PandaPirate Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 When I was a child I got in trouble for asking questions about religion. For questioning the legitimacy of religion. So now that I'm studying biology and evolution I get the same sort of vehement responses from atheists as I did from my family. It's unspoken law "you shall not question darwinism." Well, what the fuck? Some of it doesn't make sense to me? And I find it too convenient that we are so "ordered." Dawkins says its an illusion. Heh, reminds me of walking in on my ex while he was fucking someone else. "honey, it's NOT what it looks like! there was an earthquake and a duck unzipped her zipper and my dick fell in! i swear it's just an illusion." It just all seems too convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 24, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2009 It's unspoken law "you shall not question darwinism." I think the difference between science and religion is that only science is tested, observed, demonstrated, repeated. The fact of evolution shouldn't be questioned by scientists - it's not an article of faith that is assumed without basis. It's too bad that fundamental religionists have drawn a line where reality must stop. It is because of Creationists and their need to make scientific discovery and history fit what their Bibles say that you could make the observation that you did. Established facts shouldn't require endless defense from endless irrational attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 That's unfortunate because I begin my studies in biological anthropology in the fall and once I get my doctorate I feel that if I want to question darwinism after I'm a trained scientist then I should be free to do so. See, the problem is that people like Dawkins have admitted they are speculating because no one was around to see it happen. So, yeah, I have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Even Dawkins admits, "Nobody knows how it happend." (referring to the creation of the universe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 24, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2009 "Darwinism" is the term that Creationists use when attacking modern evolutionary theory. It implies that evolution is a theory thought up by one man a long time ago. By implication it discounts the further studies and verification over the years. Perhaps in the scientific community you might be better served using the term "evolution." Not all questions have been answered by science, and though there are things we don't know yet about our evolutionary history, that we DID evolve is a fact. Still, there are plenty of details to question and theorize about. Don't get too hung up on Dawkins. He's abrasive and exhibits a religious fervor when promoting science and rationalism. If he were the only spokesman and authority I never would have studied evolution because I'd be so turned off by him. Just asking . . . do you want Creationism to be true? Many like the idea of a creator making us and our world, but the facts just don't fit that model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You are left then in a conundrum, PandaPirate. If the world was designed, what then of the Designer? Nature is rather horrific in its dealings; why would a creator make it as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Even Dawkins admits, "Nobody knows how it happend." (referring to the creation of the universe) How does Darwinism and creation [of the universe] even relate? As far as I know there is a movement within the scientific community to move away from "Darwinism" since things have came a long way in the past ~150 years. His was the basis but things have moved on and been rethought a bit in that time. Perhaps it's just semantics to get lay-people to look at it differently? I don't really know. I do know that he had nothing at all to do with any theories involving the universe much less its creation. Dawkins is out of his profession here. It might be an accurate statement that doesn't mean there aren't theories, workable theories akin to evolution, that can be used to explain it. Perhaps he needs to wonder down the hall at the university and take a listen to one of his colleagues? But I imagine when he passes a mirror he's forced to stop and stare at the reflection. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 "Darwinism" is the term that Creationists use when attacking modern evolutionary theory. It implies that evolution is a theory thought up by one man a long time ago. By implication it discounts the further studies and verification over the years. Perhaps in the scientific community you might be better served using the term "evolution." Not all questions have been answered by science, and though there are things we don't know yet about our evolutionary history, that we DID evolve is a fact. Still, there are plenty of details to question and theorize about. Don't get too hung up on Dawkins. He's abrasive and exhibits a religious fervor when promoting science and rationalism. If he were the only spokesman and authority I never would have studied evolution because I'd be so turned off by him. Just asking . . . do you want Creationism to be true? Many like the idea of a creator making us and our world, but the facts just don't fit that model. Actually, Darwinism was a term coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's bulldog). I don't care what's true. I just want to know what the truth is and I will pursue the evidence wherever it leads.... What do you mean by Creationism? Creation by biblegod? Hell no. That's not even possible. I just think that the fact that there's something instead of nothing and it's extremely complex points to a higher intelligence. That's just me. But, then again, tomorrow I might think differently. I'm examining evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Even Dawkins admits, "Nobody knows how it happend." (referring to the creation of the universe) How does Darwinism and creation [of the universe] even relate? As far as I know there is a movement within the scientific community to move away from "Darwinism" since things have came a long way in the past ~150 years. His was the basis but things have moved on and been rethought a bit in that time. Perhaps it's just semantics to get lay-people to look at it differently? I don't really know. I do know that he had nothing at all to do with any theories involving the universe much less its creation. Dawkins is out of his profession here. It might be an accurate statement that doesn't mean there aren't theories, workable theories akin to evolution, that can be used to explain it. Perhaps he needs to wonder down the hall at the university and take a listen to one of his colleagues? But I imagine when