EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[MysticPhD]

I understand what you are saying but I am not sure it is a good idea to adopt the “I.D.” label for this idea. Usually when I encounter people promoting I.D. what they are actually promoting is either re-branded creationism or pseudo-science. As to the religious, philosophical or metaphysical assumption of purpose I have no strong objections. I don’t agree, it is not how I see things, but I can understand and respect that viewpoint. I just think you ought to distance yourself from this terminology that has been so strongly associated with what I think is a very dishonest and unethical movement. I think that many people who believe in this metaphysical idea get unfairly tarred with the creationism/pseudo-science brush, and I also think that many of these people inadvertently lend their support to the kind of anti-science propaganda that the I.D. movement promotes.

Pragmatically speaking, you would seem to be correct. But the insidiousness of the science default position is simply not acceptable and there needs to be some movement to counter it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Among the scientific intellectual elite . . . as always. The masses will always circle the lowest common denominator in intellectual understanding. But if the scientific elite are so deranged by their animosity toward the fundamentalist idiocracy that they paint all theism with the same brush . . . there will be no advancement beyond the lowest common denominator . . . only rejection of science.

Or; with increased general education of the public, then there will be . . . . only rejection of religion, . . . . as is seen in more and more nations around the globe.

I agree that the notion of ID has been hijacked for ulterior purposes but I would restore it to its original purpose . . . opposing the randomness and purposelessness that is assumed.

-- Why does the concept of randomness and purposelessness disturb you?
-- Please realize that science does not PROMOTE this finding. It is simply that science has repeatedly OBSERVED this finding. Again, it does not disprove "God", but it IS rather disturbing for many scientists (especially those raised in cultures of religious faith). However, that feeling of fear/trepidation does not mean that additional studies should be halted.

The assumption stamps the concept with the imprimatur of science just because our artificial mathematics can produce pseudo predictions deceitfully mimicking understanding.

Whoa now! You seem to hold mathematics in the same (dis)regard as most sane people hold alchemy. "Pseudo predictions" (as you call them) made by mathematics have been repeatedly proven to be correct, innumerable times, for the last 2000 years alone. E.g. planetary orbits, telescopes, microscopes, the flow of electricity, metallurgy, road/building/ship/car/airplane/rocket construction, the wheel, and the probability of Mendelian genetic and phenotypic cross-linking . . . . to name a few. . . . all mathematically predicted, and proven to be true.

Randomness and probability MEANS we don't have any idea how, when or why mutations occur . . . but "hey look we can use our math to predict their frequency."

Actually, it means that "further study is required". How, when, and why quite a large number of mutations (in humans and other animals, as well as even more among crop/floral plants) are well understood on a molecular level. . . . and can be controlled. . . and/or accurately predicted. :yes:

"No God" . . . is NOT the neutral position . . . "we don't know" is. Assuming no purpose, no design, because in our ignorance we can't figure out what it might be is NOT a scientifically neutral position. Being outnumbered has never been a justification for arrogance and religion has never pretended to be neutral . . . as science does. Let's agree that BOTH sides that take a position are arrogant and unjustified, period.

But that is my point, and where I came in two pages ago.
-- "We don't know" IS the position of science.
-- "No God" is the position of a very small cadre of fanatical/foolish atheists.
-- Arrogant painting of all science and mathematics with atheism under the single brushstroke of willful ignorance and rejection without so much as considering the logical findings and evidence presented IS the position (dogma) of most organized churches.

I am truly agnostic MysticPhD. Many gods or The God may exist. While the former may one day be proven, the latter is impossible to define sans omniscience. All the same. . . . science is NOT arrogant. The theories held by science are NOT unjustified. Quite the contrary. To believe that science holds to the theory that there is "No God" is the misguided belief of one subjected to propaganda of one of humanity's religions/churches, as they paint "Science" and "Fanatical Atheism" with the same brush.

Pragmatically speaking, you would seem to be correct. But the insidiousness of the science default position is simply not acceptable and there needs to be some movement to counter it.

Case in point. What needs to exist is improvement and wider spread of the general population's education, particularly in regards to what science is, and what science is not.

