The eternal debate: evolution vs. ...
-
In most political questions, I am a liberal. Therefore it is uncommon for me to agree with this guy (George Will), a hardcore conservative columnist: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8358264/site/newsweek/[^] However, in this column he has, at least, 2 smart insights: 1.The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum. The most common critique to the scientific value of creationism is the Occam Razor. It is interesting to see Karl Popper's (another conservative) ideas to be used against it, too. 2.What most distressed some Christians was not the fact of evolution but the postulated mechanism—a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Comments? Anything different from doctrination is welcome (and I mean atheist doctrination, also). Rui A. Rebelo Caminante no hay camino. El camino se hace nel caminar.
What does your sig mean? Google translation (from Spanish) says "Traveller is no way. The way is made nel walk." :~ Cheers, Vikram.
http://www.geocities.com/vpunathambekar "It's like hitting water with your fist. There's all sorts of motion and noise at impact, and no impression left whatsoever shortly thereafter." - gantww.
-
In most political questions, I am a liberal. Therefore it is uncommon for me to agree with this guy (George Will), a hardcore conservative columnist: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8358264/site/newsweek/[^] However, in this column he has, at least, 2 smart insights: 1.The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum. The most common critique to the scientific value of creationism is the Occam Razor. It is interesting to see Karl Popper's (another conservative) ideas to be used against it, too. 2.What most distressed some Christians was not the fact of evolution but the postulated mechanism—a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Comments? Anything different from doctrination is welcome (and I mean atheist doctrination, also). Rui A. Rebelo Caminante no hay camino. El camino se hace nel caminar.
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. I also agree with Wills points. However, it still begs the question as to wheter or not the belief that there is a separation between man and nature is an important characteristic of human culture. If we are only the product of "nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw" than why do we burdon ourselves with higher philosophical principles? With more refined moral codes of conduct? If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
What does your sig mean? Google translation (from Spanish) says "Traveller is no way. The way is made nel walk." :~ Cheers, Vikram.
http://www.geocities.com/vpunathambekar "It's like hitting water with your fist. There's all sorts of motion and noise at impact, and no impression left whatsoever shortly thereafter." - gantww.
Always search forum before asking dumb question. Always search forum before asking dumb question. Always search forum before asking dumb question. Always search forum before asking dumb question. Always search forum before asking dumb question. .... (don't take me seriously :) ) here you go![^] David
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. I also agree with Wills points. However, it still begs the question as to wheter or not the belief that there is a separation between man and nature is an important characteristic of human culture. If we are only the product of "nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw" than why do we burdon ourselves with higher philosophical principles? With more refined moral codes of conduct? If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: human culture What is a "human culture"? I think there isn't such a thing as a "human culture". David
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. I also agree with Wills points. However, it still begs the question as to wheter or not the belief that there is a separation between man and nature is an important characteristic of human culture. If we are only the product of "nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw" than why do we burdon ourselves with higher philosophical principles? With more refined moral codes of conduct? If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? We are (on the whole) cooperative by nature - that is not as a result of religion. Many animals also cooperate with each other (apes and lions for instance) and I don't think that is because they have a higher purpose. It is because cooperation gives them a better chance of survival and reproduction. BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions :) That I would like to see!
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. I also agree with Wills points. However, it still begs the question as to wheter or not the belief that there is a separation between man and nature is an important characteristic of human culture. If we are only the product of "nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw" than why do we burdon ourselves with higher philosophical principles? With more refined moral codes of conduct? If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I also agree with Wills points. However, it still begs the question as to wheter or not the belief that there is a separation between man and nature is an important characteristic of human culture. If we are only the product of "nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw" than why do we burdon ourselves with higher philosophical principles? With more refined moral codes of conduct? If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? Because there is an advantage to having those principles and codes of conduct? Maybe you should read up on game theory, evolutionary stable strategies, and in particular the "tit for tat" strategy? It's fairly simple from then to understand how co-operation can improve our own chances of survival and arise even out of a "tooth-and-claw" process.
