Evolution: What Real Scientists Have to Say

Paaskynen, it will help you to understand what is going on here to relate, briefly, some of the historical myths popular in the United States.

There is a myth that this nation has a foundation by religiously devout men. Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. did very valuable work in the 1920's and -30's exploding the myth of devout colonial citizens of America, when he stepped outside the myth and looked at the "unpropertied" population of towns and cities (i.e., those who could not vote in those days), at the convict population (prior to the revolution, convicts were sent to America in the same manner as they were subsequently sent to Australia after the revolution), and the frontier population who had no legal title to their land.

Nevertheless, a myth persists here that the majority of the population of the colonies were religiously devout, and that they had come here seeking religious freedom. Those who came here for religious reasons, apart from the Catholics in Maryland, came here to impose a theocratic rule in their particular areas, as opposed to establishing religious freedom. Schlesinger demonstrated that anywhere from half to well over half the population was "unchurched." The myth is exactly that, a myth. Since the late 1800's, however, a new religious fervor has taken hold in the United States, and, unlike previous occurances, this has been prolonged because political demagoguery took note of the potential for manipulation, and have kept the religious pot on the boil ever since.

I love this thread
I love this thread and the smart people contributing their knowledge so that the rest of us can learn and benefit from it.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{HUGS AND KISSES}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

BBB

Hi Paaskynen,

Setanta has given some historic/political motivations behind the creation/evolution debacle now occuring in the United States, but I think I can offer some additional (and perhaps fairly obvious) emotional motivations behind the debate as well.

Many fundamentalist christians are not able to reconcile their belief system with the process of evolution. They believe in the bible as an absolute and literal sequence of events which are in conflict with the evidence for evolution. For these people, Evolution becomes a focal point of attack because they are incapable of accepting any possible sequence of events outside of those described in the bible (whichever version of which they happen to read).

This attack on evolution also tends to spill over into an attack on science itself because at the heart of science is the philosophy of naturalism, which is also in direct conflict with their belief system.

As most of us know, there are many ways to reconcile the differences here and to find a way to accept the fact of evolution along with the possibility of a divine spirit to the universe, but only for the flixible mind. For those who are frozen in the dogma of religious antiquity, the very success of science, and the persuit of knowledge through a naturalistic methodology is a repeated insult to their world view. And they fight it with every bit of emotional fury and irrationality they can muster.

Tough spot. It's like being offended by water.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


good one, Limbo



okbye

This may be of interest to all of you
I thought you all might be interested in the Wonder bug that converts waste into power:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=799529#799529

Many fundamentalist Christians can not accept evolution and the process of Natural Selection because it requires a dynamic but directionless universe which is indifferent to the existence of the individual. Remember evolution works on the level of populations although its effects are felt by the individual... you either survive and successfully reproduce or you do not and fail. These fundamentalist need a more intimate universe that is aware and cares about them (in part because the society we have created does not). In one sense these fundamentalists are correct. Humans are different, we do need to be known about and cared for but it is not the universe but our own social milieu that must accomplish that. It is MHO that the degree of fundamentalism present in a society is directly related to the degree of disfunction in the culture.

Acq, i consider your alienation thesis to be very much to the point. I would add to it that those who thirst for power over others could not ask for a better opportunity than the "priesthood." I think another major factor in religious revivalism--which has appeared from time to time in our history, but has only been a sustained phenomenon since the 1930's--is the lure of manipulating and controlling the population. If you "get them while they're young," it is possible to have a continuum of the superstitious, frightened and suspicious population which is so ammenable to religious indoctrination.

Note well how religious demagogues flog the theme of persecution, and religious purity in the midst of accelerating depravity. They wish to foster this sense of alienation, to assure their grip on the hearts and minds of the "true believer."

The sincere priests and ministers certainly exist. But as is the case with lawyers and politicians, it only requires a handful of venal practitioners to do great harm.

That's an interesting conjecture. Can you describe the particular disfunction in this culture in more detail? Or are you are you just saying that there is a general disfunction associated with an un-caring, less personal world?