 

[DarkSun]

did you also know that my skeletal structure is different to a dwarf. by time they do change but not from a crouching position walking an all 4's to standing up and walking on 2 legs.

as for the neanderthal, i'll just quote what prominent authority has said

"Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern man."

While their anatomy does not conclude that their abilities were different from modern man, their anatomy was different.

I mean, look at this:

Surely you can see the difference there.

It is a proven scientific fact human bodies adapt to best suit their environments.

I mean, look at all of the races on earth. People with darker skin generally appear closer to the equator, and this simply because people are more exposed to the sun in those areas.

Melanin is the chemical responsible for black skin in your body, right? When the melanocytes (melanin cells) in the epidermal layers of the skin are exposed to greater levels of UV light, this stimulates their nucleolus to produce greater amounts of melanin-producing RNA. The melanin excreted by the cell as it dies in the latter layers of the epidermis protects against the sun as a natural sunscreen. The more sun you're exposed to, the more melanin your skin-cells produce and the darker the skin you have.

Eventually, your need for melanin becomes recorded in your DNA and gets passed on to later generations, so that eventually, they will naturally have black, melanin rich skin.

Conversely, people near the northern hemisphere have white skin which is more proned to flushing. The red colour comes from the oxygenated hemoglobin proteins in your blood, and the lack of black skin is because of the lack of sunlight exposure in those areas.

Skin colour is just one way by which human beings naturally adapt to their environment. If you need proof of it, just look to Asians, Africans, Europeans and note down the obvious differences that do exist. All of these races adapted, they evolved.

From homo-erectus, to homo-habilis, to homo ergaster, to homo-sapien and homo-neanderthalis to modern man, the same adaptions were happening, just on a much larger and broader scale. Humans were gradually adapting from an ape-like, primitive level to more sophisticated, complex and intelligent beings.

were have i admited it? in which of my previous posts have i mentioned the Neanderthals. i was just using the ice age as an example. and how do you know that Neanderthals lived during the ice age, did some evolutionists scetch up an environment just because they found a pigs tooth.

No... it's called carbon dating.

Usually you allow for an error of around 5000 or 10,000 years when going back as far as the last ice-age (50,000 years ago).

You know how carbon-dating works, right?

are you farmiliar with Henry Fairfield Osborne.

Didn't he advocate evolution?

yes i know this. that is true.

well just why is it that arabs are nor white nor black. no one is closer to the equator than them, and thay have been around for millions or years. just as the africans have been.

Diet also plays a role, not just sun exposure. If you eat a lot of red to orange foods, you will have a high exposure to carotene, which is the protein responsible for yellow-ish skin pigmentation. As generations pass, the need for carotene will be recorded in your DNA, and the RNA produced in the nucleolus of cell membranes will come to produce it.

And also, didn't Africans used to cover their bodies a lot less than those people in the Middle East? They were exposed to more sun, so naturally, their race became darker in order to cope.

 

[DarkSun]

Actually, Aborigines aren't 'black', as with the inhabitants of central Africa, they are brown. They came originaly from Indonesia, bringing their DNA with them, of course.

"The Aborigines have the longest cultural history in the world, with origins dating back to the last Ice Age. The first humans travelled across the sea from Indonesia over a landbridge to Australia and Tasmania, about 70,000 years ago. The next immigration followed 20,000 years later. The members of this group which had spread over the western part of Australia are the Aborigines' ancestors. The whole continent was colonised within a few thousand years. When the Europeans came to Australia in the 18th century, they found about 750,000 "primitive" natives, as they called them, who seemed to live there as in the Stone Age."

Well-said.

Okay, back on topic guys.

 

[Magic Man]

Pragmatically speaking, you would seem to be correct. But the insidiousness of the science default position is simply not acceptable and there needs to be some movement to counter it.

What is this "science default position"?

"No God" . . . is NOT the neutral position . . . "we don't know" is. Assuming no purpose, no design, because in our ignorance we can't figure out what it might be is NOT a scientifically neutral position.

Is this what you mean by "science default position"? Science's position on God is a nonsensical idea. Science has no position on God. It doesn't assume there is or isn't a god. That's why there are plenty of religious and theistic scientist along with nonreligious and atheistic ones.

