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:
Okay, let’s take a look at 1 thing at a time:”The despeciation rate is not a 20th 21st century phenomenon.”
& how can anyone make an estimation of such a thing? Mind you, undegreed layman here, but how many of these studies were done in the pre-industrial era? My guess would be zero. Some info (for correction) to provide this hypothesis would be welcome. You can’t really verify your despiciation rate theory, can you? I am seriously curious.
“The transformation from stone age to iron age was not universal.”
True enough: it was gradual. My limited understanding is that it was a series of degrees.
” Civilization emerged abruptly”
Gee whiz, I thought that there were intermediary stages, such as caves, straw huts, mud huts, adobe, brick, enclaves to villages to cities. My error. More links, info please. Again, not degreed, but I have some grasp (minimal though it may be) of the basics of anthropology, etc.
Civilizations just didn’t spring out full blown. ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’.
“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.”
This is 1 of those things that bug me to no end. Life just ain’t that convenient. It would be wunnerful, if everything could be lined up sequentially, but fer cryin’ out loud, if I’ve learned anything in 47 yrs on this planet, it’s that everything’s fluid & in flux. We’re talking weather patterns, ice ages, all sorts of factors in the equation. How do we know there wasn’t any civilizations pre-dating 8,000 CE? We don’t. Best not to say that, ’cause something’ll show up 2morrow, next week, a decade from now, & all the hypothoses change (again!). Archeologists might find some civilizations that old at the ocean’s bottom. (no, not propounding Atlantis, Mu, or Lemuria: just postulating).
Abundant? I guess we’ll have to see about that.
“The fossil record comprises the building blocks of evolution. Kick out the fossil record as inadequate, and you destroy the theory of evolution.”
Gah! Well, lessee, then we can just toss out the backbone of biology, as it were. Modern medicine. Let’s just throw it all out, ’cause we don’t have the proper sequence of fossils?
Gaps are being filled all the time. Of course, I defer to the more knowledgeable here, as I am more the philosopher, not really a scientist.
Lessee, favorite example: testing Neanderthal DNA renders 40 (odd) points of difference from Cro-Magnon man, resulting in speciation. Maybe this is the unrepresented example, but it’s telling.
Templates. Function follows form. It just seems like basic logic.
But then, what do I know?
Karen,
sometimes I think the journey on the quest for why may be as important or more important than the why itself. While a hackneyed motif, I think it still valid. Even if God told me today that my best case scenario is I end up on the ant farm or even that I’m on the ant farm now and there’s nothing afterward, I don’t think I would change much. I’m not sure I really think of ultimate reward or punishment much. For me, it’s more about going through life and looking at it from a particular lens. I think all of us do the same thing, it’s just a question of which lens we use. If I changed lenses, it might change how I see things, but I don’t think it would change my core. My lens has changed simply by interacting with you. Maybe your lens has changed in interacting with me. I don’t mean it an apologist way, simply a human interaction way.
I don’t fear change in thought. I think we all refine our thoughts and way of thinking if we care to engage in the process. Would you change your life if tomorrow God came down and visited you (much like he does with GW
? I suspect you wouldn’t change a ton.
spanders
Ah yes, my lens has changed from interacting with you. It’s a good thing.
And no, I wouldn’t change if God decided to visit me tomorrow. (which is quite possible, as I have run out of my meds and am waiting for more to arrive by mail!) I’m afraid God would not find a blind worshipper, but someone who wanted lots of answers and explanations.
But I think I was just getting at the idea that the WHY is not all that important. After all, we’re here; what else are we going to do but make the best of it?
You know, maybe if God had said in the Bible that we wouldn’t get to heaven unless we loved and accepted each other enough, rather than loving Him, the world would be a friendlier place.
RA
I don’t know what it says about you, but you made almost all the same points to seeker that I was thinking about. I didn’t think about comparing Neanderthal with Cro-Magnon DNA, but otherwise, pretty much the same. Especially about civilization. Scary, huh?