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. I also agree with Wills points. However, it still begs the question as to wheter or not the belief that there is a separation between man and nature is an important characteristic of human culture. If we are only the product of "nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw" than why do we burdon ourselves with higher philosophical principles? With more refined moral codes of conduct? If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? Objective moral obligations, or some such?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? We are (on the whole) cooperative by nature - that is not as a result of religion. Many animals also cooperate with each other (apes and lions for instance) and I don't think that is because they have a higher purpose. It is because cooperation gives them a better chance of survival and reproduction. BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions :) That I would like to see!
Dan Bennett wrote: BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions That I would like to see! It depends on your definition of cooperation. The whole of the food chain from top to bottom is a form of cooperation. A scary one at times, but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. An ape evaluates through the lions behavior if she (remember, male lions are shade potatos) is looking for food and cooperates by giving her a wide berth, or throwing a few rocks at her to get her cooperation in leaving the ape alone. See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Dan Bennett wrote: BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions That I would like to see! It depends on your definition of cooperation. The whole of the food chain from top to bottom is a form of cooperation. A scary one at times, but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. An ape evaluates through the lions behavior if she (remember, male lions are shade potatos) is looking for food and cooperates by giving her a wide berth, or throwing a few rocks at her to get her cooperation in leaving the ape alone. See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... Now you're just being silly :)
-
In most political questions, I am a liberal. Therefore it is uncommon for me to agree with this guy (George Will), a hardcore conservative columnist: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8358264/site/newsweek/[^] However, in this column he has, at least, 2 smart insights: 1.The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum. The most common critique to the scientific value of creationism is the Occam Razor. It is interesting to see Karl Popper's (another conservative) ideas to be used against it, too. 2.What most distressed some Christians was not the fact of evolution but the postulated mechanism—a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Comments? Anything different from doctrination is welcome (and I mean atheist doctrination, also). Rui A. Rebelo Caminante no hay camino. El camino se hace nel caminar.
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. Religion demands absolute faith. Science considers humans as heards whereas religion focuses on the individual. But both science and religion leaves many questions unanswered outside their respective frameworks. Religion is more about personal experiences than about explanations. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. "God created man in his own image..." does not mean that God is an old man with a long white beard and some kind of urinal disorder. It reads as God is the supreme soul and God created man as soul and also created a shell called body for the soul to live in. Michaelangelo was dead wrong in his depiction of God in loin clothes. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. If cause-and-effect rules the universe, there is no real conflict there. There is nothing random about the universe. Randomness of events depends on how large your view window is. A plane collision that was watched from an air trafic controllers window might seem like a random incident, but for a piolt who happened to be at a higher altitude, it was a sure thing that was going to happen.
-
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? Objective moral obligations, or some such?
Ian Darling wrote: Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? I think you mean the Categorical imperative[^]... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
Ian Darling wrote: Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? I think you mean the Categorical imperative[^]... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: I think you mean the Categorical imperative[^]... Ta. I always found Kant a bit rough going, not being much of a philosophiser myself :-)
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? It isn't me that I'm worried about - its you, and all the others I share my culture with. How the hell do I know what you are basing your analysis of the 'right thing' on? Hitler was merely doing what he thought was the right thing. Do I judge him because he did not concur with your opinion of the right thing? No, we have a mutually agreed upon social contract that defines for all of us what the 'right thing' is. In its purest form, religion merely establishes a rationale upon which we build a definition of the right thing and a justification for why we can be held accountable for not doing the right thing. I'm not saying religion is the only way to achieve that, but it is a very time honered, and established means of doing so, which has served a vital role in the evolution of human societies - and probably should be cherised and protected. Without a firmly established rational for holding ourselves above the natural world, which religion provides, I'm pretty sure we will simply descend back into the natural world and lose all pretense of morality what so ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? It isn't me that I'm worried about - its you, and all the others I share my culture with. How the hell do I know what you are basing your analysis of the 'right thing' on? Hitler was merely doing what he thought was the right thing. Do I judge him because he did not concur with your opinion of the right thing? No, we have a mutually agreed upon social contract that defines for all of us what the 'right thing' is. In its purest form, religion merely establishes a rationale upon which we build a definition of the right thing and a justification for why we can be held accountable for not doing the right thing. I'm not saying religion is the only way to achieve that, but it is a very time honered, and established means of doing so, which has served a vital role in the evolution of human societies - and probably should be cherised and protected. Without a firmly established rational for holding ourselves above the natural world, which religion provides, I'm pretty sure we will simply descend back into the natural world and lose all pretense of morality what so ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. What has served humanity well is the realisation (by most people) that cooperation is better for your long term welfare than conflict.
