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

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

Honestly, how could this happen?

And I thought this thread was going to be about 'Ah! Megami-sama!'

It happens because some people think that religious belief is best marked 'Fragile -- handle with care'. Which is perhaps not indicative of the strongest faith imaginable.

I don't have any problem with schools teaching the flaws in Evolution Theory alongside the theory itself. In fact I think that is an essential thing to do because it teaches children that science is an evolving discipline, not a set of fixed and rigid rules about reality (which is how it was taught when I was at school)

I haven't looked closely enough at that Intelligent Design site to know if they are being objective or if it is merely a front for fundamentalist Christians.

I guess the main concern is that this is in the US, and that it is likely to not be dealt with very intelligently.

It's entirely possible to teach Creationism of course, as a belief system not a science.

But then science is rapidly becoming the new religion of the West...

The most surprising thing about this article is how long it's taken for the SF Chronicle to notice it.

Most of us complain about Americans being unaware of the rest of the world. Methinks with Californians the awareness stops at the state line.

RF

I have fond memories of a ninth grade girl in Lester Prairie High School of Lester Prairie, Minnesota, USA, who, upon being presented the idea that some people subscribe to the theory that man may have developed from apes, responded by saying: "This is the most dumbest [sic!] I ever heard!"

Y.

Is there not a rather large flaw in the thinking that goes

"Oh, can't teach evolution, not enough evidence. No, we'll stick to creation, because, like, there's stacks of evidence for that as a fact"

Yes, there is a bit of a logic gap in there!

I'm a UK Christian and I find all this in the US a bit, well, . I certainly don't think banning teaching about Darwin and his theories is doing anyone any good.

What worries me is that these people seem to think evolution and God being the creator are totally mutually exclusive. Evolution describes how species change to suit their environment; it doesn't describe why, or how these species arrived in the first place.

And from a theological perspective, one of our days isn't necessarily equivalent to one of God's days; and I don't think anyone with a knowledge of geology or archaeology can say that the earth is only 6000 years old!

I hope I show that we're not all raging fundamentalists .

Aah, but proof denies faith, therefore the evidence for evolution proves it exists, therefore it doesn't.

Or something .

"Evolution describes how species change to suit their environment; it doesn't describe why, or how these species arrived in the first place."

Bollocks.

Absolute, unmitigated, ignorant bollocks. You know NOTHING about evolution, or you wouldn't have spouted such utter bullsh*t. Please, get an education before making such statements.

Evolutionary theory describes the how, and the why. And as for not describing how these species arrived in the first place, which part of the incredibly simple title "The Origin of Species" is giving you trouble?

Let's take it a word at a time, shall we?

The: definite article.
Origin: where something comes from.
Of: possessive pronoun.
Species: species.

Still struggling? Like I said - go back to school, preferably one not run by people still in thrall some backward middle-eastern superstition.



H.

And on the subject of the thread - good.

The more Americans educated by creationists, the better. The more ignorant and backward the American population, the better. They became an economically and militarily dominant superpower by the appliance of scientific education. The sooner they are a bunch of ignorant savages and their country is a third-world cesspit of disease and infant mortality, the better, and the rest of us in the civilised world can stop kowtowing to them and start ignoring them.

More Creationist teaching in the US! Yay!

H.

<>

That's because if God is ascribed any role *within* his creation, rather than a purely "light the blue touch paper and retire" one, then they *are* mutually exclusive. In evolution intelligence *itself* evolves from the bottom up, while in "intelligent design" it's handed down from the top.

Noggin

Hoo, calm down. I don't have all the answers, I was trying to be reasonable. I'm an automotive engineer, not a biologist.

I admit I don't know Darwin's theories in detail beyond what I was taught at school, and that was what I recalled of it. Please contact the British Government and get them to sort secondary school education out .

<>

What's the mechanism that begins organism evolution? How does it start? Why does it start? What does Darwin say about this?

Could you tell the difference between a world filled with "intelligent designs" and a world filled with "evolved creatures"? How would the difference between evolution and intelligent design manifest?

PS - I'm actually curious, because I don't know for definite what Darwin says, beyond the popular science interpretation!

"What's the mechanism that begins organism evolution? How does it start? Why does it start? What does Darwin say about this?"

In reverse order:

Darwin actually doesn't say a great deal, because apart from anything else Darwin was writing over 150 years ago. It's a common Christian tactic to try to discredit Darwin, which is about as effective as trying to "debunk" physics by pointing out that Newton's law of gravitation is wrong. Hello, yes, we KNOW it's wrong, that was kind of the point of relativity.

