Monday, 02 March 2009
-
The Evolution/Creation Debate Just Gets Ridiculous
When an article in New Scientist can include lines like the following, evidently with a perfectly straight face, I think it's time we all agree that the whole Evolution / Creation debate has finally gone completely off the rails. Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds these hysterically funny:I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
Authors with religious motives make shameless appeals to common sense...If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".Those so inclined should feel free to provide their own punch lines. Me, for some reason I suddenly feel like putting down my science books and eating a banana.
If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need science in the first place.
(CORRECTION: Mr. Willow wrote this post. There's no easy way to change the profile info in the sidebar, so Mr. Pine's friendly face will still be there however.)
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 1
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: mrpine
- Name: Nathan
- About Me: I attend a rather large church where I serve in many capacities - Sunday School teacher, praise leader, deacon, cranky old man. I sometimes think that my students only like me because I take them to McDonald's occasionally instead of having class. Graduating high school, I wanted to be one of two things - an engineer or a writer. I heard somewhere that in order to be a good writer, you have to read a lot... Hello, Georgia Tech! But even after I had my creativity lobotomy... I mean, finished engineering school, I still had the bug. One day I found Xanga, and over 400 entries later... I still dread reading. My xanga alter ego is xanga.com/nathon
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 8 Views: 0 12482 Comments: 0 267 View all posts by mrpine
Comments (108)
I like science.
And I bet you like that banana, which has probably been genetically modified in some way by now.
I like science and bananas as well. :)
Adrian Rogers once said God created the laws,
nature simply obeys them,
and science merely discovers them.
I don't see what's so funny.
Enjoy your man-made banana.
the first one maybe was funny just because it was confusing...
overall the end of your post kind of fell flat, considering it relied on the very misunderstood notion that humans are descended from apes (at least, I can't see why else it would be funny). In which case: according to evolution, we have the same common ancestor, and we are related to them, but not descended from them...
or maybe that's what you meant?
I think the debate has gone too far but... there's a reason it keeps propelling onward and onward?
I can understand the contrast between common sense and science, although at first glance it may seem ridiculous. There are alot of things that are believed, contrary to common sense. Among them are quantum theory, string theory, and the notion that the world revolves around the sun - not the other way around. This beliefs go against the grain of common sense.
"I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not."
I'm not sure of the criticism here, although the "definition that characterizes non-materialism" is called substance dualism, the statement above doesn't seem ridiculous, and isn't about evolution or creation.
I do agree with your point on academic freedom. Nobody likes someone who challenges the orthodoxy of materialism in philosophy of mind, and respond more with villifying him than with considering his merits.
@valloriejo@xanga - That's a great quote, I love that
@valloriejo@xanga - I like that quote too.
@SerenaDante@xanga - Oh so true. Why don't they just leave my food alone?
the picture that represents evolution is completely wrong... that's not how evolution happens but it rather happens quickly (thousands of years). And sometimes, the old species don't have to actually disappear, as it is happening above.
but just to assume that everythign was created as it is... I think is a bit irrational. (and i'm a christian)
@princess1505angel@xanga - Because if they didn't, your bananas would be super tiny. In my biology class, we discussed how bananas have actually been getting smaller in nature on their own, through natural mutations... Through genetic modification, bananas are able to grow bigger and sweeter again.
@SerenaDante@xanga - Ugh, that sucks. Stupid bananas.
I find it funny that you apparently think science should appeal to common sense. Please study physics and then try to explain to me how quantum mechanics should be common sense. If we relied on common sense, we would still have a geocentric model, since that does seem more logical initially to most people before evidence of why it is incorrect is introduced.
While none of those quotes you provide bothered me, I was bothered by the authors assumption that anyone who was not a physicalist, prescribed to any sort of dualism, or believed in the possiblity of free will did so for religious reasons alone. This is just simply wrong, but it is understandable since these are less scientific issues and more philosophical ones (though philosophy of the mind definitely has overlap with psychology and neuroscience). People who argue against physicalism or hold to some sort of dualistic view may be in the minority currently, but they are hardly comparable to people like Behe trying to make arguements against evolution with irreducible complexity.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga -
"I do agree with your point on
academic freedom. Nobody likes someone who challenges the orthodoxy of
materialism in philosophy of mind, and respond more with villifying him
than with considering his merits. "
David Chalmers has hardly been vilified, though Dennet and others have voiced strong disagreement with him.
@whataboutbahb@xanga - While it is so that dualism doesn't necessitate any religious belief, it is the case that most dualists are motivated by some commitment to a transcendental worldview, and materialists by their atheistic worldviews. Not all dualists are theists, but I'd assume that most are. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
To your response, I think I wrote something but accidentally deleted it; I'll re-write it. Chalmers might be a dualist, but he's still a materialist in the broad sense of the word, in that he is committed to the causal closure of physics. More accurately than a dualist, he's an epiphenomenalist.
