Scientists shun Kansas evolution hearing

Washington Times (via India) ^ | 08 April 2005 | Staff

[Ronzo]

Excellent post/essay, Ronzo! Thank you so very much!

Thanks betty. Perhaps I've learned something afterall since lurking on crevo threads for the past few years... ;^)

[Ronzo]

So the next question would be: which worldview assumes that natural phenomena are regular and constant over time; which worldview assumes that causes can be discovered through research; which worldview assumes that an omniscient designer intentionally made parasites that eat the eyes of infants; which worldview assumes that disease is a natural phenomenon amenable to medicine; which worldview outlawed anesthesia for women in childbirth because God said they should suffer; and finally, which worldview has actually done honest research for five hundred years, and which worldview burned Bruno for speculating the stars were suns with planets?

I imagine you think you are listing some rather horrible sins there, js1138! (aside: any relation to thx1138??? I love that movie....)

But those sins you list are mere playthings, a Sunday picnic in the park, a day at Disney World with Mickey Mouse compared to some of the sins I have in mind...

A better series of questions is which worldview created the conditions for the most bloody and violent century in the history of planet earth; a.k.a. the 20th cenutry??? Which worldview fostered communinsism, Nazis, and other assorted murderous fascist states? Which worldview has been the foundation of some the most horrendous crimes commited in the history of civilation, all within a mere 100 year time span? Which worldview has turned human beings into mere blobs of organic goop that can be systematically destroyed or elimnated at a moment's whim?

Now that's what I call evil...

[Ronzo]

And our perceptions are NOT merely empirical.

I imagine Bishop George Berkeley is looking down from a non-observable nor verifiable heaven and smiling upon you right now...

[colorado tanker]

Just catching up on some lurking and saw your post about the 2300 B.C. calamities. What do you think about the theory that the Noah flood story comes out of a flood of the Black Sea region by the Med breaking through a natural dam in the Dardanelles?

[Dimensio]

Evolutionists are suffering from the same problem, as far as creationists are concerned.

Only if the creationists in question have simply been ignoring the presented explanation.

Mutation producing changes in subsequent offpsring combined with environmental selection pressure for specific mutations is the driving force. If you want to argue that mutation and natural selection cannot account for the diversity of species, fine, but don't pretend that it doesn't happen and don't pretend that it's the offered driving force behind evolution.

[js1138]

You have a romanticized vision of life before the 20th century.

[Ronzo]

Only if the creationists in question have simply been ignoring the presented explanation.

That just the problem dear Dimensio! Evolution is a mere explanation. A logical conclusion given very limited and prejudiced premises. A really good guess. A "just-so" story. A creation myth for skeptics. An interesting opinion on the origin of species. A hypothesis that remains more controversial now than when Darwin first proposed it.

But one thing evolution certainly is not: a law.

Of course creationists are ignoring the the explanations of self-professed athiests and agnostics, since there's no reason to believe in a group of people who have no beliefs (or are unsure of exactly what they do believe!)

Is evolution being promoted because it's so very obviously true or because it's a wonderful means to do away with all that pesky and annoying GOD stuff?

This is not a clash of science vs. religion as so many would like to frame it, but rather a clash of worldviews. One group would prefer there to be no God, the other group not only believes in God, but very well understands the dire consquences that occur when God is relegated to the dustbin of history: the entire 20th century is proof of that...

[Ronzo]

You have a romanticized vision of life before the 20th century.

Not at all. Every century has it's evil, and the 19th century was arguably much more bloody for America than was the 20th.

However, in context of the entire globe and all history, the 20th century, with all sorts of ideas and philosophies influnced by Darwinism, takes the cake for the most outlandish and blood thirsty century in the history of mankind, bar none.

But it should be no surprise, as no less a prophet than Nietzsche predicted the horrors of the 20th century. He saw it before it even happend.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the additional insight! It is on my "to read" list!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Just catching up on some lurking and saw your post about the 2300 B.C. calamities. What do you think about the theory that the Noah flood story comes out of a flood of the Black Sea region by the Med breaking through a natural dam in the Dardanelles?

I find the studies to be quite interesting but too early for the dates I have calculated for Noah's flood. The Black Sea dating is between 5460 BC and 4820 BC whereas the Noah flood is approximately 2100 B.C.

A few centuries one way or the other in the archeological and geological record is not a big deal, but a couple of millennia is too much (for me).

I have the same objection to the geologists' survey of the Sphinx (7000 to 5000 B.C.).

My two cents...

[Dimensio]

That just the problem dear Dimensio! Evolution is a mere explanation.

So is every other scientific theory.

A logical conclusion given very limited and prejudiced premises.

Limited by human observation, which is the limitation of any scientific explanation, and the "prejudice" is only in your own mind. It's not science's fault that scientists are too rational to consider any manner of supernatural influence possibly buggering up the data. The fact is that if science allows for supernatural influences then it cannot possibly ever make any meaningful statement; with the supernatural, literally any explanation can be presented and there's no way to falsify them.

A creation myth for skeptics. An interesting opinion on the origin of species.

If you think that evolution is simply "opinion", then you haven't been paying attention.

A hypothesis that remains more controversial now than when Darwin first proposed it.