he passes a mirror he's forced to stop and stare at the reflection. mwc Yes, I think he's pompous prick. His book, The Ancestors Tale is about the most boring thing I've ever read. Carl Sagan's book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is better. The reason I brought up the creation of the universe in relation to darwinism is because without the creation of the universe there would be no life to ponder how we got here. (if that makes sense. if not i'll try to be clearer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 24, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2009 Actually, Darwinism was a term coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's bulldog). Yes, in the 1800s. Words and meanings also evolve over 150 years. I'm just saying anti-evolution people like to tie the science to one man's original insight so it's easier to dismiss the mountain of evidence discovered since the time of Darwin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 You are left then in a conundrum, PandaPirate. If the world was designed, what then of the Designer? Nature is rather horrific in its dealings; why would a creator make it as such? Why does a creator have to have emotions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The reason I brought up the creation of the universe in relation to darwinism is because without the creation of the universe there would be no life to ponder how we got here. (if that makes sense. if not i'll try to be clearer) No. Seems a bit of a "chicken and egg" question though. Try it this way. What if there was a universe and there was no life in it at all? Quite possible. Or no life capable of thinking about life itself? Again, plausible. Or the life that was there simply didn't care to think about such things so the question never came up? Could be happening right now. I can't say. We, or some among us (enough so they're noticed), seem to be stuck on this question. Not just the "simple" idea of "Where did all this stuff come from?" but "Why is all this stuff here?" because they can't imagine it being here unless it has a purpose...us included. Putting these two ideas together seems to cause any number of issues. If Darwin should teach anything it should be that given a set of conditions the things within that environment will make the best of it (I am way oversimplifying this obviously). So a universe appears. *Poof* Then the stuff within makes the best of it. So here we are. Making the best of it. Now we just happen to be bright enough to look back and ask ourselves "What the hell was that *Poof*? And what caused it?" My cat doesn't seem to care. Had humans not taken hold and cats ruled the earth the whole question would have never been. The point becomes moot in the blink of an eye. Then issues like napping, butt sniffing and mousing rocket to the top of the list of concerns. Looking back at what has ruled this planet it's fair to say this question would have to be a fairly short lived one at best. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Now we just happen to be bright enough to look back and ask ourselves "What the hell was that *Poof*? And what caused it?" My cat doesn't seem to care. Had humans not taken hold and cats ruled the earth the whole question would have never been. The point becomes moot in the blink of an eye. Then issues like napping, butt sniffing and mousing rocket to the top of the list of concerns. Looking back at what has ruled this planet it's fair to say this question would have to be a fairly short lived one at best. I heard someone somewhere point out if the purpose of our life was for the universe to know itself, then it must not have cared too much for the last 14.5 billion years, only the last 10,000 some years maybe, once we settled down long enough with our leisure time to ponder our own existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Had humans not taken hold and cats ruled the earth the whole question would have never been. The point becomes moot in the blink of an eye. Then issues like napping, butt sniffing and mousing rocket to the top of the list of concerns. Nonsense. As fun and important as those things are, they would obviously pale in the face of a much more pressing concern: finding a suitable species to enhance and direct the evolution of until that species had become sufficiently capable of providing for the cats in the luxurious manner to which they would soon become accustomed. More seriously, MWC's absolutely right about the origin and development of things being two completely different fields of study with regard to scientific inquiry. The ToE has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, it's merely an attempt to understand how it developed after that origin had occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Nonsense. As fun and important as those things are, they would obviously pale in the face of a much more pressing concern: finding a suitable species to enhance and direct the evolution of until that species had become sufficiently capable of providing for the cats in the luxurious manner to which they would soon become accustomed. My wife might agree. Our second cat, Gertie, is dumb as a box of rocks (are all calico's this way? The one's I've known seems to be). My wife says she was smart enough to find a place with food and a roof. And people dumb enough to let her in and give it to her when she wants. She may be right and so may you since two cats have essentially trained, or "evolved" me, to do their cat bidding while they don't evolve at all. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I've long held cats are the most intelligent life form on Earth. As you said, they have all their material needs provided for throughout their lives, and all that's expected of them in return is to look cute and, possibly, a spot of mousing (which is the feline equivalent of being told to go play a game which, upon conclusion, gives you candy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 PandaPirate I think you can question evolution as long as you reaffirm it at the same time. The thing about our current theories of evolution is that they do not address what is evolving. What is life? What distinguishes an organism from a rock? Our current theories of evolution come no where near to addressing this question. And as such, I think our current theories of evolution are grossly incomplete. And if Dawkins has said that the order that we see in organisms is an illusion then he is an idiot in my opinion. But make no mistake about it PandaPirate. Evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 25, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2009 And if Dawkins has said that the order that we see in organisms is an illusion then he is an idiot in my