"Evolution isn't science"

[flume]

Never understood why the ol' guy had to kill his son in order to forgive us for whatever he thought he needed to forgive us for....

Logically I don't understand it either. But the story seems to have a psychological impact, and I understand that. It's just the need by some people to take it literally and inflict it on science that upsets me.

 

[CapelDodger]

It could be one of those cases where two similar things (in this case, sensitivity to light) evolved independently, because the function is just so darned useful.

I think it's very likely. Any system that can gather energy from sunlight as well as the more usual sources that organisms are competing for is surely going to prosper. There have to be many systems that can gather chemical energy from light, and presumably there were at one time. The more efficient saw off the less efficient over generations.

The visual system is a niche market, information-gathering rather than energy-gathering per se. The rules of competition are different, so a different system won out.

 

[CapelDodger]

Never understood why the ol' guy had to kill his son in order to forgive us for whatever he thought he needed to forgive us for...

flume's not alone in missing the logic. It's not so much that, actually, as saying "The Emperor has no clothes!". There is no logic or sense to it. One glance at the contortions theologists get into trying to squeeze some blood out of it (so to speak) reveals that.

"Jesus suffered and died for our sins" is presented to infants as an important message by adult authorities that their parents look up to, so naturally they take it on-board as important. Most people never analyse such stuff as they grow up, they just carry it along.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That reminds me of a questions that's been stuck in my head for a while now. Does any one know if chlorophyll-containing cells were the precursors to the light sensitive patches that preceded eyes? ....

I mean, if a bacteria can become our mitochondria, and transposers are thought to be virsuses that have taken up residence, then couldn't it happen?

I guess that our eyes don't use chlorophyll would be a major argument against this little theory of mine, but weirder things have happened than just me being right.

This article describes a discovery and an hypothesis that might shed some light (punny ) on the subject.

For plants, the ability to accurately sense light governs everything from seed germination, photosynthesis and pigmentation to patterns of growth and flowering.

Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained a detailed map of one of biology's most important light detectors, a protein found in many species across life's plant, fungal, and bacterial kingdoms. By resolving the three-dimensional structure of the protein known as phytochrome, scientists can now tease out the secrets of how plants, in particular, react to light, opening the door for a host of manipulations that could have sweeping implications for agriculture.

Maybe you shouldn't be so skeptical of your ideas.

 

[kmortis]

This article describes a discovery and an hypothesis that might shed some light (punny ) on the subject.

Maybe you shouldn't be so skeptical of your ideas.

Thank you for finding that. It appears from the article that it's not the chlorophyll containing cells, but rather these phytochromes that could possibly maybe be the antecededents to light-sensitive cells in animals, kinda-sorta.

I guess that makes sense. I'd forgotten that plants need another mechanism for detecting light, not just solar panels. How else would sunflowers be able to follow the sun?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

flume's not alone in missing the logic. It's not so much that, actually, as saying "The Emperor has no clothes!". There is no logic or sense to it. One glance at the contortions theologists get into trying to squeeze some blood out of it (so to speak) reveals that.

"Jesus suffered and died for our sins" is presented to infants as an important message by adult authorities that their parents look up to, so naturally they take it on-board as important. Most people never analyse such stuff as they grow up, they just carry it along.

I know I carried for some time...

 

[Schneibster]

flume's not alone in missing the logic. It's not so much that, actually, as saying "The Emperor has no clothes!". There is no logic or sense to it. One glance at the contortions theologists get into trying to squeeze some blood out of it (so to speak) reveals that.

I think that this misses a powerful and pervasive (and pernicious) element of human personification of the forces of our world. We have the tendency to anthropomorphize. It is this tendency that seems, and please note seems REPEATEDLY, to lead to the concept of making a sacrifice to propitiate our personification of the strong forces of weather and geology (and I suppose the occasional meteorite) and prevent disasters. That this does not work makes no difference in the presence of observer bias.

Note please that in some cultures, this has eventually been taken as far as human sacrifice. And note as well that this is the obvious endpoint of this particular pervasive (and I'm sure you'll agree, pernicious) train of thought.

