Creationist or Evolutionist?

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

OK. I won't waste anymore of anyone's time with my personal opinions on this topic. I won't change anyone's mind and no one will change mine, so I'll drop out of the discussion now.

[R2-Opus2]

I've sometimes wondered how we developed a curious nature about things, in a genral sense, religous sense, and everything else inbetween I can't think of offhand. I suppose its something tied to survival instincts early on or something at a very basic level. I've also always felt that while I can't accept the book I was raised to be "literal" in all its aspects, I do think there could be a greater power that created everything.

 

Science might not be able to prove its existance, but I think it can prove its majesty in what its made. I have no clue if 'it' is still around mind you. But when I see the kind of stuff Hubble's beamed back from space for example - How would we even have known it was there if we never investigated it - opened our eyes and looked at it. I can't imagine that anything as complex as our universe was made in 7 days (just an example of why I don't think my book is literal, at least, not from a human being's perspective).

 

For all I know, this 'it' that made it all - 'its' concept of time may well be very different from how we measure it - even if this 'it' was literal at the time of whispering to the original author.

 

I guess my point underscoring everything on this subject - evolution, believing in a higher power, science etc. - I think there's room for a little coexistance either way. I think our curiosity about who we are and where we're going is a powerful motivater. Because the act of discovery wouldn't happen any other way. But I do think discoveries help us grapple with the majesty of ('its' if you believe in an 'its') creation a little bit more than we otherwise might have.

[DarthTofu]

... Umm, you lost me there, and this is after reading 33 pages of sparks notes on the prince. Are you saying that you believe one way or the other

[R2-Opus2]

Sorry I didn't mean to come off as metaphorical sounding as my bible

 

It's not an either or thing for me, however on the creationist side of the coin it becomes more the realm of philosophy to me not science. From that perspective, yea they should be taught in their appropriate arenas and contexts.

 

What I was blathering about above was suggesting that in some respects science can explain some of it to us in practical terms (never really cared for anything that sounded too much like magic). I don't think either one is an end to its own though if that makes any sense.

[Guest Scathane]

OK. I won't waste anymore of anyone's time with my personal opinions on this topic. I won't change anyone's mind and no one will change mine, so I'll drop out of the discussion now.

For what it's worth: you're not wasting my time with your views, Mitth. Pity you're dropping out...

 

@dino

With regard to saying that science has gotten us where we are today as opposed to religion, I was merely stating that a lot of achievement stems from a motive of explaining meaning to the world around us (as well as ourselves). These motives are central the rise of science as well as religion. Furthermore, I think you do have to give religion some credit on civilization (schools, taking in the poor, etc.)... But I think you will acknowledge that...

 

@ all

BTW, how do any of you guys combine science and religion? I mean, I was raised Roman-Catholic in a very liberal sort of way... I was baptized, for instance, but I didn't do my confirmation or eucharist (I even had to look up the latter two in wikipedia, because I didn't know the English words ). My further parental and school education led me to the conclusion that a divine power doesn't exist since there is no evidence for it... until new evidence proves otherwise, of course.

 

There are stings to this notion, though, the most important being that you just cannot prove non-existence... In other words, we will never be able to prove directly that the universe infinite in all directions (IIAD) because it needs direct proof of there not being an end... You can never prove this, since the end may be lying just an infinitely small 'distance' ahead...

 

Anyway, let's just say that I'm a proponent of big bang theory, an IIAD universe, evolution theory (which, mysteriously, abbreviates to E.T. old joke?) and natural selection... throw in some chaos theory, quantum mechanics and shake it (don't stir!!!)... Voilà! One Dry Scathini! In other words, I see no purpose to the world around us per se, although in accepting that, one has to admit that this has severe severe consequences with regard to - say - our efforts toward designing AI... but I'm trailing off...

 

For me, this means that I cannot accept that there is an intelligent, omnipotent being who set all of evolution in motion with some ultimate purpose or meaning, which the human race alone is destined to discover. Neither do I accept that you have to live your life according to certain principles in order to satisfy that being, receiving it's ultimate reward: the answer to the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. In this sense, I feel that intelligent design indeed does not belong in science classes... (good one, dino!) Back to my initial question: how do you combine science with religious belief?

 

One last note: I think all of the theories I mixed into a nice cocktail above should be applied to popular opinion with care. Why? Well, one example is that natural selection and evolution theory often leads people to think that the human race has reached a higher state of eolutionary development than other species. Which, is complete nonsense from in paleontological, zoological as well as biological ( ) context. Neither evolution nor natural selection justifies such a conclusion. Moreover, if such a qualification were applicable to ET, then the top 10 wouldn't be inhabited by the human race but rather to viruses, bacteria and what not...

