completely understand “God's plan”. That is hypocrisy and hubris nicely tied up in one package.
You don’t seem to be able to be consistent even with yourself. You told Terry that “God was in the process of cleansing His people” and “He had them wander” so that “He could purify His people”. Read your words….. ‘God’s process’, ‘He had’, “He could purify” …no where do you say to Terry “THEY chose to do so”.
Just to be clear, you believe that even the Israelites who were culled from the ‘good’ herd and that loved idols and inter-marrying more than God, used their own free will to wander the desert and die? In the same way that those who had their lungs filled in the flood and died a horrible death of drowning, used their own free will not to learn to fly or breathe water?
"I do not necessarily deduce the meaninglessness of existence that you believe."
You seem to have missed the point. My claim is, "Religion fills important psychological needs. It is a defense against the unpleasant reality that there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering."
Whether I think life has meaning is irrelevant. I am offering an explanation why fundamentalists cling to discredited fairy tales like creationism because THEY need religion or THEY will be forced to conclude that life has no meaning, since the meaning is supplied by their religion.
"everywhere else, there is no controversy over evolution."
Thank you; it is a consolation.
Creationism is simply stealth proselytism. It's about religion, not science.
However, in other respects there still seems to be a reluctance to accept the basic tenents of debate, having consistently ignored what I have said and implanted what you have assumed I must have meant.
Debate and discussion cannot take place in a reasonable climate if thats how you feel things should continue. I do hope that at some point we can return to a friendly discussion seeking to understand where each of us really stand. I have started a blog which gives some insight into how I feel about debates and discussions, though not perhaps a greater insight into my thoughts on science.
It can be seen at "Debate, or not debate, that is the question."
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=111575
"Natural selection is not random."
It is random because the timing and type of mutations are entirely random and mutations are the mechanism by which evolution occurs.
AmyTuteurMD
February 12, 2009 10:27 PM
_________________________
As I stated in my comment, which you conveniently did not quote fully, mutations are random. The mechanism of natural selection is specifically not random. Mutations are the mechanism by which new variation is generated in a population. If the new genetic variants are favorable, selection by the environment may nonrandomly act to increase their frequency in a population, or drift may act to eliminate new variants even if they are favorable. If new variants are deleterious, selection acts to eliminate them or reduce their proportions in the population. Selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs and does require mutations to generate variation, but random mutations by themselves will not increase fitness.
I also wish more liberal, non fundamentalist religious people would stop being so defensive whenever this topic is brought up. They should take their anger and direct it towards the assholes who give religion such a bad name in the first place, not towards religious skeptics.
Now let me quote "Dr. Amy" again: "Evolution is entirely random" (http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=105607#comment_295466)
I pointed out that she was "Incorrect. Mutations are random. Genetic drift is random. Natural selection is not random."
To which she replied by selectively quoting me ""Natural selection is not random."
It is random because the timing and type of mutations are entirely random and mutations are the mechanism by which evolution occurs."
Ironically, the claim that evolution is completely random is itself another creationist canard. Evidently, "Dr. Amy" is too dishonest to admit her own ignorance and error.
"Evidently, "Dr. Amy" is too dishonest to admit her own ignorance and error."
What error? You've tried to change the subject from the fact that evolution is random, with no purpose and no pre-ordained outcome to a claim that the mechanism of mutation isn't random.
That's like saying that snowflakes aren't random because all snowflakes form at the same temperature. In other words, it's wrong.
Read your words….. ‘God’s process’, ‘He had’, “He could purify” …no where do you say to Terry “THEY chose to do so”. Look I will slow down this time ok? God has a plan. When man decide to go his own way God lets him. Jesus himself scolded the Pharisees for not recognizing who He was. They were the religious leaders of the day and yet they failed to interpret the prophecies that told of His coming. You see God has a plan but man has Free Will. Eventually God will work it out but it may take longer and He mat have to use different people than He originally had planned. THAT'S why they wandered because they chose to do it their way and not God's. I am sorry if yoy don't understand that but you cannot know His ways unless you know Him.
"You've tried to change the subject from the fact that evolution is random, with no purpose and no pre-ordained outcome to a claim that the mechanism of mutation isn't random."
"Evolution is entirely random"
Dr. Meyers:
"...evolution is not completely random...". (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/prediction_selfpromoting_hype.php)
myself:
"Mutations are random. Genetic drift is random. Natural selection is not random."
Your dishonesty should now be evident to all.
I'll use small words for you and a simple analogy.
A tape measure doesn't try to measure time. It's true that it can't but it was never intended to. It does an excellent job at what it is intended to do..measure length.
The theory of evolution doesn't deal with first causes. It's true that it can't but it was never intended to. It does an excellent job at what is intended to do..explain how biological units evolve over time.
Just as there is no doubt that things have length there is no doubt that biological units evolve.
Do you doubt that things have length? Do you refuse to believe in tape measures because they don't keep good time?
Do you doubt that biological units evolve? Do you refuse to believe in the theory of evolution because it doesn't explain first causes?
