Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[Mr.Atos]

I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...

Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!

Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.

Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!

Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?

Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!

Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!

Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?

Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?

[RightWingNilla]

I have written before on these threads that Dawkins should be brought up on charges of practicing theology without a license.

Yes! Great way of putting it. A shame, I really enjoy some of his writing.

[js1138]

Do you believe that dogs evolved from wolves?

Actually I'm a bit curious about this. Are their wolves in Africa? There are plenty of wild dogs.

My daughter has an Ibizan hound that is obviously descended from an African dog. I've heard speculation that dogs may have been domesticated directly from wild African dogs rather than from wolves.

[js1138]

Are their = Are there

[RightWingNilla]

Excellent choices. "Shrove-tide Fair"

Love that. Apollo is great too. Orpheus is haunting. There are such bizzare chords, almost speaks to a different part of the brain. I think Stravinsky was living in Paris when he wrote most of his ballets though.

[Junior]

Think of morality as a truce between self-interested individuals: "I promise not to hurt you if you promise not to hurt me" is a start. Now, considering the other guy just wants to live happily too, he'll be inclined to take you up on your offer. Neither of you now have to worry about problems from that quarter. "I promise to help you if you promise to help me" is the second step. Now you have an ally, and he has an ally too. The two of you together are far stronger than either of you separately; you've just increased your chances of surviving long enough to have progeny that you can teach about your little deal. Hell, even chimps have been known to keep track of who owes what to whom, so it's not difficult to believe that humans could do something similar without recourse to invoking God.

I tend to believe that God knows we are adults and capable of rationally determining morality. We aren't children who must be threatened with pain to keep us in line.

[js1138]

We are social critters. We need each other to survive...

Interesting that this pops up in the midst of a discussion of dogs. I will hear from exmarine about this (again) but dogs are a perfect example of heavily armed preditors whose primary social mode is cooperation. They have the most amazing ability to challenge each others strength and authority without causing injury.

[js1138]

We have enough for a Stravinsky thread. I'm personally fond of Oedipus Rex. Maybe Mel Gibson will film it in the original Latin.

[conservababeJen]

Thank you. :)

[f.Christian]

The fool hath said in his heart ... there is no God (( creator )) !

Psam 14 : 1

The story is told of a colony of mice who made their home in the bottom of a large upright piano. To them, music was frequent, even routine. It filled all the dark spaces with lovely melodies and harmonies.

At first, the mice were impressed by the music. They drew comfort and wonder from the thought that Someone made the music --- though invisible to them, yet close to them. They loved to tell stories about the Great Unseen Player whom they could not see.

Then one day an adventuresome mouse climbed up part of the way in the piano and returned with an elaborate explanation about how the music was made. Wires were the secret --- tightly stretched wires of various lengths that vibrated and trembled from time to time. A second mouse ventured forth and came back telling of hammers --- many hammers dancing and leaping on the wires. The mice decided they must revise their old opinions. The theory they developed was complicated, but complete with evidence. In the end. the mice concluded that they lived in a purely mechanical and mathematical world. The story of the Unseen Player was relegated to mere myth.

But the Unseen Player continued to play nonetheless !

Now there's even a " dial - a - prayer " for atheists ... you call a number and --- nobody answers !

from ...

God's Little Devotional Book
Copywright @ 1995 by Honor Books, Inc.

pgs. 310 - 311.

[exmarine]

At no point was any appeal made to a supernatural authority as a reason for acting ethical.

Chuckle. I'm not surprised considering the state of today's ethics.

Indeed, the entire reason for acting ethical boiled down to "it makes good business sense." If people trust you they will do business with you; if they don't trust you they'll go to your competitor. Trust becomes the very foundation of all human transactions.

This is merely situational ethics. Do we do good only to gain someone's trust? Many German companies trusted Hitler and they trusted him, so by your standards, they were all ethical people. That isn't ethics - it's pure self interest.

We are social critters. We need each other to survive, because individually we are weak and make a great meal for a goodly number of predators.

Sounds like another just so story to me. What does that have to do with right and wrong? When you make a moral decision, do you first wonder if natural selection would agree with your choice?

