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

Been a long time since I've been called Cute...

Thanks for sorting that out, Effers.

I'm not posing or posting as anyone else on h2g2 and my name here has always been azahar, usually shortened to az.

Just like this ...

az

I know that's why I was desperate to sort it out. I just wnt to cutie's space and trig has mentioned it on a thread there and lil got in a panic. I've told her that an accidental mistake was made.

Hi Vicky,

'If God guided evolution'

Then it wouldn't be Darwinian evolution, which relies on natural selection.

Aside from theological/philosophical points (e.g. the number of creatures that need to die to evolve us), there is good scientific evidence that natural selection is the only significant driving force behind evolution. These mostly centre on comparative DNA sequencing, with a side-helping of moths.

'Yes, and Behe answers Dawkins regarding that!'

Not that I've seen. In fact, Behe has backed down from his original claims quite markedly (though still reissuing his book unchanged 2 years ago). F'rinstance, according to W***pedia: 'Behe admitted that [...] complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.' in the 2005 Dover trial.

Likewise, Behe admitted that it is possible for evolution to produce systems matching his definition of 'irreducible complexity' and that 'further work needs to be done' to produce a modified definition in his essay 'Reply to My Critics' from 2001, yet in the intervening 7 years he has not been able to produce such a definition, and has blithely continued using a definition he knows doesn't work.

'Dawkins is guilty of 'Just So' stories'

Any examples? I think you'll find that Dawkins' case studies are quite well researched. The only 'hypotheticals' I can think of in the book are the illustrations of 'concestors'; few of these correspond to actual fossil species.

Ancestor's Tale is a stunning book. I shelled out a little extra for the glossy hardback, since it's chock full of illustrations.

There's a good overview of the deeply deceptive nature of the Intelligent Design community in the Nova documentary 'Judgement Day'. It's online on YouTube; don't know how you'd get hold of it without broadband.

Gif

Ah!

Well spotted Effers, and apologies CA and az.

Gif

I yam an ACE. I !


I just become very confused



Thanks for the explanation, Effers



I shall now leave you all to carry on...


*copies another well known habit and unsubs*

It seems to me though, that Behe et al are struggling (and failing) to make their arguments within the parameters of mere science.

On the other hand...the modern theologians seem to think there's more too it than that. I can't make head nor tail of them myself - I suspect they're trying to 'blind us with theology'. I wonder, then, how come when I'm just about up to following a biological argument I'm too dumb to grasp whatever it is that these guys are on about?

Does one have to be exceptionally smart to believe? Where are we Atheists falling down?

(Serious questions. Responses requested from believers.)

I read 'Evolution; What the Fossils Tell Us' by Don Prothero. Several times he expresses his bewilderment and frustration with IDers in formal debate. He knows their arguments and comes prepared. Yet, even though he clearly refutes their arguments, they blithely go on presenting their point as if they hadn't heard him.

I found myself wanting to shake him and say "Don, they're not talking to YOU. They're talking to the people who spend millions on their books and seminars. The people who aren't listening to anything you say anyway"

Every time I read a book by a religious scientist I get the impression that he's pitching to the Templeton committee. The old man left billions to write modern versions of the Bilgewater Treatises.

Cute Angel,

Regarding the ID trial - why are we free thinkers so inclined to accept a US judge's opinion as authoritative? If we're going to reject argument from authority, don't we have to reject it totally rather than just in those cases where we disagree?

"shurely accepts 'in a limited way' = 'does not accept'... like you [Vicky] accept equal rights for gay people in a limited way, say"

In Vicky's defence, this seems pretty much wrong to me. Doesn't someone accepting something in a limited way just mean they accept the most part of it, or have doubts about some parts? If you're going to be so absolutist about it, then I don't accept mathematics (despite being a mathematician for 8 years). And has Vicky said she doesn't think gay people should have equal rights? I know she's said some fairly nasty things about them, which I abhor, but she hasn't actually said she wants them to have lesser rights. I, for example, support people's rights to do all sorts of things I think are horrible (like fox hunting for example).

