E vs C

[Kieran]

And again, the only difference between the religious and non-religious scientists is there is the infinite first step before all other explanations. (Just as there is always "one more" beyond any number, there is always a "one before".) The religious scientist says God created everything, he/she doesn't say how. In that context any scientific explanation is valid, and there is no reason to ever stop learning about the beginning and what has occurred. In the same vein, evolution can exist side-by-side with religion from the standpoint it can be argued by the religious this is how God chose to populate the planet, and is part of a plan. The religious scientist doesn't need to give up faith to pursue answers.

[midnight Target]

Thank you all for a very well spoken discussion. Kieran you are a worthy opponent and I appreciate all of your input...even the "hypocrite" stuff;) .

The only thing better than this would be to do it in person with beer in hand.

[Kieran]

Yes, and I'll apologize for that as well. So many people jumped in with the "anti-religion all costs" type conversations, and I am guilty of lumping you in with them. In the last few posts I've come to realize this was not your position after all, and I owe you an apology for that mistaken assumption.

Sorry! and thanks for the discussion.

[Charon]

Frankly, I don't think we have the processing power between our ears to understand "Creation" from either a Biblical or scientific sense. Like trying to run Photoshop using Windows XP on an 8088 with 640K Ram.

Infinity –impossible to really imagine, in a hands-on kinda way, without a wall, plateau or border in there somewhere with either space or time. God created the universe? Well, who created god and what did he do in the infinite time before he created the universe and what will he do in the infinite time after the sun burns out in a few short billion years?

Evolution provides a plausible framework for the development of species after the initial creation of life, and the "primeval soup" provides a plausible explanation for the creation of life on an earth like planet in its earlier developmental stages. But still, going back to the big bang, what created the pre-big bang matter existence? How long was it there? What was there before that?

Maybe when we evolve to Homo Sapiens Super Superior, with those big Classic Star Trek foreheads with bulging, pulsing veins then we will be able to discuss such issues with any authority.

As for teaching in school -- religion in the social studies classes (all religions, not just the one I believe in... with the good and bad and alternatives too) and evolution in science class as an ongoing field of study.

Charon

[myelo]

Man, I hate it when I’m late to a party.

Originally posted by Kieran
And again, the only difference between the religious and non-religious scientists is there is the infinite first step before all other explanations. ...The religious scientist says God created everything, he/she doesn't say how.

I agree. But the problem is not with “religious scientists” and “non-religious scientists” as you defined them. The conflict is between evolution and creationism as put forth by conservative Christians. By “conservative” I mean that subset of Christians who believe in a literal or plain interpretation of Genesis. That is, God created human beings from the earth in their present form in a day. When most people talk about creationism (creation science), this is what they mean. This is simply at odds with the theory of evolution that indicates that human beings arose as a gradual process of genetic modification.

My problem is not with what anyone believes. My problem is with what is taught as science. Creationism is not a science, because it cannot be disproved. Evolution is a scientific theory because it can be disproved. Evolution is also a scientific fact because there is abundant scientific evidence that this is how organisms, including human beings, come into existence. The importance of various theories regarding the mechanism of evolution (natural selection, punctuated equilibrium) is debated scientifically, but that doesn’t mean that evolution didn’t happen.

Similarly, gravity is a scientific theory. It is also a scientific fact (although the NIK2 causes me some problems on this one). There have been different theories regarding the mechanism of gravity through the years (Einstein’s classical theory, quantum theory) but this doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t happen. We teach gravity in scientific courses, we should teach evolution.

Evolution is one of the most important components of the biologic sciences. It helps us understand topics as diverse as comparative anatomy and drug-resistant microorganism. Many of the challenges facing us in the near future will require people with a good education in biology. To understand that, you only have to scan a newspaper and notice headlines regarding bioterrorism, mad-cow disease, AIDS, and many others. What we teach our children in public schools is important.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Charon
Frankly, I don't think we have the processing power between our ears to understand "Creation" from either a Biblical or scientific sense...
Infinity–impossible to really imagine, in a hands-on kinda way, without a wall, plateau or border in there somewhere with either space or time...