 

edit: Thnx to dino, I finally voted: both...

[budious]

One only has to look at the middle east and see why making devotion to God as the center of the life is not the answer. When your only interest is building mosques and brainwashing your children to kill infidels you are never going to get out the dark ages.

 

Opposed to the western world where we do not embrace God nearly enough in our daily lives, but with science and education and capitalism as the core of our society, we live for the most part comfortably and peacefully, except when those bastards declase jihad on us.

 

It's about finding middle ground... Israel is that balance between technology and devotion to God. It's no wonder the rest of the middle east feels threatened by it's presence in the region.

[AdmiralToguroAni]

Higher doesn't mean better, Scath. At least not from what my Uni teaches. "Higher" just means more complex. In that regard, a human is "higher" than a carrot because a human has had to become more complex in order to thrive, while the carrot has been able to survive with fewer radical changes.

 

Also, you don't have to prove a negative. By default, you believe it doesn't exist. I can't prove God doesn't exist, so I should accept that he might exist. It sounds good in theory, and there's nothing inherently wrong about this, but by that logic, I can apply this example:

 

Somewhere in the universe is the planet Neverneverland, where Peter Pan lives. Peter Pan left his travel log on a trip to Earth, where J.M. Barrie found it and wrote the novel. The original log was lost to time, leaving the novel as the only evidence to Peter Pan's existance. There is no way (at least right now) to disprove that Peter Pan exists, so we must assume that he MIGHT exist.

 

Even that example is plausible when looked at in a certain way. Peter Pan COULD exist. However, the possibility is so low that it isn't worthy of consideration. If we find some hard evidence of God's existance, then we could say that theres a greater chance of God existing. Until then, we have to stick with whatever theory has the most evidence.

[DarthTofu]

One only has to look at the middle east and see why making devotion to God as the center of the life is not the answer. When your only interest is building mosques and brainwashing your children to kill infidels you are never going to get out the dark ages.

 

Woah, there, killer! We're not about to go dissing the Middle Easterners, here! In my opinion (And I know this will raise controversy, though that isn't the intent) Al Quida isn't really evil so much as missguided. Niether were the bombers who took out the World Trade Centers on 9/11. Let me explain my feelings on this before you guys condem me, here!

 

They were essentially following their own belief system. They believed that in doing this they could change America, convert thousands to their religion and perhaps save these people from eternal damnation. They believed that this was their ruler's will and that it had to be carried out and that nothing could be wrong with it, for he had created the world.

 

Lots of times we will find that those we would believe evil are missguided. I am in no way shape or form saying that the actions of 9/11 or of Al Quida have been good at all! Quite the contrary- they slaughtered thousands of innocents and military personel! On the other hand, I feel that perhaps if we could analyze how they have to be feeling as they go through this we can more closely understand why they feel it is necessary that they do so.

 

BTW, ToguroAni, this qualifies as a short post- it doesn't take up half of the page

[dinochick]

....They were essentially following their own belief system. They believed that in doing this they could change America, convert thousands to their religion and perhaps save these people from eternal damnation. They believed that this was their ruler's will and that it had to be carried out and that nothing could be wrong with it, for he had created the world.

....

 

Wow, ok, I am not going to go there (that far at least, this, again, is a seperate thread all together) but they were believeing what they were brainwashed to believe. But that does not make it right, as you said.

 

@ Scathane I'll get back to you on that. Not thinking to well tonight (my dog died today )

[Defender_16]

This is a little off topc but it's the only thing I can comment on in this thread any more without spending two weeks reading up.

 

Anyway, I refuse to believe that your High School did not have a World History/ World Cultures class. Its a requirement for graduation, for pity's sake!

 

We were never taught world history. Highschool history consisted of Confederation through to the beginning of the Cold War and how it affected our country (Canada). I remember I was absolutely furious with my highschool history teacher at the time.

 

I took an optional Anchient Histories class that covered Neolithic through to about 1100ad.

 

So everything I know that takes place between 1100-1867 or 1947 - present, is stuff that I've taken the time to learn about on my own.

(Though I did learn quite a bit about those same time periods in Historical Architecture in College. )

[dinochick]

thats kind of funny, in a sad way I can relate. I grew up in the south and not a single school I went to from jr high till I graduated hs taught any history other than that of the Civil War I did not really learn about any of the others until I got to college, pretty sad, but I guess you could say we are still dwelling on it.

