And note, incidentally, that those I suspect you may be thinking of as “primitive peoples in balance with nature” (literally living in the jungle or tundra such as Yanonamo Indians or Siberian Evenk) are a tiny, tiny minority of the world’s peoples these days. Indeed, some of the biggest threats to fragile ecosystems come from desperately poor people living in towns or cities who are just selling this timber, those fish or that animal derivative to survive.
You could say you destroy a forest by cutting down all the trees. Sure the actual substrate has not been annihilated such as by some fictional antimatter bomb, but I think people understand what you mean.
The forest has probably been replaced by a grassland or shrubs, but the key is that the word “environment” is not terribly specific and leaves a lot of wiggle room. I don’t think anyone hearing the phrase: “that environment was destroyed” would seriously think that it had been replaced by sheer oblivion (after all, even a vacuum is an environment!).
I never said that right wing are all creationists. I think there are quite a few creationists among the left wing too. Association between creationists and the right is left wing propaganda. (Just like Kerry and Edwards were gay-baiting Cheney about his daughter, but Cheney was called a homophobe.)
Looks like I got no traction with ‘Ecology and the Wisdom of the Indigenous people’ angle here. Ecotourism brochures are replete with such talk, so there must be people who believe in it. Apparently, they have not evolved to participate on this board discussions.
Regarding Evolution, in particular the evolution of scientific thought, it does seem to work in mysterious ways. Take planetary system, for example. Sometime in middle ages Ptolemaic geocentric system was accepted as absolute fact and secured Church blessing. Soon people were sent to the stake for disputing it. Took a long time for Copernicus system to be accepted as dominant. However, with development of theory of Relativity some scientists started saying that geocentric system is not wrong. Apparently it all depends from the point of reference and who’s to say that Sun is better point of reference then Earth?
LIkewise, some modern biologists and geneticists formulated the concept of “theistic evolution”. Some take the use of word ‘evolution’ as admission of evolutionary theory, not noticing that in this concept evolution is subordinted to creation, and becomes merely a tool of God.
As others have pointed out, even if your assumption about the progressive left believing that indigenous peoples were wiser ecologically than we are were true, it would not follow that these same people should necessarily embrace the indigenous peoples views on the origin of life and structure of the world.
Basically, this thread was a train-wreck from the OP.
With all due respect to Sir Fred Hoyle, I’d like to see the coordinate transformation that would take you from the geocentric to heliocentric model. I am skeptical of his claim although I admit that my knowledge of general relativity is weak. (At the very least, I think a coordinate system in which the earth were at rest and the sun revolved around it would be a very weird one with all sorts of weird forces or something like that.) And really, the most correct statement of our current understanding is that the earth and sun revolve around their common center of mass. However, since the sun is hugely more massive than the earth, that common center of mass lies very close to the center of the sun.
Well, if by “theistic evolution” they mean that it is evolution as understood by current science but they think that God is responsible for it (which I believe is what they generally do mean), then I have no problem with that view. They are expressing an opinion that is based on faith, not science, and as such it cannot be addressed by science. They are answering the “Why?” whereas science is answering the “How?”
If by “theistic evolution” they mean something akin to intelligent design, then they are making a claim that is in conflict with our understanding within current science. And, they are also making a claim that is still essentially one of faith not science because science cannot really address the question of whether a supernatural being who could do whatever the fuck He wants did whatever the fuck He wanted to. Rather, science seeks naturalistic explanations of phenomena.
To expound on this a little more, while one may technically be allowed to work in any coordinate system of one’s choosing, non-inertial reference frames generally are more intuitive in terms of the physical laws in these frames than inertial ones. Admittedly, in some cases, it is useful to think in non-inertial frames. The most prominent example is using a reference frame spinning with the rotation of the earth. In such a frame, the earth does not spin about its axis…but the price you pay is that you have all these “fictitious” forces like the Coriolis force (see also here and here).
Besides the fact, even if you say that one can take a geocentric view, the details of Ptolemy’s theory are still wrong.
Well, if I made a mess, I should pick up the pieces.
For example, I still disagree with a statement that evolution is not an article of faith.
Examples of Leibnitz, Bonnet and Lamarck show that in Europe evolutionist mindset preceded the publicatiom of Darwin’s theories by more then 100 years. They also show that those first evolutionary theories don’t qualify to be considered scientific from our vantage point. Why did those famous people advance such erroneous and/or underdeveloped theories? Few possible reasons:
- They didn’t believe in validity of church teachings about origin of life;
- They believed that there must be a better explanation for natural phenomenae;
- They believed that their theories are better then contemporary dogma.
This pesky word believe just keeps coming up, for some reason.
Irrelevant. Belief plays no part in evolutionary theory NOW. This dog is never going to hunt for you, dude.
Your examples are prior to 150 years of accumulated data and analysis by scientists all over the world.