...what created the pre-big bang matter existence? How long was it there? What was there before that?...
...Maybe when we evolve to Homo Sapiens Super Superior...

 Try reading popular rendering of the most recent hypothesis, like superstring, etc. You will find many answers and ample illustrarions for the power of human mind.

The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory  by Brian Greene is a good book to whet your interest.

 Superstring or any other particular framework is not necessarily the ultimate right way the Universe is structured but it is a reasonable and logical one and human mind conceived it and imagined it and manipulates it (with a help of math). Whether this universe is really organised that way is irrelevant in the context of human mind power - one may have been.
 
 There is no problem of human mind dealing with infinities, concepts of not only time but space as subjective human constructs, etc.

 For example, within a framework of to the SS theory a collapse of space after a certain point (Planck value) could be still viewed as a collapse if measured by the same ruler but will look like expansion if measured by the same method (the one the inhabitants would use).
 That neatly takes care of beginning of space and time - much like we are not puzzled where a sphere "begins" or "ends".
 Seven intricately-folded holed dimensions of microscopic size in addition to the three we can perceive is just a topping on the cake in SS theory.

 How about sequence and causality - we are finding out those are also artificial human constructs that do not reflect reality accurately. According to the recent developments of quantum theory (which seems to be transitioning into practical technology right now) it looks like all outcomes of a particular quantum effect are taking place - not just probabilities of them described by "wave functions". No probabilities - actual particle going from point A to point B through ALL possible points in between. Of course that makes us redefine what a concept of a particle is.
 In a few years we may have fast computers because a quantum thingy will perform all possible calculations at the same time and collapce the final solution at examination time.

 There are indications that our brains may be operating on quantum principles - massively parallel and producing solution first and logical step-by step explanation for it (often much) later. Obviously such kind of processing would have to be on sub-sellular, molecular level where quantum effects can be observed. If so, the limit of the power of human mind may not be even expressed in our current human terms!

 Granted, not many minds on the planet are capable of such a feat of comprehension, but not that few either, so all depends on your definition of "we".

 If you are concerned with when an average school program for average human will contain those items, probably never - I once compared the curriculum of a Russian Gymnasium school 1910 to the modern one and the process seems to be going the other way - less learning. American prevailing school system is even worse in that respect.

 miko

[midnight Target]

Where the hell have you been Myelo? I could have used your assistance earlier.  Very well stated, and exactly what I have been attempting to say all along.

Charon, I disagree. We have been pondering the imponderable since recorded history began. Its just that when we ran into something we couldn't describe it was attributed to God or a god until proven otherwise. Our limits have not been reached.



BTW I read an article recently that infered that our brains are actually "wired" to believe in God, or at least to feel that spiritual euphoria associated with prayer and meditation. Weird huh?

As for books...Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan is very good.

[hblair]

Here's a pretty interesting article on how our (our meaning not just the evolution-only people but also the other 65% of us) money is being spent on PBS. I remember hearing this stuff when this series came out, and was able to find an article about it on the web:

SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")

"Public television producers are clearly at odds with overwhelming public sentiment in favor of hearing all scientific sides of the debate," said Chapman, a former Director of the US Census Bureau. "The huge majorities in the poll cross every demographic, regional and political line in America." The national sample of 1,202 adults was conducted by Zogby International from August 25-29. The margin of error is +/-3.0%.

Discovery Institute commissioned the Zogby poll, though the survey itself was designed by the Zogby organization. It also included questions on education and "intelligent design," a theory that some scientific critics of Darwin support. (That theory makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life's origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.) Discovery Institute last week also opened a special website (http://www.reviewevolution.org) to critique the WGBH/Clear Blue Sky series in a scholarly "Viewer's Guide." Discovery officials say that the website analyzes all program segments in the series and has uncovered numerous scientific and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions. Full results of the Zogby poll also are available on the website.

