Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Polarizing evolution versus creationism
actually we agree
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 16, 2006 at 10:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Apparently, Xeno, you didn't get it after all...
In science, theories are NOT "postulating explanations of phenomena," to use your own words. I explained it clearly and succinctly in the article I cited: WHAT IS A THEORY?
The problem is that non-scientists use the word "theory" differently than scientists do – as you did in your comment. A scientific theory, far from being a "postulated explanation of a phenomenon," is the culmination of all the research and thought and analysis that it takes to turn raw data and observations into a full-blown scientific concept. A scientific theory is the end product of all this, the final answer, the cap-stone.
What you call "postulating explanations of phenomena" is what a scientist calls an hypothesis. It is a working explanation that serves to keep things together while the research progresses, the analysis is accomplished, and the theory is created.
Evolution is exactly that – a well designed, very comprehensive theory: the end product of a lot of discovery, fine research, and productive analysis. Darwin originally postulated – hypothesized – about his observations. What we have today is a full-blown theory.
posted by
arGee
on November 15, 2006 at 4:50 PM
| link to this | reply
franciscan admit it
you adhere to a set of beliefs that sets millions of christians aside as nonbelievers.
although many christians here on Blogit set you aside as a nonbeliever.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 14, 2006 at 7:07 AM
| link to this | reply
franciscan - insist all that you want but you are simply regurgitating
nonsense fed to you by others.
The problem: "......by Godless liberal journalists." . . which you claim comprise 90% of the journalistic trade based on a poll that you think might exist. Is your brain not equipped with bullshit filters? Are you really this gullible? Or worse, do you think that I am? It is very fortunate that the story you read "somewhere" about this "fact" was written by someone in the other 10% and that they got it past the Godless majority and into print . . but joking aside, proliferating this idea makes you as culpable as the people that made it up. For the record, the likely split of non believer versus believer in journalism is probably much more in line with your national demographic than you choose to believe. Reverse your numbers and you are probably closer to right.
My last question for you: How do people like you feed yourself?
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2006 at 8:57 PM
| link to this | reply
xeno-x
Specific persons non believers? I can call gomedome one, can't I?
posted by
franciscan
on November 13, 2006 at 7:54 PM
| link to this | reply
xeno-x
The ninety percent figure may sound like stereotyping/blanket statement talk but I've read that a few times about journalists. Somebody has polled these people. Maybe the Pew research institute? My definition of a believer? Very generally let me just say that a believer is 'a monotheist who tries to become a better person all the time for the sake of his/her God.'
posted by
franciscan
on November 13, 2006 at 7:52 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome,
It's a sensical contention of an unintended/unconscious conspiracy by Godless liberal journalists.
posted by
franciscan
on November 13, 2006 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Well written.
posted by
A-and-B
on November 13, 2006 at 2:26 PM
| link to this | reply
and as far as fewer people believing in god?
yep.
they are seeing the old god for what it is -- a powerless idol.
they are deifying what should have been deified in the first place.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM
| link to this | reply
franciscan
what is your definition of a believer. I have an idea that most of Blogit don't fit your definition. And you wouldn't go around calling specific persons on Blogit nonbelievers, would you?
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 13, 2006 at 10:43 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee - i read your post -- that's what I responded to.
theories are postulating explanations of phenomena.
like Einstein's theory of relativity. oh yes, E=MC2 -- that's a theory. we don't want to be where an A-bomb drops just because it's a theory.
evolution, like so many of these theories, has much supoprtive evidence. like them, humans do not know everything about how it works. It just is. It is not a blank postulation without support.
because of the quite partial record of any theory, no matter how well substantiated, it's like a movie. You get a frame of it here, a frame of it there. You can see the links and where the plot is going and where it has been; however, much of it is missing. But enough of it exists to give the viewer a pretty good picture of what is happening -- you look at the frames that are there; you don't throw away the movie because of the gaps. All theories are gradually having the gaps filled in, the same with evolution. Lately, fossils and DNA connections have bolstered the case for the process even more.
it is not correct, accurately, or even fair, to call evolution a theory in the sense that it is just a blind postulation. Observation inspired Darwin, and continues to bolster its validty.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 13, 2006 at 10:41 AM
| link to this | reply
franciscan
stererotyping and making blanket comments that are baseless
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 13, 2006 at 10:19 AM
| link to this | reply
franciscan - you actually used the term "non believers" and not atheists
I might have even considered retracting my use of the word "atheists" in my response to you, if it were not for your last comment which showed me that my assumption was correct. To suggest that a believing majority is being vilified by a very small minority of non believers demonstrates one of two things. Either the believing majority are so incredibly weak minded as to let a very small number of people push them around in that manner, or the idea itself is nonsense. Take your pick but in any event, don't bother me with nonsensical contentions of some conspiracy of godless liberal journalists vilifying a believing majority. It is simply too ridiculous to discuss.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 5:39 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome,
I believe I said ninety percent of the liberal media is Godless, not atheistic.
posted by
franciscan
on November 12, 2006 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Go down a few comments, Xeno...