[DarthTofu]

Defender, all I can say is this: Why in the world would you take an optional history class rather than, say, woodshop, or band or something? History has always bored me to tears (No, really, my World Cultures book is covered with tears... Or actually it might be drool from when I fell asleep... I dunno )

 

@DinoChick: I'm sorry that your dog died.

[AdmiralToguroAni]

No World Cultures for me either, Tofu, and I live in the Bible Belt!

 

As for your point on the terrorists, I agree that they aren't evil. Few people are evil. Truman did what he thought was best by dropping an A-bomb on two Japanese cities, and in his mind it was justified. Same with them. You can argue lots of stuff about it, like "it was war", or "it wasn't a sneak attack", and even if we find out that its true and they weren't justified, they THINK they were, and so aren't "evil." Whether they were "wrong" to do it depends on history, but since we'll probably win the War on Terror, I'm thinking they'll be "wrong."

[dinochick]

 

@DinoChick: I'm sorry that your dog died.

 

Thank you

[Guest Scathane]

Higher doesn't mean better, Scath. At least not from what my Uni teaches. "Higher" just means more complex. In that regard, a human is "higher" than a carrot because a human has had to become more complex in order to thrive, while the carrot has been able to survive with fewer radical changes.

In that case, I would prefer the term more complex to higher. But is it really true that a carrot has been proven to have made fewer and less redical changes throughout evolution?

 

Also, you don't have to prove a negative. By default, you believe it doesn't exist. I can't prove God doesn't exist, so I should accept that he might exist.

Sigh... TA, please start reading what I post. Where exactly did I say that if you can't prove the non-existence of god, you have to accept that he exists?! I never stated anything remotely close. I just stated that trying to prove things such as infinity or non-existence is impossible in the direct sense...

[Defender_16]

As for your point on the terrorists, I agree that they aren't evil. Few people are evil. Truman did what he thought was best by dropping an A-bomb on two Japanese cities, and in his mind it was justified. Same with them. You can argue lots of stuff about it, like "it was war", or "it wasn't a sneak attack", and even if we find out that its true and they weren't justified, they THINK they were, and so aren't "evil." Whether they were "wrong" to do it depends on history, but since we'll probably win the War on Terror, I'm thinking they'll be "wrong."

 

I agree, few people are evil. Most are just misguided. How do I know I'm not misguided? I don't. But I try and get an idea from the people who live arround me what is 'Normal' and live roughly to those morals and beliefs. If you grow up surrounded by people that think it's ok to gun down other people just because theyre diffrient (or for any number of reasons) they you are going to have a slight predisposition towards being that way youtself.

 

Truman did what he thought was best by dropping an A-bomb on two Japanese cities, and in his mind it was justified.

Theres the flip side of that as well. With the Emperor declairing that the entire population would fight to the death in an invasion, Truman would have had to justify atleast 1 million US military casulties and 60-70M Japanese Civillian casulties if the bombs hadn't been dropped.

 

200,000 Civillian casulties or 60-70 Million. It's not hard to see why he chose what he did.

[valerina]

But is it really true that a carrot has been proven to have made fewer and less redical changes throughout evolution?

 

While it isn't a perfect guide, scientists can look at the number of chromosomes and chromosome lengths in order to compare the complexity of the organism and determine the number of changes an organism has undergone. In this case, a carrot has 18 chromosomes whereas a human has 46. However, there are a lot of exceptions and thus this cannot be relied upon fully. Many organisms that most will agree are less advanced as humans have more chromosomes than us, such as an amoeba, goldfish and the toucan. Still, this principle can be used as a general guide but definately far from proving the fact.

 

However, something that can be relied upon very heavily is the number of genes an organism has. I think it was you that mentioned before, it is hard to compare something like the human and the carrot since the human didn't evolve directly from the carrot. While we have some evidence to support calling humans more complex, we will just have to wait until the carrot genome project is finished and its DNA is compared to that of humans (it MIGHT be, the project started in 1995 but for the life of me I couldn't find the results anywhere).

 

Still, we can compare things we do know evolved more recently. The human genome has approximately 20,000 genes, whereas the fruit fly has approximately 14,000. Typically the more genes you have, the more advanced characteristics that arise in that organism, making it more complex. If you go even farther back, you find that an organism like yeast only has 6,000 genes.

 

This way of comparing gene number probably does have exceptions, but is much more dependable than the first method. I hope this helped and if anyone can find the number of genes a carrot has, that would really help.

