I agree with the basic intent of your note, so don’t consider this aimed at you. It’s more aimed a common misconception I’ve seen in the popular media. Newtonian mechanics is just as good now as it ever was, and it’ll be just as good a thousand years from now. All the devices created based on Newtonian mechanics still work just fine, etc. And, when applied to the sorts of data that Newtonian mechanics was formulated to explain, relativity basically becomes Newtonian mechanics to a very good approximation.
So one might say Newton was “wrong” in the sense of not explaining data far outside of any he had. But when relativity is applied to that same data, it says almost exactly the same things, so in other sense, Newton was right, just in a more limited area.
My lame attempt to tie this to the original topic: evolution fits the available data better than any other available theory. There are probably non-fundies who doubt even the basics of evolution, but if they want to be taken seriously, it’s up to them to provide a better theory, much like Einstein did with Newton. So far, none have turned up.
Now, I’m not sure how the Pope got into this but I know for sure I can go to the library and get or a bookstore and buy books - by Einstein, read what he has to say, check his math (I’m really good at that) and make up my own mind.
I have to say quite honestly I have no idea how many books the Pope has in bookstores or libraries but I’d bet he believes in both Einstein AND evolution.
Now I have to go read this from the beginning because I no longer can figure out what this had to do with anything in the op.
If you mean that some people expect too much of science (perhaps like … not bothering with conservation because some ‘new process’ will solve everything?), then I agree. Similarly scientific research provides possibilities, but not guidance on how to best use them.
But you say ‘It’s not where you get your data, it’s what you do with it’. What data do we use to decide religious differences e.g. is Judaism or Christianity correct over Jesus? Is the Pope God’s representative on earth?
Obviously I’m suggesting there is insufficient data to help decide these things, (unlike scientific theories). Surely you only have faith for religious matters.
As a scientist, I believe in experiment. In my field, I can publish results and someone else can repeat them. There are other sciences I don’t fully understand, but as long as there is aconcensus among numerous scientists, I’ll take their word. The social sciences I have my doubts about. But if the data presents a useful prediction, I’ll often go along with these ‘softer’ sciences as well.
There is some guy who claims to be a molecular biologist and has written an anti evolution book. But lack of proof in one of a set of related sciences can be filled in by another. I wasn’t terribly interested in the guy’s book, since few in his field agree. The concensus thing again.
Those who believe in evolution, although not varifying everything necessary to support it, beieve in it because it rings more consistent with many related things in directly apparent present reality, rather than being simply something shoved down their throats by those who wield only faith. Furthermore, “it” hasn’t all “gone down”. And scientists are even making an additional amount of it go down today. . .and on into the future: http://archive.ap.org/s/wire/search.cgi?id=&SITE=IAMAS
, click “here”; then on resultant page, click “search” in upper right; then search for ‘High-speed evolution’, while set for “AP Archive”.]
As to others in conflict with Darwinism, I can’t find the news article, but within the last month, there was one in the SF Chronicle (from some other source) that mentioned that some results of learning by an individual’s immune system can appear in that individual’s offspring, i.e., a sort of micro-Lamarckism.
GuanoLad:
Well, I’d say “facts” are escapable, because they always may be seen to depend on particular frames of reference.
I think the illusion that propels scientists is based on their faith that they are seeking and often achieving absolute truth. There is no truth that does not depend on a frame of reference – from the objective aspect (something admittedly conjured on faith), if a result of nothing else, the neural-net correlate of what is subjectively experienced as a fact is certainly at least a consequence of a congenital neural kernal in the context of a select biochemistry. Clearly, however, with this sort of thinking (?), one keeps going around in circles.
But clearly, for people today with much gray matter, “factual” statements in a particular book or handed-down religion that evolved thousands of years ago, when man’s powers of observation were much less amplified by his artifacts, do not carry much weight, when they conflict with what his senses observe, and his gray matter resolves, from his present, much more complex environment, and from what he reads of what others of his species recently have observed and concluded from scientifically refined analysis.
However, present science, though not independent of what man is currently up to, does not serve to direct, overall, what he should do, considering the overall situation; and when there be a quandary over such, that is when many look to what their ancestors have recorded as to how similar quandaries were resolved in their day, in spite of the more complex scenario of our times. For better or for worse, this often comes up in the form of inherited religious notions. “Moral” of the “story”: Religion should not get off on sticking too close to its antequated “facts”. End of sermon.
I, of course, certainly agree that Einstein didn’t “demolish” Newton, and greatly appreciate bantmof’s pointing this out, in contrast to the earlier post that claimed such deconstruction. As an ex-EE, I didn’t use Newton’s stuff all that much, but I, at my level, working on a practical design level, outside of chips, also didn’t mess with quantum mechanics, which some might argue “demolishes” some of what Maxwell set out. . .or even what Edison simply diddled with. If E = I*R works, ship it!
Jois:
I dunno if the Pope, considering his position, ever has to be sure of his scientific beliefs or have any idea of what quantum mechanics is all about. (The last I heard, his outfit was only up to the point of worrying about Galileo’s thinking.)
The ‘faith’ that non-scientists hold in science is not in the authority of scientists or that the premises of a particular theory are correct. We have faith in the scientific method to eventually arrive at theories that are, if not certain, then more or less correct; at the very least, theories that survive permit some prediction and control over what is explained. Our faith isn’t even true faith, because the scientific method overall works in a demonstrable way: what is science today is engineering and technology tomorrow. Nuclear power plants and bombs are the result of scientific theories; computers and cars are, too. Unless you want to deny that those things work the way we expect them to, the validity of the scientific method can’t be dismissed.
I believe in evolution, not because it seems more plausible to me than creation, but because the standard set by the scientific method is higher than any standard I can set for myself.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
The OP asked if anyone disagrees. Just 'cuz I do (a little) doesn’t make me a troll.