I’ve been trying to stay out of this one, because I don’t have the scientific background to really know what I’m talking about. You made your points in a much more cohesive manner than I would have. It sounds much better when you say it, anyway!
karen:
I guess great minds think alike, ey?
I’ve tried to stay out of the more scientific forums too, but my overwhelming ego & big mouth seem to get me in more trouble (as always!).
Besides which, unless you speak up, & someone tells you otherwise, you may very well have the wrong info. As may I.
So go ahead & speak up. I say it again: the only dumb question is the 1 that doesn’t get asked.
Do the mental pushups. It’s good for you (of course, that’s only advice: do as your heart bids).
I try to sit & think 1st before I post. Sometimes it gets away from me. Like to think that’s a small percentage of the time.
Logic is my mistress: I bow to her only.
Here ya go: ?Beyond the origin of life, a comparison of speciation vs. extinction rates before and after the first human beings may help expose the limits of natural processes to explain the observed changes in life on Earth. The speciation rate before humans slightly (but significantly over the millenia) exceeded the extinction rate. Since humans came on the scene, however, the extinction rate has remained fairly constant (about one species per year discounting the effects of human abuse), but the speciation rate has dropped to virtually zero. What could account for this dramatic change? ? ? Dr. Hugh Ross
1. Keep in mind that ?abruptly? is relative.
2. Visiting the Mayan ruins in Chichen-Itza, Mexico was an interesting experience. Civilizations on the South American continent, Egypt, Mesopotamia and China emerged about the same time. (Again, relatively speaking.)
X factors are valid, but they are still X factors.
Evolutionist note the abundance of fossils to support their theory. But note the absence of transitional forms and suddenly the fossil record is no longer abundant but insufficient. They can?t have it both ways.
I have no idea what you?re talking about.
Colts are 8-0. Now you know.
ebony seeker,
your despeciation rate end of life is mathematically incorrect. If you assume 1% loss per 100 years, you need to use this math. (1-0.01)^100=leftover percentage. 0.01 is your decay rate per century, there are 100 centuries in 10,000 years. This yields 36.6% left of the original populace after 10,000 years. Please use proper mathematics, you’re misleading people, whether intentionally or not!
Seeker
Here’s a pretty good critique of Dr. Ross’ ministry from a christian perspective. Maybe you’ll take it a little more seriously than if I were to send you to the Skeptic’s Dictionary site:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm
They note a whole hellava lot more than that, my friend. Get up off your lazy ass and read a book or two.
Seeker:
I’ll try to keep up w/your confusing post.
“Since humans came on the scene, however, the extinction rate has remained fairly constant (about one species per year discounting the effects of human abuse), but the speciation rate has dropped to virtually zero. What could account for this dramatic change? ? ? Dr. Hugh Ross”
Doesn’t really answer my question now, does it? What is the yardstick? How is it measured? Speciation rate dropped to 0? That’s a new 1 on me. When, where, how, gimme some numbers, wouldja?
“1. Keep in mind that ?abruptly? is relative.
2. Visiting the Mayan ruins in Chichen-Itza, Mexico was an interesting experience. Civilizations on the South American continent, Egypt, Mesopotamia and China emerged about the same time. (Again, relatively speaking.)”
So, what is long for a butterfly is short for an elephant? Sometimes you sound like a taoist, I kid you not. So you’re well-traveled. Kudos. Went on archeological digs? Relevance?
“X factors are valid, but they are still X factors.”
Given. Agreed. You have a probability factor, some guesstimates?
“They can?t have it both ways.”
I’ll leave much of this to those of the more scientific bent here. Let’s proffer a more realistic example. What transitional forms ARE lacking, in your opinion? I’ve heard the PE theorum, much debate about the pre-Cambrian/Cambrian fossil explosion, etc. Confession: I do have trouble in these areas. Elucidate, please.
My Neanderthal example was of speciation, which (to my limited knowledge) is a talking point on both sides. Will take correction in this, as it is not my field.
