Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to If there is one religious topic that needs a rest it is intelligent design
kooka_lives -- even more surprising than not understanding evolution is the
effort put into resisting it as some form of negative premise. We've seen all manner of attempts to reconcile the story of creation with reality, to the point where it becomes merely an unhealthy exercise in close mindedness and denial. If there is one ongoing beef with religious belief in general, this is it. Not only do those who would want us to believe that all contentions challenging creation are put forth by people that are trying to destroy their religious beliefs, they are more and more becoming part of the political process to advance creation as a viable alternative to evolution. This has been historically typical of religion. From a perspective of divine entitlement and armed with a sacred text (sacred to them), there are too many people willing to run roughshod over scientific discovery to further their own beliefs. Claiming all the while that science is out to destroy the word of God and treating those of scientific disciplines as the enemy......seems nothing has changed much in the last couple of millenia.
posted by
gomedome
on September 26, 2005 at 7:26 AM
| link to this | reply
yeah my son is
there's a link to a photo in the MY HELLUVA LIFE blog.
and yeah you're right.
because we have such a better diet our bodies grow. the smaller bodies were from having less to eat, i think. in countries where food is not as abundant as here, there are smaller people -- less caloric intake from smaller bodies.
could it also be that our larger bodies, requiring more calories and protein, might be taking necessary nutrients from our brain function?
smaller people, same sized brains, better brain function?
doesn't exactly have anything to do with the subject -- just came up -- interesting question though?
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 26, 2005 at 7:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x -- you are the only person that actually addressed the question
concerning the extinction of certain species. If there is one thing that surprises me a bit about some of the comments it is the implied acrimony towards science. Contentions bordering on suggesting that scientists themselves are trying to manipulate information to destroy religious belief. I personally cannot understand how anyone can look at the world around us and not see evolution. Where I agree that our short lifespans and only marginally longer recorded history does not allow us to see evolutionary change with a clear before and after picture, we can easily extrapulate from what we do know and what we actually do see to form a clear picture regarding evolution.
Even our own species has evolved right before our eyes in conjunction with food supply and food production for chrissakes. And to top it all off it is a matter of public record with your country being the best example. If you are not sure what I'm talking about. Average shoe size for the American Army during World War 1 was size 7, during World War 2 it was size 9...it is now size 11. Tell me, are your children taller than you? Have you ever seen the children of immigrants born here grow to be a foot taller than their parents? Both scenarios happen with alarming frequency, there is no refuting that the North American populace has/is growing bigger in the last 100+ years. This is a micro snapshot of evolution.
posted by
gomedome
on September 26, 2005 at 6:55 AM
| link to this | reply
yeah back to mutation
outside of microscopic life, it takeas a lot of time.
however
in fruit flies (ask Kooka's Mother)
and in bacteria (take the super bacteria for instance) mutations canm be observed easily because these life forms reproduce rapidly. ask anyone who studies them. They will be glad to show you the mutations.
there's always that moth over in England -- before the sutty atmosphere from factories, the white variation thrived because it was the same color as the tree bark it sat on. when the soot blackened the environment, the darker variation became dominant. demonstrates changes in response to environment.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 26, 2005 at 6:50 AM
| link to this | reply
ccnews
You need to read my blog "The Workings of the Universe."
"And for all the extinctions we've experienced we've never seen any new mutations, new species or the like."
If that were true then you could not catch a cold or the flu more than once. We would be able to keep people from getting sick because there just would not be much out there to get sick from. Mutation is happening and is very active. It is just most mutation is not anything big. It is the little stuff that you really are not going to notice. I think a lot of people who do not like the idea of evolution just do not understand the real concept of evolution very well at all.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 26, 2005 at 6:45 AM
| link to this | reply
creationists are wrong again
reading the case they state
2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy occurs and things therefore move from order to disorder or detiorate over time, rather than becoming more complex over time as evolution suggests.
THIS IS WHAT IS OBSERVABLE ON THIS EARTH. IF IT WERE PERFECTLY TRUE, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO LIFE AT ALL. PEOPLE WOULDN OT GROW; INSTEAD, THEY WOULD SHRINK AND DETERIORATE. I MEAN PEOPLE DO, BUT NOT IN THE WAY I THINK CCNEWS SUGGESTS.
