Evolution...

[jhu]

Originally posted by: bamacre


I see it in a completely opposite way. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone NOT believe we are somehow "special"? We have looked as far, and as close, as our eyes can see, and I haven't seen anything more beautiful and at the same time, more evil, than a human being.

actually, we haven't looked very far. we're still stuck on this rock.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: NightTrain
In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

I see it in a completely opposite way. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone NOT believe we are somehow "special"? We have looked as far, and as close, as our eyes can see, and I haven't seen anything more beautiful and at the same time, more evil, than a human being.

Ever watch the opening scene of Contact? Doesn't sound like. Try it out...esp. the version from the extras on the DVD. An insignificant speck in the universe would be a bazillion times more significant than life here on earth.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Promethply

Science is work in progress

and no, it's not BS, some organic molecules are attracted to each other if they have opposite polarities.

Just be patient, high school textbooks are overly simplified to cater to the average highschool students.

When you get to college and continue taking classes in the natural sciences, then you'll really get into much more depth -- that's just the nature of the US education system.

The BS was not organic molecules bonding together, it was the speculation on how they formed cells.

Seems to me, it'd be better to give a straight answer than to make one up.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

My high school bio text book didn't say "we don't know how life originated", it made some BS answer up about chemicals magically coming together to form "pseudo-cells" with could reproduce and eventually formed real cells.

It's called Primordial soup

Formation of Primordial Cells

But of course you have to believe in Science first, my bad.

Let me tell you, there was nothing scientific about my bio textbook. I'd quote it if I still had it.

But the cold hard truth remains that nobody has a theory that explains exactly how a living cell comes together from non-living chemicals. I'm only saying that it's better to say that than to make up an answer that's probably not even right.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: NightTrain
In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

I see it in a completely opposite way. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone NOT believe we are somehow "special"? We have looked as far, and as close, as our eyes can see, and I haven't seen anything more beautiful and at the same time, more evil, than a human being.

Ever watch the opening scene of Contact? Doesn't sound like. Try it out...esp. the version from the extras on the DVD. An insignificant speck in the universe would be a bazillion times more significant than life here on earth.

While I completely understand what you are saying, and I do agree to some extent, maybe I can explain it this way. The fact that you and I can even fathom and understand what you just stated, is further proof, to me, of just how special we are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic, I know that strictly speaking, we evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp. I was speaking with poetic license. It is good for our humility to see the ape within. He is awfully darn evident once you get past the pretense of self importance.

As for people believing what they want to believe, I really do wonder. In Germany you are not allowed to push the Nazi belief whereas you are free to do so here. The question I guess is how far are we from fundamentalists putting scientists in the oven. Experience teaches different people different lessons about free speech.

Zebo: "I think you go too far. The opposition is from a misunderstanding i think, some think evolution/and theory is saying/impling we're here by chance and evolution is working by chance and god does'nt play dice."

Well I was being a bit hyperbolic I guess. My real point was that the denial of evolution comes out of a commitment to a prior source of motivation. Uncontaminated minds readily see its cogency.

And I am not smart. But the more you know about yourself the more you know about everybody cause we are all the same.

 

[judasmachine]

I beleive natural selection happens all the time, however I see no direct proof of evolution as we commonly believe. This being said, the question as to where we came from is a mystery we'll never know.

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: dornick

The BS was not organic molecules bonding together, it was the speculation on how they formed cells.

Seems to me, it'd be better to give a straight answer than to make one up.

As I mentioned before, high school textbooks are overly simplified (they only gloss over subjects) to cater to the average highschool students. The average teenager's mind are not ready to grasp complex concepts.

Again, scientists have some ideas on how life might have been created, but unless they can accurately simulate the earth's early environment and atmosphere prior to life's appearance on it, they would not claim to know how life was "created".

"Straight answer(s)" are good only for marketing and selling ideas to the general public. AFAIK, science is here to help us understand our world, and not to persuade us to "believe in evolution".

In real life, most solutions and answers aren't given to us on a platter, instead, we have to figure them out ourselves, using our intellect and experience.

 

[Miramonti]

God created the theory of evolution.

 

[Promethply]

Or if you look at a bell curve, god creates too much mediocrity

 

[Kibbo]

Damn, a thread in P&N that is a good read from beginning to end. This is a first.

Moonie:

There can be no doubt about evolution. All you have to do is look at yourself impartially for a few seconds to see that you are a chimpanzee.

Brilliant. Not the best argument for evolution, but a great observation on the human condition: sigged.

Charlie: You said exactly what I would have said (had I not been too lazy), only better.

