Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution
Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by 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?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,021-2,0402,041-2,0602,061-2,080 ... 2,721-2,723 next last
To: gore3000
Obviously!
2,041 posted on 08/09/2003 5:14:35 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2040 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
it is fair to say that evolution has been scientifically refuted.

Only to you and a few of your creationist/ID buddies there G3K.

Science not only considers Evolution a done deal as far as having been pretty much proven, but it is the basis of most biological sciences.

Sorry G3K, it has been creationally refuted, nothing more.
2,042 posted on 08/09/2003 5:20:58 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2040 | View Replies]

To: ALS
"Here we see that Marxism and Darwinism are not two independent theories, each of which applies to its special domain, without having anything in common with the other. In reality, the same principle underlies both theories. They form one unit."

Well, now that you posted the excerpt & link from Pannekoek, I had to go and read the whole article. (See what this agreement is making us do???)

Pannekoek summarizes at length the several evolution-based arguments that the capitalists used to defend capitalism against the feudalists who came before them as well as the socialists who supposedly were destined to replace them.

It's quite an interesting article, actually, written from the perspective of a Marxist. He makes some interesting points & critiques of both capitalist ("bourgeoisie") and communist ("proletariat") defenders & critics of Darwinism (as understood in the 1800's). But Pannekoek's Marxism causes his own understanding of evolution and its applicability to human society to be hopelessly muddled. IMO his article is a poignant example of the harm that belief in a bad ideology can do to an otherwise fine mind.

Consider this passage:

Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now waged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The bourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the fact that they were the most important class, the leaders of industry. What argument could the old class, the class that became nothing but useless parasites, bring forth against them? They leaned on tradition, on their ancient divine rights. These were their pillars. With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie.

It was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in duty bound to undermine the “divinity” right of rulers. Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove that what the priests were teaching was false, the “divine” authority of these priests would crumble and the “divine rights” enjoyed by the feudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not conquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by material power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.

Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin’ s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.

It's clear that to the communist Pannekoek, a scientific theory's real significance lies in its use as a polemical tool of one side or the other in a class struggle. It's a fundamentally cynical view of science. And under this cynical view, Pannekoek says that Darwinism supported capitalism.

And yet, later on for a brief moment Pannekoek acknowledges something we evo-Freepers were trying to explain to you back on that infamous now-pulled thread:

The false conclusions reached by Haeckel and Spencer on Socialism [that it undercuts the survival of the fittest] are no surprise. Darwinism and Marxism are two distinct theories, one of which applies to the animal world, while the other applies to society. They supplement each other in the sense that, according to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the animal world develops up to the stage of man, and from then on, that is, after the animal has risen to man, the Marxian theory of evolution applies. When however, one wishes to carry the theory of one domain into that of the other, where different laws are applicable he must draw wrong inferences.

Pannekoek, of course, being a Marxist, believes that Marxist theory explains the development of societies. We know this is just about as wrong as a theory could be. But nevertheless, in this paragraph & elsewhere he does recognize that biological evolution has no applicability to determining what's the best social order or moral system.

Finally, Pannekoek feebly tries to re-link Darwinism with Marxism with a prefunctory description of socialist utopia.

If only Pannekoek could have taken off his Marxist kaliedoscope glasses, he might have made some truly useful philosophical insights. Too bad.

The only way in which evolution & Marxism can be compared, is superficially: They both describe change over time. Evolution describes change in species, and Marxism claims to describe change in societies & economic systems. One could say exactly the same thing about pediatrics: The pediatric doctor understands how the human body grows over time & develops from an infant thru the toddler stage, thru the child, teenybopper, and adolescent stages, into a full-grown adult; in the same way the Marxist understands how societies grow from the feudal stage, thru the capitalist bourgeois stage, and finally to the "adult" socialist stage.

Or as Pannekoek would put it, "Pediatrics is a glorious corroboration and completion of the Marxian theory of social development." QED.

2,043 posted on 08/09/2003 5:25:52 PM PDT by jennyp (Science thread posters: I've signed The Agreement. Have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2017 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Oops, the link to the article is here.
2,044 posted on 08/09/2003 5:29:53 PM PDT by jennyp (Science thread posters: I've signed The Agreement. Have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2043 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Spin city. Let's get some more direct perspective from Marx himself:

Karl Marx on Darwin:
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_01_16.htm

The "teology" of which he speaks is religion. God.
So there you have it in a nutshell. Of course, we've been all around this before and you did not like the results. I'm perfect willing to go another more definitive round to show that Marxism embraces evolution for specific reasons, but the bigger question is, how do you feel about defending Marxism in order to "cleanse all spots" from your belief system? hmm?