The biggest thing about evolution is that it needs to move outside the bounds of science in order for it to have ever occured. That is to say, it doesn't match with natural, scientific law. The first law of thermodynamics for instance states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yet evolutionists say that matter was created, at some distant point in the past. So that makes the natural law a supernatural one, invalidating the natural for the supernatural.
THIS IS TOTALLY MISDIRECTING. LIFE IS NOT NEW MATTER. ANY PERUSAL OF HISTORIES OF THE UNIVERSE TELL US THAT ALL MATTER THAT HAS EXISTS HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. BUT WAIT -- EINSTEIN DEMONSTRATED THAT MATTER BECOMES ENERGY -- E = MC 2. SO MATTER IN ITSELF IS NOT ETERNAL. EINSTEIN ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT WHAT LAWS WE THOUGHT WERE VALID BEFORE WERE IN FACT NOT VALID.
BACK TO LIFE -- LIFE IS NOT NEW MATTER, IT IS A REARRANGING OF MATTER. EVOLUTION IS NOT NEW MATTER -- IT IS A REARRANGING OF THE OLD MATTER OF LIFE. WE DON'T NEED INTELLIGENT DESIGN HERE.
So species die out, they don't become more complex, as evolution suggests.
So our observations of life fly in the face of evolutionary theory rather than supporting it.
And for all the extinctions we've experienced we've never seen any new mutations, new species or the like. A horse has never given birth to any other animal but a horse, etc.
THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. IN THE SHORT HISTORY OF HUMANKIND OBSERVING OTHER ANIMALS FOR SIGNS OF EVOLVING (LESS THAN 200 YEARS) HOW CAN ANYONE OBSERVE SUCH EVOLVING? HOWEVER, HUMANS HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT ANIMAL SPECIES CAN CHANGE. NEXT TIME YOU EAT BRUSSELS SPROUTS, OR CAULIFLOWER, OR BROCCOLI OR A RELATED VEGETABLE, YOU OBSERVE EVOLUTION, FOR THOSE NOW VERY SEPARATE PLANTS CAME FROM ONE ANCESTOR.
LOOK AT THE VARIATIONS IN HORSES -- OR DOGS -- OR ANY ANIMAL THAT HUMANS HAVE BRED OVER THE MILLENIA. THERE ARE MANY. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT DOGS, FOR INSTANCE, THEIR DNA IS THE SAME AS A WOLF'S. NOW, WE HAVE HEARD THAT HUMAN DNA IS ONLY 98% DIFFERENT FROM A CHIMPANZEE'S. LOOKING AT DOGS AND HORSES WE CAN SEE HOW LITTLE IT TAKES TO CHANGE A SPECIES DRASTICALLY, SO THINK ABOUT THAT 2% -- THAT COVERS SO MUCH IF WE CONSIDER THE GREAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A POODLE, FOR INSTANCE AND A WOLF.
EVOLUTION IS AN OBSERVABLE AND DEMONSTRABLE PROCESS. I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT IT IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE AND PART OF GOD AS I KNOW IT -- GOD EVOLVES. BUT NOT THE GOD THAT CREATIONISTS KNOW.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 26, 2005 at 6:19 AM
| link to this | reply
left out a word
in my next-to-last paragraph, should be:
The law is somehow
suspended for the most important type of energy?
posted by
GoldenMean
on September 25, 2005 at 9:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
I am glad we agree on the probability of some unifying life force that is likely to be universal (universe-wide). But I am not arguing for that life force to be a conscious entity, I am simply keeping that possibility open in my own mind. It could be a conscious entity, but one that does not conform to all the religious dogmas that try to describe it. Or it could be mulitiple conscious entities, that each manage life energy in different ways, either in conflict or in cooperation. The possibilities are endless and intriguing, but there is no point in fantasizing about them, I will leave that up to the hordes of “New Age” disciples who clamor for our attention. It is enough that you agree on a unifying life force that operates outside the knowledge of our current science.