If you doubt that things have length I can't help you much.
If you doubt that biological units evolve you should google 'antibiotic resistant bacteria'.
I'm pretty sure your response will be "'antibiotic resistant bacteria is part of God's plan and you just don't know Him like I do". At that point you are beyond any reasonable help.
Well it took you awhile but I'm glad you finally came clean and admitted Dr Tuteur was right.
""The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating. "
Evolution is very, very real. The Southern Sea swirls with aminos, our own world's primal ooze creating NEW LIFE, right in front of our eyes. The evolving of species is so obvious as to force questioning the intent of anyone opposing it in such obvious lies.
Missing Links are everywhere in an ever-increasing fossil record including short, medium and long-necked Giraffe.
Dispensationalists, you've missed it entirely- your God died with Nietsche, then was dissected when Heidegger stuck it under the microscope and observed that Metaphysics was a farce from its beginnings, and so had a finite existence until guaranteed extinction. Wrought by Scientists (and physicians)
Madame Pele Rules!!!
Q:"The idea that evolution could be "random" seems to frighten people. Is it random?"
A: "This is a spectacular misunderstanding. If it was random, then of course it couldn't possibly have given rise to the fantastically complicated and elegant forms that we see. Natural selection is the important force that drives evolution. Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine. It can't work unless there is some sort of variation upon which to work. And the source of variation is mutation. Mutation is random only in the sense that it is not directed specifically toward improvement. It is natural selection that directs evolution toward improvement. Mutation is random in that it's not directed toward improvement.
The idea that evolution itself is a random process is a most extraordinary travesty. I wonder if it's deliberately put about maliciously or whether these people honestly believe such a preposterous absurdity. Of course evolution isn't random. It is driven by natural selection, which is a highly non-random force."
Ready to admit your error yet, "Dr. Amy"?
"Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine."
I've already explained it to you ad nauseum, and now you've quoted Dawkins to prove MY point. The mechanism of evolution is not random, just like the mechanism by which snowflakes form is not random. However, the products of evolution are entirely random, just like snowflakes are entirely random.
There is no predetermined purpose or outcome to evolution.
I attempted to correct your error by clarifying which aspects of evolution are and are not random. You responded by misrepresenting what I wrote, more than once. At no time did I advocate teleological (also known as finalistic or orthogenetic) outcomes. Now you attempt to misrepresent your own previously stated position in order to avoid admitting your mistake. Your MD does not give you any special authority on the subject of evolution, just as Jeffrey Dach's MD does not give him any special authority.
You finally admit that one mechanism of evolution is not random, with no acknowledgement of your previous categorical claim that "evolution is entirely random".
I guess first you would have to prove that snowflakes are random. There is nothing that requires something that is NOT random to be unlike anything else in the same group in question. If we want to break down virtually anything that we want to concede as NOT random we can find a difference within that group that will show it to be unlike any other, it just depends on how specific we want to go in that process. However, finding that difference does not then change anything about it being random or not.
So then in order to use as part of a defense for your well broken point, you would first need to prove that snowflakes ARE random. They do form at roughly the same temperature, and although they might look differently at a microscopic level, they still all form based on the rigid conditions of the moment, the path best suited to its creation, not just any path. Because you can't understand the process and see the lack of randomness in the creation of snowflakes does not change the facts.
I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out what as a society we are referring to when we say ‘religion’ referring to the thing or ‘religious’ referring to people. But I suspect that the terms are somehow equated with belief in the existence of God and there is some prevailing idea that if we can disprove ‘religion’ than we can disprove the existence of God. Hmm..
I am mostly convinced (which is not to say that I don’t occasionally doubt) of the existence of God and yet I can certainly accept the theory of evolution as a reality. The theory of evolution (in my mind anyway) in no way negates the possibility of the existence of God and I don’t understand why anyone would think it would. In a world where God exists anything is possible. And as a practicing (sort of) Catholic I can accept that my church may have gotten some things wrong and probably has gotten other things wrong. But that’s ok with me. Even church people are human and as we know there are very few perfect human beings out there.
To throw one last little comment out there I must say that I’ve always thought that our universal psychological need to have something out there, to need meaning in life, to look for justification for our suffering is an indication that these things might just be out there and they might just have been implanted in us by God. And maybe I’m wrong and maybe I’m not. But in no way do I think evolution proves me wrong on this one.
Dr. Amy I usually agree with you and even if I don’t I always admire your chutzpah but I’m afraid that I have to emphatically disagree with the following statement you make:
‘Religion fills important psychological needs. It is a defense against the unpleasant reality that there is no meaning to life, no plan, no justification for our suffering. In the immortal words of folk wisdom, “Shit happens.” There’s no reason for it, no purpose to it, it is entirely random, and most importantly, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. No amount of propitiating a “Creator” makes any difference, because there is no one running the universe and no one you can turn to for help. No one loves you, except your family (if you are lucky), and you are navigating this harsh world alone.’
But again, in a world where God exists we are all entitled to our opinions and our choices. Clearly He lets us make them.