Why does it start? Because it can't not. You might as sensibly ask why a rock falls to the ground when you drop it. That's the way the universe works. Chemistry happens.

How does it start? How long have you got? Get an education in biology. Or to save time, read some pop science books. I can particularly recommend "The Science of Discworld", which may help you understand how evolution gets going. I can't really sum it up here in the time I have.

"Could you tell the difference between a world filled with "intelligent designs" and a world filled with "evolved creatures"?"

Interesting question. I'll answer it in two ways, because I suspect you mean it rather differently than I would answer it.

1. How I'd mean it.

You can't, even in principle. But then, you can't tell the difference between a universe that is aged 15 billion years and a universe created by divine whim 15 seconds ago with all your memories of your life up to this point created at that point, whole and complete. If you posit a divine creator with that level of power, there's no way at all, none, to tell ANYTHING about the universe. Every feature of it becomes fundamentally arbitrary and unknowable. For instance, you might come up with an equation for gravity, but that equation would be useless because god could simply decide not to let gravity work on Tuesdays. And then could decide to switch to Thursdays. In the face of that possibility, science becomes pointless.

2. How I expect you mean it.

I think you mean how could I spot a universe that HAD to be intelligently designed. And I'm not sure. One thing I think I'd look for is objects and/or features of organisms which are costly, complex, disadvantageous and persistent. An example of such an object is a motor car. They're expensive to build, they're a complex arrangement of difficult to find and refine parts, they're dangerous and destructive, and yet they're still around, over a hundred years after their invention.

No natural organism is like that. No entirely natural system would create something like a car. And no organism or natural object has those characteristics. Hence, I think, there is no intelligent designer.

Also, if there was an intelligent designer, I'd hope for some intelligent design. I certainly wouldn't expect to see things like the urinary tract and the reproductive organs in the same place. I certainly wouldn't expect to see vestigial organs whose only impact on an organisms life is if and when they become painfully and dangerously inflamed. And I certainly wouldn't expect to see the respiratory and digestive systems intertwined in such a way as to make choking to death on a chicken bone possible. All these features of the human design speak of either natural selection from random mutations, or an "intelligent design" done by a designer so benightedly unintelligent I wouldn't trust him not to eat a wax crayon.

H.

"The need to sleep" is the feature that's always puzzled me about humans - if you were designing something, would you make it spend 1/3 of its life unconscious?

"I wouldn't trust him not to eat a wax crayon."

He'd probably best not, since we are created in his image he is presumably designed just as badly as us and he'd probably choke on it.

Surely intelligent design wouldn't have put an air breathing hairless mammal on a planet that is seven tenths water and where only five percent of the land area is tolerable without clothing and shelter? And why is it equipped with all those dangerous animals, poisonous snakes, fish and plants, not to mention bathed in deadly radiation?

F

<>

Apparently humans are alone with having this 'disability' yet is the very one that makes us able to speak.

Which, no, is not a very 'intelligent design' is it? Rather it seems one that came about due to . . . well, whatever. Perhaps after a few more million years of evolution humans will be able to speak and drink water at the same time, much as my cats are able to purr and eat at the same time . . .


az

I was also expecting something about that Manga comic. Anyway, this is hardly a surprise.

Well Hoo, we really are Mr Angry today.

<>

I'm not trying (or wanting) to discredit Darwin. By all accounts he thought long and hard before publishing The Origin of the Species, and he certainly put a lot of work into describing what he saw on the Galapagos.

<>

I've already got it, and I found it pretty interesting and good to read. It is some time since I read it (well, a couple of months), so I can't say anything in detail. I also have the sequel, which is equally interesting .

Your 1st answer was interesting. There is no reason why God would turn the gravity off on Tuesdays or Thursdays - equally, he could decide this yellow sun is a bit boring and replace it with, say, a blue one. The earth was meant to sustain life - which means all the things we're used to, like gravity, the nice temperate climate, the oxygen cycle, water.... So why would He want to upset that balance and potentially kill the world off?

Equally, you would no doubt say that since we have evolved with these conditions, which this planet has due to its position in the solar system, that's why we need them - because we've evolved to live with them and in no others. Microbes have even been found in deep glaciers, still alive despite being from the last Ice Age. Others live around scalding underwater volcanos. But in this case, where is the life outside of earth - have the Martian microbes been proven as real?

<>
Packaging and designing things isn't an easy job. The design process of a car, while a complex machine, is nothing like as complex as a human being. Yet it takes a large team of people working for many months to design and package all the systems on a car to such an extent that the vehicle will be legal, fully functional and usable for customers. And even then, there *will* be compromises.

The Origin of Species - not The Origin of Life.