I’ve asked this before, and the response I got from one indiviudal was that evolution is evil because it calls Jesus a liar (Jesus says the earth is only 6,000 years old, you see…).
. . . since I do share Ben’s frustrations in general, in that creationists often simply don’t have a grasp of how science works and what it can tell us, I wanted to offer some counterpoint.
While I respect sdimbert greatly as a poster, I do have to agree that his “alternate theories” are an excellent representation of the mental gymnastics one must engage in when one starts from a conclusion (“God created everything”) and works backwards. I’m curious as to why the simplest explanation – the Genesis story is a mythological representation of a deeper metaphysical truth rather than a literal story, and fossils really are the remains of animals that lives millions of years ago – isn’t an acceptable one. Faith does not live and die by Biblical literalism.
Specifically regarding the C-14 and other radiological dating methods: It would be reasonable to assume that, in individual instances, mistakes have been made in dating. But when the same experiments are performed thousands of times by different people with different equipment and the same results are obtained, it’s more reasonable to assume that they’re approaching something like a correct answer. Either that, or every single piece of radiologic testing equipment ever manufactured gives false results, or every single scientist is incapable of intepreting results correctly. That seems more than a little untenable.
Finally, and I’m sure Ben and others would agree, it becomes a little tiring to hear, “Science doesn’t know everything. There’s a lot of things science can’t explain. Maybe we just haven’t collected enough evidence.” Well, no kidding science doesn’t know or explain everything. Nobody says it does. But the fact that we don’t know everything is a poor reason for pretending that we don’t know the things we do know.
[nitpick]If it’s nature, it’s not supernatural, by definition. If special creation occurred, then it’s part of nature, and therefore (by definition) natural. It’s just a very rare occurrence.[/nitpick]
That aside, even if there were no special creation, we’re still dealing with something very complex, and it will take us a while to figure out (especially since I insist on having nights and weekends off ;)).
**
We haven’t been on the case that long, but we’ve put a lot of people on it, and we built it on the foundation of prior knowledge. With apologies to Newton, if we have seen further than other men, it’s because we’re standing on them.
Furthermore, modern science has very high standards of accuracy. In order for something to become a theory, it has to pass a rather large amount of scrutiny (an amount proportional to the amount of data it attempts to explain). What is regarded as the best model is at the very least a very good model (at least in the older, more established sciences).
**
The evidence for or against biological evolution will all be found on earth. As more of the earth is explored and research continues, the theory of evolution becomes more coherent and more established. And if you do your homework, you will find that the current theory of evolution is extremely coherent. It has missing pieces and parts that don’t seem to fit together perfectly, but these will be improved upon as more evidence is found.
Have a good evening, and please do come back to continue the discussion tomorrow.
Okay, well there, (weasel weasel) you’re looking at the confluence (weasel weasel) of science and public policy. Sketchy at best–the politicos are going to find the fellows in labcoats who’ll say what they want to hear (read: the guys who want the big gub’mint grants).
Okay, fine, I’ll quit weaseling now . . . yeah, my point isn’t very stong–you can certainly find examples of scientists overstating their cases, particularly when they’re seeking attention. I retract the challenge.
However, who was it who proved the scientists in the example wrong? Politicians? Poets? Christians interpreting the Bible? Prophets speaking the word of God? Nope. Other scientists.
Science contains errors. Science strives to correct its errors. Never once has an error been corrected with the anouncement: “The hypothesis of Dr. Schnackenpfefferhausen has been proved false. The following laboratory experiment demonstrates that God did it.”
To assume that there’s some big hunk of evidence out there that will suddenly reveal the role of God in evolution and cosmology strikes me as wishful thinking, verging on desperation. God hasn’t left any footprints that we’ve found yet . . . why does it seem plausible that just over the horizon there’s a plaque saying “YHVH WAS HERE”?
pldennison, the OP is Greek to me, too. However, I think it demonstrates (in a rather arrogant way) that Creationists have absolutely no concept of the vast weight of scientific evidence that supports evolution. They just snipe around the edges, citing outdated research and half-understood math.
I’m doubt that Ben expects any serious answers . . . but neither with that stop him from crowing when he doesn’t get any.
Sometimes it’s just not worth it.
Slavery is freedom. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Oceania.
Ooo, ooo! I am a Christian, and I know what an intron is! And I kinda understand what protein homology means. Sort of. And I definitely know that the “cure for the common cold” is simply a wish object, since a cold is a set of symptoms which can have hundreds of different causes, some not even related to viruses.
But I come late, and to my chagrin, some guy named Lucifer has already made my point. Evolution is not the anti-god. Science does not threaten faith. Don’t put your faith in Creation Science, since it is deliberate lies told to make false claims about the speaker’s relationship to God. Evolution is no more antithetical to Christianity than a rainbow. The world is as it is. We have the ability to understand the world. Using that ability is no challenge to God.
I would invite the “Evolutionists” here to look back at their characterizations of their opponents (mostly not present, as usual) and decide for themselves if they might not be engaged in lynching a strawman, in the name of logical superiority.
Tris
“There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” ~ Hippocrates ~
I’m with ultrafilter: The supernatural, by definition, cannot be conclusively investigated through natural means. Since that’s all our species will ever have, I doubt we’ll ever conclusively “disprove the existence of a ‘higher power’” (though that’s never been science’s direct aim) to the satisfaction of all creationists. <Creationists/Fundies cheer.> However, scientific studies can shed logical (and often discouraging) light on literally taken biblical “truths.” <Atheists/Agnostics/Misc. cheer.> But when using a set mythological tales and/or ancient philosophies as a moral compass for the present day, remember that there are always alternatives. <Buddha/Lord Ganesh cheer, begin doing the Cabbage Patch.>
Unfortunately, as a rule of logic, a species’s knowledge, no matter how vast, will always amount to “diddly squat” in the face of the unknown. As a pragmatic rule, one must theorize that what one doesn’t know piles infinitely. In which case, whether our acquired knowledge amounts to 100 or 100 million, it will always pale in comparison to the infiniti of what we might not know. This, of course, is no excuse to cease our efforts to better understand ourselves and the universe we live in.
Thank you. This is one thing that’s always upset me. I was taught from the beginning that the Bible was symbolic in certain places, literal in others, etc. (It was more specific, but I simplify for the sake of brevity.) I was raised with the notion that, for instance, creation took place over a series of epochs (“days”), each of which stretched over long amounts of time. So I was naturally stupified as to why anyone in their right mind would think it took place in six literal days or even 10,000 years. Of course, I now realize what I was taught was not orthodox, but at least for a time, it made more sense than the shit some fundies spew. So even though I really have no need for organized religion these days, I still find myself frustrated with certain people’s bias against alternate interpretations.
Of course, as I brought out in another thread, this has been and always will be science’s main advantage over religion in terms of durability: Science, based on observation, is continually amended and made more accurate. It is elastic, adapts, and when contravening evidence arrives, science investigates and accomodates. Religion (specifically orthodox Christianity) is static due to its reliance on ancient, unalterable texts. The religious mind is then forced to either reinterpret its texts, declare said evidence as false, or change its very worldview. None of these three methods is easily carried out.
Of course, the warm, gooey feeling of oneness with the universe is hard to reject. But then again, that’s why the good Lord invented pot. <Christ raises arms, accepts applause, sits down and offers pipe to Gabriel.>
**
Simple. The scientific community says that evolution is roughly as well-proven as the atomic theory. Creationists say they know better. Creationists imply that they know more about fossils than Gould, more about genes than Dawkins, and more about astronomy than Sagan and Hawking. I’d like them to put their money where their mouth is. One can’t make the same criticism of evolutionists, because they don’t claim to know better than the people who really know what they’re talking about.
The point of this exercise isn’t to show the evolutionists that creationists don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s to show that to the creationists that they are making fools of themselves by spouting off on topics they don’t understand.
**
Super Straw-Man Powers activate!
Who said anything about Christians? I never said anything about Christians; I merely talked about creationists. You’re simply putting words in my mouth. I must admit, this sort of dishonest criticism is nothing new, coming from you. Didn’t you learn your lesson last time?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71973
-Ben
You’ve got a point, and if you read my last post, you’ll see I, too, have a hard time bashing anyone with non-evolutionist position, as I really have no problem with light-hearted Christians like yourself.
Unfortunately (and this is from my experience), believers like you and my former self are in the minority, at least in terms of audible presence.
Sdimbert, IzzyR, here you go:
http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html
I’m always glad to help out, and I applaud your willingness to educate yourselves. Frankly, I find it a little annoying that some people here would expect me to “crow” at the ignorance of anyone with an honest desire to learn.
-Ben
Triskadacemus: In all seriousness, would you say I’m lynching a strawman? If so, how?
I’m asking because I do not want to be a strawman lyncher, a position that I find despicable.
Gee, Ben, if that’s how you respond to people who are on your side, I’m glad I’m not a creationist. :rolleyes: Maybe you should get over it, you know? Holding grudges is bad for your health.
Of course, your reasoned tone in the OP, which was (he said without a trace of sarcasm) completely lacking in belligerence or provocation, should have been clearly indicative of your wish to open a truly educational dialogue. How could I possibly have missed it?
Hey, you know what? I had a lengthy, polite and interesting post all written. I just previewed it and, let me tell you, it was nice.
[sub][INEXCUSABLE PIT-WORTHY VENTING][/sub]
But, you’re a schmuck - A cavalier, disdainful, narrow and small-minded person who is more interested in making others feel bad then in possibly opening his mind up to ideas he may not agree with.
[sub][/INEXCUSABLE PIT-WORTHY VENTING][/sub]
You know what, Ben, I have some questions for you, as an Evolutionist:
[ul]
[li]How do you interpret the comments of the Arizal concerning the opening in the Bet of “Beraishis” in the first posuk of Perek Aleph?[/li][li]Do you believe that Rashi is, le’chatchila agreeing with the Ramban’s interpretation of Moshe Kibel Torah Mi’Sinai or, perhaps, pumfakert?[/li][li]Do you see how silly this exercise is?[/li][/ul]
One last time: You asked a question. Some of us told you that we didn’t understand what you were asking and requested that you simplify things for us a little.