I tend to agree with the statement above...



But I'm not sure I agree with this corollary. Hasn't fundamentalism been around for a long time now in many cultures? Is the source of the disfunction really the culture, or is it an inherent problem with how the human mind sees the world: a collective individual disfunctional potential brought on by our consciousness?

This is closer to my point. Humans are social animals and societies that marginalize or allow a segment of its population feel it is being marginalized, economically, socially, or both, creates a disfunction. For them society is not working as they perceive it should, there world view no longer functions adequately, they may feel disenfranchised and this cause them to look elsewhere for personal and collective validation. Rapid cultural change is most often but not exclusively the cause and the process is the same both in the US and the middle east, both of which are experiencing both intense change and varying degrees of an intense fundamentalist reaction.

Certain political movements feed and feed upon this condition. The ability of Republicans to convince the fundamentalist population in this country that it is not their economic well being but that their "values" are under attack and thus the cause of their discontent, is a case in point.

You make some very good points Acq.



Yes, I can see this... each party attaches itself to emotional issues which carry with them blocks of voters. It benefits the party by helping to win the election.

But why are the Saudi's funding all these religious schools which teach kids to hate the US? That doesn't seem to have any benefit to them. This is a bit off track... maybe I need to start another thread on this.

even though Im on vacation, i like the "offended by water" clip, very good line.Its amazing that Im just not getting frustrated by the medved like stuff being forwarded.
However, patiodog, if you look for Lynne Margulis "acquiring Genomes" as a theory of eukaryote and prokaryote consortia and the ability to acquire genic sequences via parasitism and other means of gene transfer. The resultant mixed gene consortia, (chimera) can have some weird gene sequences, like chitin in certain species of lichens (umbilicaria and some others)Course Lynne is not a "main-line" scientist. Shes one of them Giaia guys.
parasite rex, Im gonna get it p-dog. Sounds like some good readin while fishing.

Gabor sounds like a script page from"Inheret the Wind"
Paaskynen-In my working world, I often get called to testify in front of State Education Boards regarding teaching of Creation along swide of evolution. We have these annoying Constitutions that state that anything "not covered in the US Constitution is reserved for the various States" (I paraphrased liberally). Many states have attempted , based upon pressures from well funded evangelical religious groups, to strip the guts out of our biological and physics and earth science curricula by stating that
1The Earth isnt very old

2The laws of Thermodynamics are up for debate

3Physical Constants are actually widely variable through time

3Everything has been pre-designed by some force (guess who?)

4Nothing underwent evolution

5Natural selection is merely a "theory" (even though most sciences operate quite comfortably on the facts of theory)

These presentations and debates pit scientists and their lawyers (mostly acting pro-bono) versus an army of well funded, shiny suited, wavy haired , Bible Hucksters who are highly paid "talking heads" whove been coached by their own "science advisors'.
So far weve(the science guys) prevailed in most of the hearings , but there are many states that still have got to undergo the curriculum challenges and, some of the creationist backups are finding ways to skirt around state decisions so that Creation"science" can be taught at the local level without conflict. the list of workers on behalf of science is growing and the high school teachers themselves are getting involved lately. This is great because it takes the debate out of the academic wars of PHDs , and puts it at the level wherein the teachers are actually the most believed because they bring lots of conviction and passion to the table besides their own great understanding of the sciences undergoing debate.

The entire subject in the US began heating up in a third wave of the 20th century around the mid 80s and early 90s,mostly after Duane Gish opened the Institute for Creqation "Science", Michael Behe summarized Intelligent DEsign, and johnson Published his Darwin on Trial crap. Anybody can write a book, and anyone can get it published without peer review. But doing so, publishers commit the sin of "revisionism for Profit" , for example, think about all the books that try to redefine and reinvent Hitler as a benevolent leader genius, who was oppressed by Post WWI geopolitics.
There will always be the medveds and gabors and other Creation ISTS that have personal agendas to dump on people. Agendas that would require kids to believe in Great Spirits and Galactic Tinkerers, and while doing so, require them to negate the basic facts of math and science.

