Evolution

[angus]

check out National Geographic Magazine, November 2004.

it's cute.  the cover features a stunningly beautiful Jamaican giant anole, green and wide-eyed, probably staring at a delectible morsel of insect flesh.  and it has in big red font, on the cover, "WAS DARWIN WRONG?"

of course, on page 4 the story begins with a 120-point roman font "NO.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

Of course Darwin got a few details wrong.  He lived before modern technology.  But, interestingly, modern technology backs up quite a bit of what he got right.  And, more importantly, what Darwin did and didn't get right is not as earth-shattering as his overview. 

My kayaking buddy, the microbiologist gets his panties in little knots over this, and school board elections and such.  I guess I hadn't realized, until recently, that there were so many people out there who were loathe to accept the evidence for Darwin's theory of Evolution through Natural Selection.  Actually, science is tentative, and the theories should be questioned.  If you have a better hypothesis, offer it up.  But don't try to replace this pretty solid explanation with one that results from a literal interpretation of mythology.  That's downright insulting.  Darwin is not trying to supplant religions.  Understand this.

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will.  Many scientists are quite religious (Darwin, for example!)  And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter, and Darwin's theory of evolution through Natural Selection.

Calm down, folks.  Scientists need to be reminded that theories are, of course, widely-accepted, but tentative explanations resulting from years and years of study and experimentation.  Relgious scholars need to be reminded that they aren't in competition with science!  One requires facts, the other faith.  There's really no reason to ever demand the teaching of "intelligent design."  Anf frankly, the way I read it, such teaching is expressly forbidden in public schools, anyway! 

Feel the love   

[angus]

okay, let's pretend that we are allowed to teach "creationism" in school.  do I get to pick which one?  If I'm Hindu, can I request the great sea version in which Sree Rama is floating on a leaf?  If I'm Maya, can I request the version in which Hun Hunahpu's disembodied head spat into Xquic's hand impregating her with the first life? 

You do see the problem with all this, don't you?

No one expects religion to challenge science.  See, they work in different realms.  One is corporeal, the other is spiritual.  They need not conflict.  Surely, if priests, rabbis, religious scholars of every stripe can respect the separation, then we can too.  That separation is one of church (where you can practice whatever religion you want, even if it involves mass orgies to make the gods happy so it will rain, or even if it involves psilocybin mushrooms or peyote or whatever, with Jefferson's blessings) and state (in which federal and state coffers are opened up to teach your children, and mine, the best we can, and that best should certainly include modern science.)

It's okay to be a christian, muslim, jew, hindu, zoroastrian, shinto, pagan, taoist, buddhist, whatever, and cultivate greater mystic understanding, but then put those books down and pick up the textbook when Monday morning rolls around.  If you want your children to be competetive...  scratch that - you certainly have the right to raise your children any way you like, with my blessings.  Seriously.  But don't expect the electorate to give its blessings to replacing serious knowledge with mysticism.  It's unconstitutional, for one thing, and seriously damaging to society, for another.

[angus]

okay, let's pretend that we are allowed to teach "creationism" in school.  do I get to pick which one?  If I'm Hindu, can I request the great sea version in which Sree Rama is floating on a leaf?  If I'm Maya, can I request the version in which Hun Hunahpu's disembodied head spat into Xquic's hand impregating her with the first life? 

THis is why public schools should be abolished.

well, that's a valid point of argument.  In fact, I believe it is an extreme form of libertarianism.  Yes, one can say federal expenditure on public schooling is, in fact, a violation of that article in the US constitution (the 9th amendment?) which says you can't construe it otherwise.  ON the other hand, some will argue that Section 8, in one of the clauses, "...congress shall promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." I know that is generally meant to deal with copyright Law, but modern scientific authorship is just that, copyrighted material.  I'll have to think a bit about that.  Before, in a discussion with a libertarian, I remember trying to think of a way to defend public Ed. using the constitution, but alas, I admit I cannot. 

But, are we not better off with free public education, at the state-mandated level?  Can you honestly say that we are not?