Which brings me to my next point, concerning the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. Sorry, I was a little fuzzy about their relationship. Entropy is actually a corollary of the second thermo law. I think we are actually in agreement, though you don’t seem to think so. Contrary to your impression, I am not trying to disprove or cast doubt upon the laws of thermodynamics. I am simply pointing out their inherent limitations. These laws are meant to describe the interactions of chemicals, heat, light, kinetic energy, molecular compounds and the like, all of which can be studied in the lab. They are not meant to describe the dramatic effects of life energy upon those components, and they are not meant to describe the characteristics of life energy itself.
As an example, here is an interesting dodge by a scientist on a prominent website that won an award by The Encyclopedia Brittanica. The scientist is Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus at Occidental College in LA. The website is www.secondlaw.com.
He has an excellent article on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but when it comes to the question of life itself, he takes a clever sidestep:
“Blockage of the Second Law (of Thermodynamics) is absolutely necessary for us to be alive and happy. Not one of the complex chemical substances in our body and few in the things we enjoy would exist for a microsecond if the Second Law wasn’t obstructed. Its TENDENCY is never eliminated but, fortunately for us, there are a huge number of compounds in which it is blocked for our lifetimes and even far longer.”
Do you see the dodge? When it comes to the mysteries of life itself, and life energy, this distinguished Professor Emeritus says that the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be “blocked” or “obstructed” where life energy is present. What the hell is that unscientific crap? The “law” is somehow for the most important type of energy?
In other words, scientists don’t have a clue of why life energy is able to override the laws of thermodynamics, but they don’t want to admit that is what’s happening. So they say that those laws are somehow “blocked” or put on hold while life does its amazing thing. I love it when a scientist starts doing a tap-dance. In plain English, he is acknowledging the mystery and the incredible power of Life Energy, that unifying force that you said you are willing to buy into. I would encourage you to go ahead and invest in this little piece of universal truth. Don’t be held back by the scientific community’s reluctance to fully face that truth. Science has serious inherent limitations, and the best scientists will admit that.
posted by
GoldenMean
on September 25, 2005 at 9:03 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean -- I can buy the notion of a unifying life force but will never
believe it is a conscious entity and certainly not from contentions that just miss the mark. You have put a lot of thought into this and for the most part have made your case fairly well. But back in the first couple of lines in your comment when you seemed to be sympathizing with my weariness of this line of reasoning, I thought for a moment that you really understood. Then you express what is to many a very solid argument. That's where I see the problem in this arena of discussion. The contention just misses the mark yet so many people are buying into it. It's the use of entropy that makes this contention fall off of the rails. The second law of thermodynamics also states that all isolated systems move towards disorder if not supplied with energy. Life itself is the very best example of this. All living organisms must eat.
So now we are faced with the selective use of the laws of thermodynamics, using only those parts that fit the contention while ignoring those parts that do not. But let's say for a minute that you've made an impregnable case here and have cast the laws of thermodynamics into doubt. Yes I said into doubt, because such an obvious exception to these laws would make them fairly useless would it not?
posted by
gomedome
on September 25, 2005 at 9:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Religious topics should never rest
Gomedome, I have been away for awhile, but this post sparked my interest. It reminded me why I started blogging in the first place.
You are tired of the incessant arguments of the believers that a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful being is in control of the universe. That is the concept behind intelligent design. While I share your weariness to some degree, there is no denying that an intelligent force
OF SOME KIND is manifesting itself in the universe, and on this planet.
What is the proof? Life itself is the proof. Life violates the scientific law of entropy. The law of entropy being that all systems of matter and energy will eventually decay and disperse into smaller and smaller components, until they can no longer maintain their original form. All matter and energy seeks an equilibrium, a balance of force, a stale ocean of homogenuity. But
something takes those smaller and smaller components and remolds them into a new form, a newly complicated form, to put waves back into the stale ocean. Every plant that is germinated, every animal that is bred, every human that is born violates the law of entropy.
Something very powerful is driving that violation. Most people call that something "God", I would prefer to call it "life energy," which may or may not include a "God." Such a God would not need your or my belief to exist. And such a God would surely not conform to any single human belief system.
