h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is it not possible that some things in life change and others do not? That seems a rather ... how do you atheists say it? - "narrow-minded" view.

"If evolution happens or not has not been in dispute (in science) for well over 150 years."
Which is precisely the problem. Scientific theories are always in dispute. And should always be in dispute. You have to be able to repeat the process in a controlled laboratory environment - and do it over and over - before theories become generally accepted "facts" and even then they are subject to modification/cancellation as new information is obtained and new experiments are done.

"To deny that evolution happens IS to deny that life changes. Direct question: Do you deny this Nerd42?"
Yes. Life can change without accepting Darwinian evolution as the mechanism that created intelligent life.

I've thought of typing this several times before but decided not to for fear you would be offended by it, but I think I must at this point: It seems to me in your eagerness to promote your theory you have become emotionally attached to it and as a result are not thinking logically (and critically) about it.

Understand that I do not claim to be able to /prove/ anything. I can knock down your evidence you submit all day long and if I were to try to prove my idea, you could knock down mine. I maintain that neither is provable. Since large sections of the population believe in both of these ideas, I think both ought to be taught in schools so that students understand both and can make up their own minds. Certainly, you can't deny that the origins of life are contraversial.
Nerd42

Ok. You seemed to have misunderstood my last posting, and simultaneously accused me of not thinking critically! (no offence taken )


"Which is precisely the problem. Scientific theories are always in dispute."

I wasn't talking about evolutionary theory, but evolution. They are *different things*. Evolution = "living things change". Evolutionary theory = "how do living things change/how does evolution happen?". One hasn't been in dispute for >150 years, the other is a source of constant debate.


"Yes. Life can change without accepting Darwinian evolution as the mechanism that created intelligent life."

That's kind of what I'm saying (though noone is talking about "intelligence"). If you agree that life changes you are agreeing evolution happens. If you disagree with evolutionary theory and have another theory, that other theory would still be describing evolution. Seeing as you admit that life changes you are confirming that you think evolution happens. Perfectly logical, you notice.

So, we're back at *how* evolution happens. How does God fit in with describing how evolution happened?


"Is it not possible that some things in life change and others do not?"

That *is* impossible. DNA replication has a known, measured error-rate. The chances of an organism remaining unchanged over 1,000 years, never minds 3.5 billion years, are astronomical.


I'm not trying to trick you, just trying to get us on the same page. So many of these discussions are based upon a complete misunderstanding on what evolution is and what the theory is. If we're both coming from the same place we can hopefully have a decent chat.


"I can knock down your evidence you submit all day long and if I were to try to prove my idea, you could knock down mine."

I'm not really interested in that either.


"I think both ought to be taught in schools so that students understand both and can make up their own minds."

Well that's another kettle of fish entirely Let's leave that for later on shall we?


"Certainly, you can't deny that the origins of life are contraversial."

I will happily agree with you on that one. I'm getting more interested about it myself recently. I just got a new book out from the library on this very subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0309094321/qid=1134691652/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2184123-0103219?n=507846&s=books&v=glance



Ste

Honestly my interest in the topic kinda faded at some point.

Have you ever heard the phrase "words mean things"? The word "evolution" and the term "evolutionary theory" are so closely synonymous in people's minds that the meaning of the word often becomes murky.

Of course things change. Calling the basic everyday process of passing on of hereditary traits from parents to offspring "evolution" can often confuse people into thinking you've just said something completely different - i.e. that fishes can have monkey eggs and birds may be able to evolve into space-dwelling creatures someday.
Nerd42

"Have you ever heard the phrase "words mean things"? The word "evolution" and the term "evolutionary theory" are so closely synonymous in people's minds that the meaning of the word often becomes murky."

This is precisely my point. I am trying to get us to a common point of understanding of the scientific terminology starting with the basics.

It is a creationist tactic to *purposely* muddy the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory. One is a fact, the other is a scientific theory. Creationists latch onto the word "theory" and use deception and lies to equate "evolution" with "speculation". It is intellectually dishonest and plain incorrect on many levels and apparently it has worked (with yourelf and other simple fundamentalists). If creationism had any legs to stand on it would not need to resort to such dirty tactics.

"Calling the basic everyday process of passing on of hereditary traits from parents to offspring "evolution" can often confuse people into thinking you've just said something completely different"

I did not say that. What you describe above is "heredity". I am the one using and trying to establish clear, unambiguous language here. You just seem to be throwing around words at random.