More controversial? Hardly. It's more widely accepted than when Darwin published Origin. The vast majority of those who find fault with it are just upset that observed reality does not correspond to what their religion tells them to believe.

But one thing evolution certainly is not: a law.

THEORIES DO NOT BECOME LAWS.

A "law" in science is a different type of statement than a "theory". Theories do not become laws, laws do not graduate into theories and there is no scale of "certainty" by which laws or theories can be compared. This is a common misconception held by people who do not understand science, and when they expose this ignorance it only demonstrates that they have no credibility when speaking on alleged "problems" with evolution because they obviously don't even grasp the fundamentals of science.

"Evolution is not a law" is a true statement, but it is meaningless when discussing the validity of evolution.

Of course creationists are ignoring the the explanations of self-professed athiests and agnostics

Wait, what is this bait and switch? We were discussing creationists and people who accept evolution, not creationists and atheists/agnostics. Why did you suddenly change the subject?

Is evolution being promoted because it's so very obviously true or because it's a wonderful means to do away with all that pesky and annoying GOD stuff?

Why don't you ask the theists who accept evolution that question? They'll probably give you the same answer that I'll give you: the evidence supports it. Believe it or not, biologists -- even those pursuing evolution -- are not, despite the paranoid rantings of a number of creationists (and I say that with certainty only because I've actually seen creationists here on FR make that very accusation) some attempt to do away with any specific "God", much less the God of whatever religion you happen to follow.

As I say to other creationists: It's not about you and it's not about your religion. Scientists really aren't so obsessed with disproving, out of all possible religions, yours. Stop being so arrogant.

This is not a clash of science vs. religion as so many would like to frame it, but rather a clash of worldviews.

I'll buy this. One side wants to use observation of reality, and the other wants to ignore reality at all costs for fear that their conclusions will contradict deeply held religious beliefs.

One group would prefer there to be no God,

Creationist lie #432: assert that everyone who accepts evolution as valid science is an atheist. Creationist lie #433: assert that everyone who accepts evolution as valid scientist is an atheist who is specificially trying to destroy Christianity, out of all religions in the world.

the other group not only believes in God, but very well understands the dire consquences that occur when God is relegated to the dustbin of history: the entire 20th century is proof of that...

To which "God", out of the thousands acknowledged and worshipped throughout human history, do you refer, and could you further justify your statement beyond blanket vague assertions and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

[Dimensio]

However, in context of the entire globe and all history, the 20th century, with all sorts of ideas and philosophies influnced by Darwinism, takes the cake for the most outlandish and blood thirsty century in the history of mankind, bar none.

Creationist lie #523: assert that evolution (or "Darwinism") is somehow responsible for any number of atrocious sociopolitical policy or practice including (but not limited to) Nazism, communism, socialism, eugenics, slavery and the Democratic party.

Evolution is a biological process. It is not a guide on living life, running a political party or designing a social structure. It is nothing more than an explanation of what has happened previously in biological systems and what can be expected to happen in the future. It does not say what things are "good" or "bad", it just says what happens.

[PatrickHenry]

I guess we'll have to point out, one more time, that socialism, which certainly includes Hitler's National Socialism, preceded Darwin. So did communism. It's difficult to imagine a social system that's less congruent with "natural selection" than one which proclaims "from each according to his needs ..."

[colorado tanker]

Actually, natural selection, as originally formulated by Darwin, is an adaptation of Hegel's dialectic, as are the underpinnings of Spencer's social darwinism and Marx's dialectical materialism. Not the entire theory of evolution, mind you, but that particular aspect.

[colorado tanker]

Thanks, your "two-cents" is valued!

[RightWingNilla]

Its getting kinda silly to keep associating Hitler and the Nazis with an "atheist/materialist worldview". Hitler honestly thought he was on a mission from God to allow the German race to rule the Earth.

Also communism is a "religion" of sorts in its own right.

[Ronzo]

Evolution is a biological process. It is not a guide on living life, running a political party or designing a social structure. It is nothing more than an explanation of what has happened previously in biological systems and what can be expected to happen in the future. It does not say what things are "good" or "bad", it just says what happens.

Have you read Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel C. Dennet? There's one guy who who would disagree with you, amongst many, many others.

Evolution is not just an possible explanation of the origin of species, but literally an idea that has had consquences across all science (including political science) and religion, with the possible exception of physics.

...and I thought this was common knowledge...

[Ronzo]

To which "God", out of the thousands acknowledged and worshipped throughout human history, do you refer, and could you further justify your statement beyond blanket vague assertions and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

The God I refer to is the Sumerian god "Gozer," obviously...

As for furthering the justification of my statement, no I'll just leave it unjustified, and let Gozer and Pope Benedict XVI deal with it. (Actually, I think Pope Benedict XVI has dealt with it...need to do more research there...but have not the time now.)

[Ronzo]

Actually, natural selection, as originally formulated by Darwin, is an adaptation of Hegel's dialectic

Did Darwin acknowledge Hegel's dialectic in his writings about natural selection? Not that I disagree, just wondering if Darwin made it clear. No doubt Darwin had some exposure to Hegel.

[PatrickHenry]

New thread on the evolution debate situation in Kansas:
Details set for debate on science standards [Evolution in Kansas?]

I'm bailing out of this one because the news is now obsolete.