Zebo

The theory of evolution is not the same thing as evolution. The theory of evolution consists of three parts:

1. Organisms living on planet earth are related by common descent.
2. Description of the history of evolution.
3. Describing and understanding the mechanisms of 2.

The first part is really the kicker, isn't it? Doesn't that mean that all organisms are decended from one "eve organism" that was the progenitor for us all? What proof do you have that this is as much of a fact as "the earth is round?" We've deduced the latter since the greeks observed lunar eclipses, and we've seen photos from space since then. Then there's is the whole circumnavigation of the earth thing. Pretty strong evidence. What comparable evidence do the "softer" sciences have to compare to that?

I've always been of the thought that evolution (in terms of natural selection being the [at least sometimes] cause of speciation) as an observable phenomenon is a fact. But, evolution as the explanation for the development of all life on earth is merely a very (and I mean very) well supported theory.

What evidence supports your first statement?

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Promethply

Originally posted by: dornick

The BS was not organic molecules bonding together, it was the speculation on how they formed cells.

Seems to me, it'd be better to give a straight answer than to make one up.

As I mentioned before, high school textbooks are overly simplified (they only gloss over subjects) to cater to the average highschool students. The average teenager's mind are not ready to grasp complex concepts.

Again, scientists have some ideas on how life might have been created, but unless they can accurately simulate the earth's early environment and atmosphere prior to life's appearance on it, they would not claim to know how life was "created".

"Straight answer(s)" are good only for marketing and selling ideas to the general public. AFAIK, science is here to help us understand our world, and not to persuade us to "believe in evolution".

In real life, most solutions and answers aren't given to us on a platter, instead, we have to figure them out ourselves, using our intellect and experience.

Fine. I can agree with that

 

[Last Rezort]

this is just beating a dead horse. the belief in evolution does not equate non-belief in god or vice versa. evolution is fact and somthing can cant be debated.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: NightTrain
In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

I see it in a completely opposite way. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone NOT believe we are somehow "special"? We have looked as far, and as close, as our eyes can see, and I haven't seen anything more beautiful and at the same time, more evil, than a human being.

Ever watch the opening scene of Contact? Doesn't sound like. Try it out...esp. the version from the extras on the DVD. An insignificant speck in the universe would be a bazillion times more significant than life here on earth.

While I completely understand what you are saying, and I do agree to some extent, maybe I can explain it this way. The fact that you and I can even fathom and understand what you just stated, is further proof, to me, of just how special we are.

It's all about perspective.

Our culture hasn't grasped the concept of millions, no, billions of years of the earth's history and cannot grasp much beyond our immediate solar system (out of sight, out of mind.) We focus on our present-day lives and when our minds start venturing down a path that goes beyond our 9-5 lives, we start feeling a sense of awe.

Now, were our culture capable of traveling to other galaxies as we travel between cities, our perspective would change drastically and we wouldn't feel so special anymore.

 

[wchou]

evotion is cool

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: NightTrain
In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

I see it in a completely opposite way. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone NOT believe we are somehow "special"? We have looked as far, and as close, as our eyes can see, and I haven't seen anything more beautiful and at the same time, more evil, than a human being.

Ever watch the opening scene of Contact? Doesn't sound like. Try it out...esp. the version from the extras on the DVD. An insignificant speck in the universe would be a bazillion times more significant than life here on earth.

While I completely understand what you are saying, and I do agree to some extent, maybe I can explain it this way. The fact that you and I can even fathom and understand what you just stated, is further proof, to me, of just how special we are.

It's all about perspective.

Our culture hasn't grasped the concept of millions, no, billions of years of the earth's history and cannot grasp much beyond our immediate solar system (out of sight, out of mind.) We focus on our present-day lives and when our minds start venturing down a path that goes beyond our 9-5 lives, we start feeling a sense of awe.

Now, were our culture capable of traveling to other galaxies as we travel between cities, our perspective would change drastically and we wouldn't feel so special anymore.

You're right, when you stated, "it's all about perspective."

However, I think everything else you said is bullshit. But, that's just my perspective

I guess the path to an answer to the question at hand would begin with with an all-accepting definition of the word, special. Perhaps our inability to achieve this simple task is something else that makes us special. But of course, like you said, only to those who perceive it in such a way.

Is the existense of specialness only achievable when it passes the tests of all the worlds, of all that exists? I think not. In my mind, we need not telescopes that can see across the universe to prove whether or not we are special. Sometimes I feel that our vision is blurred when we look outward, because we have failed to understand what we see when looking inward.

