TOPEKA, Kan. (Nov.
– Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
I had two debates on Monday a private Christian school in Connecticut on the subject of Intelligent Design. Their thought and arguments were the standard stuff, and I combatted with the standard stuff….Until the children started asking questions. “What exactly IS evolution?” “Did we really evolve from monkeys”? “Evolution is foreign to me — how does it work?” I realized that these kids, who were SUPPOSED to “hear both sides and make a choice”, weren’t hearing one side at all. These seniors knew less about standard scientific theory than my 8-year-old daughter, which IMO is sure to give them a disadvantage in college.HERE’S SOME GOOD NEWS: Dover ID’ers booted out by smart citizens!http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/11/clean-sweep-in-dover.html
Seeker
Here’s my poem.
As I said, not as good as yours.
I wrote it 10 years ago.
Emancipated Angel
I peered inside my shadow self,
shocked, thrilled
by alluring possibilities
gazing back at me.
I listened to my dark thoughts
as they whispered:
dry leaves
pushed along curbsides
in the hovering night.
I smelled the sweet thick syrup
of broken rules
made steamy hot
by anxious breath.
I felt the rippling current
of consummate danger
stroking
that ever-obedient muscle-
my heart.
I tasted the lovely sharp bite
of long-simmered,
cellar-aged sin
flowing over dulled buds,
washing away the dust.
My soul sighed,
breathed deeply,
then laughed.
Still laughing, I took wing.
excellent
Hey r4d,
.
sorry, I got caught up in working on some projects and then went out for dinner with my bride. I’m fortunate to be with her, so I’m afraid you come second
To recap:
I agree that science has a great track record. My thoughts relate to concrete knowledge. Scientific theory and its ability to provide medical solutions, innovation and so forth are irrefutable. However, I find it an interesting question to consider what is concrete knowledge. Am I being simplistic in thinking: this hammer brings me great results, I don’t need my therapist anymore?
What I think you are saying is that if something is not testable or unknowable, why bother. So, what do you think is unknowable or untestable? I think things like emotions would be a good example. Do you think something like a child’s love for their parents or vice versa can be boiled down to a verifable or logical response of an animal wanting to procreate and ensure the survival of a species? Is there more to it than just that? If so, do you think it’s worth while to consider why this happens? What bearing does it have on our lives?
I think both you and I are pretty liberal. Why do we care about people that do not affect our lives directly? One answer might be a selfish understanding of the value of progressive and liberal thought to society as a whole which, in turn, will benefit us. On the other hand, some of it defies logic and we just do what we think is right. I’m not challenging if it comes from a god or not, just challenging the thought of why. Why do we care?
I think this challenges the idea of what can be perceived and what can be tested. Is it nonsense to think people can perceive what we now consider the supernatural? How do we qualify what can be percieved and tested? Once it is qualified and tested, does it truly explain?
I really enjoy your thoughts and ideas. I don’t see these conversations as a parry and thrust attempt to gain dominance. I see it as a way for me to ask myself better questions. I understand that how is a part of why, but they are not one and the same. While one is not exclusive of the other, I don’t think one is complete without the other.
To (feebly) illustrate the importance of why even in context of how I will use some personal examples as it is the best way for me to consider the question posed. When I smell my wife’s hair in the morning when we lay in bed sometimes and see how good she is, I consider the why. I understand how she got there and I understand on an intellectual level why we are married, but it somehow seems like it isn’t a full explanation. When I dream vivid and lucid dreams of my father talking to me who passed away a year ago, I understand the how of his memory is in my subconcious, but it’s not really a satisfactory why I still miss him so much and why he speaks to me in my dreams. It is on this deeply personal level that questions of how, even if they can be explained scientificly do not fully answer the question of why.
I suspect you’re beating your head against the computer at this point. You may need to break the questions into smaller pieces for me to answer in a cohesive and comprehensive way.
What is it you think I believe and why? What evidence have I presented here?
Also, you must see Time Bandits. One of my all time favorite movies.
spanders:
I offer this in hopes of some clarification, but these are but 2 examples.
Recently engaged a theist at the Raving Atheist. Pleasant fellow, we had some nice chats, until posts became intercepted, long story, not germane.
Anywhoways, when I queried him as to his belief that the bible was inherently true, he said that his relationship w/his creator confirmed it. I probed, he didn’t want to explain it, gave him my email, never heard back.
My dear friend, an inerrantist, insists that the author him/her/itself has/had told him that the bible was literally true.
Not qualified to diagnose either gentlemen. So then, perhaps the question goes to this, my friend: have you perhaps received some sort of communique in this regard.
I am but asking, mind you. I’m pretty sure you’re not an inerrantist.
If you’re not comfortable discussing this, than an email would be fine.
karen:
lovely little piece, BTW.
Wow, that was really confusing for a moment.
ebonyfax, Seeker, whoever,
If you really want to continue to rely on this blog community to point you in the right direction regarding evolution then so be it. Personally I think I’ve been quite accommodating in this regard so far, but apparently it’s not enough to hand you the resources. I still think that’s pretty darn lazy of ya, but oh well.
That does not win it any points. It kinda reminds of what people say about chinese medicine. “It’s gotta work” they say, “it’s been around for thousands of years!!” Well guess what, so have witch doctors.
And…
Apologetics are not meant to refute or prove anything, they are meant for the believer only. Why? Because the very nature of the epistemology of apologetics requires that one believes first. Without the grand assumption (that one’s beliefs are correct to begin with) the entire structure of the rhetoric disintegrates. So please forgive us atheists if we are simply not impressed.
Gee, is that so? I thought I did a pretty good job at refuting it, and all I had to do was write a few sentences that point out Behe’s blatant dishonesty. But heck, don’t take my word for it, I’m just a web designer:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
Mathematically impossible? And just how would we know that for sure? Just how could we possibly account for all the variables? If you are referring to the Drake equation, then it can be interpreted many different ways, depending on what numbers you choose to plug into the variables. Drake himself has recently revised the equation to allow for an even more possibilities and circumstance for life to form. Life may be abundant in universe. I for one suspect that it is, but this question may never be solved in my lifetime. But the fact remains that we are here, and life on this planet seems to be able to adapt to just about any condition. Did you see that they’ve just discovered that Lichen can survive in a vacuum for up to two weeks? Check it out:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8297
So now God is responsible for civilization too? Isn’t that kinda like saying that space aliens must’ve built the pyramids because they’re just too darn big? Civilization emerged ‘suddenly’ because of one invention – agriculture. Read ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ by Jared Diamond.
No it doesn’t. Fossils are RARE. We’re lucky to have them. But if you are looking for transitional forms, then look no further than lobed finned fish,the ones who evolved into the first amphibians – we now have the complete record from A to Z. Here’s a summary of how the first amphibians evolved:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/3/text_pop/l_043_41.html
Anyway, ‘Seeker’ (cute, I guess), my wife has just let me know that she’s getting a little jealous of me spending so much time on this here blog. It’s hard for me to let any post go unanswered, for I have answers for just about all of them. But perhaps I need to let go for a while. Good luck on your quest.
RA
Thanks for the feedback.
I was beginning to think everyone had gone to bed for the night. I think I’m about to myself. Not really tired, but I need to rest this cold.
Gotta be in shape to flirt with my young Dane tomorrow!
I think the inerrantists probably get the word from their preacher, and they take it for granted that he got it from God himself. The old, Don’t question gambit.
When I was growing up, the folks at my church(Lutheran) couldn’t seem to agree on the program. One year in Sunday school, I’d be told it was all true; the next, some of it wasn’t meant to be taken literally. Funny thing, no one ever knew WHICH parts weren’t s’posed to be literal.
karen:
Well, there’s the old pick-n’-choose: Didn’t happen? Allegory. Did happen? Literal.
Sun stood still? Allegorical. That sort of thing.
Our species is such a selective bunch of bunnies. Hopping back n’ forth between whatever suits us best for the nonce.
Take care of that cold.
Bit o’ advice (yeah, everyone’s got advice, I know): don’t get too much bedrest. Lungs can’t expand fully when lying down.
RA
Right-y-oh! Talk to you sometime tomorrow, Sweetie! G’night!
Spanders,
Just real quick, cuz my wife is a little miffed at me…
Our emotional connection with each other is indeed a wonder, but it is also a pretty necessary evolutionary ingredient for us to be functioning, thinking social animals. Should this at all take away from the experience? Well, it certainly doesn’t for me. I’m a pretty emotional person, and that’s the understatement of the year. I also experience deep meaning in my life, and I always have. I imagine that if I had been born in a different time I might’ve made a great cult leader, due to my wild imagination and my strong need for meaning. But I still can’t escape the how of it. Love is a great thing, but it is still a chemical. Oxytocin to be exact. They inject it into rats and it makes them cuddle up with each other.
Have you read Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World?” In it he’s pretty open about the way he dealt with his parent’s death. He too had dreams of his father. He too felt tempted to believe that they may still exist in some way. It’s not easy for any of us to deal with the fact of our and our loved ones’ inevitable mortality, whether we believe in a hereafter or not. I suppose that’s the consequence of our humanity, but I’m still glad we’re like this.
No. But it is nonsensical to ignore more
probable explanations just because a supernatural one is easier and more comforting. I subscribe to what Michael Shermer calls the ‘virtue of skepticism.’ I can not allow for a sacred cow when there are more plausible explanations available to me. So far every so called religious experience I have ever heard of has had a more plausible explanation available. That’s really all I’m saying.
And yes, I like talking with you too.
ebon searcher:
Allow me to look at this:
“The sudden emergence of civilization points toward special creation and defies evolution.”
Extrapolate please. Oldest known civilization dates back to the Happaran (Indus Valley), 6000 BCE.
“The absence of transitional forms in the fossil record cries aloud for explanation. No explanations are offered, only a litany of ?x factors.?
Lessee, x factors being what? The inconsideration of each stepping stone not laying down in amber, tar pits, etc. Factoring in erosion, scavengers, geological pressures, soil content(alkalinity), etc.
Everything is transitional. Some missing pieces doesn’t mean toss the whole puzzle out. More search is required, is all.
“The negative speciation rate stands as testimony against evolution.”
Please illustrate.
Now, as an undegreed layman, I may very well be blowing smoke here, but I’ll take a shot at it, so to speak.
The 3 ‘brains’ as it were, reptilian hindbrain, mammalian, & neo-mammalian, are actually, to my uneducated eyes, proof of evolution.
Everything is built by increments. Nothing springs into being full blown, that I know of. Everything develops.
I am reminded of that old nonsense, “A tornado blowing thru a junkyard won’t erect St. Peter’s Cathedral”.
Even a cathredal is built in increments.
“Rome wasn’t built in a day.”
Neither was humanity.
SPANDERS, et al.
I have no idea what you think, unless you tell me.
As for the inerrancy doctrine, you seemed a little perturbed by my quick argument at the end of another post – so I gave you the full argument. No offense nor attribution intended, just a desire to post a concise argument.
Rainbow:
█ You are right that the age of the biblical cannon is, of itself, no more consequential than Chinese blueberries. But from the very onset the text has been subject to criticism. Every objection that could be made has been made and answered.
The objections you may see on this board were raised hundreds of years ago and answered. Many criticisms have been raised repeatedly and, like in a never-ending ping-pong tournament of ?yeah, but? the criticism-answer game continues unabated.
In spite of that, the discussion is valid and needed. It?s analogous in my mind to testing a door to see if it?s locked. Let?s not call those posting on the board ?lazy? because they wish to engage in meaningful discussion.
█ Drake?s equation was a starting point, but inadequate in that it failed to include all the parameters. I made an earlier post in which the results were as follows: There is less than 1 chance in million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe by natural means.
A few of responses posted were credible; most were verbal flips of the wrist addressing nothing more than surface issues at best. None were adequate.
Now, at the risk of being labeled lazy, I follow your lead by pointing you to a web page title ?Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth? in which astrophysicist Hugh Ross, noted old-earth creationist, provides evidence for fine-tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
█ That raises another question: Is one being lazy by responding with links and ?you need to read this book? rather than address issues? Or is one being lazy by not chasing down every link and buying every book suggested? Just a thought.
Seeker
I got the impression, from something you said earlier, that you no longer hold the Bible to be the Truth, but that creation over evolution makes more sense and seems more verified to you. Is this correct?
Are you taking a deist postion?
rainbows4dinosaurs:
No, they?re not. Ask anyone who lives near an outcrop of shale, limestone, marl, or any other low-energy depositional stratum. They?re FULL of fossils. So, either you are using a different definition of ?rare,? or else you?ve become completely blinded by the evolutionist?s mindset that you can no longer accept objective reality. Just because the fossil record isn?t complete for every species can?t possibly be misinterpreted to mean that occurrences of every species’ fossils are always ?rare.? Fossils of marine organisms are abundant, and in many cases complete, uninterrupted assemblages thousands of feet thick have been found?and yet they still don?t contain conclusive, transitional forms that trace one species ?morphing? into a new one. No one has yet to demonstrate a clearly irrefutable lineage from lobed fins to true bi- or quadrapedal forms. Given the lack of evidence, it?s only assumed that the transition occurred?yet the fossil record (which, again, for marine organisms, can be quite continuous) doesn?t contain the ?missing? pieces.