“Colts are 8-0. Now you know.”
Sorry, don’t keep up w/Hockey.
Probability models are utterly useless because we can’t possibly be sure of all the variables. I’m mean, so long as we’re talking about gaps, how anyone can reduce the entire debate to a bunch of hypothetical mind games and call that ‘evidence’ is simply beyond me.
What is the probability of a omniscient supreme being arising out of nothing what-so-ever? What is the mathematical likelihood of an ever-lasting super intelligence? I’m aware of many diverging formulas that attempt to answer this, but they are all based on variables that no one can possible know the true value of. Even so, I’m willing to bet the probability of God is much lower than life evolving on this planet. After all, we are here, while He is still undetectable and therefor unverifiable (no matter what you may feel in your heart.)
It won’t stop.
Now, if anyone cares to read more of my fence-sitting rambling…
On one hand…
I still see credibility in the arguments of old-earth creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross (in spite of his critics.)
I also see credibility in the biblical text. Basically, the OT is a family “biography” tracing the family of Mr. and Mrs. Abraham for a span of 2,000 years. Smith Bible dictionary contains countless thousands (I guess you could count them) which were written by many authors over many years. The names and geographies intertwine seemlessly and, with few exceptions, are verifiably accurate. That is quite a feat ? unique, even ? for a work of fiction.
On the other hand…
The notion that millions of humans are presently suffering in eternal hell for not accepting a faith that they were unaware even existed is plain silly. And if the Bible is wrong on that account…
The behavior of Christians defies and denies most everything they claim to believe. I’m working (slowly) on a novel in which an atheist wins a debate ? not by trading barbs with his opponent ? but by inciting his Christian audience to respond in unChristian anger.
The thought that my dearly departed are, at this moment, tredding streets of gold no longer seems plausible.
That ? as one atheist friend suggested ? I’ve been “programmed” does seem plausible. (If I’d been born in India I would have been programmed as a Hindu, I suppose.) That I was so fortunate to have been born in a family that happened to participate in the church that had the one true faith of a zillion denominations, sects, religious orders, cults, etc., seems highly unlikely.
End of ramblng.
Now I’ll sit back and watch you people banter about for a while, then poke you in the brain now and again.
Darrow: Well, this just keeps coming back, so lay this puppy to rest here & now.
“R4D agreed that he/she/it was blowing smoke up our collective skirts where the “shoot down” argument was pulled directly from the distal GI tract of the person presenting the argument.”
A. It’s RA, not r4d
B. I’m a he.
C. A simple correction would’ve sufficed. You were unnecessarily cruel about it.
Yeah, I’m a big boy. Yeah, I can be a right A-hole sometimes. Maybe it’s these effin’ graveyard shifts makin’ me bi-polar or whatnot. Anywhoways, I’ve shown you nothing but deferment & respect.
So I’m not the enemy. Not a target.
That’s my nickel’s worth.
Along with virtually unlimited land and resources for the first 150 years or so. Then after WWII every factory on Earth was destroyed excepted the thousands of factories in the US. Thus for the next couple of decades we were the main suppliers of goods, services, and culture for an entire world. Now here we are at the dawn of the 21st century. Though still culturally and militarily the dominate force, educationally and economically we are withering away – fast.
And that is exactly why this neo-creationism bullshit has got to be stopped.
Do you know when our public schools first began to teach evolutionary biology? Right after Sputnik. Our nation had great industrial prowess, but because of our endless internal religious squabbling we were suffering a severe intellectual deficit.
The very same thing is happening now. We are raising a nation of credulous suckers who are more interested in easy, ready-made, static explanations then they are of actually discovering anything. Science is under attack from every possible front, and intellectualism is now considered the ultimate sin. It’s hip to sling mud at the smart guy. It’s the post-modern fad of antiscience. If we keep this shit up, America’s greatest will be nothing but a memory.