 

[conjur]

Oh, granted we are special when it comes to life on this planet but, if one looks deep enough, one can find something "special" in any species of life (be it plant, animal, fish, etc.)

We're able to express emotion through speech and written language and that certainly distinguishes us from other forms of life. If that's the criterion that makes us special, I agree. But, that would be a rather narrow approach.



BTW, related to the topic:

How to respectfully decline the KSDE's upcoming Circus event:
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000082

Hi Mr. Griffith:

Thank you for your invitation to me to appear before a subcommittee of the Kansas State Board of Education during its consideration of whether the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards abide by language of a conference report of the NCLB act.

You already have received my written comments on specific items proposed by the IDN as modifications to the majority science committee report.

I understand that at the January meeting of the Board, each of the motions made by representatives of the IDN was discussed and defeated.

I also understand that in response to these defeats, the IDN has proposed a more generalized discussion on views of the nature of science expressed by both representatives of the "mainstream" (i.e., scientific majority) as well as representatives of the IDN or other like-minded proponents of non-scientific views (i.e., intelligent design), especially as these views relate to the NCLB Act conference committee statement you quoted below.

That the Board would order such a public discussion is especially odd for the following reasons.

1) Viewpoints on the nature of science expressed by the IDN were made perfectly clear in their objections to the draft science curriculum standards.

2) These views were defeated in formal motions.

Further discussions of such views would appear to have a purpose for no reason other than trying to once again inject such viewpoints into the science curriculum, when in fact such views have already been rejected.

This could be interpreted as unAmerican - the IDN gave its best shot, and the shot fell far short of the target. The IDN seems not to want to play by the rules (specifically Robert's Rules of Order). The controversial discussion ought now to be closed, and the Board should proceed with the adoption of the draft science standards without further interference by the IDN or its supporters.

3) Now the IDN supporters wish discussion of a generalized statement apparently not previously considered by the Board.

This is most logically interpreted as an "end run" by the IDN and its supporters to achieve its original goals of injecting intelligent design into the science standards after its original proposals had been rejected.

I see no reason why the Board should provide a public forum for such a discussion of viewpoints, which have already been rejected.

Furthermore, as I understand the background of the NCLB statement to be discussed, this particular statement by a conference committee did not become part of the Act, and thus it does not carry the force of law based upon adopted legislation.

For this reason, I fail to see why the Board is providing the additional public forum for the debate-like airing of viewpoints on a statement that has no legislative basis.

For these reasons, and others, I respectfully decline your generous offer to provide expert opinion on the conference committee statement to be addressed.

In order for the Board and its science subcommittee to better understand why I believe it is inappropriate for me to provide my views during the scheduled hearings, I request that these comments be distributed to the Board and the science subcommittee. The Board and the science subcommittee might otherwise misinterpret my absence as due to some other unrelated reason.

Respectfully yours,
Scott Brande, Ph.D.

Dear Mr. Griffith,

Pursuant to our phone conversation yesterday, this letter is to confirm my withdrawal from participation in the KSBE hearings this May "regarding the mainstream scientific view of the nature of science."

As you will recall, I accepted your invitation the day it was offered (7 Apr 05) and wrote that I was delighted and honored" in being asked to participate. When I read the paragraph you cited from the No Child Left Behind Act, I was thrilled because I thought there would truly be an advance in resolving this challenging issue on teaching controversial scientific issues (biological origins) in public schools.

However, it came to my attention on April 11 that I was the only person who had agreed to appear before the subcommittee to defend "the mainstream scientific view." I was not told that leading scholars in the origins debate (eg, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Keith Miller) and scientists from Kansas Citizens for Science had refused to appear at the hearings. Needless to say, I was shocked! I was also told that the "minority" opinion had 24 expert witnesses. The following day I discovered that the subcommittee was made up of three anti-evolutionists, none of whom were trained professionally in the historical sciences.

Now, I was shocked beyond belief!!! It seems clear to me that the decision on Kansas Science Curriculum Standards has already been made.

In the twenty-three years I have been visiting your great nation, I have always enjoyed American hospitality. In particular, I have always appreciated the belief in fairness that the men and women in your country embrace. However, I feel that I was set up. In fact, I sense that I was going to be used in an injudicious and manipulative fashion. I am more than disappointed. It is now clear to me why scientists in the State of Kansas do not want to participate in these hearings. The KSBE has not organized these proceedings in a fair way. It has skewed the subcommittee to favor the "minority" view. Bluntly stated, this is professionally and ethically not acceptable.
As a born-again Christian, I am an optimist. I trust that men and women of good Faith will contribute in the Lord's will being done in this matter. Should KSBE arrange fair hearings in future, I would be delighted and honored to participate.