Interesting article you linked, by the way.  I haven't finished reading yet, but I will have comments at some point after I do finish it.

[angus]

I have looked it over a bit more.  The problem is that holes in Darwin's early theories are in fact evident, now.  But the authors don't try to replace it with scientific evidence of their own.  They do, in fact, offer a literal interpretation of the first five chapters of the book of Genesis as an alternative.  They point to the presentation of the Archaeopteryx, and the subsequent erratum, as proof of some huge error in Natural Selection Theory, but fail to point out that NGM itself offered the statement of retraction, and explained their mistake very well.  I have collected this magazine for many many years, and when I get home I'll go back and look at it, but I'm sure they didn't defeat ideas of Evolution in that one.

Here's the thing.  I have no problem with religion.  In fact, I have consistently defended the religious against the bigotry of the Left.  But you cannot simply state that somehow some new evidence bugs you, in the sense that it inhibits a literal interpretation of mythology, and then not subject competitive theories to scientific rigor. 

For example, take the Parting of the Red Sea.  Very likely, if plate techtonics is to be believed -- and there's *tremendous* evidence that it's a pretty good theory of continental drift -- the horn of africa, at somalia was part of the same land as the Arabian peninisula (Al Jazirah, in arabic).  But eventually they probably pulled apart, sending in a rush of water, creating the Red Sea.  Initially, the sea was shallow, simply a depression not too deeply filled, and periodically there were likely land bridges between the african and asian continents.  One can imagine that in simpler times, men running from potential adversaries may very well have prayed to whatever gods they held powerful, and thus,if some tidal action allowed men to pass quickly, and others to drown, then this may have been held as a sign that a god had helped them.  A brilliant interpretation.  And an artful one, worthy of the number-one all-time best-seller in the history of books.  But still, a mythology.

Take for example, the Great Flood:  We know for certain that the Black Sea was separated from the Mediterranean by a land bridge that is now the Straits of Bosporus.  There is plenty of scientific evidence, in the form of decomposed freshwater organisms up to a certain depth, then above that, all brakish or saltwater organisms.  You can imagine how a rushing in of water, when the strait finally broke could lead educated men to believe that god was causing a flood. 

Many modern religious thinkers don't have qualms with any of this.  They take the First Five Chapters, for example, as a metaphor.  Hindu people do too.  Jews too.  Many people, of religious persuasion, understand the mythological parts of their religion to be metaphorical, while they still hold to the decent, noble, and graceful values of peace, mercy, and submission taught by their religions.

I will continue to defend the religious (muslims and christians alike) on this forum against the bigotries of the left.  But I must also, defend the teachings of modern science against those who would create an Ayatollah's Iran in the USA.  I can't tell you what your god wants of you, and I won't try, but I know for certain Christianity doesn't require abdication of scientific knowledge.  Frankly, I do not believe Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or the rest, do either.  Science and religion do not attempt to explain the same phenomenon.  Religion deals with the Unknowable, whereas science offers tentative, testable explanations for observed facts.  You don't have to buy into anyone's scientific theory, but whether or not you buy into a scientific theory should have *nothing* to do with religious notions.  They are not incompatible.

[angus]

Both evolution theory and Genesis are taught in Finnish public schools. Most teachers teach Genesis as allegory of birth of universe and evolution. But I know that there are still left some conservative teachers who teach Genesis fundamentalist way. Religion is not dead yet in the Old Continent.

I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't exclude existence of hand of God.

The abolition of public education would be a dreadful thing. Do it and your country will fall into the third world economically and socially! How many children would be left without any education if all education were paid? Do you really think that economy will prosper? 

However, I don't see any reason why education should be PRODUCED by government, local or nationwide. The clue is that government should ensure it for all children. Education could be private as far as it will be financially
ensured by government. Government should also order some basic pedagogical standards of education in the private schools.

that's all part of  the George Bush domestic agenda.  He's reputed to show a distinct lack of intellectual curiosity, but he's also a patriotic american, and wants what he thinks is best.  I don't buy into the notion that he's a merely a blueblood aristocratic retard, or a "corporation disguised as a human being" (though I do like the line

I am aware that in many societies Genesis is taught in public schools.  I do not believe that is wise (ir legal) here.  We are not a cultural monolith, and we'd have to offer equal time to all religious persuasions if we begin to recognize the histories of one.  Therein lies a huge time commitment which would cut into the teaching of other important subjects.

In any case, quotes can be taken out of context which give the impression the original writers are disrupting evolution, presenting individual scientific mistakes as evidence that all science is mistaken, selected factoids that presented as supporting their position that are neither relevant to their argument nor disputive of evolution.  But in the absence of a better theory than Natural Selection to explain evolutionary trends, we can't just dismiss it all out of hand.  Like all good theories, it can be modified as necessary. 

Bono, I can't address your specific comments about the desires of God.  I do not know God, or what is in his mind or in his plan.  But I do know there are many wise and thoughtful people who are very religious, but who are able to accept as evidence for hypothesis much of what is offered without compromising their deeply held moral beliefs.

[angus]

it puts me in mind of the famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, when early primitive earth (crica 3 billion BC) was simulated.  A closed vessel containing reduced compounds such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water was set up.  Electrodes supplied an occassional spark ("lightning") and after a week or so, the clear solution in the vessel changed color.  Subsequent analysis showed that the solution contained amino acids!  The beginnings of contemporary life-type molecules were spontaneously organized in a vessel containing reduced inorganic compounds, thus lending support to theories.  At first glance this seems to be both spontaneous and creating negative entropy (?!)  Was Shiva asleep that day?  We need not turn to metaphysics for an answer:  it is simply that the electrodes which supplied the energy for "lightening" borrowed some order (or disorder) from the local power company (the surroundings).  The same thing happens on a universal scale.  Also, the second law deals with equilibrium thermodynamics.  The complex molecules of living organisms are in constant non-equilibrium.  I think the current hypothesis is that life, as a purely energetic event, is a continuity only narrowly tied to the evolution of space-time from the singularity at which the entropy of the universe was zero.  (Really zero!  Not "third law" zero.)  About 15x10^9 years ago, or about 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, original entropy was generated in a phase transition of the entire universe, which, at the time, was about the size of an atomic nucleus (and *very* dense).  At least that's one commonly accepted theory.

As for amino acids *easily* becoming proteins:  hogwash.  No biochemist or biophysisist or molecular biologist I know ever claimed it was easy.  In fact, many moles of glucose must be oxidized in order for the system to acquire enough energy to build proteins from amino acids, and that's even with enzymes lowering the reactive barriers by a few kilocalories per mole!

[angus]

yez should take a look at some of thearly methods of finding the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter.  some old italian guy tossed a needle on a floor like about a million times and looked at the angle at which it landed, etc.  He came up with like 3.1416.  Not too shabby.

There are, of course, better ways.  Some computer simulations can yield like a hundred thousand digits  3.1415926967273815953...

Oh, and actually it was nearly a hundred years ago (1905) that Einstein showed his photoelectric effect, and way more than a hundred years ago that Blackbody radiation and the "ultraviolet catastrophe" were noted.  Still, your point is taken.  But then, that's what we said all along, science is *tentative* and testable.  Nothing wrong with trying to disprove Darwin's theories.  In fact, Science not only encourages it, but demands it!  (still, there's no reason, other than sheer prosyletizing, to offer up mythology as literalism)

[angus]

Sometimes it is better not to think too much.

 

[angus]

yep. 

"You say you want a revolution
Well you know
we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright   Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
we'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright   Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
we all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright   Alright"


Alright!

[angus]

A little news item from Friday's hardcopy Columbus Commercial Dispatch I found interesting:

Alternate evolution theories mandated in Pennsylvania curriculum
DOVER, PA - When talk at the high school here turns to the origins of life, biiology teachers have to make time for both Charles Darwin as well as his detractors. 
Last month, this rural central Pennsylvania community became the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power. 
...
...
the article goes on to say the state ACLU chapter is "reviewing the matter" and says that the school board members who support the change say students should learn to challenge scientific theories.

