Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kuro_suna]

  So they teach Darwin's theory of evolution as if it were a law of physical reality.  While I find it very likely, I also find it rather questionable that this happened purely by accident.  One type of life could indeed be an accident, but entire ecologies??  Calling all that an accidental fluke of reality sounds more like an excuse not to figure out what is driving things, and why...  or how.  but the last one is usually a little dangerous.

I'm surprised someone who plays dwarf fort doesn't understand the difference between a random accident and a emergent system.

[Jude]

Oh God...if evolution doesn't make sense to you, it's because you haven't looked at the evidence closely enough (or because you're determined not to believe in it for some reason). Consider that all but a nutty handful of scientists - who have spent more time than anybody considering the evidence - agree on the theory of evolution as the best (only) explanation for the existence of life as we know it. They're not just pulling the theory of evolution out their butts; it's based on HUGE amounts of evidence and refined according to new discoveries (such as DNA; Darwin didn't know about DNA and hence there is a lot of stuff about evolution that isn't part of his theory. it's just named after him because he (and one other guy at the same time who never gets mentioned) figured out natural selection.)

[G-Flex]

Of course, keep in mind that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any theories about where DNA/living cells themselves came from on this planet. That's a whole other ball of yarn to untangle.


However, the process of a single proto-organism changing and diverging over time due to random mutation and natural selection, and filling ecological niches, is pretty intuitive once you start understanding it, like most science.

[Sevrun]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

Take the issue with Creationism in public schools. "Intelligent Design" as a movement was pretty much explicitly designed to dress religious thought up in secular clothing, in order to slip in, under the radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people

This is an example of a creationism textbook that was introduced to public schools after literally the only thing done to it was basic search-and-replace, changing words like "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and "creationist" to "Intelligent Design proponent". Its inclusion was ruled unfit by the courts, since this demonstrates the that foundation of the text is religious in nature.

  So they teach Darwin's theory of evolution as if it were a law of physical reality.  While I find it very likely, I also find it rather questionable that this happened purely by accident.  One type of life could indeed be an accident, but entire ecologies??  Calling all that an accidental fluke of reality sounds more like an excuse not to figure out what is driving things, and why...  or how.  but the last one is usually a little dangerous.

It's not as questionable as you think. It sounds questionable to you because you probably don't understand the mechanisms involved or how they interplay. If you know more about biology and how these ecologies manifest in the first place, it becomes fairly plain-as-day and obvious. Things like this don't just become accepted science on a whim, or overnight.

You sound like you're treating evolution as the random rolling of dice, without considering how processes like natural selection result in divergent organisms that play roles in an ecosystem.

  I'm not treating evolution as anything except an idea that neither helps, nor harms me.  I am familiar with how natural selection works, and how it influences human nature.  So contrary to being ignorant of it, it's the only reason I give any credence at all to evolution, as it's the only explanation as to the mechanics of how it works that makes sense.  But there are things that it doesn't explain that leave me curious.  It's not an important curiosity, but I question everything.

P.S. Jude, if you can't be civil, simply pretend I don't exist.  I don't have time to sit down, hold your hand and pet you egomania.

[G-Flex]

Why does the theory of evolution have to explain anything other than what it's designed to explain? Current theories about star formation don't necessarily explain why grapefruit tastes bitter, but I'm okay with that.

Unless there's something about evolution ITSELF that you think it can't explain, in which case, what?

[LegoLord]

On the subject of swearing on the bible, that isn't actually required.  Not the bible part, at least.  An atheist, for example, could probably swear on the constitution, or some other thing that might match what they believe.  With people of other religions it'd be a bit easier.  The whole point of the swearing in oath is that they are basically saying "If I go against this oath, I go against what I believe in, neither of which I will do."

[Luke_Prowler]

*eats popcorn*

[Sevrun]

G-flex, Everything I see influences everything around it.  Big things, little things, everything.  Over time I've developed a very intuitive understanding of how everything comes together into this big apparently tangled ball of yarn.  Over time I've learned to pick out patterns from the chaos of life.  how the adaptation of one creature influences the next adaptations of the creatures around it is an example of this.  And yes, when I look at it, add in more and more adapting creatures as the flow moves forward, some live, some die out...  The pattern emerges that we know as natural selection.  (I know I'm dragging this out, and I apologize, but I can't keep my thoughts together any other way.  a subject for a different conversation.)  I've also learned to take information that is presented to me in one pattern and see how else it all fits together.  It helps me understand the subject matter and helps me find flaws in my mental models or future plans.  There feel like there are gaps in the theory of evolution to me.  I can't see them, but it just feels unstable.  lol but I guess that's kinda the point, if it were stable it'd be stagnant.

  Thank you for your patience, but I know I'm not making much sense in a purely logical sense.

[Zangi]

@Sevrun
Interesting viewpoint... but I believe details about Darwin and Evolution is not the current subject of this thread.

Its about the separation of church and state.  And how politicians and decisions are influenced by religious reasons here.

*eats popcorn*

Got some to spare?
(Yea, I'll close this when I think it gets out of hand.)

[Sevrun]

@Sevrun
Interesting viewpoint... but I believe details about Darwin and Evolution is not the current subject of this thread.

Its about the separation of church and state.  And how politicians and decisions are influenced by religious reasons here.

*eats popcorn*

Got some to spare?
(Yea, I'll close this when I think it gets out of hand.)

Sorry boss, didn't mean to hijack yer thread.  Just hard to discuss religious influence on politics w/o the counterpoint and it ran away from there.

[G-Flex]

On the subject of swearing on the bible, that isn't actually required.  Not the bible part, at least.  An atheist, for example, could probably swear on the constitution, or some other thing that might match what they believe.  With people of other religions it'd be a bit easier.  The whole point of the swearing in oath is that they are basically saying "If I go against this oath, I go against what I believe in, neither of which I will do."

Oh, I know. I used it as an example of something you might be required to do earlier in the history of the US.

Tell them you want to swear on something that's not the Bible in 1820 and see how far that gets you, basically.

[LegoLord]

Actually, the closer to the date of our founding, the easier it might have been.  Remember, secular ideas were popular then.

[G-Flex]

That probably depends on where you were. Secular ideas were popular at the time, but I don't know how true that was for the common man.

Of course, jump 50 years ahead and all that falls to the wayside anyway.

[LegoLord]

That probably depends on where you were. Secular ideas were popular at the time, but I don't know how true that was for the common man.

The people of the thirteen states actually voted to have the constitution accepted, and that was centered around establishing a secular government.  So I'd guess it was true for a lot of people (religious oppression wasn't so long past at the time, I can see people being more open to other religions)

[Jude]

Of course, keep in mind that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any theories about where DNA/living cells themselves came from on this planet. That's a whole other ball of yarn to untangle.

Oh of course, tht's why I said "Life as we know it." If people want, they can insert God into what we don't know about where life initially came from. But that's just doing a "God of  the gaps" thing where the gaps keep shrinking and you have to keep backpedaling.

You're better off in the Kenneth Miller camp, he's a Catholic that strictly believes in evolution as not influenced by God, aside from creating the laws of the universe and, presumably, knowing that they would lead to humanity, being God and all.