You're correct when you say "we don't know" is the neutral position, which is probably the best way to describe science's answer to the question of the existence of God. Until there is scientific evidence for the existence of a god (which is impossible), science will continue to refrain from making any judgement on the matter. It will continue to explain the universe in terms of what can be tested scientifically.

 

[MysticPhD]

Or; with increased general education of the public, then there will be . . . . only rejection of religion, . . . . as is seen in more and more nations around the globe.

That is the problem . . . it isn't just an abandonment of the religions (which is not a bad thing) . . . it is throwing God out with them that I object to. Educated or not, the average person will not see any alternative since science has NOT retained an open mind. You even refer to the observations AS IF they contained any evidence about God or the existence of purpose and design. They do not. They conform to our ignorance expressed mathematically.

-- Why does the concept of randomness and purposelessness disturb you?
-- Please realize that science does not PROMOTE this finding. It is simply that science has repeatedly OBSERVED this finding. Again, it does not disprove "God", but it IS rather disturbing for many scientists (especially those raised in cultures of religious faith). However, that feeling of fear/trepidation does not mean that additional studies should be halted.

Because most are not as astute about it as you apparently are and they see it as proof of no design or purpose or God . . . it is mathematical after all.:sarcastic

Whoa now! You seem to hold mathematics in the same (dis)regard as most sane people hold alchemy. "Pseudo predictions" (as you call them) made by mathematics have been repeatedly proven to be correct, innumerable times, for the last 2000 years alone. E.g. planetary orbits, telescopes, microscopes, the flow of electricity, metallurgy, road/building/ship/car/airplane/rocket construction, the wheel, and the probability of Mendelian genetic and phenotypic cross-linking . . . . to name a few. . . . all mathematically predicted, and proven to be true.

Au contraire . . . I taught graduate Quantitative Methods and Psychometrics. I understand its lmitations and the general lack of understanding of its philosophical implications even among those who possess mastery of its descriptive and predictive power. It is what leads to the erroneous conclusion that such mathematical "evidence" means there is probably no God.

To use our artificial mathematics to deceptively convey such misunderstanding is not acceptable . . . whether or not it is inadvertent. I have predicted the decisions and attitudes of humans using mathematics . . . but I Knew that the mathematics did NOT actually represent the reality of what was taking place in the minds of the subjects . . . despite its successes. Yet that is what is necessary philosophically to make the inference that there is no God or design or purpose to the predicted data.

Actually, it means that "further study is required". How, when, and why quite a large number of mutations (in humans and other animals, as well as even more among crop/floral plants) are well understood on a molecular level. . . . and can be controlled. . . and/or accurately predicted. :yes:

But none of that explains how or why it just happens (without our involvement) . . . if we have to resort to our mathematical fictions to describe them.

But that is my point, and where I came in two pages ago.
-- "We don't know" IS the position of science.
-- "No God" is the position of a very small cadre of fanatical/foolish atheists.

I only wish that were true.

-- Arrogant painting of all science and mathematics with atheism under the single brushstroke of willful ignorance and rejection without so much as considering the logical findings and evidence presented IS the position (dogma) of most organized churches.

Agreed and so is the reverse regarding theists by organized science. If they truly were neutral they would not exclude the possibility of design by forcing theoretical paradigms to fit their random design and purposelessness preferences. They are only now beginning to learn of the heritability of epigenetic processes that result from envrionmental changes (not Lamarckism because the DNA structure is unchanged . . . but the environmentally acquired activation/de-activation of gene sequences can be inherited by subsequent generations.)

I am truly agnostic MysticPhD. Many gods or The God may exist. While the former may one day be proven, the latter is impossible to define sans omniscience. All the same. . . . science is NOT arrogant. The theories held by science are NOT unjustified. Quite the contrary. To believe that science holds to the theory that there is "No God" is the misguided belief of one subjected to propaganda of one of humanity's religions/churches, as they paint "Science" and "Fanatical Atheism" with the same brush.

I was an atheist for decades as a Buddhist meditator. My experiences of the end state of meditation completely disconfirmed my atheism and stimulated a decades-long eclectic search for answers. It led me to Christ consciousness (Maitreya). In short . . . I found God first and searched for the best explanation second.

Case in point. What needs to exist is improvement and wider spread of the general population's education, particularly in regards to what science is, and what science is not.