Think about it.

2,045 posted on 08/09/2003 5:45:11 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2043 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
...But evidence that mutation works to produce "fitter" critters is lacking,...

Consider the case of sickle-cell and thalassemia. These are two different mutations of one of the genes responsible for hemoglobin. Sickle-cell is found in equatorial Africa, and thalassemia around the Mediterranian.

If you have two copies of the sickle-cell gene, you have the disease sickle-cell anemia, and are much less likely to pass your genes on. Ditto for thalassemia.

But if you just have one copy of the gene, you have no ill effects. However, you are also resistant to malaria.

And so, in true Darwinian fashion, the genes are found in a large proportion of people in malarial zones, and are very rare elsewhere.

Are these mutations beneficial or not? The answer depends on how much malaria is in your environment.

2,046 posted on 08/09/2003 5:53:20 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2018 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
How the heck can anyone falsify "given enough time and space, positive mutations explain natural selection"? It isn't falsifiable

This is quite garbled. Natural selection is differential survival and production of offspring.

I think what you're really trying to ask is whether

mutations + sexual recombination + neutral genetic drift + natural selection

is sufficient to account for life as we know it, given some initial bacterium to get it started. (IE whether from conventional abiogenesis or special creation or panspermia or whatever).

It could be falsified in a number of ways: finding organisms that have radically different genetic codes, or finding that biochemical analysis did not produce a tree structure, or that different analyses produced different trees.

However, the standard theory has passed all these potential falsifications.

2,047 posted on 08/09/2003 6:06:41 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2027 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
..What is real, your memories, or what everybody else remembers? ...

Ever been in a bar in DC, wall-to-wall D*m*cr*ts, discussing Florida election law and practice?!

2,048 posted on 08/09/2003 6:09:25 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2030 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is classic Philip K. Dick,

I always knew his ideas were great and his storytelling stank. Even when I found out he wrote every story on speed until he finished and never, ever editted his own work, I figured that was pretty obvious (at least, in retrospect). The books of his that I really liked were never the critical picks and vice versa.

But too many other writers, editors, and critics respected his ideas too much to ever criticize him in print, but, in fact, the best description I have seen is that he was just a brilliant a$$hole as a writer.

OTOH, Blade Runner was a truly classic movie. And it was one of the few classics not to be OBE as decades passed. That credit should go to the director!

As an additional point, look at The Running Man, also a Dick plot, much better than the original storyline, but not to the same level of production.

2,049 posted on 08/09/2003 6:19:37 PM PDT by balrog666 (Religions change; beer and wine remain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2030 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Kiss me, you magnificently intelligent woman!

Hey, forgive me, but I've been watching PH and PW!

2,050 posted on 08/09/2003 6:22:16 PM PDT by balrog666 (Religions change; beer and wine remain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2043 | View Replies]

To: ALS
"...it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."

This passage never ceases to make me laugh. Let's look at "Teleology"...

Main Entry: tel·e·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "te-lE-'ä-l&-jE, "tE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin teleologia, from Greek tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia -logy -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1740
1 a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena

What irony - Marx's theory of dialectical materialism is the ultimate teleological theory! What hubris he had, to think he had found some sort of mechanistic law of historical progression (an idea borrowed from Hegel & then inverted), that would let him predict what societies would "evolve" into. And then to say that people should engage in real-world violent revolutions in order to make his prophesies come true!

The true heart of his quote, IMO, is where he says Darwinism "suits my purpose". As I showed in 2043 with Pannekoek, Marxists view scientific theories thru the lens of their use-value for the class struggle. So if they can make any kind of superficial comparison between a successful scientific theory and their current polemical needs, they'll support it. It has nothing to do with their judgement of its actual truth.

2,051 posted on 08/09/2003 6:23:53 PM PDT by jennyp (Science thread posters: I've signed The Agreement. Have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2045 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Oh, and Total Recall was also a Dick story to which I preferred the movie to the story.
2,052 posted on 08/09/2003 6:23:58 PM PDT by balrog666 (Religions change; beer and wine remain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2049 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Kiss me, you magnificently intelligent woman!