Ed,

Post your limerick on your blog! (Or email me, it's all good.)

"I think the explanation is more (with apologies to FA winkeye ) sociological. Closed, authoritative hierarchies create spaces within which bad behaviour can be hidden away from the world."

Yes exactly, which ties in with my thesis that it's not the belief in God that's the problem.

"A difficult situation to change, when every element of the environment is held to be divinely ordained."

I take your point, but is 'divinely ordained' so different than 'necessary for national security' in this respect?

Gif,

"I'm still trying to work out whether 'Evolutionary Psychology' is 'real science' or not. We had generally come to the conclusion that it isn't, since it doesn't make testable predictions. Then I saw a report on a recent piece of research suggesting that images of animals are more diverting that images of artefacts - our brains are more stimulated by pictures of lol catz, for instance, than by pictures of fast cars."

My first thought is: why then are all the programmes on TV about fast cars and guns rather than animals?

"surely [EP] could not have explained the reverse situation, i.e. that our minds are more stimulated by cars than cats."

No, it could definitely have explained that! I'm not an EPist so I probably can't come up with as entertaining a story as they would, but I can give it a go. They could say, for example, that in small hominid tribes, knowing who was powerful and had status is much more important than knowing what sort of animal something was. If you mess with someone powerful, you might get killed and fail to pass on your genes. If you don't have an understanding of status, you're unlikely to be in such a good position to mate and therefore pass on your genes. Since guns and fast cars are all about power and status, they obviously excite our brains more.

Incidentally, in attacking EP I'm not attacking the idea that our evolutionary history has no influence on our psychology, nor even the idea that it's possible to get some understanding of this. I'm specifically attacking EP as it actually is today, which is universally of a very low scientific standard ('just so' stories).

I don't think belief has anything to do with any kind of logic. I keep lurking this thread to see if some new tack might be tried but mostly we just go 'round the same circle.

I think it's neurological. There seems to be some switch or setting in our brains that represents 'this is true'

Let me illustrate with a story, a thing that happened to me on Tuesday. I had just gotten out of a movie and was in the washroom when I was seized with the overwhelming certainty that I had mistakenly wandered into the Womens. How embarassing. Gotta get out. The thing is, I'm standing at the urinal with willie in my hand. Even though I'm looking at proof that I'm in the right place, I still can't shake the absolutely perfect certainty that I'm not. I started to laugh at myself (I do that a lot) but I still could not resist hurrying to finish before some woman came in and caught me.

EP has some similarities with the nature/nurture false dichotomy.

"Some children are just born evil"

Now imagine an experiment to test this. How are you going to take a child from birth and raise them independent of any for of nurturing or environmental influence.

The same with EP. Are you going to take a hominid and wait a few million years?


And don't get me started on the old 'If you jump off a high building, you're dead before you hit the ground' story. What? They wire clinically depressed people up to ECGs and EEGs and hope for a jumper?

Me:
>>"A difficult situation to change, when every element of the environment is held to be divinely ordained."
Dogster:
>>I take your point, but is 'divinely ordained' so different than 'necessary for national security' in this respect?

Ah, but at least the military etc have the good grace to justify it as a necessary evil. The church regard their dysfunctional organisation as a holy blessing. They have to take responsibility for the consequences of their holiness.

Hi Dogster,

Well put, you've convinced me. No clear prediction from EP here, so back it goes into the box labelled 'non-science'.

Hi Ed,

Anyway, people can fall out of planes and survive: A29552781

Gif

I accept the theory of gravity.


In a limited way, of course

citing the judgement isn't, I think, arguing from authority. nobody thinks the judge is a biology authority. court's job is to weigh arguments, that's what they do all the time and that's what we trust them to do in cases far more important than whether loonies get to teach their mistakes to children. behe's arguments were weighed against real science, real science won and behe lost. no, strike that - behe and his chums got slaughtered, absolutely battered up and down, lambasted and ridiculed.