You clearly do not understand evolutionary theory, nor do you even know what it is. That would be easily forgivable if it weren't for the fact you show absolutely no interest in learning about it AND simultaneously feel qualified to criticise it! It beggers belief!

As this debate seems to be over we can conclude: Your position is purely based in your literal reading the Bible and has nothing to do with science. And that's just fine, you simply cannot *believe* it. We can all be happy with that.

Just keep away from those kids in the science classrooms.

Ste

"It is a creationist tactic to *purposely* muddy the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory. One is a fact, the other is a scientific theory. Creationists latch onto the word "theory" and use deception and lies to equate "evolution" with "speculation". It is intellectually dishonest and plain incorrect on many levels and apparently it has worked (with yourelf and other simple fundamentalists). If creationism had any legs to stand on it would not need to resort to such dirty tactics."
Actually I was going to say it is an evolutionist tactic to putposefully muddy the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory - as in claiming that if you deny one you deny the other, implying that they are the same thing.

"You clearly do not understand evolutionary theory, nor do you even know what it is."
Sure I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Wikipedia defines "Evolution" like so:
"In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population ..."
So far I agree. That is something I can observe happening myself. It can even be done in a laboratory. But then it goes on:

"...and even leading to the emergence of new species."
What this part means depends of course on one's definition of new species. "New species" could mean that a new animal has been discovered by scientists that was previously unknown. It could also mean that because of a change in the way scientists classify animals, new species names have been created to name animals without the animals actually undergoing any change. It could mean any number of things, but the words "new species" are hyperlinked to their article on Speciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Wikipedia defines speciation as the creation of new biological species. I'm not sure how putting the word "biological" there changes what the word "species" means in this case. Wikipedia's entry on species further fails to clarify this. Taxonomy has always bored me to tears - and nothing I've ever seen or read has proved to me that there aren't boundaries that you can't cross no matter how many millions of years of ideal conditions you have to work with.

"Just keep away from those kids in the science classrooms."
"That would be easily forgivable if it weren't for the fact you show absolutely no interest in learning about it AND simultaneously feel qualified ... "
I would not consider myself qualified to teach a science class. I am not a science teacher. I think might be somewhere near qualified to teach an introductory class in computer programming, and with that background, I think I have a reasonable grasp of logic. I certainly think myself qualified to make up my own mind about issues, and decide for myself what to believe and what to base it on.

"... to criticise it!"
Critizise it? I've said you can't prove it and I don't believe in it, and neither does a signifigant portion of the popularion who pay taxes, therefore tax-supported education ought to be inclusive towards alternatives and not exclusive to everything but Darwinian evoluiton. I also make fun of it sometimes, in an effort to shake this sort of air of dogma that seems to surround "scientific" accounts of events no scientist was present to observe.
Nerd42

If you're so fond of Wikipedia, then why don't you actually read the article you are citing to support your position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Science:_fact_and_theory

Defining to word "evolution" does not mean you understand evolutionary theory. I could define "quantum physics" for you but it doesn't make me an expert, or even slightly knowledgable.

If you're going to pull your own definition of species out of your, um, the air then you can conclude anything you want. Biological species refers to Ernst Mayr's Biological Species Concept which defines species are populations of interbreeding individuals. Speciation is still an area of vigourous debate.

"Critizise it? I've said you can't prove it and I don't believe in it, and neither does a signifigant portion of the popularion who pay taxes, therefore tax-supported education ought to be inclusive towards alternatives and not exclusive to everything but Darwinian evoluiton."

If religious zealots stayed out of the classrooms then perhaps people would be able to get a decent education so they would remain ignorant of scientific facts. Most people believe in the Christian God, does that mean it should be taught as fact is schools? Of course not. What about if the majority believed the moon is made of cheese? The majority doesn't determine what is or isn't science. Science does. Thank God.

Ste

Did I say creation should be taught as fact in public schools?

It has been historically, I might point out right here.

But no, I have not said or even implied that creation science should be taught as fact in public schools. I think public schools should be teaching /both sides/ of the origins debate without taking a position on it, and let students examine the evidence themselves and make up their own minds.

That is not what happens right now.

Now I do not intend to cite Wikipedia to support my arguments. I cite it to define words and terminology. Since anyone can edit it of course, it's accuracy is subject, but it's a much quicker and easier reference than h2g2 - no fault of h2g2 contributors, it's all about the wikipedia search being so much better and faster.

So, from the article you cited:
"When "evolution" is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time change into new, or several new, species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new strain of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibodies that had been lethal to prior strains."
Now hang on a second. Just because you can have bacteria that don't do very well against antibodies and then start doing better, doesn't mean new types of animal have been created. You're only seeing a particular trait in existing animals become more prominent.