Seeker:
“Every objection that could be made has been made and answered.”
Answered? Yes. Satisfactorily? No. (not sure that’s a word).
Still no answer (no good 1 at least) for, lessee, Virgin Birth (continuance of Davidic kingship, from there), Noah’s flood (where’d the water come from, where’d it go?), eclipse at JC’s death (had a discourse w/some1, who claimed it to be a heavy sandstorm. Interesting, but 1/2 the earth?). How Nazareth didn’t exist till 4th C, how the Exodus NEVER happened, in accordance w/archeology, oh, the list it do go on!
Answer a few of those for me, wouldja?
Drake’s equation? I’ll look for it, but a link would’ve been nice.
“Is one being lazy by responding with links and ?you need to read this book? rather than address issues? Or is one being lazy by not chasing down every link and buying every book suggested?”
Wellll, personally, can’t afford books right now. I will look at your links, & ponder.
Didn’t you mention earlier that you are/were a pastor? Curiouser & curiouser, to para. Carroll.
jcc!
I was just thinkiing about you…where have you been? Ive missed you!
Your first post of the day and ALREADY you’ve used the term “objective reality”!
Not to speak for rainbows, but I think he meant that for the number of species, and the sheer number of populus within each species, we don’t have nearly as many fossils as we would like to have. I could be wrong.
I’m sure someone will tell me if I am?
Anyhow, good to see you posting again!
Reluctant
LONG ANSWER: Civilization emerged abruptly. The actual date of that emergence is inconsequential. The archeological record indicates that advanced civilization emerged abruptly and relatively recently. The construction of civilizations occurred in different parts of the globe under different circumstances. The smooth, uniform progression from hunters-gatherers to farmers-traders would not apply uniformly in every culture. The transformation from stone age to iron age was not universal. What is universal is the (relative) sudden emergence of civilization in multiple sites concurrently. (?Sudden? is relative suggested age of modern human existence.) If modern human have been around for 50-90,000 years (and they may have been) certainly the archaeological record would be dotted with abundant evidence of civilization pre-dating 8,000 BC. Cro-Magnon cave art, end of ice age, hunter-gatherers, etc., have all been presented as explanations. But in reality, intelligent humans would have built civilizations from the onset of their appearance on planet earth.
SHORT ANSWERMy proposal is: As soon as intelligent humans appeared, they immediately (relative term) began building civilizations. Therefore, we can date the arrival of modern humans with the onset of civilization. This does not necessarily argue in favor of creationism or against evolution but would fit the special creation of humans.
The fossil record comprises the building blocks of evolution. Kick out the fossil record as inadequate, and you destroy the theory of evolution.
In fact, the fossil record is abundant (though the percentage of surviving fossils is small). The fossil records provide evidence of fully formed organism. Millions of them. There are no verifiable (that word IS important) transitional forms.
While doomsday environmentalist project a despeciation rate (my term) of 50 percent per 50 years http://www.healthyworld.org/species.html, more credible sources place the rate at 0.70 percent. That means that 70,000 of the 10 million species existing today will be gone in the 2055. An even more conservative estimate (for the sake of easy calculation) would be 1 percent per 100 years. In 10,000 years there would be no life on planet earth. Assume the rate to be 0.10 every 100 years, then life is gone in 100,000. On an evolutionary scale, that?s a blink of the eye. The despeciation rate is not a 20th 21st century phenomenon. It cannot be attributed to the emergence of pollution.
Sorry, but one hour is too long to type. I?m off to do yard work.
Yep. My “is is” philosophy is pointing me toward deism.
karen:
It?s been another one of those busy months?Yes, whatever would I do without that phrase?
But, as I said, we do have assemblages that are complete enough, and demonstrate sufficient environmental changes that, if evolution were true, should have driven a transition. Invertebrate marine fossils are subject to a great deal of environmental pressures over long periods of time and since they live in an ideal setting for the formation of fossils (and have relatively short life spans) any transitions should have been recorded?but they haven?t.
That is not even close to being true, as Dawkins so eloquently in the quote I posted above.
Evolution is support by mountains of evidence in EVERY SINGLE FIELD OF SCIENCE, not just paleontology.