opinion. Hey, LR! I think the point of that ill-crafted statement (he had to know it would become a "sound-bite") is unclear. What has evolved is all we can know, and we have evolved to see what exists as "order" so we can navigate our world and make plans to benefit our species. In other words, the order wasn't deposited intact for us to marvel at. We just consider what we ended up with to be order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The thing about our current theories of evolution is that they do not address what is evolving. Seems like if it is ants that are ruining our yards, the we address the evolution? No? or those nasty diseases, or the evolution of hunger... What is life? What, as compared to a rock????? What distinguishes an organism from a rock? Our current theories of evolution come no where near to addressing this question. And as such, I think our current theories of evolution are grossly incomplete. Can we predict evolution??? But make no mistake about it PandaPirate. Evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur. Finally, LR takes a firm stand on the now obvious. Tarhead... Is what is beneficial for the stuff in a situation love???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 And if Dawkins has said that the order that we see in organisms is an illusion then he is an idiot in my opinion.I think the point of that ill-crafted statement (he had to know it would become a "sound-bite") is unclear. Florduh, actually that statement seems consistent with what a hardcore reductionist would say. What is life? What, as compared to a rock????? Yes End. Why are organisms different from rocks? Can we predict evolution??? Now this seems a worthy question to me. I believe our current theories of evolution give us little purchase on the future course of events, which to my mind indicates that we really don’t understand evolution very well at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 And if Dawkins has said that the order that we see in organisms is an illusion then he is an idiot in my opinion.I think the point of that ill-crafted statement (he had to know it would become a "sound-bite") is unclear. Florduh, actually that statement seems consistent with what a hardcore reductionist would say. What is life? What, as compared to a rock????? Yes End. Why are organisms different from rocks? Can we predict evolution??? Now this seems a worthy question to me. I believe our current theories of evolution give us little purchase on the future course of events, which to my mind indicates that we really don’t understand evolution very well at all. My apologies, I just perceive you as being a very bright individual, and wish success for you, so I "push" without regard sometimes.... The rock, she don't move nor need successful cooperation on a critical time scale or conditions to maintain "rockdom", the key word being "critical"... I speculate, as I adorn my pointed hat, that evolution can be predicted from a somewhat subjective stance.....but that would be a kin to bullshit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabula Rasa Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 That's unfortunate because I begin my studies in biological anthropology in the fall and once I get my doctorate I feel that if I want to question darwinism after I'm a trained scientist then I should be free to do so. See, the problem is that people like Dawkins have admitted they are speculating because no one was around to see it happen. So, yeah, I have a problem with it. I've had some intelligent design thoughts, but not like that garbage the Creationists try to present. Since scientists are human, they're subject to personal biases, and may scoff at challenges to certain dearly held theories. This is just hearsay from what I read on another forum, but I've heard that when the theory of plate tectonics was first introduced in the 1960's the researchers were laughed at. Now it''s accepted fact. Also in the early eighties, when some researchers had a theory that ulcers were caused by bacteria, they were mocked too. Now that theory has also been proven. I value science as a tool that's useful in learning about the world and how to use what we learn to benefit humanity, but I also think scientists are still human, and some can be as dogmatic as a preacher when their theories are challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlene Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I've long held cats are the most intelligent life form on Earth. As you said, they have all their material needs provided for throughout their lives, and all that's expected of them in return is to look cute and, possibly, a spot of mousing (which is the feline equivalent of being told to go play a game which, upon conclusion, gives you candy). Your sense of humour is so dry...I like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Can we predict evolution??? Good question. In one consideration we can't, because it's too complex, and it's more statistical outcome than predictable. But, we can say mutation will for sure occur, and because of that predict that virus and bacteria will become resistant to the medication we have over time, and therefore use it wisely. Predicting the exact outcome of mutations is like predicting the weather, too many factors play into it, and we can't make a computer model of it unless we have a computer the size of our planet, and maybe that isn't enough. I just saw an article in one of the latest science magazines that there are evidence that we, the humans, actually have evolved the last 10,000 years. We have not stopped evolving. The change to agriculture is changing out DNA composition. But I haven't read the article yet, so I can't say exactly what they have found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 25, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2009 Florduh, actually that statement seems consistent with what a hardcore reductionist would say. You say "reductionist" like it's a bad thing! How else can we learn about the physical world? The use of the word "illusion" doesn't mean we see something that's not really there. It just means we perceive and label things as "complex" or "ordered" because we have no other frame of reference and we assume that life somehow must make sense and have purpose because we need to. Regarding scientific dogma, there are individual scientists who hold on tightly to their pet theories regardless of new evidence that proves them wrong, but the scientific community as a whole is constantly revising and updating as new facts come to light. Science is the only tool we have to learn how the universe works, even though mistakes will be made and wrong assumptions embraced along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts