New Scientist on evolution

[The Procrastinator]

And so the great circle draws near to completion...your post, Dave, put me strongly in mind of our ancestors according to Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide) - hairdressers, telephone sanitisers, public relations officers and consultants of every description...ooo I'm getting a headspin now thinking about FATE.

 

[Dave]

Well, Napoleon is supposed to have said, "L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers."

Now, we are a nation of Call Centres, and even those are moving to India. No one manufactures anything; everyone (including me) works in the Service sector. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair may bang on about the UK needing "Education, Education, Education", and that people must be prepared to change careers several times during their working lives, but the first just isn't happening, and the second is an incredibly hard thing to do unless you are forced into it by redundancy.

 

[clovis-man]

As an aside it always strikes me as bizarre, to put it mildly, that people who will piously put their hand up for the moral cheerleading squads of Christianity also like to leave things to "market forces" - one of the most amoral forces in existence. Faith in market forces is a strange kind of religion but it seems to be a pretty strong one with many followers.

Ah, Yes. The finely tuned laws of the marketplace. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations".

Does evolution always work well in terms of an "end result" or even as a "process"? Not by a longshot. Just look at the poor orangutan. Specialized to the point of being to his own detriment (notwithstanding environmental issues).

I once had the chance to listen to and speak with Louis Leakey. Even he used the phrase, "the theory of evolution" (and he pronounced it ee-vo-loo-shun with the accent on the ee). But he wasn't kidding anyone. We all knew what he really thought and we all thought the same.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

I once had the chance to listen to and speak with Louis Leakey. Even he used the phrase, "the theory of evolution" (and he pronounced it ee-vo-loo-shun with the accent on the ee). But he wasn't kidding anyone. We all knew what he really thought and we all thought the same.

He was being technically correct. Science doesn't deal in "facts", in the sense of unchallengeable, fixed positions (unlike religion). Every conclusion reached by the scientific method, however undisputed, is a theory which only holds good until contradicted by observational evidence, or replaced by another theory which better explains the observations.

In contrast, "intelligent design" is not a theory, it is an hypothesis - and barely even that, as it is not backed up by any objective evidence.

 

[TorrnT]

But that isn't the case, either. Prior to the penis and scrotum, there's no clitoris, labia, or vagina, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like a penis and scrotum. Prior to the testes, there are no ovaries, nor anything that had ever started to become like them or would ever have become them or was any more like them than like testes. There's just nothing at all to identify the fetus with either sex.

Follows a template. If I was following you to London it does not mean I will end up there.
I cannot argue on behalf of the Drs, but I can say why it makes sense to me, Nipples (more than 2) and milk line... If that is not feminine, then I have been sorely misguided in life.
If you still believe this to be incorrect...lets just agree to disagree

 

[Delvo]

Nipples (more than 2) and milk line... If that is not feminine, then I have been sorely misguided in life.

Well, men's bodies have them, so no, they're not feminine traits. They're universal ones

 

[clovis-man]

He was being technically correct. Science doesn't deal in "facts", in the sense of unchallengeable, fixed positions (unlike religion). Every conclusion reached by the scientific method, however undisputed, is a theory which only holds good until contradicted by observational evidence, or replaced by another theory which better explains the observations.

In contrast, "intelligent design" is not a theory, it is an hypothesis - and barely even that, as it is not backed up by any objective evidence.

I think that was my point, but you have stated it in much clearer terms. As an example, re my long ago discussion with Leakey, I asked him about his disagreement with J. T. Robinson over the Homo Habilus findings. He was a little testy in his reply, but essentially said that there could be no meeting of the minds until he and Robinson had viewed the same evidence (Robinson had not seen the original material). So the proper course for him was in rigorous examination and not in speculation. In retrospect, the only correct answer.

 

[TorrnT]

Well, men's bodies have them, so no, they're not feminine traits. They're universal ones

So.. Let me get this straight.
At 4 weeks the foetus has the potential to develop more than 2 nipples,(the main function of which are to provide milk, which only females can) the extra nipples are suppressed by enzymes/hormones, (this is Universal, meaning it can not be considered a trait of either sex) 2 weeks later the sex is then decided.

I can understand what you mean Delvo.
(honestly..I'm not obsessed about nipples)

 

[LJonesy]

Oh man, it was painful to read all those articles.

I get the feeling that the author of the link and the other links may have had a hard life at church when he was a little boy. Because all throughout the articles there are countless emotional stabs at creationism. More often than not accusations are made without even using common sense to diffuse an otherwise stupid accusation.

That said, the same arrogant angle was taken on presenting the facts. What became so frustrating was that the article was so one-sided the author forgot to look at the amount of holes his or her argument had poking through it...

If Evolutionists and Creationists want to get along both sides need to humble themselves and listen to each other. I've met so many Evolutionists who are emotionally scarred and arrogant, and i've also met so many Creationists who are ignorant believers.

Both sides need to clean up their act and open their ears. No wonder people go to the Religions with the attitudes the Evolutionists take.

 

[Dave]

I think I read different links to you. I didn't see any "emotional stabs". The New Scientist is a UK published Science Magazine, so it is highly unlikely that it is going to make a case for Creationism, though I find it hard to translate that to being "arrogant". I have also yet to meet anyone who described themselves as an "Evolutionist". And that is the difference between Science and Religion, Religion requires Faith, Science requires Evidence.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I'm finding it painful to read them all too, but only because I have a painfully slow dialup connection! I have given up, having only read a handful, but so far I didn't spot any emotional stabs either. Perhaps I haven't read the right articles, or perhaps its a subject I'm not so emotional about?

I've always had the idea that both "sides" need to listen to one another - thats common sense. So I'm listening - I would be interested to know which parts Jonesy finds arrogant etc.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

I agree with Dave. There is no compromise or meeting point between the Creationists and the scientific approach. You either believe the overwhelming accumulation of evidence from many different sciences concerning the vast age and slow development of this universe and the life on our planet, or you believe one of the ancient creation myths (of which there are many). It's one or the other.

 

[j d worthington]

As you say, Anthony, when it comes to fixed, unchangeable positions, science doesn't deal in facts. To clarify, however: when it comes to the things upon which the "theories" (a term which means something entirely different in science than it does in common usage) are based, it does deal in facts -- or, if you prefer, evidence. That is, the facts of observable reality, which can be tested, retested, challenged, etc.

The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position. This is no way to arrive at the truth; this is rationalization. That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for any scientific writer/magazine to pay any attention to creationist "theories" (common usage) until they alter their approach and begin with the existing facts (or evidence) and work from there, rather than the other way around....

 

[clovis-man]

The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position.

Exactly. Deductive logic as opposed to inductive logic. In flawed deductive logic (not all deductions are flawed), you could say that horses have four legs, therefore all animals with four legs are horses. Inductive logic might conclude: In an examination of 100,000 horses, all those seen had four legs. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that horses usually have four legs.

Not as dramatic, but certainly more grounded in fact.

 

[The Procrastinator]

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says none, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says none, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?

There's nothing "wrong" with the scientific method as a way of discovering how the material world works. It has a remarkable record of success running for thousands of years, which it continues to build on. If it didn't work, we'd still be in the Stone Age.

What science does not do is address the possibility that there might be a non-material world. It doesn't offer any certainty about the meaning of life, any promises of divine guidance, forgiveness, or any kind of life after death (let alone a wonderful one, with X number of virgins, or raisins, or whatever). These are the Unique Selling Points of religion. Unfortunately, unlike the output of the scientific method, they are entirely untestable. And the fact that all religions differ from each other in the certainties they offer has to raise a rather large question mark about their validity.

It's just as well that religions aren't subject to the Advertising Standards Authority, or they'd have to drastically change their message. Like in James Morrow's novel 'City of Truth', in which the cathedral has a large illuminated sign saying "Assuming God Exists, Jesus May Have Been His Son".