Can't hurt . . . but I'm not sanguine about it improving things significantly.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....Big snip....

Fair enough. Frubals at ya! :clap

....That is the problem . . . it isn't just an abandonment of the religions (which is not a bad thing) . . . it is throwing God out with them that I object to. .....

I think that that is my point to you.
Allay your fears. The concept of God is not going anywhere. Seriously.
If every nation and every single individual on the planet suddenly got it in their heads today that all future education of our children and our adults should be secular, with a strong penchant for math and the sciences; then 500 years from now...
1. - the world would be a wonderously, and "miraculously" better place.
2. - All churches, and most religions would be a historical (and shameful) footnote.
3. - The concept of God would be alive and strong throughout all human space. :namaste

 

[painted wolf]

Pragmatically speaking, you would seem to be correct. But the insidiousness of the science default position is simply not acceptable and there needs to be some movement to counter it.

As a scientist and a person of faith, I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is this "science default position"? Are you implying that lack of magical agency is a flaw and if so, how do you propose to test for it so that it can be remedied?

wa:do

 

[YmirGF]

As a scientist and a person of faith, I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is this "science default position"? Are you implying that lack of magical agency is a flaw and if so, how do you propose to test for it so that it can be remedied?

wa:do

I have to admit that this is a tactic that I have not seen before and quite frankly, I am appalled. To my thinking it smacks of intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[Autodidact]

No argument . . . but it is the source of the current angst over evolution in the classroom.

NO, the source of the opposition to teachin gevolution is an anti-scientific mystical thinking movement in modern Christianity.

But the tables have turned and it is now science that is overstepping the bounds of their data and authority to suggest that there is an extremely minute probability that there could be ANY God. There is absolutely NO scientific basis for that whatsoever.

YOu just got done agreeing that this is not science, it's philosophy.

 

[Autodidact]

Only certain attribute are not known or understood . . . "nature" is an artificial word designed to avoid the need to call it God (as it was for centuries before the schism caused by religious zealots.)

Assuming what you're trying to prove.

 

[Autodidact]

It is clearly a chicken/egg controversy today. They were trying to combat the deceptive default as scientific . . . the typical conclusion of barely educated kids in science classes. It is impossible to determine how much of the deception was unintentional versus promoted by the science teachers.I believe you . . . and there is no reason for it to have ever become a problem. Unfortunately it has escalated and there is a decided movement by certain atheist scientists to take religion head on and assert the unjustified default as more scientifically valid than any other . . a-la-Dawkins, et al.

You mean that you disagree with him. So he should not state his opinion?

 

[Autodidact]

Nature is the made up word to eliminate the earlier connection to God and the suppression of science by religious authority. Nature (God) is ALL THERE IS . . . the only difference is what attributes you believe it has. Science believes it is indifferent and purposeless. Theists believe it is designed and purposeful. Neither view can be established scientifically, period! The ONLY attributes ("laws" etc.) that are valid are the ones established by science. Everything else is opinion.

If it's all there that there is, isn't it impossible that it could also be designed, as there would need to exist something external that designed it, which is impossible if it's all that there is?

 

[MysticPhD]

As a scientist and a person of faith, I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is this "science default position"? Are you implying that lack of magical agency is a flaw and if so, how do you propose to test for it so that it can be remedied?

wa:do

The default is the one that assumes there is "No God" behind what is being discovered and validated by science . . . THAT is not neutral. It represents an atheist bias. Science does not have to address how God could be behind what they discover . . . but they should not dismiss it cavalierly AS IF they have some scientific reason for doing so. Stop insisting that their mathematical fictions (randomness, probability) are scientific explanations. They are formalized mathematical concepts of ignorance designed to facilitate prediction of things we do not understand. They can not eliminate or even suggest that God is NOT behind what they are predicting.

 

[YmirGF]

They are formalized mathematical concepts of ignorance designed to facilitate prediction of things we do not understand.

This single line speaks volumes about your alleged thinking.

They can not eliminate or even suggest that God is NOT behind what they are predicting.

Oh good grief.

 

[MysticPhD]

This single line speaks volumes about your alleged thinking.

Care to elaborate?

Oh good grief.

Very eloquent!