And you will see that I posted a link to my article, WHAT IS A THEORY? If you take the time to review this article, you will see that – at lease on this topic – you and I (and Gome) are on the same wavelength.
Remember, Facts are verifiable. For the non-scientist, fact eventually replaces theory; for the scientist, theory eventually replaces fact.
posted by
arGee
on November 12, 2006 at 8:44 AM
| link to this | reply
franciscan - Geez buddy, did you just pop out of a Jesus Fan Club Factory?
I can say with some confidence that there is no occupation in North America that is 90% atheist. There are groups that have dispraportionate representation versus societal demographics. There are also some moderately organized groups where all individuals are atheists but the mean old atheists haven't completely captured any industries yet.
You have to stop barfing up your religion's propaganda in my comments. Speaking of a Godless agenda by a segment of your populace that can number no more than 5% and have no coherent organizational structure with which to undertake this, is pretty lame. Speaking in unfounded absolutes such as: "... only God gives Wisdom. . ." gets tiresome.
posted by
gomedome
on November 11, 2006 at 8:31 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome,
The media is liberal and ninety percent of journalists are non believers. I think, generally speaking, that it's believers who are mostly vilified. Liberal elites, intelligentsia, whatever you want to call them have, in my opinion, "good" momentum going for them as they consciously or unconsciouly promote their Godless agenda. It's true that most believe [in the U.S. it's like ninety percent belief]. But let's face it, in our everday lives it's not like we have to always defend our beliefs whatever they may be. It's so often the media [which influences disproportionately, probably because people are still too impressed when they see something in writing] which is attacking believers.
The Godless side [or maybe I should say 'those who want to promote the idea of a Godless universe] have recently made significant inroads [partially spurred on by the intelligent design cause] in inserting their belief/agenda into the national/international discourse. The New York Times magazine had an article about this a couple months ago. The Time article also mentioned this "Dawkins is riding the crest of an atheist literary wave". [Read the article, will ya']
p.s. Sometimes people intend for 'read between the lines meaning' in their comments. I don't know you well enough to trust that you weren't doing this with your reply to me so let me make it perfectly clear that I think that Dawkins is a lot smarter than me. The point I was trying to make was that I really thought Frances Collins did a lot better in the debate. [And yes, I was trying to wear the objective hat]
p.p.s. Dawkins is smart but is he wise? Wisdom comes from God. Hopefully God is gracing him with some as he leads Professor Dawkins into heaven.
posted by
franciscan
on November 11, 2006 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
franciscan - did you take your tin foil helmet off again?
Okay, I caught your attempt at humor but in your little jab at Dawkins, I see a problem all too common. Dawkins is a brilliant man, a 1 or 2 percentile across the board. In common English this means that he is smarter than 99% of all other humans in most disciplines. So too is Collins an intelligent individual but with one glaring difference. He does not have to suffer the slings and arrows of a legion of puppets that would vilify him simply because of his beliefs. Even more comical is when someone who is separated from either of these gentlemen by more than 50 IQ points decides that one of them is stupid because they have an opposing viewpoint. I'm not suggesting that you are one of these people but instead saying that within the adherents to your religion there are certainly people like this.
posted by
gomedome
on November 11, 2006 at 11:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - I couldn't have said it better myself
You sum up my entire point very well in your last few lines. Those that promote the evils of the theory of evolution from a position of ignorance act as an impediment to the advancement of knowledge. I have no problem with someone or some group lobbying for change based on facts and knowledge but I have a big problem with those who lobby from a position of ignorance.
posted by
gomedome
on November 11, 2006 at 10:49 AM
| link to this | reply
THEORY -- THIS SUMS IT UP
from Wilkipedia -- but virtually any scientist will give the same definition of a theory.
In
science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or
model of the manner of interaction of a set of
natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through
experiment or otherwise
falsified through
empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of
gravitation.
So gravitation is a theory, just as is evolution, just as electricity.
You will notice we don't float around in the sky -- we fall to the earth. You will notice that if you stick a wet finger into an electrical outlet you might not survive the experience.
Ample evidence supports evolution. I have posted on that myself.
Gomey, as you note, misconceptions of evolution are the biggest problem in understanding what it is. Sometimes scientists come to premature conclusions and this feeds the opposition.
Then the opposition comes to entirely faulty conclusions and this perpetuates the myth that evolution is a faulty theory.