Don’t toss us a link to a biology textbook. Take a step, together with us, towards understanding.
Or, go away. :mad:
Ultra,
I suppose the “lynch mob” image was a tad bit harsh, and I apologize for it. But the entire thread addresses “Creationists” and their ignorance of science. It is a stereotype. Perhaps it is not an entirely inaccurate one. But the thread has so very few on the “Creationist” side of the debate who really are “Young Earth Creation Science” advocates.
Walor is mildly unwilling to accept that the authority of “Science” is entirely beyond challenge from non-scientific views. He is as close as the thread has to a free-range creationist. I seem to be as close as we have currently to a fundamentalist Christian, although my fundament is a bit tarnished, I admit. The smell of tar and feathers is not strong, but there is a whiff. What we lack is a guest of honor for our torches to enlighten. So, we are stuck with a scarecrow. We have had other parties in this particular scarecrow’s honor in the past, on the SDMB. This type of thread often becomes a web of assertions in search of a fly to ensnare. I do not single you out, nor find you particularly at fault.
Stupid people still have beliefs. Some of them agree with you, and some of them agree with me. We might even agree with them, at times. Argument from assumed superiority of mind is simply a different flavor of argument from authority. Yes, the evidence of science in support of evolution is overwhelming, when it is understood. Gaining the understanding of those who currently lack the information we might have is not best served by portraying the uninformed as the enemy.
I am far more antagonistic to the real promulgators of “Creation Science” than is the average scientist, or educator. While they might be impediments to the advance of science, they are skilled workers dedicated to the destruction of faith. Those who knowingly publish lies in the name of God gain greater amity from me for the attack on God, than for the attack on truth. But we don’t seem to have any of them here, you see. So, let’s put out the torches, and go back to the village.
False alarm, folks. No Creationists here. Move along.
Tris
“The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.” ~ Lao-tzu ~
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by sdimbert *
**
**
The link isn’t to a biology textbook. It’s to my molecular evolution FAQ, which I tried to write on a level such that laymen could understand it.
You ask me to take a step with you towards understanding. I did; my FAQ is precisely what I wrote when I decided to try to explain these issues to people such as yourself. I could have whipped off a half-assed reply off the cuff, but instead I spent many hours doing as good a job as possible so that your time spent reading my explanation would be as easy and profitable as I could make it.
Did you even look over the entirety of it before insulting me?
-Ben
sdimbert: I think you’re overreacting a bit. Ben’s challenge is very specific, directed at creationists with a knowledge of molecular biology. If creation science is to be taken seriously, it must address the questions raised in the OP. To claim that Ben should debate a scientific topic without dealing in this level of science is not the best way to further the debate.
Your exercise in linguistics (was that Hebrew?) might pose a serious challenge to linguists and philosophers, but it’s not suitable for everyman. That doesn’t undermine its validity at all.
This might not be the best forum for a molecular biological debate, but that sort of thing does need to happen from time to time.
Ben,
No - you’re absolutely correct. I did not read the entire document before I fired off my reply and, for that, I’m sorry. I apoligize as well for the tone of my post - I allowed myself to get upset as what I felt was a stonewall.
ultrafilter, you’re on-target, too.
Ben, you tell me you wrote the document, “to explain these issues to people [who don’t know enough].” An admirable goal, but I simply can’t read and digest 7,500 words on Molecular Biology in time to respond to your questions.
I come now, hat in hand and sorry. While I may have found the tone of some of your posts provocative, they did not justify my over-reaction and for that I owe you an apology.
Good luck in you search for someone who knows enough to debate the science with you. As for me… I look forward to reading your posts and debating simpler issues with you in the future.
Again, I’m sorry. Really. I apoligize to Ben specifically, as well as anyone else I might have offended.
ummmmmmmm. O.K. maybe not CROW, exactly but…
I think triskadecamus’ comment about hanging a straw man was meant to point out the obvious combative and belittling tone that this thread has tended to take. It treated all those with different views as the enemy rather than as people with something to add. Agree with me or be belittled! The O.P. itself seems designed as a trap to ensnare the unwary. True gentlemanly debate does not begin with “Prove me wrong a**holes!” Ben, if you truly want to debate molecular biology with the creationists, you may want to spell out your original questions a little better.
For the record, I whole-heartedly believe in evolution.
-Beeblebrox
“Pages one and two had been salvaged by a Damogran Frond Crested Eagle and had already become incorporated into an extraordinary new form of nest which the eagle had invented. It was constructed largely of papier mache and it was virtually impossible for a newly hatched baby eagle to break out of it. The Damogran Frond Crested Eagle had heard of the notion of survival of the species but wanted no truck with it.”
sdimbert: you are a gentleman. While I can’t really say that no offense was taken (after all, your posts weren’t directed at me), I think your response was commendable.
Beeblebrox: you may have a point, but I’d need to reread the whole thread at least once to judge that. However, I think that Ben, being a molecular biologist, is a bit tired of having some creationists accuse him of professional incompetence. I know that if I were in his shoes, I might find it a bit difficult to remain polite at all times.