Darrow, Spanders
My poor pea-brain is breaking a sweat trying to keep up with the verbiage you guys are slinging at each other.
I’ve lost track about what you each were miffed about.
Can we call a truce, you guys shake hands, and we start over?
No, but I saw the episode where Homer (or someone) went to a faith healer where he was cured of the hiccups. I’ve since tried that myself and, amazingly, it actually works. Find someone suffering from hiccups, sneak up behind them, slap them on the head and shout, “Come out thou foul spirit of hiccups.” It works. Incredible, huh?
Pardon me, Spanders.
R4D agreed that he/she/it was blowing smoke up our collective skirts where the “shoot down” argument was pulled directly from the distal GI tract of the person presenting the argument.
Calling BS on an argument that is clearly wrong on the facts is a part of the dialogue.
I REITERATE: I cannot know what you think (or, believe, hold dear, hate, despise or find mildly pleasing) unless you tell me.
You may feel free to take offense at the argument – but your attack on the examples posed in the methodology (especially a methodology that includes “daytime TV watchers”) really picks the nits, my friend.
Assign no authority to my beliefs – read what I write and take that at face value. If you don’t like an example, but find the argument worthy and pedantic: then address the argument and place the criticism of the modality in an aside.
It appears that you want to argue around the issue. I see no point in that type of argument. I trust that my impression is incorrect.
Just plain freedom.
Seeker, check out “Guns, Germs and Steel” a book about why certain cultures rise to power and others may not. I understand you’re playing devil’s advocate (did you ever see the simpsons where homer says that and then goes and play the pinball game Devil’s Advocate?… fantastic), but to suggest the that US has a rich christian heritage is to have misconceptions about history and what it is to be christian. Another book to consider is Wealth and Democracy. A fascinating book on the history of how the US made money. Check it out if you get a chance.
Darrow, I don’t understand what you mean by me wanting to argue around an issue. I’m not a inerrantist. I don’t interpret the Bible as being literally accurate, but am a theist. I agree I am picking nits over RA, but I am fairly protective of him as I would be of karen, r4d and others, so mea culpa.
However, what I do get sick of is people bandying about with hyperbolic rhetoric that creates a scenario that people would agree with terrorists, nazis etc. It’s bad rhetoric, so stop it. It makes your argument sound foolish. You can reiterate all you like, but if you don’t listen to me especially when I tell you on point what I believe it makes me think you’re just interested in winning an arguement and not being involved in a discussion. I was trying giving insight on how I think your methodology could be better to open a dialog. What does that mean when you say daytime television watchers? Methodology is part of rhetoric. When you compare people’s ideas to thinking that terrorists are good, you deserve criticism on your methodology. Yes, I too watched the twin towers burn and think you play with fire when you invoke such ideas in your methodology. After going to town wide funeral services I’m not going to let you go on with that type of methodology. It might be nits to you, but not to me. And I’m not your friend, so don’t refer to me as such. It’s condescending.
How does it appear that I want to argue around an issue? I critique your methodology and you come up with a statement about how inerantists have a flawed view of the Bible?. How does that make me the one arguing around an issue?
Now, what issue do you want to discuss? I was simply addressing your methodology, but if you want to discuss why an inerrant view of the bible is essentially wrong, I’m right there with you. Pick your topic and I will do my best to engage.
And after I got finished rolling on the goddamn floor, my thought was this:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
then:
ahahahahahahAHAhahahahAHahaHAhAHaH!!!!!!
AHAHAHaHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pardon me while I play devil’s advocate,sidering pre-Scopes Trial America was devoid of evolution in government schools, I offer this syllogism for debate…
America has a rich Christian heritage.
America is the most technologically advanced and economically prosperous nation in history.
America’s techonological and economic success can be attributed to its Christian heritage.
Your thoughts?
Seeker
My thoughts are : “That’s pretty damn daft!”
The development of technology and business acumen/economic success had nothing to do with Christian heritage.
