|
|
|
|
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 351 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 4:45:56 AM |
I did not read beyond the origional posted thread.
… Thanks for your time!
*arches eyebrow*
Rrrright………….
Read the thread. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 1:05:41 PM | | About Religion and science. In the bible in the Old testament (book of Isaiah) it is mentioned that Earth is the sphere: "God is above the spere of Earth". Christians knew that Earth was not flat. Copernicus an Galeleo were Christians all their lives. Their fight was with Catholic Church, not with the Bible. The Catholic church adopted Arestotelian/Ptolemaic point of view that earth is flat and sun goes around the earth. It is Ancient Greek philosophy. Not a Biblical one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 1:11:31 PM | Oops, sorry for spelling mistakes. Well if you want to know more about Evolution, it's problems etc etc I recomend a book by a guy who does not believe in God. The guy's name is M. Behe and the book is called "Darwin's black box". Don't worry, it is not creationism. Unless you think you are the better scientist than Behe . | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 4:24:32 PM | Quantum physics and metaphysics...
The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by F. Capra is a great book, too. I don't remember string theory being in there (but that was likely written before that was a big topic.)
There is also the movie "What the Bleep" (this is a movie for entertainment, but an intro to these ideas for people. I found it interesting that many kinds of churches showed this movie...)
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
A few minutes ago, the news showed a winemaker who plays classical music to his grapes (been studied with a control fields) and the grapes who 'hear' music are bigger and heathy. Similar to this water crystal idea...
http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/
There is lots of work starting within these fields to learn connections that may lead science and 'religion' to be less oppositional. The science of God... etc. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 5:32:26 PM | The science of God - I agree with it very much  . And many scientists would agree with it too (both Christians and from other religion as well as some agnostics). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 9:43:17 PM | Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
--Einstein
Oh take me back to the start
I was just guessing at numbers and figures
Pulling the puzzles apart
Questions of science, science and progress
Do not speak as loud as my heart
And tell me you love me, come back and haunt me
Oh and I rush to the start
Running in circles, chasing tails
Coming back as we are
--Coldplay, The Scientist
You could say I lost my faith in science and progress
You could say I lost my belief in the holy church
You could say I lost my sense of direction
You could say all of this and worse, but
If I ever lose my faith in you
There'd be nothing left for me to do
--Sting, If I Ever Lose My Faith in You
I'm suggesting that neither science nor religion/spirituality fully understand 'reality'--both have important contributions. I love science and although I don't think either will every fully understand everything, the exploration is important. On a more practical level, science has an important role to serve in advising decision-making (issues like global warming, species extinction, and so on). I like that true science tries to be as objective as possible. We need that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 9:58:42 AM | I enjoyed Capra's book too. Another one which goes deeper into the evolution of our thinking processes is Quantum Philosophy by Roland Omnes. On a completely different topic - responding to 'Young Earth' creationists by placing the early books of the Bible alongside other creation myths, Unravelling the Book of Books by Ernest Trattner.
As far as science and religion, I've always felt that science is as much of a religion as anything else. I became a scientist because I wanted to know how everything worked. Others turn to religion for answers to the same question. I find both polluted with bias, self interest, politics, money, power and probably a whole lot more. Very few people are as objective as possible. The uncertainties of objectivity in the absence of complete understanding are boring. Everyone likes to think they know a little piece of the truth. Global warming may be a case in point. Yes, the planet may be warming up, but it's currently cooler than it was in the 12th and 13th centuries. Greenhouse gases, or the well accepted notion that we seem to be still emerging from an ice age? The earth is currently about a degree cooler than the estimated Holocene Maximum temp which occurred 6,000 years ago (R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991) and the Eemina interglacial period which occurred over 120,000 years ago (R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991). Fluctuations in temperature throughout many ice ages indicate a 6 - 7 degree change from ice age to the warm interglacial periods. (J. Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G. Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.) Interestingly, the warm peaks of the interglacial periods have increased steadily in temperature by more than 2 degrees over the last million years. Has humankind been overcome with an overwhelming sense of its own importance? That's not to say we shouldn't care, or ask if we're doing something wrong. But are we prioritizing properly, both in terms of socio-political responses and science funding? Personally, I find fluorocarbon pollution and the loss of ozone a much more immediate problem than inevitable change in global temperature. Is anyone monitoring mutation rates due to increased ultra-violet radiation? Google searches indicate it is a recognized problem, but there seems to be little interest in measuring just how big a problem..... Asian flue?