 

[painted wolf]

The default is the one that assumes there is "No God" behind what is being discovered and validated by science . . .

Actually the default position is that science can not simply pass off the search for knowledge with the supernatural. God is neither argued for or against.

THAT is not neutral. It represents an atheist bias.

No that is the scientific method. It was developed by religious people in order to seek the natural expression of gods works. It allows the scientist to look at the world with an objective lens.

Science does not have to address how God could be behind what they discover . . . but they should not dismiss it cavalierly AS IF they have some scientific reason for doing so.

They don't dismiss God... they simply can't offer God as an explanation for natural processes.

Stop insisting that their mathematical fictions (randomness, probability) are scientific explanations. They are formalized mathematical concepts of ignorance designed to facilitate prediction of things we do not understand.

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about here...

They can not eliminate or even suggest that God is NOT behind what they are predicting.

How do you test for the supernatural?
What sort of experiment should they run to show it?

If I am testing the genes of a particular organism for toxin production, how should I adjust it so that I can allow supernatural explanation for the toxins appearance?
I'm genuinely curious as I'm working with such an experiment at the moment. Amnesiac Shellfish Poisoning is a terrible sickness and the more we understand about how the critters involved cause it the better we find a way to prevent it.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

NO, the source of the opposition to teachin gevolution is an anti-scientific mystical thinking movement in modern Christianity.

Wrong . . . it is the fundamentalists and literalists that oppose evolution. Mystics tend to accept ALL scientific knowledge. When they deceptively imply that the more scientifically probable view is that there is no God . . . they overstep.

YOu just got done agreeing that this is not science, it's philosophy.

Yes . . . and it has no place in an empirical science classroom masquerading as empirical fact. Random means we have no understanding (ignorance) of the appearance of the phenomenon we are predicting. Yet when we employ our artificial magic math we can predict or assign probabilities to the appearance AS IF it were scientifically understood.

 

[MysticPhD]

Actually the default position is that science can not simply pass off the search for knowledge with the supernatural. God is neither argued for or against.

No one is suggesting that . . . the supernatural does not exist. Everything is natural or God. The misunderstandings and absurd beliefs about God need not be accepted or accommodated. But the misunderstandings and absurd beliefs about nature not being God needn't either.

No that is the scientific method. It was developed by religious people in order to seek the natural expression of gods works. It allows the scientist to look at the world with an objective lens.
They don't dismiss God... they simply can't offer God as an explanation for natural processes.

What is objective about placing something in the supernatural category or non-existent category because of our ignorance of it. We needn't appeal to it or resort to it in our explanations . . . but neither should we disparage it or ignore it as non-existent either.

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about here...

Randomness and probability are formalized mathematical descriptions of ignorance (what we don't understand) for purposes of prediction.

How do you test for the supernatural?
What sort of experiment should they run to show it?

You don't . . . it does not exist.

If I am testing the genes of a particular organism for toxin production, how should I adjust it so that I can allow supernatural explanation for the toxins appearance?
I'm genuinely curious as I'm working with such an experiment at the moment. Amnesiac Shellfish Poisoning is a terrible sickness and the more we understand about how the critters involved cause it the better we find a way to prevent it.

wa:do

You don't adjust it at all . . . but you don't imply that God was not involved . . . only that we have no idea what was involved other than what we can validate scientifically. Explanations using randomness or probabilities are NOT explanations . . . just predictions using formalized ignorance.

 

[darkendless]

We needn't appeal to it or resort to it in our explanations . . . but neither should we disparage it or ignore it as non-existent either. Randomness and probability are formalized mathematical descriptions of ignorance (what we don't understand) for purposes of prediction.
You don't . . . it does not exist.You don't adjust it at all . . . but you don't imply that God was not involved . . . only that we have no idea what was involved other than what we can validate scientifically. Explanations using randomness or probabilities are NOT explanations . . . just predictions using formalized ignorance.

Lol..... you're definately not an engineer then are you. Realistically nothing we do is certain, we account for randomness and probability but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As a studying/part-time working Geotech, randomness is so frequent its absurb. Ever dug in the ground before? Soil and rock strata are so random and non-uniform that probability and educated guesses are the best we can do. If you're going to attack that i suggest you never enter a high rise building or drive on a highway ever again