Evolution

[Bono]

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   

Answers' in Genesis response to National Geographic

[Bono]

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.

[Bono]

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. 

That part about the arts etc, it says "Promote the progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Only by that, it does not prescrive anything else.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

THe Weak Case for Public Schooling, offers arguments that we are not.

[Bono]

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.

The problem with that view is that the proper Bible says all scripture is God-Breathed. Now, can we hold God to be a deciever, telling us He did something one way, when He actually did it in a totally different way?

[Bono]

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.

Did you even bother to rea the essay I linked? Take Massachusets, for instance. The fact is that before public education was introduced, literacy rate was 98%, and as of 1995 it was of 91%.

[Bono]

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!

If you think it dificult for aminoacids to become proteins, try getting proteins to combine into DNA. And then try to get that DNA to form a cell.

[Bono]

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!

If you think it dificult for aminoacids to become proteins, try getting proteins to combine into DNA. And then try to get that DNA to form a cell.

You don't need DNA to form a cell. They can make cells in laboratories just by simulating the energy of earth of 4 billion years ago. All they are is a sphere of proteins (a cell, if you will). They grow. They get so big that they split, and the 'children' grow again. That's perilously close to life, isn't it? In terms DNA, RNA, etc., in these simulation, RNA molecules of up to about a dozen nucleotides are made. We can simulate the beginnings of life in our laboratories.

Ok, I'll rephrase cell to a living cell.

[Bono]

I don't believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods, but I don't believe in evolution either. The Big Bang is much more sane, though I don't know much about it.

Try Old Earth Creationism:
Reasons to Believe

[Bono]

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.