Just though some might be interested.  The article was written by Martha Raffaele of the AP, and has probably made it around to many newspapers over the weekend.

[angus]

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will. 

It is quite obvious to any novice student of the bible that the writers of the bible, and those quoted within the bible (e.g. Jesus Christ) , interpreted Gen 1-5 as a literal historical account....as I have proven many times on this forum:  Any "Christians" thinking they know more than Jesus are in contradiction with their own faith.

---

And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter...

The theories of cosomology are in contradiction with the quantum theory AND the laws of thermodynamics....now, I am no priest or scientist, but I have profound problems contradictions.

Good to have you back.  Yes, you have shown, using a King James authorized language version that those quoted believed that.  And since I don't speak or read Greek or Hebrew, I'll cede.  I have had conversations with scholars who do read those languages well enough, though, and I can say for certain that the literalist interpretation isn't universally accepted among Christians, or Jews.  I really can't match wits with you on this subject, and I'd get a headache trying, but I'm delighted that you haven't left the forum.  I've tried very hard not to offend anyone's religious beliefs while still encouraging a hard separation of church and state, and that separation should extend to the classroom.

On the point of contradictory mathematical models, of course there are many.  That's not unusual.  Before the 20th century, physicists used one equation to explain blackbody radiation at low frequencies, and another to explain it at high frequencies (see Ultraviolet Catastrophe, for example), which called for a better explanation, which we now have.  Certainly, no man has cosmology or the origins of the universe figured out, but if a mathematical model explains at least some observation, then it is useful. 

[angus]

except that is not the "end of all religion." 

religions evolve too, don't they? 

[angus]

interesting point of view.  to use mathematical notation, the limit of religion, as knowledge approaches infinity, is zero.

the thing is, there will never be infinite knowledge.  so, even if your explanation holds, you needn't worry about religion dying.

[angus]

I don't know beef, I hate being in between these intolerant leftist types that want to trample on the constitution and stamp out religion, as we know it, on one hand; and those who want to bring it into the schools, on the other.  To the first group I'd ask Why not just admit that most Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, etc., that we know are nice humane humble folks?  And to the second I'd suggest opening up the mind to the possiblity that your god doesn't want you to forego objective reasoning.  Jmfcst and you and supersoulty are three of the most reasonable posters I know, completely disproving the notion that the religious can't be reasonable.  But I'd ask for further tolerance from folks as intelligent and as reasonable as you are.  If I could go back in time and witness the resurrection of Christ, then, yes, I'd call it an observable.  A fact.  Certainly I have no argument with you.  But, I'd then go on and look for a physical explanation thereof. 

I can only speak for myself, but in no way do I think science precludes, or replaces, religion.  As I stated before, one deals with fact, the other with truth.  I have not used the word "truth" in conjunction with science, only the words "fact" and "explanation of fact" and "testing of explanations"

[angus]

To me, religion is essentially an attempt to answer questions that currently are unanswerable.  If you knew everything, there wouldn't be anything that would need answering, so religion would be nonexistant.

Of course, then comes the philosophical debate over whether it's possible to know everything, to which I have no real answer.

there was an article in the journal of the american mathematical association, back in about 1991, where a group from...I forget, Cornell maybe?...showed that it was not.  But then many assumptions were made, of course.  It's really a *philosophical* debate.  Agnostics say no.  Gnostics say yes.  There's no right answer.  And it doesn't really matter, anyway.  I say even the omniscient can have religion, if they want.

[angus]

jmfcst,
Glad to hear the good book approves of Thermodynamics.  Interesting passages.  I'll definitely keeps romans chapter 8 in mind if any controversy over Entropy ever arises 

"scholars" = the small handful of priests I know, and the one rabbi and one protestant minister I know personally.  None claimed to know more than anybody else, including the figures of the old or new testaments.  One is in your neck of the woods:  Francis Xavier Burleton, from the Diocese of Beaumont.  Look him up.