 

[j d worthington]

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says none, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?

It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better.

For my money, it is likely to be chalked up to the following: Science removes a feeling of "certainty" based on ignorance rather than knowledge; it offers no absolutes in its place, only that which follows the strongest probabilities; in order to understand science, it takes effort, study, a lot of thought, and even then some things are simply going to be too complex for the majority -- heck, as even some of those in the field have noted, "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory".

Religion, or mysticism, on the other hand, presents things that sound logical and reasonable (if you don't have a fairly good grasp on the evidence), are reassuring, have a "commonsense" structure ethically (unless examined closely, which most people simply don't do), and is often emotionally satisfying by dint of having evolved over a long period of time, adapting to the emotional needs and responses of people.

Science, on the other hand, deals with the evidence, regardless of how cold or even repulsive that reality may be to people. A good example of the difference -- and one particularly suited to this forum, given it is a sff forum -- is Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations". No one wants that outcome; it's brutal, it's cold, it's uncaring, it has no "humanity" in it... but that's the point. In reality, when facing the universe, humanity will periodically come up against the inexorable facts of physical reality; and, if we don't accommodate those facts, we don't stand a chance, as there is nothing out there to alter them for our sake. People don't like that. The fact that the universe is (according to all the evidence, and for all intents and purposes) simply a mechanism, without reference to us or our cares, concerns, or even existence, is simply something most people reject. It doesn't feed our egos. The more science advances, the more we find that not only are we not the center of the universe, some special object of a god's care and attention, but that we aren't even that important in the history of our planet (save for a very brief time, perhaps), but only one very brief moment in a very long history that both precedes and is likely to follow the existence of our entire species, let alone individuals. Any "meaning" to existence is something we must put into it ourselves; it doesn't exist inherently.

That's something that's just too alien to most people's perceptions for them to feel comfortable with. Instead of seeing the awe and wonder of it all, they are repelled by the fact that reality simply doesn't wear a human face, doesn't have human feelings....

 

[Parson]

JD, well reasoned as always. I find it especially interesting that even in the West with precipitous decline in Christianity there is a corresponding rise in "mysticism" and non-Christian religions. It seems as though human beings as a whole cannot tolerate the sense of there being nothing in the universe with more intelligence/compassion/justice/ than what we have. In some sense the SETI endeavors could be seen as another aspect of this search.

I believe that the time will come that we will arrive at some kind of synthesis between science and religion. I think that both are true and point to truths but in different ways. In the same way that both a non-fiction story and a myth can be true. Religion and science are not the same but they do need each other.

As to the main thrust of this discussion; I wonder if evolution is any more poorly understood than any other complex science. I would bet that trying to have the average Joe/Jane explain chemistry would result in something that would sound more like magic than science.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

I believe that the time will come that we will arrive at some kind of synthesis between science and religion. I think that both are true and point to truths but in different ways. In the same way that both a non-fiction story and a myth can be true. Religion and science are not the same but they do need each other.

I have to say that I doubt that. Religion got along without science just fine for a very long time, and science pays no heed to religion (except when aspects of religion claim to have a scientific basis, as with 'intelligent design'). They basically occupy different worlds, which isn't to say that scientists can't be religious - many are - but that just reflects different sides of their personalities.

About the only possible connections between science and religion that I can see coming may result from some research into how the mind works, which could point to reasons in the brain structure why people are so prone to belief in matters which are not subject to proof.

As to the main thrust of this discussion; I wonder if evolution is any more poorly understood than any other complex science. I would bet that trying to have the average Joe/Jane explain chemistry would result in something that would sound more like magic than science.

The basic concept of evolution is quite straightforward (whereas "chemistry" is a huge and diverse subject). I don't think that the militant creationists fail to understand evolution, they just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their fixed beliefs.

 

[TorrnT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop J.S.
ohhhh, so does that make Creationism a cult, now they sound more eerie LOL.
[/FONT]