Saudi Arabia is run by a small, insular, and very wealthy elite. These schools take the animus that would be directed at them and direct it at the US. But lately that strategy has begun to backfire.

Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill created the map of the modern middle east in 1922. I cannot prove, but am strongly convinced that the changes Churchill made in Balfour's original proposal resulted from his desire to corner the petroleum production of the middle east. Before the First World War, Churchill had been First Lord of the Admiralty, and had promoted and supervised the change to oil-fired power plants for battleships and cruisers, which gave them better speed, range and lower maintenance costs and down-time.

Therefore, securing reliable petroleum sources would have remained a priority with Churchill, even though he were no longer First Lord. This resulted in the creation of Mesopotamia--the ethnic and religious abortion known today as Iraq; and it resulted in creating a nation in the Arabian penninsula, where previously the tribes had successfully defied external authority, literally for millenia. The Ibn Saud clan read the writing on the wall, and quickly cozied up to the Brits. Authority for anyone claiming to rule the Arabian penninsula depends upon being able to assure the security of pilgrims to Mecca and Medina--any adult muslim male who is not physically incapacitated must make the pilgrimage at least once in his lifetime. To establish their religious credentials, the Ibn Saud clan allied themselves to the Wahhabis, a fundamentalist Sunni sect. One of the reasons claims about Iraq and Al Qaeda being in bed together are so silly is that Bin Laden, as a Wahhabi adherent, was morally and religiously opposed to Hussein's secular regime, which in its turn persecuted Wahhabis.

As the Ibn Sauds, many of whom are sincerely fundatmentalist on the Wahhabi model themselves, need to assure their credentials as defenders of the Holy places of Islam, and deter claims of defilement, they continue to support a radical agenda in Islamic matters, including support for the madrassas which are usually depicted as teaching hatred for the United States. In truth, however, we are being a little egocentric there. The madrassas, as organized by radical fundamentalist, simply hate the non-Islamic world in general, and the affluent west in particular. We make our own troubles in the regard that we are seen as the leader of the "Crusaders" of the western world who want to destroy Islam.

I see. So the Saudi Elite fund the Madrassas as a way to deflect animosity away from themselves, and the Madrassas simply promote hatred of anything non-Islamic in an attempt to defend their view of things. And the US simply represents the worst of the worst in the eyes of the Madrassas.

Which brings us back to Acq's point that groups (of various types) use the opiate of the masses to support and maintain their own existence. It seems like a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy: Religion gives rise to a power structure which then uses (and manipulates) the religion to maintain itself.

Indeed, Rosborne, there is a creditable theory of the development of "socio-cultural" institutions that runs to the effect that temple societies created "Kings" in order to overcome the weakness of the priesthood in dealing with military threats, and that the Kings then took power from the temples. In the struggle back and forth between King and Priest, some were smart enough to realize what a good thing they had going if they worked together to ligitimize one another's power. It is thought very likely, for example, that when the Medes (think, almost Persians) took Babylon and destoyed the Chaldean empire, they were let into the city by the priests of Bel-Marduk, who had been offended for generations at not being recognized as the supreme religious belief. There are many more examples, and a great many before the rise of the Persian empire, but i'll keep this short.

This is risky, because even though the western world needs their oil, people living in deserts need food, and we export a lot of it. A poor long term strategy.

These two cultures are better off working together.



It seems they made the mistake of creating a hatred without a well defined target. That's like a mad dog without a muzzle. I wonder if they will be able to correct the problem?

It's very hard to un-teach two generations of people, and from Setanta's post, it would seem unlikely that the Madrassas will be interested in altering their teachings anyway, so there's no way to reach into the next generation.