As for the rest… I was a Bio/Pre-Med major in college (and no it wasn’t Oral Roberts or Liberty U; It was the Univ of Delaware if you must know). I’ve never been religiou, but as I studied the inner workings of the body I kept being absolutely amazed that the whole thing worked. I don’t know how any one can study the chemistry and anatomy of the brain or the kidney or the liver and not come away with a total sense of awe. I’m totally willing to admit to a fault: I (like most humans) will assign that which I can’t fathom to a higher power of some kind. I don’t think Evolution and Religion hafta be at such odds. Gregor Mendal was a monk who discovered the notion of heredity and genes using peas. When asked by another if he was performing heresy by disputing the Church, he replied No, I’m just finding out how God works. I am absolutely willing to accept science as following in this tradition. What I refuse to accept though is the summary dismissal of all Religion. There are far too many thing we don’t know.
Me either, Ray, you think they’d send us a copy of his job description? I’ve been told that the nuns no longer teach creationism.
I’m maybe 82% sure a program on TLC or Discovery Channel said that the RC Church admitted error (actual ERROR) in Galileo’s case. A trifle belated but still - error.
Well, they always say the Dalai Lama is a real fan of science, but I don’t even know how much he really knows about it. It doesn’t seem to be getting him back to Tibet very fast.
The Pope has acknowledged (also on behalf of his Church) that the Big Bang is very much a reality. He is not a creationist in that sense. I believe the statement was made in the presence of Stephen Hawking and other scientists.
The Pope’s position, if I remember correctly, is that what happened before the Big Bang should not be scrutinized too closely, because it may have been God.
The funny thing is that crackpot anti-Big Bang creationist and assorted bozos have been screaming at the Pope ever since, claiming that he is not a scientist and that his decision is uninformed. Yet these same cretins scream at scientists when the scientific community asserts evolution, the Big Bang, etc.
Basically these fanatic people want to listen to those religious people or pseudo-scientists who DO say that the universe was created. But in my experience it takes a high level of one or more of the following ingredients to assert that that what (true) sciences teache us is false:
ignorance (not meant as an insult, but to define significant gaps in knowledge)
dogma and doctrine
confusion
Regarding the point mentioned by another poster, about the complexity of the human body, think this: to achieve our present complexity, countless billions of preceding life forms died insufficiently adapted to their environment. We’re not talking about a few hundred attempts, nor a few thousands, nor a few million; billions upon billions of our “ancestors” have died before our time in the course of evolution. I would therefore fully expect us (and much other life) to be extremely complex.
Abe
IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.
–Ambrose Bierce
So why did God ever let the Big Bang happen. . .and thence, physicists?
There’s no justification for concluding that over simply a change in the environment. Did not perhaps the Yanomami have ancestors who were more like us than they? Are they not perhaps feral humans, well adapted to their environment at one time, i.e., the jungle. . .but now that jungle is receding, somewhat physically, but more importantly communicationally/socially, maladapted, at our hands? Perhaps similarly, also or instead, the Ainu? Or pick some pygmy tribe, if there are any left, or maybe even some Gypsies, to a lesser degree.
Ray (hard to catch many kangaroo rats out here in the desert these days and I’m poor at dodging motorcycles)
The problem is when people try and use science to further religious goals, as the so-called “creation scientists” are prone to do.
For example, if you say that you are a theist who believes that God created the Bog Band and watched - hell, I’ll even let you say “helped” - all evolve, I will have no qualms, nor does science.
If you say the world is only 6,000 years old because God did it that way, and you offer only your faith, I also have no qualms. Science may not want to spend much time in the same room as you, but they it will not say you’re wrong.
Whereas, if you say that we have a young earth, and that science is wrong because of (insert creationist fallacy here), both science and i will tear you a new one. And David B as well…
The problem is when people try and use science to further religious goals, as the so-called “creation scientists” are prone to do.
For example, if you say that you are a theist who believes that God created the Bog Band and watched - hell, I’ll even let you say “helped” - all evolve, I will have no qualms, nor does science.
If you say the world is only 6,000 years old because God did it that way, and you offer only your faith, I also have no qualms. Science may not want to spend much time in the same room as you, but they it will not say you’re wrong.
Whereas, if you say that we have a young earth, and that science is wrong because of (insert creationist fallacy here), both science and i will tear you a new one. And David B as well…
Bog Band - Big Bang… Excuse - I am at my family’s house, and have to adjust to new keyboards. Take that on faith, as I do not wish to run any experimentation on it, thanks…
Nanobyte, the Yanomano are human too. They might have some small genetic differences from us, and they might be peculiar in that they are a people consisting of violent thieves and liars (cultural relativism my ass) but they are biologically human.
It is pretty much established that the environment has the final say in what survives and what doesn’t. If an organism is not adapted to survive in its environment, it will not survive.
As for the Pope’s formal statement, I thought it was pretty cool of him to make it. I understand he came under a lot of fire for it, from all the self-righteous fundamentalist nuts out there.
Back to the original discussion: I am agnostic, but I am willing to entertain the notion that the Universe was created (a very long time ago and through the Big Bang). I am willing to entertain that concept, but so far I have found zero evidence for it. Science, on the other hand, can illustrate fairy simply the vicissitudes that brought us where we are now. So my vote is for science–and that gives me the opportunity to keep away from the fundamentalist nut cases anyway.
Abe
IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.
–Ambrose Bierce
I’m sorry, I am absolutely stuck on the image of God rockin’ out with the bog band at the dawn of time cafe, I will not be able to post anything else of a serious nature in this thread other than to say that the only contradictions between science and religion that I see are created by the participants, not the disciplines,
Larry