Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

ttf, What man interprets as miracles is nothing more than our inability to explain what may be 'natural.' Our inability to explain some things doesn't translate into a miracle - it's just not explained. Your analogy of healing by god showing up in a vision can never be proved, so it's a moot point.

for once, I am withhout speech on this issue. I have notthing to add and Im only sitting here semi amazed.

appy New Year yall

Hi TF,

CI answered this pretty much the way I would have.

Remember that from a scientific point of view, the supernatural doesn't exist, so nothing will ever be considered a miracle. It will only be considered an event we can't yet explain. And it will remain open and studied until such time as a natural explanation can be applied to it.

Whether or not any given person considers something a miracle depends completely on what foundation of belief the person chooses to start from.

From my point of view, Miracles don't exist, they never have and they never will.

CI:

The quote my Stillwater seems very enlightened - and seems in contrast to what you are implying. What you seem to be implying - is that if the hairless monkey can't figure it out - it is moot.



Ros:

This seems similar to CI's quote. If the hairless monkey can't attribute it's cause to what we can observe - we will kick it around until we can - or we will say it doesn't matter.



So if we as humans, who science admits are just a more 'highly' adapted primate can't figure it out - it doesn't exist - however we will be so hubris filled to make a universal claim that they do not exist.

This line of reasoning seems just as unreasonable as what you said Bib was when he couldn't see the obviousness of evolution.

It seems science has created a creed - that our method - fully defined only 300 - 500 years ago - is the only way to real truth and that if that method does not net an explanation - it simply does not exist. Then created a 'religion' around this creed - ignoring what it cannot explain and paying homage to what it can.

TF

There may be a few scientists that treat science as a creed. I feel there are many more scientists that are not dogmatic. For an interesting book on this subject, you may want to read Rocks of Ages by the late Stephen Jay Gould. He treats science and religion with equal respect. He even uses the gospel story of Thomas the Apostle doubting Jesus's resurrection until he has physical evidence. The doubting Thomas story symbolizes the conflict between faith and empiricism.

What these people are trying to say, Jason, is that some stuff is simply not yet known. There is the possibility that there is more stuff that is not yet known...then stuff that already is.

Simply call that stuff "the unknown."

Be as agnostic about science as about religion if necessary...although science at least attempts to question and find answers.

Religion does its level best to discourage questions.

BINGO

Religion lives on myths and mysteries. Science lives on trying to find and seek the truth.

I state that as my opinion. I cannot prove, or disprove a miracle, so I don't claim that my opinion is a fact. That's not hubris, it's reason.



The difference is that Bib is trying to re-interpret science, and no single individual is qualifiied to overturn the scientific consensus with regard to what the scientific community has agreed upon.

Bib is basically objecting to the foundation of science; naturalism, as are most of the people who challenge evolution. And the validity of naturalism, as a philosophy, is a very different discussion from the one implied by his thread.



I don't believe that science claims to know "real truth", but it does claim to know truth within a naturalistic worldview. Whether or not you consider this to be the "real truth" depends on your philosophical foundation.

I am one who accepts the scientific community's consensus on evolution but I can't see why it needs to be linked with naturalism. I am in favor of dogma-free science. I am worried that naturalism is also a dogma. I feel scientists can perform their research without relying on naturalism as a philosophy.

(My biggest fear is that if evolution is embedded within a philosophy, creationists are justified in requesting equal time in our public schools.)

Good point, wand, but it's already happening.

Naturalism is a fundamental requirement of science. A scientist is not required to believe in naturalism personally in order to do science, but science itself, and all scientific theories are limited to naturalistic assumptions. So a scientist can not describe a theory in which any part of it says "and then some magic happened", there must always be some natural mechanism referenced or predicted by the theory.



How could they do this?

By using naturalism as a methodology only (not as a philosophy).

Rosborne, I am sorry to quibble like this, but you even talked about a naturalisitc worldview. That worries me.

(In my opinion, the strongest argument for giving creationism equal time is that evolution also represents a worldview.)

whenever a series of reasonably advanced disciplines or technologies become"isms" , it worries the hell out of me.
The governing principles of the research in evolution occurs more at the hard science levels wherein theories and laws are not quibbled with as being "Isms". Some areas that there seems to be controversies brewing are;

1 The earth is very old and is tied within the overall formative mechanisms that have founded the galaxies, and so on. (This gets close to an ism but its enough bound in theory that is always undergoing modifications that noone seems to mind). Even te Intel Designers give in and agree

2 Physical processes that happen in the world today, have pretty much happened the same way in the past. (so far ok?)How do we know? we see evidence tat water, wind, fire, oxygen, methane, and gravity have sown us fingerprints of past times that look very similar to present times Theres no evidence to support interventions by any "one time" physical process that conveniently allowed our planet to become a cradle of life ( eg water vapor canopies, variable time systems, variations in gravity, wordldwide floods, worldwide evidence that at one time,all animals were vegetarians, or, that unique molecular level processes evidence a grand design plan )\

3 gravity , time, and the storage and release of energy account for everything thats here. we have the task of unravelling the story by collecting and analyzing evidence, we conduct testing, and we compile historic data.we aLSO JUMP ON AND OFF OF PET HYPOTHESES LIKE A SUBWAY.
As we make discoveries in associated fields we find that, more and more, these discoveries reinforce all of the other scientific discoveries in a sinister web of indesputable evidence. (PArt of an ISM is that theres an underlying foundation myth and an agenda) In most of the sciences that relate to evolution, I would say that the biggest foundation governing principle has been the intervention of "dumb luck" and just good ol curiosity.
As Frank Apisa said , religions discourage too much questioning, the obverse is that science demands it.