You've got bacteria, and what do you end up with? More bacteria. There's a huge huge leap between that and taking bacteria and raising them into something other than bacteria, like a fish.
Nerd42

There is no debate over whether evolution happens in science. God is not mentioned in any debate on origins. The debate is only outside of science with religios zealots. Therefore it does not belong in a science class.

So basically you don't *believe* it? And that what it comes down to. Debate over. You are incapable of having a debate based on science.

Ste

Ste, faith and reason are not wholly incompatible. In Catholicism, much store is placed in reason.. and whie Nerd42 disdains Catholicism, I disagree with him there, although I am not a Catholic. Faith is reasonable - you should really read 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis. It is a great primer for the Christian faith in general, and although Lewis converted to Anglican Christianity from atheism, he answers questions about many denominations - most of which are more compatible with one another than even they seem to realise.

<>

But boundaries have been crossed. At one time species X, family Y etc did not exist; now they do. One can either choose a series of small boundaries (evolution) or a huge boundary where taxonomic groups spring into existence out of nothing (creationism). If you can believe in the latter, what's so difficult about believing the former?

What is it about the boundaries that you propose that makes them uncrossable?

Noggin

"Critizise it? I've said you can't prove it and I don't believe in it, and neither does a signifigant portion of the popularion who pay taxes, therefore tax-supported education ought to be inclusive towards alternatives and not exclusive to everything but Darwinian evoluiton. I also make fun of it sometimes, in an effort to shake this sort of air of dogma that seems to surround "scientific" accounts of events no scientist was present to observe."

Are you American?

"public schools should be teaching /both sides/ of the origins debate without taking a position on it,"

There is NO "origins debate" IN SCIENCE.

There is an "origins debate" amongst *religious* people, and between religious organisations and rational people.

But *within science* there is NOT the debate you imply. There are NOT "two sides" that should be given equal time in science classes.

Creationism *should* be taught in science classes - for ten minutes, at the beginning of the first lesson, in the following terms:

"This lesson and all the lessons after it are about science. Science is about observing the world as it really is, and trying to explain it. You observe first, then come up with an explanation, and if the explanation doesn't fit, you change it. The explanations I shall teach you have been rigorously tested by generations of scientists, and are the best ones we have.

There are other explanations - superstitious ones, mostly based on the writings of various groups of middle-eastern nomads thousands of years ago. You may, after I have finished teaching you about the real world, choose instead to believe in those superstitions. That is your right. However, I will not be teaching you about them, and nobody who does tell you they are true is a scientist. As long as you understand that... we can continue."

That's how much time creationism should get in publicly funded school science lessons...

SoRB

<> (Nerd)

Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific study. A scientific theory that belongs in a science class.

Various religious concepts of creation might be taught in a religion class, but IMO don't have any place in a science class. So I quite disagree that religious creation theories should be taught alongside scientific evolution theories.

Also, IMO, tax-supported education should be secular. After all, religion is a personal matter and a personal choice. One can't expect all government funded institutions to take into account everybody's particular religious beliefs.


az

An apt interview that I was directed to today:

http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html

"The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins
The renowned biologist talks about intelligent design, dishonest Christians, and why God is no better than an imaginary friend."

Yeah, I'm an American. I wouldn't know anything about how European schools are run, but I would assume there are large numbers of creationists in europe as well. I know there are large numbers of creationists in the United States.

"There is no debate over whether evolution happens in science. God is not mentioned in any debate on origins. The debate is only outside of science with religios zealots. Therefore it does not belong in a science class."

The question here is "Who should define what is scientific and what is not?"

You are all being absurd. If something isn't debatable, and you can't think critically about it, then you aren't practicing science at all in the first place. You're preaching dogma just like preachers on Sundays.

There certainly is a debate over evolution and creation in the minds of the public. Just look at this polling data:
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118
Now, admittedly, people are stupid.

Scientists - /real/ scientists - disagree on about just about everything - including and especially the questions of the origins of life.

The Institute for Creation Research (which while I sometimes use their materials I do not nessicarily agree with all of their claims) is compiling a list of creation scientists.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_creationsci
Of course, this is not a complete list, this is just a list of people they've been able to get ahold of who will commit to having their names on the list. I think alot of people are afraid, like Galileo almost, of the establishment stomping on them for disagreeing with an idea that is merely /popular/ among scientists, and is rammed into our educational system.