Ah, yes, early evolutionist theories hark from the times when Science just emerged from the cloisters and gained some independence from Church. We’ve gone a long way. NOW Science is triumphant, holding keys to all the answers.
Church was triumphant in early Middle Ages, “the only way to truth”. Gradually it became dogmatic: an obstacle and threat to every independent research. Could that be the danger of triumphalism?
Denial of obvious things could be a sign of onset of dogmatism.
All scientific advances are preceded by beliefs or convictions. Before every discovery, there is a belief that there must be something to be discovered. Read any biography of any famous scientist and you will find some mystical experience giving direction to whole life effort, often happening quite early in life. Child Einstein was dreaming about traveling on a ray of light. Charles Darwin was most certainly influenced by uncle Erasmus, who rhapsodized about vague glimpses of evolutionary theory in verse, in tradition of Lucretius.
Belief always plays the most important part. Without belief there is no progress and no development. Why are you so afraid of simple word “belief”?
Because it implies a false equality between creationism ( and religion in general ) and science.
Evolution is a fact not a belief because it has an enormous amount of evidence backing it up; disbelieving in evolution is like claiming gravity does not exist, but God holds everybody down by the ankles. Neo-Darwinism is a theory, not a belief because it has facts backing it up and is logically consistant. It also comes from science, which has an impressive record of being right.
Creationism is just a belief; and a stupid one at that. There is zero evidence for is, and quite a bit against it. Why would a designer make obvious mistakes like reverse-wiring the human eye, or leaving in the appendix ? It also derives from religion, which has a long, long history of being wrong.
When you talk about the Christian Church and equate it with science, you ignore the fact that the church was always in the wrong; it was never a useful source of knowledge or problem solving. It did not ossify and degenerate from some enlightened state as you seem to think. Not to mention, they burned quite a few books and scrolls, and did their best to spread ignorance and illiteracy. Claiming that religion is remotely equal to science is a grotesque insult to science.
-or-
Evidence contradicted existing teachings with respect to the origins of life/ the history of the earth
-or-
A combination of observation and simple experiments disproved existing theories of natural phenomena (hey, flies and maggots are not spontaneously created from old meat - who knew?)
They developed new theories that were more or less wrong, but which accorded with the evidence better than prior theories, or at least attempted to recognize evidence.
I don’t know exactly what this has to do with the subject of this thread, but as it turns out, it serves to illustrate that you have to do a little thinking about reasoning. Your arguments and assertions, whether about environmentalism or about Kerry-Edwards, are full of faulty logic and reasoning.
(What is “gay-baiting”? Under what definition was “gay-baiting” going on? Regardless of the term, was there anything going on that was inappropriate? Who called Cheney a homophobe? If they weren’t calling him a homophobe, did they have some other reason to bring up his daughter’s homosexuality?)
And, really, that’s something you should look into, because if you could shore up your reasoning and logic, then you might be able to come up with some interesting arguments. So I hope you’re taking to heart the criticisms in this thread.
You really need to learn from History.
Church was triumphant and source of all knowledge, “the only path to truth” in early Middle Ages. Because it did triumph over entrenched mythological errors of antiquity and primitive beliefs of barbarian tribes. At the time, it was a great leap forward, opening of new frontiers for thought and discovery. Science was born in monasteries. All early scientists were monks. Copernicus was a monk. Even as late as mid-XIX century Mendel was a monk (without Mendel’s genetics there is no modern evolution). Church was the Ministry of Science, so to say, for a very long time. It was the only “useful source of knowledge or problem solving”.
Eventually, with accumulation of scientific knowledge, Church guardianship ceased to be beneficial and became oppressive for many scientists. Such seems to be the way of all human institutions.
Majority of burned scrolls were idiotic medieval gibberish and so no loss for mankind. To get a theory accepted one had to follow the rules. Copernicus and Galileo made it. Giordano Bruno was sent to the stake for being too rebellious. Times were harsh.
Of course, nowadays we reject burning. But do you think there is no dogma and obscurantism in modern academia? Do you think there is no infighting. backstabbing and suppression of promising research?
Communism also supported a lot of scientists; that didn’t make it a source of knowledge. In fact, it was a net drag on progress; it was the same but worse for the church.
We don’t know what was on those scrolls because they were, you know, burned. Times were harsh in large part because the church made it harsh; that has always been one of it’s primary “contributions” to society.
Yes, there’s all sorts of academic politicing, humans being humans. It’s nowhere near what it was while the church was in power. Unlike you, I consider the lack of murder and torture to be signifigant improvements.
Der Trihs, sit down and shut up. Don’t you know by now, when New Iskander said that Christianity triumphed over other religions, that means just what it sounds like. No way, no how could it have been because Christianity was more aggressive.
What? That doesn’t make sense to you? No matter, New Iskander is always right, and you just will have to accept that.