Yes, damnit, written language. I’m an idiot.
Man, if you want to delve into a hot, controversial topic, try figuring out what the concensus is on when and how Language evolved. I’ve read everything on the subject I can get my hands on and have changed my opinion so many times I don’t know what I think anymore…
Uh, it would bolster theories of time travel? If something really unexpected was discovered, the theory of evolution would itself evolve. The creationists have this fixed inflexible view that doesn’t invite any challenge.
These 100,000- and 10,000-year figures are just estimates, like looking at a rainbow and trying to determine where “orange” begins.
I think that part of the problem is that many (all?) biologists and anthropologists insist that if you “believe” in evolutionary theory, that precludes believing in the existence of a Supreme Being or Creator. Another tenet, at least when I got my degree in Physical Anthropology in the 70s, is that evolution is not teleological; it is random, therefore there is no “guiding force” behind it, and we evolved by accident. I think this was partly in reaction to earlier beliefs such as the Chain of Being, which had humans one rung below angels and one rung above apes, implying human superiority over all animals. Neither of those tenets are part of evolutionary theory, IMO, which focuses on how things happen and not why they do.
It can be difficult for some people to reconcile the scientific theory with their religious beliefs, and if the scientists are teaching that “believing” in evolution means you cannot believe in God, it is no wonder that some religious people react defensively.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that a signifigant amount of those who advocate Evolutionary theory do not use words like “believe” in such a context, dmgorman.
OK, point taken. How about “accept” the theory of evolution as valid?
I’ll continue my limb-treading and say that Evolution is not proposed as an alternative to religion, though it is commonly percieved that way.
Evolutionary theory, and science in general, strives to remove subjective inferences such as good vs bad and right vs wrong.
Religion, on the other hand, offers definitions of what is good or bad or right or wrong.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but often over-lap and intersect in conflict where they present differing answers to the question: “How did things get to be the way they are?”
**
That may have more to with the perceptions of the religious than the actual teachings of the scientists. It is true that modern cosmology, geology and evolutionary theory contradict the literal account of creation as set forth in the Bible, but whether that means you can’t believe in God at all or not is not a clear cut case. I’ve known many Christians who have been able to reconcile a belief in God with an acceptance of modern scientific thought. Heck, even the Pope accepts evolutionary theory.
If anything the scientists teach that preconcieved notions of the nature of reality do not make for good science. What some people tend to find truly heretical is that this line of thought doesn’t need to posit an intelligent creative force or miracles accepted on the basis of faith in order to understand the world around us. It’s great for disciplined and internally consistent thinking that deals with reality as it is; it’s not so good for those who want you to be satisified with “because God says so and if you disagree you go to hell.”
I can’t speak for another individual’s experience, but most of this stuff is unscientific and I’d be stunned if anyone with any skill was teaching it. I’ve never had a teacher (or heard a scientist) venture the opinion that evolution was “accidental,” since, again, evolutionary theory has no position on this subject: it deals with how this process works, not who or what started it.
Interesting that religious people are perceived as reacting defensively - seems like a lot of them react in quite an offensive manner to scientists. Not just an evolution thing, but I think scientists in general are often forced to tread very lightly around subjects that relate to religion somehow.
I don’t believe the theory of evolution because it makes no sense, after how many million years of survival of the fittest us humans are the best “it” came up with?
=P
Evolution isn’t about perfection, it’s about whatever will work.
No, the best “it” came up with is the cockroach.
We’re just a wink in the eye of father evolution.
I never understood this compulsive need to make disparaging comments about humanity. There are no end of human accomplishments, including the intelligence necessary to even think up the theory of evolution in the first place.
I bet you like to say things like “Look for intelligence life in the universe? Why? There’s no intelligence down here, huh-huh-huh.”
Now that is a very good point. For many people, myself included, the question of whether this or that origin theory is correct simply isn’t existentially relevant. It bears absolutely no effect whatsoever on my life, my choices day-to-day, my goals, hopes, dreams, or fears. Unless the answer one way or the other is going to have a distinct effect on my existence, which it isn’t since I’m going to be a lawyer not a scientist, I’m content to take the better authority. Since every single intelligent person on the planet with knowledge in the necessary scientific disciplines believes the theory of common descent, that’s good enough for me. Until someone can show me that the question matters to my existence, why expend all the effort learning all the complex stuff myself? I’ve got law school finals to study for!
I wouldn’t, however, equate that to accepting a view on “faith”. A person who puts “faith” in a view relies on their conclusion. Accepting an argument from authority on an issue that is no more than an idle curiousity, that I’ll never have reason to rely on one way or the other, is a long way from “faith”. The people rejecting evolution generally draw other corrolary conclusions which do alter their daily existences and upon which they do rely, so that is better described as “faith.” But conceptually, you could reject evolution out of apathy and not draw any other conclusions, and so dodge the “faith” label.
Thank you Bryan Ekers, this is the best comment I have heard all day! I can’t stand people who only see what they characterize as the “bad” parts about humanity, who blame humans for everything from the extinction of some worthless insect in Bolivia to everything else they think is wrong with the world. Humanity has done some great things, we are truly a great form of existence. The people who disagree are those who deign to judge us by some other arbitrary standard, the Christians who say we are scum compared to their god, or the radical leftists who decry our “arrogance” about our place in the world.
Humans rule!
Case in point:
FYI I wasn’t making a disparaging remark about humanity, I said HUMANS didn’t I? As in the bipedal creatures that roam this planet … pay attention at the back!
Honey:
Are you saying that your earlier post is a good example of what Rex was talking about? If so, I agree.
I was trying to say that Rex’s view is an example of the concept my earlier post.
Or are you trying to tell me my earlier post makes me sound like an arrogance decrying radical leftist? :dubious:
Oh, when you say “humans” you don’t mean humanity as such, but you’re actually referring to some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPT.
Well, colour me enlightened.