The Jewish faith is based on the idea that their personification of these forces was believed to have made an agreement with one of their patriarchs that "he" would never demand human sacrifice, and they agreed on their part that they would always respect "him;" there are, of course, many more details to this agreement, but that is the essence of it. To the extent that it moves beyond human sacrifice, this is a progressive development. I think it's pretty good for neolithic sheep herders.

Nevertheless, some sacrifices still were required. And there was some question as to whether there might need to be another patriarch later, who might or might not need to at least offer sacrifice of another son to this personification. I don't know the details, but I know that the question must have existed because of what followed:

The Christian faith is based on the idea that the final propitiation of this personification was accomplished by this personification somehow creating a human son of "his" "own," who then taught us the essential elements of the "new covenant" and was duly sacrificed; and it is this second sacrifice that leads to the idea that no further sacrifices are needed. Again, there are many more details to this, but to the extent that it moves beyond the need for any type of sacrifice, it is once more progressive. As before, I think it's pretty good for neolithic sheep herders.

However, we are no longer neolithic sheep herders. We (or at least the rational among us) don't personify the forces of nature any more; that's because we understand them now. Nothing remains to be explained.

When adolescents become adults, they often go through a period of rebellion against their parents. So it is with our adolescent society today. There are convulsions, there is a lot of sound and fury; there is even violence. None of these are uncommon reactions. Some among us do not wish to give up childhood, and will fight to preserve it. Ultimately, however, children grow up, no matter how much they wish not to. Ultimately, it cannot be denied that there isn't any magic dude up in the sky. You can look in a telescope and see there's not. Ultimately, it cannot be denied that we DO understand where weather comes from, we DO understand where earthquakes and volcanoes come from, we DO understand where meteorites come from, and there is nothing beyond death, nor need there be- it's like where the light goes when you blow out a candle. It's gone. We don't need magic dudes up in the sky to explain things anymore. It's time to abandon the fantasies of childhood. What is natural in a child is aberrant in an adult.

"Jesus suffered and died for our sins" is presented to infants as an important message by adult authorities that their parents look up to, so naturally they take it on-board as important. Most people never analyse such stuff as they grow up, they just carry it along.

True enough. But before the enlightenment, there must have come a point in each child's life where this pervasive idea of propitiatory sacrifice came into hir mind. Think how much suffering was avoided because of this message, that no further sacrifice would ever be necessary. Again, pretty good for neolithic sheep herders; in fact, not bad for medieval peasants, either.

But not needed by children of the enlightenment.

 

[hammegk]

.... Nothing remains to be explained. ...

...But not needed by children of the enlightenment.

My, my! Ya think? High intelligence, education, and ego can logically arrive at that position under the assumption that materialism/naturalism is True.

When will you run for elective office? Or are you counting on popular acclaim sweeping you in as Maximum Leader?

 

[CapelDodger]

I think that this misses a powerful and pervasive (and pernicious) element of human personification of the forces of our world. We have the tendency to anthropomorphize. It is this tendency that seems, and please note seems REPEATEDLY, to lead to the concept of making a sacrifice to propitiate our personification of the strong forces of weather and geology (and I suppose the occasional meteorite) and prevent disasters. That this does not work makes no difference in the presence of observer bias.

One has to wonder why the human mindset leads from personification to sacrifice. I have a suspicion that it comes from the tactic of throwing an old guy at the leopard to keep it busy while you leg it. It's inherently conflicting; on the one hand you have group-cohesion that makes you care for the aged, on the other hand there are exigent circumstances.

Note please that in some cultures, this has eventually been taken as far as human sacrifice. And note as well that this is the obvious endpoint of this particular pervasive (and I'm sure you'll agree, pernicious) train of thought.

Human sacrifice has been pervasive in only a few societies. It does seem to have been a big feature in the Americas, perhaps by chance, but elsewhere not so much.