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.

Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it."

Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

Are the evolutionists creating a religion of their own? What do you guys think?

[hblair]

Here's the list the last post refers to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U. • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. • Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

 

[Charon]

QUOTE]The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene is a good book to whet your interest.

Miko
 [/QUOTE]

Interesting Miko, I'll give it a shot. I have casually followed some of the more recent Quantum developments and find the research fascinating. Being FAR more average intellectually than, say, a Stephen Hawkings I still have to wonder if even those minds can fully bridge the gap from the theoretical to the actual. Are the limiting constructs always artificial and subjective, or do they, at some point, reach a physical limitation on comprehension? Our current science often hinged on great minds in the past overcoming subjective interference -- things that were though incomprehensible -- so someday understanding the full nature of the universe is a possibility I suppose.

For me, while I may appreciate a theory explaining infinity, etc. it's hard to grasp in a visceral sense that something has "always been" or "goes on forever." For me, that first sub atomic particle had to come from somewhere.

Charon

[midnight Target]

hblair,

It would not be hard to find 100 scientists willing to answer yes to the statement at the top of that list, but here is a quote from Dr. Schaefer himself:

"In this context, my personal opinion is that the universe is probably 15–20 billion years old. I am convinced that such a view is completely consistent with the teaching of the first chapter of Genesis. For those of you who want to go into this matter in depth, I recommend James Montgomery Boice's commentary on the first eleven chapters of Genesis."

Now the important thing is not that he agrees with the great age of the Universe. The important thing is that he feels the need to BE CONSISTENT with the Book of Genesis. There should not be a 7th step to the scientific method which says: "Check with God to see if it's OK".

What learned men of religious conviction continue to do is INTERPRET the Bible to agree with the evidence. 400 Years ago saying the universe is 20 billion years old and that this number is consistent with Genesis would have got you an invitation to a BBQ...of you. Has the Bible changed in 400 years or has the knowledge of mankind kept expanding? The one issue that keeps knawing at the throats of Christians is evolution. Hard to justify that one to Genesis I guess.

[Kieran]

My only addition- grabbing fundamentalists from any group as an example of the whole group is dangerous. I agree with you though, teaching fundamentalist religion in a public school just cannot be done.

For example, within a framework of to the SS theory a collapse of space after a certain point (Planck value) could be still viewed as a collapse if measured by the same ruler but will look like expansion if measured by the same method (the one the inhabitants would use).

That neatly takes care of beginning of space and time - much like we are not puzzled where a sphere "begins" or "ends".

Ok, I'll admit it, this makes no sense to me.

[hblair]

What's your comment on the article I quoted Target? Here's another interesting one...

Evolutionist Henry Gee, chief science writer for "Nature", has pointed out that limited fossil evidence for human origins poses severe problems for anyone trying to piece together the real story of human ancestry. Writing in his recent book "In Search of Deep Time" (Free Press, 1999), Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." As a result, conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." Indeed, such theories carry "the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

[gavor]

I thought this thread was dead!

Hey that rhymes!


Good article hblair, it agrees with my skeptisism of evolution. Isn't it strange that when Darwin produced his work he was persecuted. Now days you hear them talking about how that was so terrible and a repression of science by the church. Reading that article it seems to me that the scientists themselves are now persecuting their own for daring to question Darwins work. Hypocritical? Not surpising though. If you look at almost any scientist who broke away from the accepted norm of his/her day, you'll find they were discredited or laughed at, perhaps even thrown in jail.

Something to think about.

[midnight Target]

You can find many more articles and web sites that are based on "scientific creationism". This changes nothing of what I said.

Henry Gee's quote is commenting on the evolution of humans 5 to 10 million years ago. Australopithicus is (IIRC) 3.5 million years old. So what he is saying is that prior to this time the fossil record is weak. Note nothing is said about the "more recent" evolutionary fossil record which is quite good. He is not commenting on Evolution as a whole and it would be dishonest to portray his quote as such.