"Life energy" organizes physical, non-living matter and energy into complex forms, to produce organisms, like us, which further organize matter and energy into complex forms, such as this electronic website which we enjoy so much.
On a more universal note, my crude concept of "Life Energy" is that energy which keeps the electrons of every atom in the universe in orbit around their nucleus, apparently forever, with no net loss of energy, even if we humans manage to split a few atoms and send their electrons and protons off on a new path. Have you ever considered how electrons are powered, why they are indestructible, and why they never slow down over billions of years? When we learn the answer to the electron's power, we may begin to see the true face of God. But I fear that as humans, we may never be able to learn that answer.
This universe is very old (at least 15 billion years), and we seem to be its brash, ignorant children. Logic suggests that whatever force or combination of forces brought US into being has done so many times before, all over this universe, and does not need or want our puny understanding of what it is doing. But we should honor and perhaps even worship this force, even if we do not really understand anything about it. Why, you may ask? Because it made us, for we did not make ourselves, now did we? Shouldn't we HONOR what created us, even if we do not UNDERSTAND what created us?
So I, for one, as a seeker of truth, but not a believer, will humble myself before this unknown force that by reason must exist, that others call "God," and I will acknowledge their religion as a valid way of reaching out to that unknown force. Whatever it may be called and whatever absurd characteristics it may be assigned by hundreds of human belief systems, I too must join those belief systems to bow, even to grovel in awe of this unknown force. To do anything else is pure arrogance, or willful ignorance, which is just as bad.
The other intelligent (do we really qualify?) offspring of this unknown force, in other solar systems and galaxies, are probably engaging in similar intellectual arguments among themselves to seek understanding of their origin. I hope they are making more sense of it than we are. And I hope they do not condemn or mock each other when they disagree, as our species tends to do.
posted by
GoldenMean
on September 25, 2005 at 12:29 AM
| link to this | reply
ccnews -- I'm hardly showing disrespect
You are simply using the word "create" erroneously to suit your agenda. The big bang theory, which is just a theory, does not suggest that matter was created in the sense that it was produced from nothing. Nor is this theory a necessary element in the fundamental principles of evolution, which you imply. The second law of thermodynamics, addressing the change and/or spread of energy then becomes a smokescreen if not clearly linked to your contention. Is that clear enough? I didn't bother addressing the horse giving birth to another species as a means to disprove evolution because it is from what we know an abstract concept. It does not consider our inability as a species to comprehend space and time relationships. In other words, once the chronology of the bible is taken out of the mix we can find ourselves examining the world around us from a different perspective. That day may come when evolution allows instantaneous change in our species as your horse analogy suggests, or more likely we will find that real evolutionary change takes billions of years. It may have taken that long to come this far.
posted by
gomedome
on September 24, 2005 at 8:08 PM
| link to this | reply
gome, trying to introduce the 1st law of thermodynamics? Hey try to
refute what I write rather than use shame tactics to discredit me. I provided evidence of scientific law [which is relatively rare since very things are considered 'law']. As well as scientific evidence through observation. I thought you'ed answer with facts to counter what I said, but you gave the 'atheists' answer instead. Are you an atheist? If you are then I'm not surprised. If you aren't then I am surprised and wonder why you simply didn't offer a respectful yet firm disagreement.
posted by
itisdone
on September 24, 2005 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
No shame. I haven't done Miller yet, but I've done my Budweiser and Coors time. I think it was the Bud people who put the twist-off bottle opener in the bottle-bottom for us chain-drinkers. You've got to hand it to the Americans
posted by
Lensman
on September 24, 2005 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome--You CAN celebrate Christmas in July, ya know! lol
posted by
Renigade
on September 24, 2005 at 7:41 PM
| link to this | reply
renigade3 --- I gave up on the high test years ago --
when I realized how many brain cells it kills...figured I didn't have them to spare....okay, maybe at Christmas.
posted by
gomedome
on September 24, 2005 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Lensman --- you will find this extremely hard to believe but I drink
American beer. Yep, I admit it freely. Miller High Life if I can get it. I can choke back the Miller generic brand they sell in the liquor store if I have to.
