Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Gunslinger]

I agree with SEAGOON here.  YOu guys are refusing to look at something becuase it MIGHT have origins of relignion.  I read about a physicist who was a devout athiest studying quantom physics and the big bang and all that.  One day he started crunching the numbers of some of his data and the answers he was getting shook his atheism to it's core.  It was just not probably that the universe or life was created mathmatically....but it was.  

I don't know much about it and would like to know more if anyone has any information to post but none of you have addressed the "missing links" issue.  That there are several genetic links in the chain that are missing.  Again I don't know what those are but just like SEAGOON i'm willing to look.

XrightyX touched on it while I was writing....I....would still like to know more though.

[bustr]

Seagoon,

I to wish that the undefinable human condition called "Faith" would be removed from these discussions. To be honest from both sides, the Humanists tirades against it are fueled by exactly the same power of "Faith" as the "Faith" that powers your joy in God the Father.

Both parties beleive in their position by "Faith". Raw and pure scientific "Facts" have never gotten in the way of how a man who has made up his mind will beleive in something.

It takes faith in your knowledge and experience of how an airplane's wing generates lift to ride in one each time. It takes the same faith in your beleif that the universe is guided by an unseen hand.

Is it wrong to ask the question - I have noticed that the properties of flight that make it possible, the existance of air molecules that act in a predictable fasion and gravity that also acts in a predictable manner, and materials when placed together in a predictable combination result in flight almost every time within the atmosphere of this planet. What created all of this predictablility in such a manner that we seem to naturally detect the patterns of this issue and adapt ourselves to it so easily?

Anyones answer then becomes based on Faith in ones beleif in what one has decided to beleive.

[Nash]

teh funnay.

[Hangtime]

There'sa difference between an athiest and an agnostic.

Ones waiting for proof, the other has made up his mind. Most often agnostics are just lumped into the atheist catagory by theists.

I'm paitently awaiting more info.. and have been following the upheaval in the scientific community for some time. As with all scientific bodys attempting to sit in judgement back thru history..

..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Hangtime
There'sa difference between an athiest and an agnostic.

Yeap... the latter fears to commit.

[Dowding]

More than 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of skeptics...

400? My god! That's practically the entire scientific community.

When a theory is shown to be no longer the best understanding of a phenomenon, it is superceded. It's a slow process, and generally doesn't involve burning people at the stake or converting them by the sword or throwing them into bodies of water to see if they float.

Organised religion is laughable in it's approach to scientific discovery. Ironically, it evolves its 'interpretation' of  dogma to suit scientific theory. Apparently, the Earth being 6000 years old was a metaphor or some such tripe.

[SaburoS]

Seagoon,

What makes these atheists "militant"?

I thought militants were fanatics that used violence to try to get their way.

Usually the status quo of any group tends to view out of the box thinking by others with some resistance when that thinking goes against established, common ideals.

Kind of the human nature in us.

How about using "stubborn" instead of "militant" in your description? Seems a bit more accurate.

Originally posted by Seagoon
snip-
As even militant atheists like the late Stephen J. Gould have pointed out, -snip
 

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Sandman
Yeap... the latter fears to commit.

Has nuthin to do with fear on my part, Sandy. But the comment does imply some intersting pre-dispositions on your part.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sandman
Yeap... the latter fears to commit.

Actually an agnostic is a logical person one who realizes that logic cannot be used to prove the non existance of a diety.  The agnostic also knows that logic cannot be used for proving religious dogma; religion is based upon faith.  One must take an illogical step to believe in God, that  step is called a 'Leap of Faith'.

If one has based religious faith or athieistic beliefs on logic, one's logic is flawed.

[bustr]

Have I lost the understanding of something here? Scientific method only reveils the mechanics of how the physical universe works. It's been around some what less in the time span of human history than religion.

I understand in purely human terms there is great power over the masses and sometimes money to be made by fronting science as a what What is science when the body begins repeating the history of the catholic church against it's membership? Schisoms based on differences of beleif in the fundimental dogmas and creeds of origion????????????

Science has yet to prove or disprove the existance of God. Science has so far scratched a gnats arse of the universe concerning knowing anything. At this point it is faith that keeps scientists beleiving they will discover the secret of life and dispell the myth of God. It is the same Faith that the beleivers of God have that keeps them beleiving.

All I'm seeing here is the Church of God and the Church of the Quantum Mysteries competeing for beleivers.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by bustr
... At this point it is faith that keeps scientists beleiving they will discover the secret of life and dispell the myth of God.

Einstein's motivation was "to read the mind of God"

[Vulcan]

Deleted.

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Nash]

You make a good point, Holden. And I believe there's more than one quote of his floating around out there about his belief that there must be a God.

But Science class....

I remember saying about Math class (as I'm sure everyone did....) "This is a bunch of bull! Who cares about this stuff and AS IF there'll ever come a time when I'll need to know how to do it!"

The answer was invariably: "It's not important that you'll never need to know how to do this again, because Math isn't so much about the answers to the questions, but the ability to work through the questions. It's a process. It's about problem solving."

Which brings us back to Science class (which I hated too, btw...)

It never even occured to me that it was teaching some philosophy about how the world evolved. At least I never took it like that. It was about the scientific method, and proof. Using observable laws of nature to.... damn I dunno, cut frogs up. Or something.

In essence, I guess, it was about taking what we know to be true (like gravity and fossils etc.) and by looking backwards and forwards, making assumptions based on those things. Fair enough, aint it? Like Math, it's a method... or system... of working through unknowns. Assumptions are made, corrected, updated and.... using this scientific method, and based on an ever expanding knowledge base - continually evolving.

Intelligent Design aint nothing like that. It's a fully formed idea. It has nothing to do with problem solving. Through it, you wouldn't be teaching kids how to observe, research, and learn... you would simply be telling them: "This is how it is."

Ladies and gentlemen - that aint a school. That's a church.

It's ridiculous.

Like Einstein, there may very well be a time when the scientific community reaches a consensus that there must be a god.

But let them get there in the way that they know how. Simply saying "It is so" just doesn't cut it - and kids shouldn't be spoon fed in this way.

Oh, how satisfying it would be if in, say, 500 hundred years, Scientists finally stumbled upon the verifyable and undeniable proof of God's existence. Imagine it.

But by mandating Intelligent Design, it's as if you'd want to render mankind incapable of that.

[Hangtime]

define Intelligent Design, use examples we can see.

define Darwinism, use examples we can see.

compare. contrast

Use reason. Not emotion.

Not faith.

REASON.[/B]

[Holden McGroin]

The scientific method is a process, not a belief.

That faster Cheetas are chosen to survive thru natural selection is a scientific fact.  Slower ones go hungry and die.

That species change thru breeding is a scientific fact.  Look at your dog.

It seems an easy logical step with the above truths that natural selection can change species.

Many scientists look at the many overlapping 'Goldilocks zones' in which we exist, ie the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun for liquid water to exist, the value of Epsilon, or the relative amount of Hydrogen that converts to Helium via Big Band Fusion. (0.007)  If the number was higher or lower by just the smallest amount, the nuclear foprce would be all screwed up and the universe would not form into anything from which life could arise.

They look at this and say there must be a Grand Designer because they do not like the equally logically based anthropormorphic principle, which says if it were not the way it is, we would not be here to witness.

Oh and Nash, how could you hate math and science class and still be a geek?