The Jewish faith is based on the idea that their personification of these forces was believed to have made an agreement with one of their patriarchs that "he" would never demand human sacrifice, and they agreed on their part that they would always respect "him;" there are, of course, many more details to this agreement, but that is the essence of it. To the extent that it moves beyond human sacrifice, this is a progressive development. I think it's pretty good for neolithic sheep herders.

I think you're being over-charitable to the nomads. During the relevant period human sacrifice did feature in the settled societies of the Eastern Mediterranean, the despicable "other" of the nomads. Including child sacrifice, indeed sacrifice of one's own first-born when times were desperate. Much of Judaic (and Islamic) law is about distinguishing what they do (bad) from what we do (good). So the sacrifice story is about Abraham and Isaac, not, say, Abraham and Sarah. That got the message across.

The Christian faith is based on the idea that the final propitiation of this personification was accomplished by this personification somehow creating a human son of "his" "own," who then taught us the essential elements of the "new covenant" and was duly sacrificed; and it is this second sacrifice that leads to the idea that no further sacrifices are needed. Again, there are many more details to this, but to the extent that it moves beyond the need for any type of sacrifice, it is once more progressive. As before, I think it's pretty good for neolithic sheep herders.

Judaism had long been a sophisticated, city-based, established religion for many centuries before Greeks conjured up Christianity. By then it was a religion of the settled, not of nomads (bandits and brigands, I calls 'em). The nomads had to wait for Islam before they got another fifteen minutes in the sun. The Abraham and Isaac story is fundamental to the Jewish rejection of the Greek Jesus. In that context the sacrifice of Jesus makes no frickin' sense at all, not even spurious sense. Does Not Resonate. In the Greek context, however, it seems to have resonated all to well. There's more of Iphegenia than of Isaac in Christianity .

 

[Schneibster]

One has to wonder why the human mindset leads from personification to sacrifice. I have a suspicion that it comes from the tactic of throwing an old guy at the leopard to keep it busy while you leg it. It's inherently conflicting; on the one hand you have group-cohesion that makes you care for the aged, on the other hand there are exigent circumstances.

While I was writing this, my mind was more on someone getting hammered by a big rainstorm in their tent/lean to/whatever and wondering what they might do to soothe the wrath of the gods/whatever. I think that the first thing to spring to mind is going to be giving them something so they see one in a favorable manner, assuming of course that one comes up with gods/spirits/whatever to explain the rainstorm. I think it's that pervasive personification/anthropomorphization that leads to this idea.

Human sacrifice has been pervasive in only a few societies. It does seem to have been a big feature in the Americas, perhaps by chance, but elsewhere not so much.

I was, as you noted later, moving directly towards Abraham and Isaac, and on from there to Jesus. Oversimplifying all the way.

I think you're being over-charitable to the nomads. During the relevant period human sacrifice did feature in the settled societies of the Eastern Mediterranean, the despicable "other" of the nomads. Including child sacrifice, indeed sacrifice of one's own first-born when times were desperate. Much of Judaic (and Islamic) law is about distinguishing what they do (bad) from what we do (good). So the sacrifice story is about Abraham and Isaac, not, say, Abraham and Sarah. That got the message across.

I think the point, however, remains; Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son; and God took pity on him, and honored his willingness to make that sacrifice by offering the covenant. As I said, it's a vast oversimplification; but it does get the point across that human sacrifices are no longer required. I'd tend to see that as a Good Thing.

Judaism had long been a sophisticated, city-based, established religion for many centuries before Greeks conjured up Christianity. By then it was a religion of the settled, not of nomads (bandits and brigands, I calls 'em). The nomads had to wait for Islam before they got another fifteen minutes in the sun. The Abraham and Isaac story is fundamental to the Jewish rejection of the Greek Jesus. In that context the sacrifice of Jesus makes no frickin' sense at all, not even spurious sense. Does Not Resonate. In the Greek context, however, it seems to have resonated all to well. There's more of Iphegenia than of Isaac in Christianity .

Christianity itself represents it as the new covenant. How Jews view Christianity in this context is beside the point I am trying to make, though not perhaps for the Jews; nevertheless, that is how it is portrayed, and not just in more esoteric American Christian sects, but in Catholicism as well, to the best of my knowledge.