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. Religion demands absolute faith. Science considers humans as heards whereas religion focuses on the individual. But both science and religion leaves many questions unanswered outside their respective frameworks. Religion is more about personal experiences than about explanations. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. "God created man in his own image..." does not mean that God is an old man with a long white beard and some kind of urinal disorder. It reads as God is the supreme soul and God created man as soul and also created a shell called body for the soul to live in. Michaelangelo was dead wrong in his depiction of God in loin clothes. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. If cause-and-effect rules the universe, there is no real conflict there. There is nothing random about the universe. Randomness of events depends on how large your view window is. A plane collision that was watched from an air trafic controllers window might seem like a random incident, but for a piolt who happened to be at a higher altitude, it was a sure thing that was going to happen.
Anonymous wrote: Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. How do you know that? Unless, of course, you are God, anonymously logged in to CP.
-
Dan Bennett wrote: BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions That I would like to see! It depends on your definition of cooperation. The whole of the food chain from top to bottom is a form of cooperation. A scary one at times, but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. An ape evaluates through the lions behavior if she (remember, male lions are shade potatos) is looking for food and cooperates by giving her a wide berth, or throwing a few rocks at her to get her cooperation in leaving the ape alone. See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. You haven't watched many predatory animals have you? If you put a predator in a pen with an ample supply of prey you will typically end up with a tired predator and way more dead animals then it could possibly eat. I don't think hunting just after eating is all that common, but going after an easy kill is different. It could be explained through selection favoring animals that practice killing being able to catch more prey when times are hard, but it sure looks like pleasure to me.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. What has served humanity well is the realisation (by most people) that cooperation is better for your long term welfare than conflict.
Dan Bennett wrote: History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. Actually, it isn't. There are very few instances of much death and destruction which can be attributed directly to any religion. Religion just gets a bad rap from Marxist revisionism trying to proove that we need the state to be the final source of all moral authority (which is ironic considering that historically most violence and destruction has been caused by states, not religions). History is littered with death and destruction caused by a general failure to cooperate based typically on a struggle for resources, when one side or the other determines that those resources would go a lot further if there were fewer people sharing them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. Religion demands absolute faith. Science considers humans as heards whereas religion focuses on the individual. But both science and religion leaves many questions unanswered outside their respective frameworks. Religion is more about personal experiences than about explanations. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. "God created man in his own image..." does not mean that God is an old man with a long white beard and some kind of urinal disorder. It reads as God is the supreme soul and God created man as soul and also created a shell called body for the soul to live in. Michaelangelo was dead wrong in his depiction of God in loin clothes. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. If cause-and-effect rules the universe, there is no real conflict there. There is nothing random about the universe. Randomness of events depends on how large your view window is. A plane collision that was watched from an air trafic controllers window might seem like a random incident, but for a piolt who happened to be at a higher altitude, it was a sure thing that was going to happen.
Anonymous wrote: Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. no? you was sleeping in school, wasn't you? egg is (ok, should be according to evolution and I think it is quite logical) specialization of, well, fish egg (adaption to dry environment). soul? I don't understand your definition :) blood circulation? heh. You can't look at state-of-art solution :) Try something easier, eg. to understand our blood system, study reptiles*' blood system, to understand reptile blood system, study fish's blood system, to understand fish's blood system, study eh.. insect ... hey how's that called? IIRC it's not a blood. :~ You'll end up with much easier systems. Quite a wonder though. There is still question, who created this simplest known system?? ... ... ... Isn't it cool that there is still something to research! :-D * yeah I skipped some. I am no expert (obviously :)) David David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. You haven't watched many predatory animals have you? If you put a predator in a pen with an ample supply of prey you will typically end up with a tired predator and way more dead animals then it could possibly eat. I don't think hunting just after eating is all that common, but going after an easy kill is different. It could be explained through selection favoring animals that practice killing being able to catch more prey when times are hard, but it sure looks like pleasure to me.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
More than pleasure, I think it's a natural reaction to getting the easy meal if you can, since there is no telling when the next one will come around. I don't think this instinct goes away quickly, though I'm no zooologist. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it.