[DarthTofu]

... I understood that... I actually understood that, could take the time to read it, and not want to rip my brains out of my head from boredom and confusion... *Hugs valerina* thank you! ... Though I was going to mention that I think most tubers are actually related- as matter of fact its theorized that brustle sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, letuce, and I think turnips are all related- not what you'd expect, eh? I think cabbage is the common ancestor, but it could be broccoli... Or possibly some other vegetable... I'll have to get my Bio textbook out and look it up some time...

[Guest Scathane]

... I understood that... I actually understood that, could take the time to read it, and not want to rip my brains out of my head from boredom and confusion... *Hugs valerina* thank you!

I concur... Welcome valerina! Excellent post!

 

In reaction to your post, I say that I will take your explanation to be correct, especially since you are marvelously meticulous when talking about the subject. But especially in agreeing to your article, I feel I must object to using the terms higher/lower animals almost synonymously to more/less complex organisms...

[valerina]

First off, thanks for the welcome guys

 

Okay, I still don't know how to quote someone and get there name to show up, but this is something Scathane said:

 

I feel I must object to using the terms higher/lower animals almost synonymously to more/less complex organisms...

 

Anyway, I will agree that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to compare the complexity of carrots and humans since we agreed that since they branched off from the same evolutionary ancestor long ago, making their traits too different. I mean, in some ways we find it plausible that emotions are a characteristic that might be "more complex" than something a carrot has, like its root system that allows it to suck nutrients out of the ground. However this is like (to borrow an old saying) comparing apples to oranges.

 

But now we get to the question, what really is complexity?? When I learn about complexity of organisms here at the university they describe it as something that can be compared between organisms, and say that the most complex organisms are the species that is the latest derived (newest). http://www.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/cladogram_1.gif

 

In this case its the chimp, saying that it is the most recently derived species and thus have the most recently derived traits, which tend to be the most complex. Some examples would be the fact that chimps have emotions because we've seen cases (like Coco and her kitten) whereas we know fish do not form these kinds of things. Similarly, we can say that humans are more advanced than primates because we can look at our communication abilities, compare the tools they use to ours, and things like that.

 

If this does not satisfy the issue of complexity, which I'm sure it might not since I am trying to give you the results of centuries of research in a few paragraphs, then say something. I just wanted to make clear that that's how I meant the term earlier.

[DarthTofu]

I suppose you are correct. To an extent prokarytoic bacteria might be considered highly complex seeing as it has life and is made up of smaller features which are made up of smaller features which are made up of smaller features... This always keeps me awake late at night- when the hell do we get to the smallest particle composing something?!? Sorry, had to put that out there so that Scath or ToguroAni could get a quota of 5,000 words out there or so in reply to it

 

Oh, and just to seem like I'm smarter than someone who is rather apparently more intelligent than I: If you want to quote someone's text simply click on the "Quote" button in the upper right hand corner in the box that their post occupies If you want to do multiple quites then enter the command

"

[valerina]

Thanks for the help with the quoting, I'll try it out soon And yeh, that 'smallest particle stuff' really messes with my mind too

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

If you want to do multiple quites then enter the command

"[/quote*]

Actually Tofu, it would be quote="Darth Tofu" all inside of brackets ([, ]), then paste your text and then you'll have a

. SO, it would look like this (just without the spaces): [ quote="DarthTofu" ]Insert text here. Also please note the '*' that appears at the end of Tofu's quote. That was added so as to make things appear mostly correct.

 

@Scath: I've still been following, I've just refrained from posting b/c I know that if I post something about this topic I WILL get excited and then it will bleed through and someone will get offended. I don't need that here. I do that enough to people that I see face to face. I don't need to do it to the members of this forum. I like it here. I know other people like it here. Aside from good natured ribbing aimed at Tofu I don't want to do anything here that may be taken as offensive to someone who doesn't really know me.

[Guest Scathane]

Okay, I still don't know how to quote someone and get there name to show up...

You either hit the quote button next to the person's post you want to quote OR you start with the way you quote now but you change the opening to quote="Scathane" between the square brackets.

 

Anyway, I will agree that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to compare the complexity of carrots and humans since we agreed that since they branched off from the same evolutionary ancestor long ago, making their traits too different.

I agree it's difficult most of the time but for me that's rather the fear of insulting the carrots when comparing them to people...

 

I mean, in some ways we find it plausible that emotions are a characteristic that might be "more complex" than something a carrot has, like its root system that allows it to suck nutrients out of the ground. However this is like (to borrow an old saying) comparing apples to oranges.