Again, this is a vast oversimplification, and I'll also point out that we're quibbling over something that's no longer really relevant; as I said in my last post, there ain't no magic dude up in the sky. Interesting quibbles, though.

 

[hammegk]

Nice derail into the usual Judeo-Xian bashing .... congrats.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nice derail into the usual Judeo-Xian bashing .... congrats.

I don't bash, I disect. More CSI than Dirty Harry. But you know that, don't you, you scamp ?

You just keep on shooting it and I'll turn some of it into gold. Hey, it's what I do.

 

[CapelDodger]

Again, this is a vast oversimplification, and I'll also point out that we're quibbling over something that's no longer really relevant; as I said in my last post, there ain't no magic dude up in the sky. Interesting quibbles, though.

No doubts there. The further and deeper we look into the Universe, the less we see any role for a magic dude.

What interests me about religion is what it can tell us about HomSap's animal nature.

While I was writing this, my mind was more on someone getting hammered by a big rainstorm in their tent/lean to/whatever and wondering what they might do to soothe the wrath of the gods/whatever.

I think of shelters as arising very late in the day, and rainstorms as being familiar events varying only in intensity. Weather is important to farmers, but that arises very late in the day. It's the sudden and unpredictable that gets our attention and that we want to explain and influence. A predator's ambush, disease, angry mountains spewing fire and seriously messing up your day, that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure the first personification was of a leopard (or other big cat), essentially as a misapplication of our empathy with other humans.

I think that the first thing to spring to mind is going to be giving them something so they see one in a favorable manner, assuming of course that one comes up with gods/spirits/whatever to explain the rainstorm. I think it's that pervasive personification/anthropomorphization that leads to this idea.

Leaders distribute largesse, subordinates kick-up tribute to their capos. People are pretty comfortable with that sort of system, which suggests we've evolved that way. How comforting it would be if we thought the wider world operated the same way ...

I think the point, however, remains; Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son; and God took pity on him, and honored his willingness to make that sacrifice by offering the covenant. As I said, it's a vast oversimplification; but it does get the point across that human sacrifices are no longer required. I'd tend to see that as a Good Thing.

I'm with you there, I just doubt that goat-botherers should be credited with it. The whole Abrahamic tradition smells strongly of Egypt and Mesopotamia, to my mind.

 

[Lonewulf]

I haven't read through this thread in detail, but I wanted to chip in my single cent (I'd call it 2 cents, but deflation has failed me, alas).

The main issue that a lot of creationists have is that they like to think that Christianity makes a lot more sense than Evolution (naturally). Why, I do not know, but it makes sense to them.

However, if the scriptures and everything that that faith (Judeo-Christianity, in this case) is based on comes into question, then it derails any attempt to truly take that scripture literally. And, as I believe that it was in the contention of the OP of this thread (Or rather, the one that was pushing evolution) that the bible was completely true.

My main question here is, is that a decision based on facts or faith? If the latter, why should it be taken seriously? If the former, what facts and evidence for those facts are available?

The two most imporantant parts that are involved in Judeo Christianity are namely, Creation and Afterlife. However, both of those have the least evidence at all; there was no witness to the Creation of the world, and that particular part of the scriptures was written much much much after the alleged event. Adam didn't write the passage, neither did Eve. As for the Afterlife, it is impossible to truly prove that the afterlife exists without, y'know, meeting the nasty prerequisite.

Sure, you can talk all you want about those that claimed to have "near-death experiences", but I don't think that anything was truly conclusive about them. I forget what some of the suggested explanations were in that particular case, but there are those that were near death that had no "experiences" (The Amazing Randi, for one), so at the least it seems subjective.

The other point of contention here is that, naturally, Evolution is a "lie" (which is a laughable claim). I'd like to see more evidence of that particular claim.

I'd also point out that the last few posts I've seen have hardly "bashed" Christianity, no moreso that a claim and explanation that an Atheist has it wrong is "bashing" him. It's not quite getting personal, nor crude; just a simple explanation of their points of view on the subject.