Googling 'global warming ice age' comes up with many interesting articles. One I found particularly informative was http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 12:02:19 PM | _Hierarchy theory: A Vision, Vocabulary, and Epistemology_, (1996) by T. Allen and V. Ahl, is an interesting book on a new scientific approach to questions about nature's complexity. I also recommend another work by Allen, [Allen T. H. F., J. A.Tainter, J. C. Pires, and T. W. Hoekstra. 2001. Dragnet ecology—"Just the facts, Ma'am": the privilege of science in a postmodern world. Bioscience 51:475-485,].
“Science usually settles issue by testing an idea against observations of a material system. This approach to problem solving has a history of working so well that another class of solution is often overlooked. Instead of focusing on how to limit or control the problem space in order to achieve predictability, hierarchy theory is useful in finding alternative ways of framing a question. In many problematic situations, the challenge is to find a new perspective that works rather than to acquire more data within an old framework. In such cases, a solution cannot be found by making more observations, because the contradiction, disagreement, or uncertainty does not reside in some unresolved aspect of the material system. Looking again or more closely will not help. There is not an insufficiency of data but rather some internal conflict in the way one or more observers have chosen to look at the world. In these cases, the heart of the problem resides in an inadequate question.” (Ahl 1996: 14)
Science or God?
Newton or Einstein?
Evolution or Creation?
Is the woman in this picture young or old?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html
----
Paleogeography and biogeography are really interesting and have made important contributions to evolution ideas. For example, there are multiple hypotheses about why are the tropics so diverse. I find this particular discussion exciting. One hypothesis regarding (extraordinary) high endemism in tropical forests is the Pleistocene refugia hypothesis. The basic idea is that during ice ages, vast tropical forests retreated into isolated refuges due to climate change. Populations were geographically isolated long enough to permit speciation. As the forests expanded again, those populations had diverged into distinct species (genetically, reproductive behavior, etc). Although I think this is a possible contributing factor, I don’t believe this is a full explanation (other important factors include the role of ancient people and land practices, spatial heterogeneity, and others)
The Biogeographic Evidence Supporting the Pleistocene Forest Refuge Hypothesis
http://rjohara.net/cv/1986Ev.html | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 359 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 12:19:30 PM | Dear QuietJohn,
There a climate thread in current events that would benefit from that.
Also thought this link was fairly balanced and reflected a fairly balanced research approach into climate: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html
I know there are many studies (particularly melanoma cancer studies) related to the impact of UV light on mutations (just did a single search in scholars portal with “UV AND mutation AND rate” and came up with 323 peer-reviewed articles… seems a few people are looking at it).
Hmm… do I consider science a religion?
Not in the common sense, there are few religions that’s central tenant is ‘all explanations are tentative’. However, I do see many of the same issues of bias, self interest, politics and skewed-power dynamics in science (I have a feeling you’d love my self-admittedly cynical critique of the citation obsession). There’s a lot of poor science done; we are after all, only human. At least it’s up for constant review.
“I don’t know” is in my mind perhaps the single-most honest, truthful statement a person can make.
What’s the saying?
Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Science is a method to develop our understanding. It’s not the only way.
And perhaps, if you are very self-aware of the assumptions you make in pursuing each method, you can follow more than one path. Thanks for bringing up the tendency for dualist thinking Dharma.
Unless you think you are the better scientist than Behe
A good argument doesn’t need to appeal to authority. It will survive the questioning. A scientific theory isn’t advanced through popular vote. If it were new theories would never be developed.
"Clumper?" Huh?
Hi Feral,
Clumpers and splitters are the groups that taxonomists themselves get pigeon-holed into depending on how they divide species. A clumper sees few species and many sub-species, races or varieties. A splitter sees many species. In many cases, the natural life history of species is barely known, so species divisions have been made primary on morphological differences. Although, genetic analysis for determining inter-breeding is now increasingly common. Which is nice because you sometimes get two rival taxonomists who spend their entire careers reclassifying each others classifications -- until one of them dies or some field biologist takes pity on them and goes and studies the thing. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 4:13:31 PM | | Well, there are some Evolutionists who claimed they found the TRUTH and the truth is Evolution of course | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 4:57:41 PM | Hey Trewq, glad you're still keeping an eye on us - I was beginning to think we were wandering a little off topic, but if the OP is happy, I guess it must be OK (unless you get trumped by a moderator!). You're a CIO? - I think computers (and their robot buddies) have a good chance of taking over evolution when organic life, probably led by humankind, self destructs.