posted by
gomedome
on September 24, 2005 at 7:38 PM
| link to this | reply
BrightIrish -- I will get there to check it out
it may take a few minutes however.
posted by
gomedome
on September 24, 2005 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
ccnews -- I can only suggest that you may have illustrated for us the
great lenghts that people of faith will go make their heartfelt conclusions fit into existing evidence to prove their points. When a subject of enquiry is devoid of any great deal of evidence outside of observation, there is nothing that should not be introduced for consideration, therefore I cannot fault you for trying to introduce the laws of thermodynamics. It's just your connection, it's almost irellevent, tenuous at best. Then you go on to amplify concessions already made by science as great chasms of logic. Then you suggest that you can wrap this all up into a viable conclusion by referencing the bible?....please don't. No one ...but those who want this all to be so are buying it.
posted by
gomedome
on September 24, 2005 at 7:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Was just there last year. And yes, it IS cherry water.
Although it will light your insides on fire! Mom used to give me a shot in winter to warm me up on especially cold days!
posted by
Renigade
on September 24, 2005 at 7:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Kirschwasser?
That mean "Cherry water," doesn't it? My sister-in-law is from Hamburg....
posted by
Lensman
on September 24, 2005 at 7:28 PM
| link to this | reply
How 'bout some kirschwasser? That should loosen even old Glennie up!
posted by
Renigade
on September 24, 2005 at 7:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Reni
Well, in that case.... I was thinking Okanagan Pale Ale, but if you're springing for the pricier stuff......
posted by
Lensman
on September 24, 2005 at 7:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Lens--I wish I could have put it that well. gome--ditto for me, only
I'm buying the hard liquor!
posted by
Renigade
on September 24, 2005 at 7:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
I respect you as a fellow Canadian and as an obviously intelligent person, but neither one of us really knows the answer to all these questions you so furiously debate. I think one thing you and I share is curiosity. It's just that yours goes east while mine goes west. One thing's for sure. We're both going to find out the answer at the finish line. If I'm right, I'll buy you a heavenly beer. Wanna race?
posted by
Lensman
on September 24, 2005 at 7:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome....
Hello.. I have read your post and can see where you believe that your view is valid. I wrote a post awhile back on my thoughts on this subject. I would really like you to read it and give me your honest opinion on it.. If you choose to read it you would find it under my blog ' Thoughts Of My Heart' you will have to scroll down 5 or six posts. It is titled ' What does this little birdie say to you' As you know I have just begun to read you and I am trying hard to figure out exactly what you do believe.. Do you believe in the existance of a God of any kind or are you a real non- believer? I do not mean any disrespect to you or your beliefs.. I honestly would like to know if I am going to continue to read and comment on your posts..
I also want to thank you for the nice comment that you returned to me on your other post.. Having such a large family has opened my eyes to many things on this journey through life..
posted by
BrightIrish
on September 24, 2005 at 6:58 PM
| link to this | reply
To answer the last question: it could be that it matches with the 2nd law
of thermodynamics which states that entropy occurs and things therefore move from order to disorder or detiorate over time, rather than becoming more complex over time as evolution suggests.
The biggest thing about evolution is that it needs to move outside the bounds of science in order for it to have ever occured. That is to say, it doesn't match with natural, scientific law. The first law of thermodynamics for instance states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yet evolutionists say that matter was created, at some distant point in the past. So that makes the natural law a supernatural one, invalidating the natural for the supernatural.
So this opens the door for Intelligent design and I haven't even used the Bible... yet.
But if I did use the Bible I would say that the introduction of sin in man and nature caused death, of all things. That is what the Bible says in Genesis. And it's true of what we observe, both in every day life and in 'science.' So species die out, they don't become more complex, as evolution suggests.
So our observations of life fly in the face of evolutionary theory rather than supporting it.
And for all the extinctions we've experienced we've never seen any new mutations, new species or the like. A horse has never given birth to any other animal but a horse, etc.
If you want to respond more to this come to my sight since I don't often read your stuff.
Cheers!
Gray
posted by
itisdone
on September 24, 2005 at 6:49 PM
| link to this | reply