Because we need to work as teams, trust is paramount. The great ethical philosophies, including those predating Christianity, realized this. The golden rule cropped up independently in a half dozen civilizations simply because it is rational and promotes survival. One did not need to be a God-fearing Christian to realize this.

So, if the golden rule cropped up independently, how does that in any way negate the truth of Jesus' words, and how does show that moral Christian principles are wrong? It merely shows that some people got it right.

I have stated this over and over and over again on these threads. Moral principles are either the invention of man (on the cultural, govt. or personal level), and therefore relative with no moral force or authority, or they are from God which makes them universal to all men. Those are the only two choices. Which do you choose?

[betty boop]

Dear Brother A --

Who could say anything against science?

Well, what can I say? I love science! (Have a lot of catching up to do, though.)

But I can see how one might worry about statements such as the following:

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.” [Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter]

Me, I don’t understand this mindset, this satisfaction with pure abstraction. I agree with Grandpierre: “I cannot accept such a view of science. I think that everyone working on a field of science should develop an ability to understand the basic ideas. Science should be about understanding and nor about obscure mathematical manipulations.”

It seems to me that science can only have a “truth problem” if it settles for fuzzy abstractions that really don’t mean anything. At bottom, it seems to me that science must be about revealing the truth of existence and the universe, or it’s really a pointless exercise. It must reveal what actually is, not what some of its practitioners might like the “is” to be….

[exmarine]

If I say that it is a simple, objective fact that if everybody followed the Golden Rule, we'd all be better off, would you bring in De Sade and baby torturers to refute me?

I would agree with your statement, however, this says nothing about the foundation of moral principles. Don't you care about the source of morals? Are they invented by men or do they come from God? If they are invented by men, then logically, no man's moral values can be any more true than another man's - again, personal prefernce reigns.

[js1138]

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”

If you ever saw Feinman lecture, you would recognise hyperbole. You would recognise humorous intent. Gifted speakers use tactics that don't translate easily to the printed page.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm sorry...but if this was ever a wolf, I beg you to tell me what makes it "fittest".

Its attractiveness to humans. In a wild wolf pack, only the strongest and fiercest wolves survive. But if the small, runty wolves started hanging around the edges of the encampments of early humans, the humans would occasionally throw a scrap of food to a cute-looking pup. You then began to have two parallel lines of natural selection going-- the wolves who stayed wild were being selected for size and fierceness, while the ones who hung around humans were being selected for cuteness and meekness (and later, when humans caught on that dogs were good helpers in hunting, for trainability).

[Right Wing Professor]

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”

You might consider RF had his tongue lodged firmly in his cheek when he said that (it probably sounded really odd). If you haven't read his various biographical writings, you should be aware he derived considerable amusement from trying to shock people. Thus his playing safe-cracking games with repositories of top-secret documents; his visits to strip clubs and his 'dating advice', etc.

[Junior]

Human beings (at least the males) also challenge each other -- often without knowing they're doing it. We have our own subconscious attack and obesience body language, which one occasionally finds formalized in everyday or ceremonial situations (bowing, genuflecting, etc.).

[balrog666]

It happens with most animals, particularly when fighting over mates or territory. Herd animals like seals, deer, sheep, gnus, horses, (or moose and cheese) etc. fight until one loses their footing or one gives up; almost never to the death. Predators of the same species display and roar at each other (and sometimes clash) over territory or over a kill, but rarely go out to kill each other in such actions.

But if a predator or other threat arises, it's totally different - a fight for survival at all costs.

[js1138]

I might also add that in the history of science, nothing has ever achieved QM's rich set of practical offspring. the average person cannot get through ten minutes without using a device that owes its existence to QM -- including EVERY electronic device and every product that embeds electronics -- wristwatch, telephone, household appliance and automobile.

[balrog666]

If they are invented by men, then logically, no man's moral values can be any more true than another man's

What would "true" mean in such circumstances?

[VadeRetro]

Private Reply and Post Reply screens do look a lot alike, don't they?

Congrats on being the first creo to kid me about my 2-years-gone-next-month gall bladder!