And you only need to read some of the quotes from Behe at the trial to see why.

He admitted on the stand that ID was on a scientific par with astrology. It was always going to be a tough sell to claim it should be taught in science classes after that.

Gif

Two facts.

One az is not cute! She is both inwardly and outwardly beautiful.

Two I dont care who agrees or disagrees with me on any subject the decision of the court was a victory for rationalism not rationalists. The very fact that it even got as far as a court room shows how much clout and support those with the intent to indoctrinate children with, what if Im being generous is poor science and if Im in "attack mode" is an outright lie, actually have.

Remember Darwin was ostricized for his views we still talk to theists, maybe we need tot he adrenalin rush that can come from sheer frustration.

(Perhaps if I listened to "lust for life" at full volume and pogoed round the room first thing every morning Id be able to replace one thing for the other.)

If everyone on this thread turned their back on evoluton I wouldnt care if just one of you *any* of you presented a better argument Id nail my colours to the mast for that idea, judge or no judge.

The judgement is just public vindication but it would be empty if people didnt believe in and stand by what they were saying.

As can be seen from just a cursory look at the world there are more faither than you can shake a stick at that say one thing is commanded and a result of the work of their all powerful bigG but int he final analysis they dont show faith in action, put their money where their mouth is or the words of their book are undermined by physical evidence.


That is all the authority I need to make my judgement.

one love

>>I accept the theory of gravity.


In a limited way, of course<<

Taliesin


Yes Taliesin that's a goodway of demonstrating the ludicrousness of some theists accepting a scientifc theory, that is backed up with vast amounts of evidence, so it's hard to dispute if you want the moderate majority of people to take you seriously in our modern scientifially based society, and yet somehow smuggle 'god' into the theory. That's why they came up with this pseudoscience, to not put off the majority of people in an educated society, that wouldn't any longer really believe in the literalness of 'creationism'. It was good old fasioned pragmatism to keep the majority of faithful, faithful.

The theory of evolution is a specific scientific theory with a definite proposal, based on evidence, that evolution occurs by *random*, (Note not god sticking his finger in the pie sometimes,) mutations, having a higher fitness index in rare instances, and so being selected for.

If you accept the theory of evolution there is absolutely no place for god in it, smuggled in or otherwise.

It is accurate to describe this idea when god is brought in as 'Intelligent Design'. It is most definitely *not* any thing to do with the scientific concept of evolution. Hence the hugely important significance of the trial in the US, as much for philosophical reasons. The ruling made clear what is, and is not science.

Intelligent design is *not* science; it's a variation on the almost infinite forms of religious dogma, pure and simple.

All of which tkes me bck several weeks...Is religion especially concerned with the origins of life?

No and Yes. Yes and No. As they go ab out their daily business, the religious re not especially concerned with proteins, RNA, etc. etc. Who, biologists apart, is? Their religion - as far as I can figure out; I don't really know - appears to be a comfort and a guide as they cope with the complexities of life. However, the reason they
are willing to rely on religion appears to be the belief that it is carved in to the universe. God created the rules just as he created all things bright and beautiful.

Now - we Atheists also need to get through our daily lives. Unfortunately we realise that there was no god involved in creation. It thus follows that there are no pre-scripted rules. And yet we manage! Somehow.

I for one believe I manage simply because I believe that there is a form of life after death. I will go on for good or for bad in the form of what I achieved, how I am remembered and the effect I had on other people, including my own progeny. That's eternity enough for me (I suspect golden streets are cold and dangerous, can't stand harp music and I haven't the patience for forty something virgins....).

I understand what you are saying, zoomer, and concur with your sentiment even though I have no progeny myself, and feel I haven't really achieved anything that much in the world. But I'm sure I've affected people..

I love the last lines of George Elliot's novel, Middle March:-

'But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.'

Clucking brilliant!