Look harder, stop being so darn lazy.
ebonyseeker
Just a quick critique of your ‘despeciation rate’ theory:
It is widely assumed that even if we were to detonate all our nuclear weapons all over the planet at once life itself would still go on in some form. Only the upper levels of fauna and flora would be eliminated for good, and many hard-nosed species of insect and microorganism that have survived all the previous mass extinctions will brave the radioactive landscape and quite probably start a whole new evolutionary strata. Earth’s ability to support larger creatures may be comprised for several thousands of years, but it wouldn’t matter because it would take millions of years to produce those larger animals anyway.
No one, with any credibility at least, is worried about the elimination of all life on Earth. What we are worried about is the possible elimination of mankind, and his conspicuous hand in this unfortunate process. If we continue to upset the balance it will have traumatic consequences for our civilization and our race, but ‘life’ will still go on.
Darrow,
What I was perturbed by was not the argument itself, but the hyperbole. My point was that when one presents an arguement it’s best to not equate a viewpoint as being akin to saying terrorism (child molesting, etc) is okay. All it accomplishes is putting the person on the other side of the discussion in an emotional defensive. My opinion is that you are quite good at presenting your point of view, but I object to is you throwing in things like telling RA to pull his head out of his ass or hyperbole which, I think, only will raise ire and take away from discussion.
Secondly, you admit that you don’t know what I believe, but you’re willing to assume that I’m an inerrant theist. I just reviewed my comment and it was more about being open minded vs. making blanket statements than it was about defending or denying ID or the literal truth of the Bible. While your points about an inerrant interpretation are valid, I think you wasted your time if you addressed it to me. I would appreciate if you not lump me into the et all. I don’t make assumptions or blanket statements about all atheists and I would appreciate if you extend that courtesy to theists.
To clarify, I am a very liberal theist and consider much of the bible to be allegory, story, verse or simply the perspective of those writing it at the time. I take great pains to understand not only the bible, its context, but also the creeds, both ecumenical and specific to denomonation. I find that ideas of creation are not in my purview and am therefor willing to accept what science has to offer. Evolution does not challenge my beliefs. I am socially active with my church in promoting gay rights and marriage for all, environmental responsibility and charity. I’m going into a bit of detail to illustrate that making blanket statements may take away a more interesting and nuanced conversation we may have.
To conclude, absolutely watch Time Bandits. “Nipples for men? I would create laser beams day one!”
r4d
Isn’t is juicily ironic that man may industrialize himself right off the Earth, but the creatures who will remain have absolutely no ability (as far as we know)to believe in God?
Isn’t IT juicily ironic.
Aacckkk!
Karen,
Ironic but disturbing. I try to cling to my sci-fi inspired optimism that we can solve these problems if we are allowed to try.
r4d,
while I would like to give you a clear and resounding answer how I make the distinction between how and why, I’m not sure I’m smart enough to be articulate about it. As you say, the how and why are closely tied. I appreciate your attempts to clarify.
In review, my thoughts seem to have been centered on using emotion and tight human bonds to illustrate ideas of why that get beyond the how. My understanding of your response is that the how of science illuminates the why questions that I bring up. We used to use religion to answer the how and now we use science in its place. It’s only a question of time before science is able to completely replace religion in its ability to answer the why.
The only conclusion I can come to is that, for me, the why will always be there. For some reason, whether nature or nurture, I have been instilled with a desire for purpose that propels me forward to work for good beyond myself. When I look at the evidence of how science relates to the how and why, I don’t see enough to make me abandon the why on a what is for me, a spiritual level. It’s one of those cases where I look at it and say, oh, r4d is in a place that he can reconcile the two clearly in a scientific mode, while I cannot or choose not to.
I know, it seems like a crappy answer. It’s the best one I can give you. Sometimes it’s hard to be in an environment where I’m not in the same mind as the majority, but it’s the same thing that attracts me… the heightened sensitivity to a minority view.
spanders,
It’s not a crappy answer. It’s an honest answer, and I appreciate that.
spanders
Suppose later today, you suddenly found out the answer to Why?
Would it change anything? Wouldn’t you still be the same person, keep doing the same good deeds, living the same decent life?
You may have some idea of what you think the answer to Why is. What if the answer turned out to be completely different, like God tells you, “Sorry Spanders, You’re just part of my giant ant farm.” (Just guessing that this is not what you expect it to be.) Then would it change anything?