I think, furthermore, that alot of scientists simply don't know.

In my opinion, the views of the taxpayers ought to be fairly represented in the education they are paying for. Schools ought to have objectivity standardds the way news organizations are supposd to have. Show both sides and let the kids make up their own minds whether to believe in what evolutionists call "science", what creationists preach about or what agnostics don't know.
Nerd42

"...I would assume there are large numbers of creationists in europe as well."

You assume incorrectly. Europe doesn't have the problem of a large group of fanatical religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs as science upon children.


"You are all being absurd. If something isn't debatable, and you can't think critically about it, then you aren't practicing science at all in the first place."

No-one said it wasn't "debatable"! What a fine example of critical thinking that cannot even follow a simple sentence. Why must you feel the need to twist words about? It is *debatable*, there is no debate is science on whether evolution happens or not because it is a scientific FACT. There is continuous debate on HOW. EVOLUTION. HAPPENS. within science. Is this now clear? doihavetospeakmoreslowly?


"There certainly is a debate over evolution and creation in the minds of the public."

*Because* of the misinformation campaign by creationists. And *because* there are large numbers of Christian fundamentalists in the US. This is not a debate within science. It is a debate outside of science with fundamentalists.


"The Institute for Creation Research..."

Stop there! Hang on... Aaa-hahahahaha!


"Schools ought to have objectivity standardds the way news organizations are supposd to have. Show both sides and let the kids make up their own minds whether to believe in what evolutionists call "science""

So then, the Fox News version of education? News is not about peddling opinion on "both sides" to create balance. You just think that because you think Fox is news.

So get this: Creationists try and get creationism taught in science classes. It is ruled unconstitutional and creationists kick up a fuss. Creationists then turn around and say "well then, you should teach the controversy in schools"! The very same controversy that the creationists generated in the first place! The "teach both sides" argument is perhaps the most desperate, weakest argument I have ever heard in my life. It's quite amusing.


Nerd, why is science so important to you? Why must you think your beliefs are science? Because they are not. I'm sorry, they're just not. If you want to believe what you believe then fair enough.

It's really odd. You respect science as this great authority (which in today's world I suppose it is) and at the *very same time* want to undermine it and bypass its rules, but still keeping the "science" branding and the associated respect it garners.

Why the need to be accepted by science? What's wrong with faith?


Ste

"Nerd, why is science so important to you? Why must you think your beliefs are science? Because they are not. I'm sorry, they're just not. If you want to believe what you believe then fair enough."
I do not claim that my views are backed up by science. I only say yours aren't. In fact, I think science can't answer the question of how life came to be, or even what it is.

ICR might claim that their beliefs are backed up by science, I'm not sure. But I am sure that scoffing is not a logical argument. You may have issues with the ideals of ICR but that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of educated people who believe differently than you do.

"*Because* of the misinformation campaign by creationists. And *because* there are large numbers of Christian fundamentalists in the US."
If you look at it historically, there has never been a time when evolution was the accepted norm. Creationism, true or not, is a much older idea, and used to be the ONLY thing taught in public schools. Now, evolution (even though I know it is older than Darwin) is the only thing taught in public schools.

If it's true it must be able to stand up for itself when presented alongside competing ideas. All you've managed to do so far is to call your idea "scientific" and insist that all other ideas are "unscientific." If it really is scientifically proven by scientifically supported, scientifically scientific science, then you shouldn't be afraid of it losing in the marketplace of ideas. Your evidence must be so compelling and so simple that there is no way anyone could deny that you are right and still believe in objective reality.

But that is not the case. Thus, evolution is contraversial.

The attitude you seem to want evolutionist teachers to take towards students is, "You're going to learn what I believe in, and in my class you will never hear of anything anybody else believes in because I've decided that you're too stupid to be able to see that my ideas are still true and scientific if you are confronted with other ideas. And what's more, I don't care what your parents ideas are, even though they're paying my salary!"

"This is not a debate within science. It is a debate outside of science with fundamentalists."


"Europe doesn't have the problem of a large group of fanatical religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs as science upon children."
This statement reveals that you ARE the zealot. YOU are the one trying to impose your beliefs as science upon children. I am the one arguing for educational objectivity.

And as for your comparing it to FOX News ... I'd rather compare it to Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

Which they quite often don'ot follow by the way.
Nerd42

"I do not claim that my views are backed up by science. I only say yours aren't. In fact, I think science can't answer the question of how life came to be, or even what it is."