Please forward this letter to members of the KSBE. For your and their information, I am also including below my opening and closing statements from Darwin, Design Democracy III (Kansas City, 2002) in order to outline my views on origins and the teaching of this subject in public schools.

Published papers on intelligent design can be found on my website: www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure As well, my personal testimony of Faith appears there near the end of the audio-slide lecture entitled "Beyond the 'Evolution' vs. 'Creation' Debate."



Regrettably,



Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD
Assistant Professor of Science & Religion
St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2J5

Dear Mr Griffith,

Thank you for your invitation to testify before the Kansas State Board of Education.

Unfortunately I cannot attend, as I shall be busy debating the Flat Earth Society.

I am sorry to be facetious but, as I am sure you are aware, the State of Kansas has made itself the laughing stock of the scientific world over this issue. The very idea of "representatives from both views" presupposes that there are two views to represent. In many fields of science there is indeed genuine controversy, and science thrives on genuine controversy. In the case of evolution, however, the only opposition comes from right outside science, and from people wholly ignorant of science.

For real scientists to share a platform with the biological equivalent of flat-earthers would be to give them the credibility, respectability, and above all publicity that they crave.

I am sorry, but count me out.

Yours sincerely,


Richard Dawkins
Charles Simonyi Professor
University of Oxford

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, granted we are special when it comes to life on this planet but, if one looks deep enough, one can find something "special" in any species of life (be it plant, animal, fish, etc.)

We're able to express emotion through speech and written language and that certainly distinguishes us from other forms of life. If that's the criterion that makes us special, I agree. But, that would be a rather narrow approach.

I think you should reflect further on the differences between humans and all other living things. Our speech and written language isn't even the tip of the iceberg. And they are not limited to skills and behavior, nor are the differences limited to things we deem positive.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, granted we are special when it comes to life on this planet but, if one looks deep enough, one can find something "special" in any species of life (be it plant, animal, fish, etc.)

We're able to express emotion through speech and written language and that certainly distinguishes us from other forms of life. If that's the criterion that makes us special, I agree. But, that would be a rather narrow approach.

I think you should reflect further on the differences between humans and all other living things. Our speech and written language isn't even the tip of the iceberg. And they are not limited to skills and behavior, nor are the differences limited to things we deem positive.

How about some "for instances"?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, granted we are special when it comes to life on this planet but, if one looks deep enough, one can find something "special" in any species of life (be it plant, animal, fish, etc.)

We're able to express emotion through speech and written language and that certainly distinguishes us from other forms of life. If that's the criterion that makes us special, I agree. But, that would be a rather narrow approach.

I think you should reflect further on the differences between humans and all other living things. Our speech and written language isn't even the tip of the iceberg. And they are not limited to skills and behavior, nor are the differences limited to things we deem positive.

How about some "for instances"?

I knew that question was coming. But alas, that being said, I think I just gave you an answer.

 

[Ozoned]

"we are all the same":Q

 

[Last Rezort]

Beyond the ability to communicate, I see very little that makes us much better. And if I'm not mistaken without the ability to read and write, to speak, we would still be animals ourselves.

Humans are the only species that wages war, and kills without need for food. We are systematically killing off the natural recourses and overpopulating.

You ever see a lion kill an antelope? It stalks not one but a herd, and when it attacks they all scatter. After it kills its prey, the herd will stop. Having no fear that the lion will kill again, they have no need to move. They begin to graze again.

As a people we fight even though we are neighbors. Is intelligence really what makes us great? If so then your words are baseless, and it is science that really makes us.

To fall back on an illogical fairy tale to explain for the scientifically unexplainable is foolishness. But again that is why I love this country, we have the freedom to believe what we like.

 

[wchou]

This thread has been beaten to the death! Let's let it die peacefully!


Amen.

 

[Zebo]

Kibbo I havent forgot about you.. I'll post the abiogenesis and speciation papers when I get organized. You may want prime yourself NAS's website though, you know the exert arm for science setup by congress... #1 is not really open for debate (just like earth is round) that its more complex to delineate for the general public compared to the ease of seeing a space photo does'nt make the facts any less true or the professional concensous any more divided.

 

[chrisms]

How is evolution so accepted these days? Is it because we are trying to find an alternative to creationsism? Where are any transitional species that should be seen if Darwin's theory was true? Where are the fossils of half ape, half human creatures which should have come during the evolutionary process? So far we only have fossils of various species which evolutionists try to link together, but if there was truely a link we would have found half bird/half dinosaur type creatures by now.