It came from a strong work ethic, a great desire to achieve and rise above the situation left behind in jolly old England (or greed, maybe?), the fact that this country became a melting pot of cultures and ideas, the benefits of a democratic government, and what else…oh, lots of things, but not Christian heritage.
your turn.
*reads* And this is why it took me so long to get a username here. Seriously, you guys (apart from phreedm, Tim, and jcc, perhaps. Especially phreedm, no offence intended) are WAY too smart for me. Especially Ebony Seeker. Either that, or you devote a hellava lot more time to this than I do (likely, I’ll admit, but I still hold be the above).
As for phreedm’s idiotic Nothing+Time=Everything bit…
Evolution holds that:
Something that may have just always been there + forces that happen to exist for reasons we really don’t know= Something else more like what we’ve got now.
Something else more like what we’ve got now + A few billion years= What we’ve got now.
Whereas Creationism holds that:
Nothing + Nothing=Creator
(or one that was always there, but that begs the question: Why’d He/She/FSM wait so long?)
Creator + Magic=Everything
And now Ebony Seeker gives something else I think MIGHT be within my intellect-I don’t personally beleive the WHOLE Bible is PURE BS, most of it’s just exaggerated, some parts may indeed have a basis in fact. Considering how many times it’s probably been changed (Nicea, anyone?), we don’t really know what the original said. Who’s to say it wasn’t, originally, actual history, that had a bunch of magic added in to make it into a cult that could be abused for power? The Popes did whatever they felt like for over 1000 years, political power was involved somehow. Then again, what do I really know?
Seekerfax,
You seem to lend every benefit of the doubt to these creationist ministries and intelligent designers, but I have yet to see any evidence that you’ve sufficiently explored the ‘other side of the fence.’ Why are you so convinced that these guys are on to something when you obviously haven’t considered any counter evidence? Simply baffling.
As for the Bible,
I still tend to look at a lot of it as embellished non-fiction. For instance, somehow marching up to the city of Jericho only to find that its walls have long since fallen into disrepair due to an earthquake years before is not going to sound very heroic in one’s chronicles. Better to employ some fancy literary magic to spice things up a bit and cement one’s authority. You appear to be an aspiring writer yourself, so I’m sure you can appreciate this all to human tendency to stretch the truth.
woah, noodle and I just had a psychic mind meld or something.
Sorry. Just being honest.
As compared to the Book of Mormon which is absolute fiction, but an interesting (though tedious) read.
The notoriously left-leaning Biblical Archaelogical Review published an article a few years ago in which the findings of noted archaelogist, sorry can’t remember her name, was seriously challenged. The walls, it turns out, did fall outward as described by Joshua. While marching around seven times had little to do with the city’s demise, it is plausible to imagine that, as Noah’s flood was an “embellished” account of a likely natural disaster, the story of Jericho’s famous walls may have been rooted in a real event, possible the abrupt collapse of poorly constructed walls befitting America’s Funniest Home Videos.
Well if that’s all there is to it, then I commend you for your honesty. But I’m going to have to challenge you to take at least a tentative step into evolution science land. Take a look at those scientists I mentioned (those are just a few), give their perspective fair a chance, and then we can get into some real debate.
I still think Dawkins is the best place to start, even if he is an atheist. He’s a fantastic writer, and he tends to give even the most mundane of scientific concepts a poetic slant. His last book was written completely in the style of the Canterbury Tales. The guy’s a trip. He’s also the dude who coined the term ‘meme.’ Few people seem to know that.
Seeker:
” noted archaelogist, sorry can’t remember her name, was seriously challenged.”
Katherine Kenyon. Decades prior, Gasparang (Gasprang?) noted that 1 of the 5 walls had fallen outwards, Kenyon noted the other 4 had fallen inward, also, Kenyon stipulated that there had been no inhabitants at the timeline provided for (Jeremiah?), due to a conglomeration of pottery.
Sorry. Most of that from memory.
Yep. Excellent memory.