Thanks for the pointer, Dryad. I copied some of my post to the global warming thread. Sometimes I'd love to have a crystal ball to see into the future - even if I couldn't use the information, the answers to vexing questions would be fascinating - and hopefully not all depressing!
Yes, UV driven mutations on cancer cells seems to be well researched, but I was thinking of a wider population of organisms. Plants, bacteria, plankton, all of which evolve faster than humans and could potentially do us more harm than cancer ....... UGH!
As for Clumpers, I thought they were the poor folks who put on their heavy footwear and actually wandered around looking at stuff!
Well, Alyssa, I'd have to agree that SOME of every type of person seems to believe they have the truth but as Dryad and Trewq suggest, they are all probably people you should watch carefully and be very wary of. Moderate helpings of skepticism are healthy, along with the tolerance of it in other people who may doubt the positions that you hold dear. I don't think most people, including scientists believe that their version of evolution is necessarily TRUE as much as it represents the most likely explanation IN THEIR OPINION for the current state of affairs. Focussing on attempts to further that explanation doesn't necessarily indicate rejection of another idea as much as a best guess for the most fruitful lines of further investigation. Religion doesn't exactly have a stellar record of establishing, explaining or supporting the truths of the physical world. I think for the most part scientists are just trying to fill in a few of the details missing in statements like "and then a miracle happened". I doubt there are many academics who wouldn't agree that life and many other things in our world are miracles. I usually find that understanding those miracles a little better leaves me with the notion that they are even more miraculous than I first thought. But it's not going to stop me from trying to figure out how it was done! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 5:29:56 PM | Yes sure, we can try to figure out how it all was done . Skepticism, well, skepticism towards what? People who are skeptics about God's existence are not skeptics at all accepting the theory of Evolution. Sometimes Evolutionists say Creationists are closed minded and intolerant (towards something or other stuff). But then they turn around and insult Creationist. Is this fair and open minded? Speaking about tolerance - many Evolutionists do not tolerate stuff that is different from their point of view. People find it difficult to believe in "miracle" (that God created everything). But they believe easily that everything came out of nowhere for no reason. Poof, just appeared. there was a cosmic egg but no cosmic chicken. There was an effect (universe) but no cause. This is very scientific, isn't it? By the way cause and effect principle is scientific. And the effect is not greater than the cause. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 5:53:40 PM | Although I'm not a scientist I do try to find God in everything. So, especially here lately, I have been doing studies on various points of veiws in every course of study. I have this great book called "Finding God at Harvard", editor, Kelly Monroe.
It has a section regarding Science, Technology, and the Earth. This is a fasinating book becuase it has about forty authors, who later became great intellectual people. You may recognize some of the names.
Science was one of my favorite subjects,besides math, when I went ot school but I was forced to quit, and start working, at an early age. But here lately I have picked back up on my studies.
I can tell by reading most of the late posts that you people study science. What I'm about to post are essay's or short stories, of testimonies, of Christian scholars at Harvard.
I would love to hear each one of your opinions on each essay.
Christianity and the Scientific Enterprise
---Charles Thaxton--
As a student in the 1960's I remember the derision heaped upon Christianity whenever professors or students mentioned it in the classroom.Serious thinkers, it seemed, had replaced mythical Christian doctrine with a far superior, more scientific veiw of reality. Christianity and Science were seen, necessarily, as in conflict.
Like most other Christian students of the time, I remained silent, intimidated by the superior knowledge of my mentors. Only several years later did I learn to discern the difference between science, and metaphysical naturalism masquerading as science.
While at Harvard in 1971, I had the good fortune of hearing a visiting lecture series conducted by Professor Rejer Hooykaas, a highly regarded historian of science.(1)
Hooykaas presented, what was to me, a new and provocative argument.The Dutch professor maintained that Christianity had played a vital role in fostering the development of modern science.
I remember my reaction well. As a Christian I wanted to believe him; as a scientist, I was yet skeptical. Hadn't many learned scholars already dismissed Christianity as an incredible intellectual position? Surely Hooykaas was mistaken. Perhaps, I misheard him. Though intrigued, I simply could not accept an argument that ran counter to the dominant perspective of my education to that point. I had a Christian heart, but, as yet, a pagan mind.