However, I feel that any thinking person will understand that accepting evolution as a demonstrable process and dumping the mythical "creation 'science'" will help human society immeasurably, because people will realize the roots of much human behavior instead of separating behaviors according to the medieval mythical concepts still retained of sin and righteousness and us and them and heaven and hell.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 11, 2006 at 10:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
This polorisation between religious theory and athiesm is the main reason that I don't use the latter term to describe myself. I refuse to be negatively defined as part of a false dichotomy.
I'm not even thrilled about non-believer - as I believe in lots of things I can see and touch. It's more a case of: 'I don't happen to believe in tarot cards, life lines, or gods'.
posted by
Antipodean
on November 10, 2006 at 10:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Blogitum, ergo est?
posted by
majroj
on November 10, 2006 at 9:14 PM
| link to this | reply
If one can drop the conceit that it means something that we are here, then
evolution makes perfect sense. If it hadn't "worked", we wouldn't be sitting here yakking about it.
The Descartes, who said Cogitum, ergo est" sat down at a restrauranbt. The waitress came over, said, "Are you ready to order?", he said, "No, I don't think..." and vanished.
posted by
majroj
on November 10, 2006 at 9:12 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome,
Did you see Time magazine this week? Noted atheist Richard Dawkins [Oxford professor] debated Frances Collins [human genome doctor]. Fun article. Debate itself? Well, I'd like to comment more but I have to go out and buy a new mop; you fill it with tea, it huffs and puffs and the tweed [oxford brand] bristles mop well. It's called the Professor Richard.
posted by
franciscan
on November 10, 2006 at 5:46 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome, this topic is one I believe will never cease to
challenge and consume the thoughts of thinking people everywhere. This is subject that can begin a conversation anywhere, anytime! Good post! faholo
posted by
faholo
on November 10, 2006 at 5:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Allow me to jump in here, Gome...
With some general thoughts on semanitcs, because that is a BIG part of the problem you discuss in your post. Some time ago I posted an article, WHAT IS A THEORY?, in which I address the semantic problem you haved stumbled on in your post.
I'm not saying that you said anything wrong, but that your readers probably did not understand what you actually were saying. Rather than review the entire argument here, please humor me and follow the indicated link to gain an understanding of what I see as the underlying problem.
I look forward to your (and other) feedback on this.
posted by
arGee
on November 10, 2006 at 2:54 PM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger - good point - the microbiotic world is the one place where we
can see an evolutionary process demonstrated for us in a short enough time span for us to witness the before and after.
posted by
gomedome
on November 10, 2006 at 12:34 PM
| link to this | reply
SoloWriter - I don't see how you arrive at my defending anything?
I attempt to speak objectively about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution but I do clearly state in this post that I find this theory inadequate as an explanation of our origins as a species.
posted by
gomedome
on November 10, 2006 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - those are the basic problems with the theory
An evolutionary process may take hundreds of years, we are only witness to it within the limitations of our lifespans. The theory is complex, with misconceptions as to what evolution actually is and how it works being common amongst even the most educated of people. With proponents of a religious agenda proliferating misinformation on the subject, the problem becomes exacerbated.
posted by
gomedome
on November 10, 2006 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply
The_TAO_of_Drew - I've often thought along those lines as well
I envision a being so massive that it is beyond our comprehension; walking into his rec room, having something catch his eye in a long forgotten school project he was working on, then saying "What the hell is this crap growing in my flying rock collection?" .....then scraping the surface of the earth off with a putty knife.
posted by
gomedome
on November 10, 2006 at 12:21 PM
| link to this | reply
SuccessWarrior - there is nothing at all wrong with not contemplating our
origins as a species. We have more important things to think about.
There is however a lot wrong with insisting that all others are subjected to one set of religious beliefs pertaining to the matter.
posted by
gomedome
on November 10, 2006 at 12:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution
shouldn't get yearly flu shots. If they've had one, it should cover them for all, right, because the flu will never evolve into a different form. There are a lot of holes in the theory of evolution and how we became what we are, but the process itself is as obvious as the flu I'm getting over.
posted by
TVBlogger
on November 10, 2006 at 11:36 AM
| link to this | reply
But this is, nevertheless, someone else's theory that you are defending.
posted by
Jenasis
on November 10, 2006 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
the problem with evolution
is that the process is so complex and so much of the evidences are long gone.
we can only conjecture -- and yet, we can see the process.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 10, 2006 at 11:08 AM
| link to this | reply
I can't shake the idea that we could be a science project
that was simply forgotten about and left to grow moldy in the corner next to a flying spaghetti monster (Parker/Stone.)
posted by
The_TAO_of_Drew
on November 10, 2006 at 11:04 AM
| link to this | reply
I really don't think about it much
Is it bad that I just don't care how my species started? All that matters is that Im here and what I'm going to do about it.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on November 10, 2006 at 10:26 AM
| link to this | reply