When the sciences are given more credit as a catalyst to create a 'world view" and becoming an Ism, or I am accused of being an "EVOLUTIONIST" then I must shake my head in disbelief
. Most scientists cant even agree on where to hold next years symposium without adopting steering committees and host committees. we sound like cats making love, nobody lets anybody get away with anything that hasnt been well vetted. To vauntingly endow all these guys with the title of an ISM is more "honor" than they can handle , or deserve. Also, by their silence one should not assume an acquiescence to these applied terms, instead, most scientists are just too busy in their crafts and most are lousy speakers
Theres too much non relevant titles given to evolutionary principles and inquiry, most of it is cast in a derisive manner by people who will not invest the time to learn about the whole story or else they are having their thoughts pre conceived by some self appointed spokesmen who know that the ttheoretical and basic sciences are always in purposeful disarray.

I will agree that religion does this in practice - but I feel it is a bad practice of religion. I think Catholocism did a lot to beat free inquiry out of people. However, there has been a lot of work done since Luther posted his theses. The churches I frequent encourage the free inquiry of a lot of things - sure they fight what they are used to - but it is a lot better than 'the pope said so'.

However, religion takes as its basis that its causes are not repeatable and not independantly verifiable (not in the scientific sense). Science rejects these causes out of hand. Science looks for the truth it can see and it can measure with a spectrum relative to human senses (and the tools the human can invent).

Science doesn't discourage inquiry into these realms - it says that it is invalid inquiry and moot (because this inquiry falls out of the scientific spectrum of inquiry). However, science makes a mistake when it says that it's method of inquiry is the only valid method of inquiry.

For instance Evolution makes a mistake when it says that the evolutionary process has no purpose. It has been known since the time of Galileo that science cannot observe purpose. It, by its very nature rejects Aristotles final cause - however, it states that because the evolutionary process appears (to us) to be random - that is must have no purpose. This is a statement that is not within the facts or the observable data.

Good science, however, states that it appears to have no purpose and explains why purpose is impossible to measure (unless you are speaking of artifacts - which evolution is not.

I understand your frustration with Religion being not inquiry based and its leaders making statements that they cannot (Like Genesis proves that evolution is wrong) but I am becoming frustrated with Science not being open minded enough to realize that it is limited because humans are limited and making statements that they cannot (like Hiesenburgs Uncertainly Principle proves that God is not omnipotent).

I think our frustrations, however, is with poorly practiced science and religion.

TF

Since the 1960s Catholicism has been on the forefront of incorporating science into the church's teachings. Ever since Jon 23 the concept of "special evolution" had been dropped to incorporate thee mass of compeeling scientific findings.
my take on whether evolution "has a purpose" is not based on a percieved direction but I see it as a mere mode of keeping life going on the planett under rapidly changing environmental conditions

Life exists, and , as environmental condittions have changed on this dynamic planet, organisms evolved or died. Those speecies that died outnumber those species that survived by almost 10000 to 1. So, from a totaally dispassionate and critical look, even those that survived , appear to be winners in a cosmic lottery.

The fact that humanity came close to total extinction about 75000 years ago, gives one pause to remember that we are possibly just a consequence of this planets many "moods'.

Farmerman -

Very good point of Vatican II.

TF

Quote, "Religion does its level best to discourage questions." Look how the conservatives are trying to discourage stem cell research, because of their religious' beliefs rather than the potential for learning about life and cures for disease.

So do I...but I also think it is a pervasive practice os religion.




So tell me, Jason, when people in the churches you frequent question whether or not there is a God...and whether or not even if there is a God, whether or not we know anything about that God...

...what do the ministers or elders say in response.





Actually, religion simply asks people to blindly accept that there is a God...that we know what that God is like...that we know what pleases that God and what offends that God.

It asks that people blindly accept all that.






Well...I cannot speak for all of science...but what I ask is...Why blindly accept something like religions ask people to blindly accept?





I think science not only understands its limits...it regularly acknowledges those limits.

Why do you think otherwise?

"It's not that I'm so smart," Einstein once said,
"It's just that I stay with problems longer."
Even Einstein Had His Off Days

January 2, 2005
By SIMON SINGH

London

WE have now entered what is being celebrated as the
Einstein Year, marking the centenary of the physicist's
annus mirabilis in 1905, when he published three landmark
papers - those that proved the existence of the atom,
showed the validity of quantum physics and, of course,
introduced the world to his theory of special relativity.
Not bad for a beginner.