Nevertheless, Hooykaas' argument fascinated me. I began a reading program to examine his claims. I found other historians and philosophers of science who had recognized that a distinctly Christian worldveiw had inspired early scientific investigation. P. E. Hodgson in reviewing Stanley Jaki's Science and Creation said:
Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accesibility to the human mind....they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omniptent God, creator and substainer of all things. In such a worldview it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant acheivements of the seventeenth century.(2)
Alfred North Whithead added:
In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existance of an Order of Things. And, in particular, of an Order of Nature. My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern science theory, is an unconscious derivative from midieval theology.(3)
Sorry I will post the rest after my show, Lost.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 6:15:14 PM | Excellent!  . Very well written. I would like to point out that it were christians who were the first scientists. They were: Isaak Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur (who prooved that life comes from preexisting life. Life does not spontaneously generated from non living chemicals), Matthew Maury, Michael Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, John Ray, Carolus Linnaeus, Mendeleev (that Russian guy who started the Periodic Table of Elements), Copernicus, Galeleo and many many more. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 6:47:54 PM | No doubt there were many scientists who were devout Christians. There were likely many who were Christian in name only since being a non-Christian could get you killed. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with the process of science. Yet we have a group of professional liars (I'm talking about Creationists, not lawyers, though sometimes they overlap) who masquerade their religion as science. The fact that they fool so many people is a tribute to the utter stupidity and gullibility of the average American.
Creationism is not science because it doesn't make any testable predictions. Evolution is a fact because it's been observed millions of times. Speciation has been directly observed and is a fact. Anyone who says differently is either ignorant or lying. Creationism shouldn't be tolerated any more than child molesting.
No one has ever proved that life cannot come from non-life. If you think someone has then I want details of how this experiment was performed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 6:57:19 PM | No one has ever proved that life cannot come from non-life. If you think someone has then I want details of how this experiment was performed.
God is LIFE. Anyone who does not believe in evolution (though I think the real issue that is in debate is what that word means) should debate the quote above. ;) If you do not 'believe' in evolution, I'd ask that you read what I wrote before and understand all the terms. If you don't, I can't 'debate' your 'view.' The Earth isn't a flat surface. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 7:05:30 PM | | When you say God is LIFE, what do you mean? Are you saying God is a synonym for life? Are you saying life is a subset of all things God? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 7:27:49 PM | | Both. I am also saying that God loves the diversity of life on Earth--and the diversity of human experience of life on Earth, too. But, human beings, like all of 'creation' have intrinsic value, from that source. All LIFE is important and human beings (some more than others) are active in destroying other forms of creation (regardless if the destuction of is of created 'as is' or 'evolved into'... this destruction is disrespectful, to say mildly.) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 7:53:35 PM | | I'm still not quite understanding. Is God a biochemical reaction? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 8:16:14 PM | NO, God is not a biochem rxn, but made that possible... God is life. Biochemical reactions were created by God. I tend to think that the diversity of life on Earth right now (and if Earth is an organism... humanity, whales, dolphins, chimps, etc... we are the BRAIN and consciousness.) I believe God CREATED evolution and find it odd that these ideas are in 'conflict.' Of course, those who have ulterior motives will keep with their biased ideas... ( e.g., I know homosexuality is perfectly fine...like any relationship, if it is loving, that is good... Could *I* be biased? maybe? But what would my 'motivation' be? Regardless, monogamous homosexuality is perfectly fine with me.)
God is life AND love AND mystery. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 8:44:04 PM | This is to finish up my earlier post.
Perhaps, Christianity had played a greater role in the development of modern science than I had imagined. I wanted to know more. If the Christian concept of creation in the late Middle Ages had motivated scientific inquiry, what could have discouraged it before then? In Europe, at least, the answer clear.
The dominant veiw of rewality in medieval Europe was essentially Greek, having been coopted by the Church and adapted for Christian service. It offered no motivation to investigate nature by observation and experiment. To the Greeks, reality consisted of forms and essences, not material things. In a world where ideals subordinate material reality, observing " what is" becomes less important than reasoning " what ought to be".