But like I said, I haven't been paying much close attention to the entire thread.

 

[SimonD]

This is the logic that the fundies follow

- God is always right and cannot be wrong
- the Bible is written by God and therefore everything in it is correct
- the creation story must be true because of the above two conditions

If we could prove that any part of the Bilbe was not true, then we could disprove God (fundies logic - not mine).

Of course this sort of logic has so many holes in it.

I was brought as a Catholic and when I used to ask the hard questions about the Bilbe I was often told that I would have to "make a leap of faith"

 

[Lonewulf]

I was brought as a Catholic and when I used to ask the hard questions about the Bilbe I was often told that I would have to "make a leap of faith"

Unfortunately, that leap seems to be straight into a pitfall.

 

[Schneibster]

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that there's actually some wisdom in it; but the moment you admit that, you open the door and they're all over you. I suppose I'm opening the door, but this has to be said.

Even neolithic sheep herders can be shrewd judges of people, and their observations are not without merit. If the fundies would just admit that it's not rigidly factual, having been written half by stone-age sheep herders and half by some pretty shrewd political operators with a pretty shrewd agenda, and a bunch of axes to grind, and let it rest on the merits of the wisdom to be found in it instead of being all dogmatic, I might meet them halfway. Problem is, they won't, and they keep stuffing it up my nose. I've had it stuffed up there enough that I'm now militant; I wasn't just a few years ago. Keep it up and I'm going to start writing my congresscritters that I want separation of church and state rigidly enforced, I want new laws to make sure it is, and then I'll start donating to organizations that sue to keep it that way. They're making their own problem, when it comes to me. And I'm the tip of the iceberg. I'm now polarized; I wasn't before. Keep it up and I'll be an enemy of religion, if I'm not already.

What, you thought the Romans were after the Christians for their religion? The Romans were some of the most tolerant people around, but starting a revolution was something they didn't put up with for a heartbeat, and if you think that's not what those guys were doing, you better go read the New Testament again. And note this, and note it well: they freakin WON. Took 'em a while, and quite a few got fed to the lions- but when they were done, they were running things. They took Rome DOWN. And then we had the Dark Ages, which lasted a thousand years. Never, ever, ever forget it. Because IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN- IN FACT, IT MIGHT BE HAPPENING RIGHT FREAKING NOW. So pay attention.

Denying science isn't even stupid; it's just silly. Like a little kid with chocolate frosting all over his shirt denying he stole a piece of cake. The arguments they put forward are not designed to actually prove anything, or increase our knowledge, but instead either are the kind of thing you find on woo physics sites, wild speculation based on misunderstood partial concepts, or are entirely intended to inject doubt without adding anything to our understanding. They try to tear down, but they never build up.

Now that's not to say that there aren't some pretty religious people doing good work in the sciences. But they keep their religion out of it. They have true faith; not unquestioning belief. They'll go wherever the evidence takes them; if something happens that causes them to question their faith, they'll find a way to deal with it; their faith will change. It can do that and still be faith. It doesn't scare them. Those folks I have respect for.

But the fundies? No way. They've destroyed any claim they have on my respect, or for that matter either my tolerance or my good will, or even my politeness. It's taken them ten or fifteen years to do it; and it will take another ten or fifteen for them to undo it, and those should be filled with a lot of people who've been jumping up and down blowing steam out their pie holes sitting down and shutting up, and generally helping me forget they exist.

 

[kmortis]

Um..what he said.

Schneibster, you are SO nominated.

 

[Belz...]

Deep breaths, Schneibster.

We're with you.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Amen.

With all this Sylvia Chopra ID sCAM loving madness, I feel we're headed right for another middle ages. We've plateaued to a bunch of fiends that want to fight for the middle ages. Let's not cure diabetes, let's worship everlasting imaginary hoo haaa. Let's not get some alternative fuel source, let's war with badasses who use current fuel sources to fund their own forms of madness. Let's not use vaccines, let's eat placenta!

Whoo yaaa. Gotta love trying to talk sense and getting ostracized for being "close minded". @##&$#!!!