NCBI's PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed finds 168,006 peer-reviewed scientific articles with "evolution" in its title or abstract. It finds 14,427 on "natural selection". It find 46 on "creationism" and most of those talk about how to deal with the attack on science in teaching. I talk about science. The stuff in the science textbooks. The stuff in the scientific papers. The stuff in the scientific theories. You are talking about a bunch of hot-air that all-too conveniently perfectly fits around your Bible.

Can't you see that's what you are doing? If you bend science around a religious document it stops being science!


"ICR might claim that their beliefs are backed up by science, I'm not sure. But I am sure that scoffing is not a logical argument."

I never said it was a logical argument. Just that it's funny.


"You may have issues with the ideals of ICR but that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of educated people who believe differently than you do.""

That the crux isn't it. They simply believe. And that's it.


"If you look at it historically, there has never been a time when evolution was the accepted norm. Creationism, true or not, is a much older idea, and used to be the ONLY thing taught in public schools. Now, evolution (even though I know it is older than Darwin) is the only thing taught in public schools"

Correct. Creationism used to be the established way life came about. Then someone noticed life had changed. Then someone proposed how life changed. Creationism hasn't been a serious scientific idea since the early 1800s.


"If it's true it must be able to stand up for itself when presented alongside competing ideas."

It did. In the 1800s. It was a convincing, comprehensive victory over creationism. Debate over.


"The attitude you seem to want evolutionist teachers to take towards students is, "You're going to learn what I believe in, and in my class you will never hear of anything anybody else believes in because I've decided that you're too stupid to be able to see that my ideas are still true and scientific if you are confronted with other ideas. And what's more, I don't care what your parents ideas are, even though they're paying my salary!""

No. I want students to learn science, not religion. I would tell them what science is and isn't. I would tell them what a scientific theory is and isn't.


"This statement reveals that you ARE the zealot. YOU are the one trying to impose your beliefs as science upon children. I am the one arguing for educational objectivity."

And the *really* dangerous thing is that you, and numerous other people in the US, actually, genuinely believe that. It beggars belief.


Ste

"NCBI's PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed finds 168,006 peer-reviewed scientific articles with "evolution" in its title or abstract. It finds 14,427 on "natural selection". It find 46 on "creationism" and most of those talk about how to deal with the attack on science in teaching. I talk about science. The stuff in the science textbooks. The stuff in the scientific papers. The stuff in the scientific theories."
That is irrelevent. Just because you say something is true, the textbooks (written by people who all agree with you) say it's true, the papers (also written by people who all agree with you) say it's true and the theories (made up by people who all agree with you) say it's true doesn't mean it's true. And doesn't mean you should therefore get to control what gets done with the public's tax money.

"You are talking about a bunch of hot-air that all-too conveniently perfectly fits around your Bible. Can't you see that's what you are doing? If you bend science around a religious document it stops being science!"
Once again, I do not and have not claimed that creationism is scientific. Just that evolution is not scientific. No matter how many times you call it that. Scientific means you can repeat it in a laboratory. You can't do that with the origin of life itself.

"It did. In the 1800s. It was a convincing, comprehensive victory over creationism. Debate over."
Bryan won, or didn't you notice?
Nerd42

"That is irrelevent. Just because you say something is true, the textbooks (written by people who all agree with you) say it's true, the papers (also written by people who all agree with you) say it's true and the theories (made up by people who all agree with you) say it's true doesn't mean it's true."

And what if all those thousands and thousands of people are scientists? As far as science is concerned, it's true. Hardly irrelevant.

"And doesn't mean you should therefore get to control what gets done with the public's tax money."

Of course it does! If something is a scientific fact it gets taught in a science class. Science determines what is true and what is false according to the scientific method.


"Once again, I do not and have not claimed that creationism is scientific."

Ok, I missed you saying that last time. Sorry. So we agree that creationism doesn't belong in a science classroom. Excellent.

"Just that evolution is not scientific. No matter how many times you call it that. Scientific means you can repeat it in a laboratory."

That's not actually what science means. There you go again, redifining things at random. "Words mean things", remember? Evolution experiments takes place in the lab all the time. Would you like an array of citations? There is an entire field called "experimental evolution". Would you like some links or can you operate a search engine yourself?

"You can't do that with the origin of life itself."

Is *that* your criteria for proving evolution?!?! To replay a couple of hundred million years in the lab?


"Bryan won, or didn't you notice?"

I wasn't talking about the Scopes trial, was I? I was talking about the scientific debate. Again with your deliberate misreading of what I say. Is it not possible to be honest?


Ste