There are those in Islam who believe in a portion of the text of the Quran which states that there are two "houses" in the world, the House of God, and the House of War--i.e., Islam, and everybody else. There is no cultural tradition or incentive to establish public education facilities in the Muslim world--any push in that direction will of necessity be secular. Therefore, madrassas represent a unique institution, one which, like the formal schools in Europe in the middle ages, are intended to teach reading and writing in order to further the goals of the religious institution. The madrassas of the Muslim world have been established by conservative Sunni Muslims, and their purpose has always been to promote "pure" Islam, which is to say, to promote the House of God v. the House of War view of international relations. It is not axiomatic that a madrassa teach this doctrine, but it is a statement of fact about the great majority of them.

It'll be interesting to see how the christian fundamentalists of the US fare against our cultural forces while the muslim world faces it's own cultural pressures.

I wonder if fundamentalism is to rigid a mindset to survive.

Since conflict will never end until you either have agreement, or agree to tolerate each other, I wonder if any inflexible mindset is capable of long term survival.

To me, the answer is yes and no. Consider if you will that christianity has a six century "head start" over islam. Six centuries ago, the Church (as there was only one in the eyes of its adherents, who resolutely ignored Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox christians) was only a little more than a century past the officially authorized "crusade" against the Albigensians, declared heretical by the Pope. The Church itself was sunk in the hysteria and intenecine warfare of the Great Schism, with a Pope in Rome, and one in Avignon. Both Popes practiced simony, the selling of indulgences--basically, for a set fee, you could get all of your sins forgiven, and get your ticket for heaven punched. This was to truly backfire a century later, when one of the most effective of German tax farmers began selling indulgences in Germany, and pissed off a scatologically obsessed cleric named Martin Luther. In Bohemia, Jan Hus was about to start his movement away from centralized church authority, which would be branded heretical; in a little more than 10 years, Hus was executed for heresy, and his followers, the Hussites, took the road in wagon trains, becoming itinerant "mechanics." His doctrine had appealed to skilled workers "of the middling sort," and consequently, a great many of the Hussites were gunsmiths. So, you have the spectacle of the Hussites literally circling the wagons to beat off attacks by the Austrian Catholic forces sent against them.

Another great heretical movement of the time were the Waldensians. It was ostensibly started by a cleric named Waldo--hence, in the Latin of the middle ages he was known as Valdes, or Waldensis, and his adherents as Waldensians. His theme was the rejection of worldly wealth (very similar to that of Francis of Assisi, who had pissed off the religious powers that were in his day), and was very attractive to the poor. The Waldensians were persecuted, but never hunted down as were the Albigensians or the Hussites--so they survived right up until the present day.

Keeping this short, Luthera and company were opposed by a fanatical Catholic, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was also King Carlos of Spain, and was descended on the distaff side from the Austrian Hapsburgs. I rather think that the German Electors who were liberally bribed to elect him thought they'd have an easily managed young prince to contend with. Instead they got an ultramontane Catholic who had many, many years to live and make their lives miserable. Eventually, even the resources of Charles V, commanding directly the Spanish empire, and therefore what was then the wealthiest nation in Europe, were exhausted. The Augsburg Confession was supposed to have settled who was Catholic and who was not, and where they would live.

In the northeast of the Hapsburg domains was a heavily wooded, almost mountainous region known as Moravia, or the Moravian highlands. Here, even before the Augsburg Confession, a handful of Albigensians, a fair number of Waldensians and most of the surviving Hussites had sought refuge during the Wars of the Reformation. Albigensians were subsumed by the Waldensians or the Hussites. Many, if not most, of the Waldensians remained true to their original creed; others became Calvinists, as did most of the Hussites. All of them were obliged to band together to opposed the attempts of the Catholic Habsburgs to forcibly convert or to exterminate them. The eventual result was to harden their religious as well as their political beliefs, and as a type of Calvinist congregationalist, these survivors from the age before the Protestant Reformation became known as Moravian christians. A great many of them took land on what was then the frontier in Pennsylvania, and many people casually identified today as Amish are in fact the descendants of the Moravians. Moravian missionaries moved freely, and usually unmolested among the Indians to the west of them, and were often the best guides for the exploration of the Ohio valley before the American revolution.

So, yes they survive, although usually much changed, which suggests that in another sense, no, they don't survive.