LOL! Oh behave!

2,053 posted on 08/09/2003 6:26:41 PM PDT by jennyp (Science thread posters: I've signed The Agreement. Have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2050 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Spin city. Let's get some more direct perspective from Marx himself:

What happened to poor Pannekoek? Do his words no longer suit your purpose?

2,054 posted on 08/09/2003 6:33:36 PM PDT by jennyp (Science thread posters: I've signed The Agreement. Have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2045 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; CobaltBlue
I always knew his ideas were great and his storytelling stank.

I have the same exact opinion. "Androids" had some cool ideas but the storytelling was poor. "Roy Baty showed up in the doorway. Deckard shot him. He died."

It took some creative directors to give his vision a wide appeal. Minority Report is another movie.

2,055 posted on 08/09/2003 6:36:53 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2049 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
You are running all over the field with the goalposts.

Your original request for a falsification of common descent has morphed into your current argument that we cannot assume mutations are responsible for driving evolution.

It is safe to assume that the phenotypic differences between organisms is due to mutation. An example of this are a group of genes found in virtually all multicellular organisms called the Hox cluster. This locus is a major determinant of the overall body plan of the animal. It looks like it went through several duplication events throughout evolutionary history. This is still an area of active research, but where it has been tested, the mutations to the Hox cluster have been experimentally verified to be responsible for the visible changes of the organism (i.e. more legs, wings etc). There are many other genes that are common to different critters where it can be showed that the specific mutation involved leads to the change in phenotype.

2,056 posted on 08/09/2003 6:41:34 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2018 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
plankton placemaker !
2,057 posted on 08/09/2003 6:54:12 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2056 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Boy you just keep falling into every trap on the path.

"Poor Pannekoek" is a Marxist. It's a no brainer he hates capitalism. The chances of any Marxist writing an essay of sorts will not take swipes at capitalism is slim to none. However, that does not take away from the facts he admits to regarding Marx's marriage to Darwin.

The more humorous part is how you are left blaming capitalism and God for Marxism. If that's your best defense you are posting on the wrong website.
2,058 posted on 08/09/2003 6:58:18 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2054 | View Replies]

P L A C E M A R K E R
2,059 posted on 08/09/2003 7:04:02 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ("Virtual Ignore" is now on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2058 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
It could be falsified in a number of ways: finding organisms that have radically different genetic codes, or finding that biochemical analysis did not produce a tree structure, or that different analyses produced different trees. However, the standard theory has passed all these potential falsifications.

Simply saying a "theory" can be falsified in a number of ways is insufficient. The TOE is completely dependent upon the concept that mutation causes genetic change (affirmed), that while the vast majority (99.999%) of mutations are deletorious yet a tiny number are positive or neutral (affirmed), and therefore given a really long period of time that a sequence of neutral or positive mutations will result in new genera, families, orders, kindoms, and so forth of different species (NOT AFFIRMED). This statement is NOT falsifiable because only be observing over tens if not hundreds of thousands of years can it be affirmed. And only if it is not affirmed over that same long time period can it be falsified. This, and no other, is the key point.

And further, this concept (mutation causing a sequence of gradual changes, i.e. microevolution) is either sketchy, or not observed (depending on who is asked) in the fossil record, and I quote: "Reexamination of the fossil record led Steve Gould and Niles Eldridge to recognize that only a few examples of speciation by gradual change existed. In contrast, the fossil record documents long intervals of time during which species undergo little or no morphological change. These intervals are punctated by the sudden appearance of new species (and higher-order taxa) as a peripheral isolate.". Check out the site, it is no creationist mumbo jumbo site but rather a science page regarding plant evolution from Colby University in Maine. It is also the case that grouping the fossil record into a "tree" has come under attack from various directions. See What do terms like phylum, order and family mean?

So what say you? Classification into a "tree" or set of "trees" is under attack not by Creationists but by biologists, microevolution is only sketchy at best in the fossil record, and there is no way to refute the "give us a few tens of thousands of years and you'll see your evolution" argument (upon which the TOE hangs) -- and I say again that the TOE is no more falsifiable than astrology. And note you -- I am making no Creationist claims in my assertions!

2,060 posted on 08/09/2003 7:12:08 PM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2047 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,021-2,0402,041-2,0602,061-2,080 ... 2,721-2,723 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson