61% Believe in Evolution

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sandy, Jan 2, 2008.

  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    ^^
    Darwin mentions or at least acknowledges the possibility of an external or otherwise super natural force in 'Origin of Species' several times and in other writings. It's been a long time since i read this stuff but it is common knowledge and i am inclined to believe some of his work may have been edited to be more focused and directly related to his evolution theories. That last part is just speculation and what i have read a few times.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What difference does it really make ??
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Your right Enmos. It doesn't make too much of a difference.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    Ah, so we can't guage the age of a statue that's still here on earth but we can tell which animals lived in what time frames millions of years ago?

    Do you see a problem with that logic?
     
  8. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, not really.. lol
    Anyway, it's kinda off topic.
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I presume it means rock that was cut in place, like Mt. Rushmore, rather than rock that was quarried and cut into blocks. I don't think there's any way the Sphinx could stay in place if it wasn't one big piece.
    No, you're just a historian.
    Evolution is not inconsistent with creation. Once again, everybody, and please try to remember it this time:
    • Evolution is the natural process by which organisms that exist in one era are slowly transformed into the somewhat different organisms of a later era. There is abundant evidence of macro-scale evolution, including many of its workings, in fossils and DNA, and on the micro scale it can be empirically observed in operation. Evolution is, therefore, an established, canonical scientific theory, meaning that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, but not as absolutely true as a mathematical theory. In contrast with abiogenesis, evolution does not tell us how the very first lifeforms arose.
    • Abiogenesis is a process by which non-living matter can be transformed into living matter, or at least into organic matter which is then transformed into living matter. In other words: life out of non-life. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, meaning that it has not yet been sufficiently tested to determine its probability of being true. There is no empirical evidence of the workings of abiogenesis such as fossils, DNA or field observation. Our detailed understanding of how it might work is incomplete and untested. The best evidence for abiogenesis comes from cosmology: the natural universe was once composed of matter and energy far too primitive to qualify as organic, much less living, and yet today we are surrounded by living organic matter. Therefore, at some point abiogenesis must have occurred or there would be a paradox, and the natural universe does not allow paradoxes. This is still compelling evidence, and it beats the heck out of the religionist hypothesis that says simply, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it," without ever answering the reflexive, obvious, next question, "So where did the Flying Spaghetti Monster come from, Daddy?" Nonetheless, this is not adequate evidence to elevate abiogenesis to the status of an established theory and it is not part of the canon of science.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Thank God for the 61%. It could certainly be worse.
     
  11. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    Thank who?
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    A very important point here:

    On the other side, the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tool may be - in fact, must be - rejected out of hand as a non-sequitur. It is a known fallacy, having been invented specifically by, as I recall, Richard Dawkins. Ergo, it's a fake from the get-go, and most especially so since he admits that it's a fake. Not really comparable to the issue of the whole Abrahamic God thing, which is not based in an admitted fallacy for the purposes of spurious comparison.
     
  13. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    Huh?
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    God. You may have heard of Him.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You may of course thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you wish, but the latter is a known fallacy, whereas God is not so known.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Lip service. He knew his theory would be controversial. He later regretted bowing to religious peer pressure. I'm not speculating, it's in his letters.
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You can date the layers of the stone of the statue but you can't date when it was carved. Fossils are found in layers of rock and can be dated because of this.

    It's off topic because this thread is about 61% believing in evolution, not about how old the sphinx is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    Despite Darwin's writings and recounted private conversations with friends, it is possible that he held on to a secret belief in the God of his culture, without telling anyone. We know, for example, that he was considerate of his wife's theistic beliefs.

    So your speculations are not absolutely deniable. Except the ones about editing - to the extent Darwin's writings were edited, all evidence points to their having been made more, rather than less, theist-friendly. The reverse is without support.

    But we do know that Darwin delayed the publication of his masterwork for many years, out of reluctance - even fear (he was a shy man, and had health problems) - to face what he and everyone aware of his theories knew would be the hostility of its reception by the theists who dominated the intellectual discourse and social community of his time. Theists are well known for their vindictiveness, social meanness, and willingness to abuse the vulnerable, and Darwin had not only his own socially timid nature and poor health to consider but his wife (a theist, whom he loved) and family, who would (and did) suffer in the resulting controversy. He postponed as long as he could - a very revealing circumstance, no?

    No. It's a simple fact of the situation. When real, physical evidence and correction by discovery is involved, rather than theologically based "logic", such situations are common.

    As far as the OP, I would be curious to know what percentage of the "yes" responders belonged to the "I believe in microevolution" crowd. I would put a large sum of money against the proposition that 61% of the US public has any real understanding of evolutionary theory, and so the question should be treated as a political one, with the slippery reservations and so forth common to political polls.

    Sample equivalent question: "Do you believe in the theory of quantum electrodymanics ?" "Do you believe in the Special Theory of Relativity?"
    That doesn't matter. Dawkins is a known atheist, and would be expected to deny the influence of Divine Inspiration on any of his propositions. The Truth of the Monster does not depend on its manner of Revelation.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster should be rejected on aesthetic grounds - it's petty and messy and vague and doesn't do the job of satire even. But there is no way to reject it on physical origin or other reality based grounds - any more than proof of Paul's epilipsy would cause his writings and letters to be rejected from the Christian Bible.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2008
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    I don't think that's important. In either case, they were invented.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Neither of us has any ability to say whether God was invented or not, but we both know for certain that the FSM was invented, so it's not at all the same thing. I think the FSM example really should be put by the by. It's just more baiting, although on a different level. Playground sort of stuff, really.
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I didn't realize that mentioning the Flying Spaghetti Monster would generate such a furor. I should have said, "The Doozers did it." (A "Fraggle Rock" reference.)

    My points were:
    • 1. Evolution does not answer the question of how life originated. Abiogenesis does that and abiogenesis has not been established.
    • 2. Saying "God created life" is patently absurd, since God (in this hypothesis) is alive and it would be a paradox for him to have created himself.
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    From the point of view of valid evidence supporting them, they are identical. It's a thought experiment, a typical and sometimes valuable scientific exercise.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Darwin save us from "thought experiments".

    "Thought experiment

    A rigged mental contest designed to re-enforce existing memetic prejudices by intellectual slight-of-hand and the absence of properly developed counterarguments or, better yet, counterarguers."



    The definition is my own, but it is a perfect definition. How do I know this? Simple. Thought experiment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway, God and the FSM are not at all similar from the perspective of evidence supporting them - I excise the word "valid" since it's meaning inevitably becomes derivative in these contests. The FSM is a completely false construct dreamt up in a thought experiment (see above) while the other has a basis in sincerely held beliefs based in literature, whether you agree with the literature or not. It is time to let the Flying Spaghetti Monster fly on, and keep flying, until he exits the popular selective consciousness.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I believe that the editing, if it is or was significant, was more selective and leaned toward omitting any beliefs that were\are not directly related to Evolution.

    As far as the reluctance, there i believe was more of an issue of struggling with his own conclusions and the fear of ridicule but any new idea is susceptible to intense scrutiny. There were more factors than fear of theists because failure and complete disbelief would have just rendered his work insignificant and forgotten. So i think his struggles were more internal and this personal struggle is normal and exists to this day. I know that i am fairly neutral and dont claim to have a definitive answer one way or another.

    Of course it is just opinion so could be wrong and may be wrong.

    Personally i do not believe that Darwin was an Atheist and the evidence points to Agnostic.
     

Share This Page