Just a quick sign-off, as I just breezed thru the last 2+ pages of the thread. MtMike, I intend to respond to your response to me, but I want to give it the time it deserves... so not until tomorrow or Sunday. I'm tired.
Of course this is true. My apologies. However, my point is that most scientists, I believe if pressed, will not place their certainty about evolution and how it happened the same as their certainty about gravity, for instance. For lack of a better word, it's more contraversial than gravity.
The time it deserves... I'm not quite sure how to take that. LOL Hard to have debates on subjects like this when one is tired, that's for sure.
> I believe if pressed, will not place their certainty > about evolution and how it happened the same > as their certainty about gravity Do mean the Fact that evolution takes place and that gravity takes place, or the Idea of how evolution takes place and how gravity takes place? If the first, well maybe. It can't be the second, as we really have a hard time figuring out what gravity is.
To the best of my knowledge, every contemporary biologist of any stature would agree that life on earth has evolved from unicellular organisms. There is some controversy about how this happened, mechanically, but the fact of evolution as the one explanation for the diversity of life which is consistent with the empirical evidence is not in doubt. (incidentally: Gravity is plenty "controversial", and in the same way. I've been told by physicists that of the four fundamental physical forces, it's the one that's most difficult to integrate with our present understanding of quantum mechanics.)
Yes, I also think that evolution is a fact. But, is the only mechanism that generated all the diversity we have today? I don't think so, and I hope that I can demonstrate it one day.
To all: Science, as good as has proven to be, is limited. It have the same limits as us, the humans. It would never consider things that maybe are out there but we don't have the ability to detect, directly or indirectly, with our senses, with our machines or our math. Even in the things that we can see we will never have a perfect prediction, sometimes we can have an adequate approximation for our propose, other times we won't. No matter how advanced our science become. I think that essence of god can be founded at the Chaos, rather than in the order, where many classic scientist tried to find it. Does all our behavior is already determined by the finite number of factors that build the universe? Our "destiny" was sealed at the time the universe was generated? Or we can have a decisions and fate that none can predict, even for an infinite being that can measure with infinite precision? Mathematics can't generate a random number, we can suppose that exist and work with it, but never generate it. So, what can give us the skill to be responsible beings? A soul perhaps? I would really like to prove it some day.
Re: Re: Re: Facts and figments If I dare speak for my esteemed colleague Mr. Pakovits, the problem is that evolutionary biology is not a simple subject; it's rather resistant to quick and easy bullet-point presentations. It's not an unreasonable request to expect that people arguing about something have a rough idea of what they're talking about, and it is an unreasonable request to ask laymen who have just pointed you to an accessible resource on the subject to restate it in their own words. Even if we could prove a complete extinction and second abiogenesis, which we almost certainly can't, what would be the implications if that had taken place? The people who you are slandering with the name "thought-police" are hardly self-proclaimed; they're PhDs, for chrissake. They've worked at this. Science is hardly a closed loop where one generation recites the dogma of the last. If biologists don't spend a lot of time contemplating new developments in "creation science," it's partly because they've observed that field's track record of specious reasoning and faulty evidence and concluded that it's not worth the bother and partly because there are more interesting things to do with one's career than tussle with religious zealots. Actually, that's a principle of quantum mechanics which is somewhat limited in its capability as a general tenet, mostly because the quantum-mechanical problem does not have to do with the conciousness of the observer but the interactions of the particles. There are some things which are difficult to measure for what probably are insoluable (material) reasons, e.g. both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle. There are some things which we can measure and know to be true insofar as we know anything to be true, e.g. the atomic weight of gold. I would contend that the things we know of evolution are far, far, far more like the weight of gold than the p+v of a subatomic particle. It's possible that what we think we know of the world is in some way a lie; it's a philosophical question that everyone from Plato to the Buddha to Descartes to the guys who made The Matrix have gummed over, but the assertions that the physical world is an illusion, that conciousness is a dream, &c, are metaphysical ones which the scientific method is unequipped to answer. Not to be snarky, but it's worth reworking this sentence until it becomes English. Isn't the problem that allowing for the possibility of uncaused actions or any sort of supernatural phenomena renders the process of physical investigation moot? If you're constantly allowing for the possibility that physical events could be the result of miracles, you're ultimately forced to throw up your hands and say that you don't really understand anything, which I'm skeptical of at least in the context of simple you-open-the-door-and-the-light-goes-on type phenomena. Sure it's possible that God created the world 6000 years ago and planted a tremendous amount of false evidence to test our faith (or just to fuck with us), but at some level, that simply has to be an unsatisfactory explanation. If we allow equal time to creation myths in biology class, do we allow for all of them, or just the popular ones? If I invent a story that says that the world was laid like an egg by Mother Shabubu at the beginning of time, do the schools have to offer equal time for Mother Shabubu Theory? Science cannot answer, and most scientists do not care to attempt to answer, questions like "why is gravity?" This is why philosophy departments stay in business.
Saturday, and fan is back It's saturday, and not Friday, so fan is back. fan, the true persona, who believes in evolution and believes that the Bible provides important spiritual lessons, though not history and science lessons, should not be confused with FAN, who attempted to help Montana Mike for the sake of argument, fun, debate, and supporting the underdog. That said, since FAN is no more, the assistance ends. Other voices, such as El Charro Negro, seem to be willing to take up the slack. On a biblical point, though Montana, why shouldn't we treat the Genesis creation stories as parables, since God is evidently, based upon Jesus's fondness for them, quite interested in telling stories that teach particular lessons? Full props go to edcrocker for taking the time to detail some of the evidence, while being very honest about limitations of knowledge. Pakovits still gets the free Tetley's next time he's in Cambridge (to set it up, send me an e-mail through gaelghra.tripod.com-- it's in a foreign language, but press the link labeled 'Labhair liom' on the right-hand side and you'll reach me). Godot, whom I have found very good in other threads, gets only half marks here (I'm sure he cares! , for not recognizing that statements such as "Read Gould's 1300 page magnum opus before we discuss this" are simply discussion killers--Montana Mike wouldn't have time to read the work and still keep this thread alive. Yet, this is a _discussion_ board. The whole point is to discuss things. The civil thing to do, IMO, is to reference a work in which more information can be found, but also to present some of the evidence in order to keep the discussion going. You will notice that this is what I usually do in my posts (review my use of Kuhl's book in earlier posts). To one and all, farewells and blessings.