The Greeks viewed of nature as a living organism imbued with attributes of divinity. Nature was eternal and self-existant, not created. Nature was considered impregnated with final causes, with devine purposes and so such was self revealing. They had only to be apprehended by the mind, and hence, the significance placed on intuiting axioms and principles from which all particular truths could be derived by deductive reasoning. It followed from this view that Greek knowledge of nature and reality rested on the authority of the "system builders": Euclid in geometry, and Plato and Aristotle in philosophy, etc. As a corollary to the Greek view of truth, sensory experience did not lead to new knowledge. It could only provide illustrations for what was already known through reason. Sensory experience was no more rerlevant to the Greek science of nature than it was to Euclideon geometry. Therefore Greek science of nature was never experimental. The Greek's conception of nature and reality led them to distrust the senses.
The medieval world picture inherited from the Greeks was that of a vast heirarchy of beings extending from the deity in the Empyrean heaven at the outer edge of the universe, through a graded series of angels inhabiting the ten concentric crystalline spheres surrounding the central earth, to the levels of men, animals, and plants on the earth itself which formed the system's cosmic center.
A sharp qualitive distinction seperated the terrestial and celestial domains of the universe.Not only were the two domains composed of different types of materials, they had different motions. The terrestial environs consisted of earth, air, fire, and water, each with rectilinear motion which had a beginning and an end. The heavenly bodies (above the moon) were composed of a more perfect fifth essence, with eternal circular motion.
I will post the rest later.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 9:05:19 PM | | Great. OK, first give me your interpretation of Euclidian geometry... | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 374 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2005 9:14:27 PM | I believe God CREATED evolution and find it odd that these ideas are in 'conflict.' I was flipping through a book the other day....a Q & A book on Catholicism. The Vattican now recognizes evolution as truth, since the theory is only disproven by the evolutionary mechanics, theories such as Darwins remain theories until the mechanics are explained. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 12:34:08 AM | My, my this is going downhill in a hurry, especially with the selective 'facts' being quoted. I can be skeptical (synonym uncertain) about creation AND evolution but may choose to see one better for ME to explore to further MY understanding. I try not to criticize other people for following a different path. But I will object if they try to sell their version of reality by making dubious statements or simply complain because I'm not doing or seeing things THEIR way. And I try to do it in a specific and hopefully informed way rather than make unsubstantiated blanket statements about entire groups of people.
The Greek's conception of nature and reality led them to distrust the senses. Isn't this what quantum physics has recently suggested too?
One of the first recorded discussions of the arrangement of the heavens and earth are attributed to Pythagoras, about 600 BC. Greek, and pre-Christian. He and his contemporaries suggested that the earth was a sphere but couldn't decide if the earth rotated around the sun or if the sun rotated around the earth. Three centuries later Aristotle picked the wrong option based on his inability to observe parallax in the position of the stars which would occur if the earth moved relative to the heavens. That set up a whole heap of trouble for the likes of Copernicus and Galileo who met much resistance to their ideas from their Christian buddies. What isn't scientific about the work of these amazing Greeks?
Aristotle (300 BC) agreed with an earlier Greek philosopher Heraclitus that 'knowledge enters through the door of the senses' so clearly not all Greeks, not even all smart ones seemed to distrust their senses or used them simply to illustrate that which was already known. Aristotle spent a great deal of time studying animals and describing them and their behavior in such writings as Parts of Animals and Progression of Animals. I think the notion of axioms is being extrapolated to questionable conclusions.
Perhaps the changes in the Middle Ages were more motivated by changes in views about the Bible and its contents, from a divine book forbidden to most people to one that was subject to criticism, starting with Ibn Ben Ezra in the 12th century and gathering momentum, particularly after Gutenberg used the printing press to mass produce it.
A growing notion seems to be that evolution is at least a part of the explanation for creation, as j-roc reminds us. Of course, Young Earth creationists won't have that one. Another, surprisingly rarely acknowledged notion, often present in definitions of God is that God is a FORCE, not a being. Is that what Dharma is hinting at? The force of nature - our natural laws? Did God write them, or have they always existed? Is there a difference? I agree with Count on our failure to demonstrate the emergence of life. Evolution as we know it operates on LIFE, not whatever led up to life. Then you have to ask what life is? Something that moves? Something that changes? A self-organizing system? A self-replicating system? Evolution makes sense to me, but the emergence of life still remains a 'miracle' which I hope someday we will understand. | |
|
|
| Page 15 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