See http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Du.htm
I prefer both science and the genetically-modified banana... yumz
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Ditto!
@SerenaDante@xanga - Tiny bananas sound cute. Don't they know its not the SIZE that matters? Oh wait...I forgot things were reversed in certain aspects :x
@misswonderj@xanga - I guess if you count plantains as "tiny bananas", those are delish, too.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Yumm P=
Imagine walking into a room and there's a lit candle on a table in the middle of the room. Can the following questions be answered?
"How long has the candle been burning for?"
"What was the initial height of the candle?"
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those two questions are impossible to answer. We can observe it, analyse it and find out how it works, how fast the candle is burning, the composition of the candle wax, the temperature of the flame, etc... these are all genuine, unbiased, scientific routine.
But as soon as one tries to probe the origin (ie, an unobservable and hence unprovable event in the past), one will have to resort to informed guesswork and theories. Since one cannot travel back in time to observe how everything started, we have to make educated speculations.
This is where things get messy simply because the matter is open to subjective interpretation and bias based on one's world view and belief system.
For example, no one questions the fact that water is elementary made up of hydrogen and oxygen, that it boils at 100C and freezes at 0C (under normal atmospheric conditions). This is true unbiased science... dealing with the present, reproducible data instead of guessing how things were in the past (both evolutionists and creationists are guilty of distorting true science for their own agendas). However, when one tries to determine how water was formed initially on earth in the past, not only is it scientifically unprovable (since it happened in the past, unobserved), you'll find many theories out there.
I used to be a creationist, but now I see the futility of the endless debate which leads to nowhere. Has any of these debates and court cases led to the discovery of cancer treatments? Does it matter whether one believe that the sun is specially created or that it is simply another star, when it comes to designing a more efficient solar panel? Does it matter whether the oil deposits of the earth were formed gradually over millions of years, or they were biological matter buried rapidly in Noah's flood, when it comes to everyday maintenance of an oil refinery?
I think both creationists and evolutionists should get their feet back onto the ground and start doing real science rather than speculating on the past.
@Red_Apocalypse_Horse@xanga - Every piece of evidence anyone ever looks at to study something is, once it is obtained, a piece of the "past".
@Red_Apocalypse_Horse@xanga - //It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those two questions are impossible to answer.//
Correction... they are impossible to answer with 100% certainty.
//Since one cannot travel back in time to observe how everything started, we have to make educated speculations.//
Kinda like crime scene investigators, now that I think of it...
//Does it matter whether the oil deposits of
the earth were formed gradually over millions of years, or they
were biological matter buried rapidly in Noah's flood, when it comes to
everyday maintenance of an oil refinery?//
Yes, it does. There's a reason why you don't hear of oil companies using creationist geology to find oil deposits. It matters because the creationist view implies that oil can be formed given enough pressure and the right conditions over a SHORTER period of time than the current scientific view... which would revolutionize the oil industry.
//I think both creationists and
evolutionists should get their feet back onto the ground and start
doing real science rather than speculating on the past.//
By understanding the past, we can get a better picture of how the present came to be. By understanding the past and present, we can better understand where the future leads. For instance, this is why we study molecular evidence in evolutionary biology regarding the origins of various branches in the tree of life; because it gives us an idea of our relationships with other organisms. This may seem irrelevant to you, but not to a medical researcher trying to find animal subjects that have systems that closely resemble ours in terms of molecular and organ similarities, for example.
//both evolutionists and creationists are guilty of distorting true science for their own agendas//
Examples?
The biggest one here for me is this: "If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism"." Â This is the problem I have with the intensity of this whole debate. Â It has gotten so that evolutionists have their antennae on "super sensitive" trying to pick up anything that may even hint at criticizing evolution and shutting it down. Â This does not create an atmosphere for true scientific discovery; it is an ideological atmosphere that forces people to submit to the party line. Â I can't believe what is truly science when it's this politicized.
[If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".]
<li>The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired throughout.<li>The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.<li>TheThatdoes oftenseem to be the case. Evolution-friendly journals do not mandate that you come to evolutionary conclusions in you paper. However, AiG's Journal of Creation has some very rigid guidelines in their letter of affirmation they make all potential authors sign and agree to:
account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual
presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable
framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and
history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.<li>The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.<li>The
special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and
their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of
salvation for mankind.<li>The scientific aspects of creation are
important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
Scientists find new species from time to time. Evolution is a process while creation is just an hypothesis. Evolution has nothing to do with creation.
i love the creator who created creation. he did a bomb-ass job
it's an ongoing decision-making for me to go to BIOLA under science&religion, or not.