"It's not that I'm so smart," Einstein once said, "It's
just that I stay with problems longer." Whatever the reason
for his greatness, there is no doubt that this
determination allowed him to invent courageous new physics
and explore realms that nobody else had dared to
investigate.

What he was not, however, was a perfect genius. In fact,
when it came to the biggest scientific issue of all - the
origin of the universe - he was utterly wrong. And while we
should certainly laud his achievements over the next 12
months, we may learn a more valuable lesson by
investigating Einstein's greatest failure.

The story starts in the late 19th century, when the
scientific establishment believed in an eternal and
unchanging universe. This was a neat theory of cosmology,
because a universe that had always existed did not raise
any awkward questions, such as "When was the universe
created?" and "What (or Who) created it?"

Einstein grew up in this era, and was similarly convinced
that the universe had existed for an eternity. However,
when he developed general relativity (his theory of
gravity) in 1915, he became aware of a tricky problem.
Gravity is an attractive force - it attracts coins to the
ground and it attracts comets toward the sun. So why hadn't
gravity caused the matter in the universe to collapse
inward on itself?

Gravity seemed to be incompatible with an eternal,
unchanging universe, and Einstein certainly had no sympathy
for the alternative view of a collapsing universe, stating
that: "To admit such a possibility seems senseless."

Isaac Newton had run into the same problem with his own
theory of gravity some 250 years earlier. He too believed
in an eternal universe, yet he knew that gravity would have
to cause its collapse after a finite time. His solution was
to propose that God was responsible for keeping apart all
the celestial objects, adjusting their positions from time
to time as part of his cosmic curatorial responsibilities.

Einstein was reluctant to invoke God, so his solution was
to fiddle with his theory of general relativity, adding an
antigravity force alongside familiar gravity. This
repulsive force would counteract gravity over cosmic
distances, thereby maintaining the overall stability of the
universe. There was no evidence for this antigravity force,
but Einstein assumed that it had to exist in order to
provide a platform for eternity.

Although everything now seemed to make sense, there were
some dissenters. A small band of renegade cosmologists
suggested in the 1920's that the universe was not eternal
but had been created at a finite moment in the past. They
claimed it had exploded and expanded from a small, hot,
dense state into what we see today. In particular, they
argued that it had once been compacted into a primeval
super atom, which had then ruptured and exploded. This
model, which has since developed into the Big Bang theory,
did not require any stabilizing antigravity because it
proposed a dynamic, evolving universe.

The Big Bang model was initially ridiculed by the
scientific establishment. For example, one of its pioneers,
Georges Lemaître, was both a cosmologist and an ordained
priest, so critics cited his theology as his motivation for
advancing such a crackpot theory of creation. They
suspected that the model was Lemaître's way of sneaking a
Creator into science. While Einstein was not biased against
Lemaître's religious background, he did call the priest's
physics "abominable." It was enough to banish the Big Bang
model to the hinterlands of cosmology.

However, in 1929 Einstein was forced to eat humble pie.
Edwin Hubble, working at Mount Wilson Observatory in
Southern California, showed that all the distant galaxies
in the universe were racing away from one another as though
they were debris from a cosmic explosion. The Big Bang
model seemed to be correct. And, while it would take
several decades before the theory was accepted by the
scientific establishment, Einstein, to his credit, did not
fight on. "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory
explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he
said, and even called his repulsive force the biggest
blunder of his career.

In 1931, Einstein paid a visit to Hubble at Mount Wilson,
where he renounced his own static cosmology and endorsed
the expanding universe model. His support was enough for
The New York Times to embrace the mavericks, running an
article with the headline "Lemaître Suggests One, Single,
Great Atom, Embracing All Energy, Started The Universe."
Hubble's hometown newspaper in Missouri, The Springfield
Daily News, preferred to focus on its local hero: "Youth
Who Left Ozark Mountains to Study Stars Causes Einstein to
Change His Mind."

It might seem that Einstein emerges from this story as a
flawed genius, one who was not perfect. In fact, there is a
twist to the tale, one that implies he was perhaps better
than perfect.

If gravity pulls everything together, then the expansion of
the Big Bang should be slowing, because all the receding
galaxies would be attracted to one another. In 1998,
however, when astronomers tried to measure this
deceleration, they were astonished to find that the
universe is in fact accelerating. The galaxies are
apparently moving apart faster and faster as time passes.

What is the best explanation scientists can come up with?
The existence of an antigravity force. Theorists call this
repulsive effect "dark energy," but it is exactly the sort
of force that Einstein posited to maintain the stability of
the universe. Antigravity is now back in fashion some seven
decades after he abandoned it. It seems that even when
Einstein thought he was wrong, he turned out to be right.

And, as we celebrate the Einstein Year, let's also bear in
mind the fact that he was prepared to admit that he was
wrong. Perhaps humility, more than anything, is the mark of
true genius.

Simon Singh is the author of "Fermat's Enigma" and the
forthcoming "Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02singh.html?ex=1105676520&ei=1&en=0b7aacf6240caaf3

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company