 

But now we get to the question, what really is complexity?? When I learn about complexity of organisms here at the university they describe it as something that can be compared between organisms, and say that the most complex organisms are the species that is the latest derived (newest). http://www.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/cladogram_1.gif

 

In this case its the chimp, saying that it is the most recently derived species and thus have the most recently derived traits, which tend to be the most complex. Some examples would be the fact that chimps have emotions because we've seen cases (like Coco and her kitten) whereas we know fish do not form these kinds of things. Similarly, we can say that humans are more advanced than primates because we can look at our communication abilities, compare the tools they use to ours, and things like that.

I agree with you up to the point where you 'simply' say that humans are more advanced than chimps. Saying they're less complex might be accurate, saying they're lower (I know you didn't say this, valerian, it was posted a few posts back) or that they're less advanced (in the evolutionary sense) isn't. The point is that such qualifications are biased.

 

When you say that we can look at our communication abilities, compare the tools primates use to ours and things like that, the bias is already in the comparison. As humans, we like to think that our ability to do these things is important or generally beneficial for all organisms, without addressing the question whether this is the case. It clearly isn't.

 

Let's have look at - say - viruses. As far as we know, viruses do not have these abilities either. Does that make humans more advanced than viruses in the evolutionary sense? No, because viruses apparently don't need these traits to be successful, they have developed other traits, which make them more successful when it comes to survival (which is actually what natural selection is about); they are able to survive dormantly over long periods of time - which humans can't - and they mutate quite easily in a matter of days (weeks, months, years? I don't know the actual time frame - somebody please correct if neccessary), which humans can't either. Sure, you could argue that we're more complex, but that doesn't necessarily make us a higher organism or more successful in the evolutionary sense.

 

Moreover, stating that some organisms are more advanced implies that evolution has direction, i.e., that evolution leads up to some common point of ultimate advancement. Evolution scientists generally refute this notion.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Scathane

[AdmiralToguroAni]

Lets see if I can get the quote function to work, since I didn't know either!

 

I agree with you up to the point where you 'simply' say that humans are more advanced than chimps. Saying they're less complex might be accurate, saying they're lower (I know you didn't say this, valerian, it was posted a few posts back) or that they're less advanced (in the evolutionary sense) isn't. The point is that such qualifications are biased.

 

I'll agree that "higher" and "lower" might not be the best term for what happens in evolution, but those are the terms used by evolutionary theorists. However, that's not to say that they mean "better", but "more complex", as of course we've stated. Debate on this point seems to be more of a problem with word usage, since we can probably agree that a human or chimp or goldfish is more complex than a virus or mold.

 

When you say that we can look at our communication abilities, compare the tools primates use to ours and things like that, the bias is already in the comparison. As humans, we like to think that our ability to do these things is important or generally beneficial for all organisms, without addressing the question whether this is the case. It clearly isn't.

 

Whether it clearly is or isn't is up for debate, but that isnt the point of this post. Primates have tools to communicate and even perform basic tasks (such as getting food from anthills with a stick) and for them, assuming that nothing changes their habitate or lifestyle, that is enough if it keeps them alive. However, the requirements for keeping a human alive at one point must have been greater than keeping a primate alive, else we wouldn't have evolved a more complex brain structure (as only those with mutations in the brain that caused more complex, i.e. "higher", thought managed to survive whatever physical change the primates' environment was undergoing). Once that initial batch of "smarter-than-average" apes became the norm, the process repeated until you had humans. You're absolutely correct when you say that using the phrase "higher" is biased, but while the word usage might be biased, since it simply means "more compex", then despite the biasedd usage, it still stands.

 

Let's have look at - say - viruses. As far as we know, viruses do not have these abilities either. Does that make humans more advanced than viruses in the evolutionary sense? No, because viruses apparently don't need these traits to be successful, they have developed other traits, which make them more successful when it comes to survival (which is actually what natural selection is about); they are able to survive dormantly over long periods of time - which humans can't - and they mutate quite easily in a matter of days (weeks, months, years? I don't know the actual time frame - somebody please correct if neccessary), which humans can't either. Sure, you could argue that we're more complex, but that doesn't necessarily make us a higher organism or more successful in the evolutionary sense.

 

Again, correct. I WILL point out that many people do not consider viruses to be life forms, but we'll assume they are since its important for this point. Viruses are excellent at survival, but are not very complex. Since "higher", be it a biased term or not, simply means compex, viruses are a prime example of an organism that has not needed to become higher/complex to survive. It seems that the debate over "higher/lower" is just a problem with word usage more than the substance that the words entail.

 

Moreover, stating that some organisms are more advanced implies that evolution has direction, i.e., that evolution leads up to some common point of ultimate advancement. Evolution scientists generally refute this notion.

 

It doesn't imply that when you consider that "higher/lower" means more or less complex.