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

<>

It seems to me that if one postulates an omnipotent deity, then that deity must, by definition, be capable of the artistic economy of evolution. And therefore, if you believe in such a deity, arguments against evolution on the grounds that it is impossible are automatically logically faulty.

Noggin

<>

Yep, pretty much!

Yet that is what fundamentalists argue . . .


az

And the majority of people, regardless of whether they are religious or not, regard fundamentalists of any kind as, well, mental. Certainly slightly loopy, in any case.

Slight topic drift, but perhaps illustrates ...ignorance closer to home???


Discussing this topic last night with my 2 kids (13 and 11) and my lodger (who can be a bit of a blonde at times)

My daughter says "But of course we're descended from apes - that's why we've got tailbones"

We then continued to Advent, and the meaning of that.

"But" protests my lodger "I thought yous were Protestants!"

Well, strangely it does seem to be a protestant thing this creationism. Don't know why.

Great comments, everyone!

And about the biochemistry thing. A penpal of mine is a creationist, and did some chemical engineering at uni. Very smart girl, so they aren't all just ignorant peasants.

I've just had a class with a student who is a middle-aged *very* staunch Roman Catholic and - because this conversation was in my mind - I asked her if she believed in evolution or creationism (is that the word?). She said she believed in creationism.

I then posed Della's stance to her, that God could have used evolution as a means to create humans, and she said - 'Oh yes, that would also make sense.' Unlike Christian Fundamentalists who take the bible literally she said that God could very well have 'made Adam from mud' in an allegorical sense, so this could include the concept of evolution. BUT, she said at some point during evolution God placed the soul in his creation, which then made it human.

I forgot to ask her whether she believed that other living creatures also have souls (other Catholics have told me they do not) so I shall save that for next week's class.


az

I never thought the teaching of evolution in my school was very good. I think they were trying to give an idea of a kind of pre-destined evolution, with man being the ultimate goal. Luckily being into dinosaurs I knew most of the stuff already.

<>

Hmmmm, yes, this does often seem to be a problem. This concept actually does smack of some sort of 'religious' belief, wouldn't you say? Mankind as the ultimate goal . . . of what or whom? Meanwhile, there are plenty of other creatures out there who exist much more efficiently than we do, without needing to destroy their environment whilst doing so.

I was also totally into dinosaurs when I was a kid and, as I was brought up (so to speak) as Roman Catholic, the most obvious thing to do once I was old enough was to leave this religion.


az

If by "soul" you mean consciousness, then my cat defintely has one. If you mean "conscience", then I know of many humans who don't.

I think most non specialists have an idea of evolution as having the "purpose" (as opposed to the result) of leading to our own existence, and this is part of the reason why ideas like "intelligent design" get a foothold even in secular societies. The realisation that evolution is blind, and that intelligence *itself* has to evolve is a bit like the discovery that the earth goes round the sun, and not vice versa. (And the initial reaction of the Church then - "it's okay to make calculations on this basis because it's easier, but just remember it's not actually true", is much the same as many people's reaction to evolution now.)

Noggin

<>



Quite agree. But a few years ago I was chatting with a 12-year-old Catholic student about bullfighting. He loved going to the bullfights. So I asked him if he didn't feel sorry for the bull and his very quick reply was - 'oh no, bulls don't have souls!'


az

And I bet they don't feel pain either

Apparently that is by the by, Dave (and no, I don't agree!)

az

To stay on topic.

The resistance of fundamentalists to scientific views on evolution are to me anyway very similar to the way people disparage forecasts about global warming.

Just because the results arent as clear cut as a litmus test or a thermometer reading and there are mental leaps and some conjecture involved then the whole shooting match is thrown out.

Does anyone no of anyone who both rejects climate change predictions and evolution?

one love

I would say a lot of the oil-owning christian right does. Like Bush and his ilk. That is not to say I go for that whole global warming hysteria though.

Hmmm, I would consider humans to be one of the most amazing things evolution has thrown up. But I still don't think we were the purpose. And I tyhink the way that evolution is taught in Danish schools, people might easily be led to believe it was wrong. Because the way it is taught it doesn't make that much sense. People just think it is right because it was told by someone on authority, rather than due to understanding. So if someone comes along and is able to with authority tell you about another theory which doesn't make less sense, he could probably persuade them.

>>>
Xanatic:<>

az: Hmmmm, yes, this does often seem to be a problem. This concept actually does smack of some sort of 'religious' belief, wouldn't you say?
<<<

I think this demonstrates that science is no more value free than any other discipline or belief system.

The theory of evolution is very valuable in assisting us to understand the physical world. It's still a theory though (albeit a good one) and not an absolutely accurate description of reality, especially as it has translated into the general population.

Ideas like 'survival of the fittest' that are in common usage are based on perception and don't tell the whole story (eg they miss the fact that there is alot of co-operation in nature).

This is why my initial response to the Intelligent Design issue is that it's fine to teach other knowledge systems alongside Darwinism especially ones that address shortcomings in Darwin's theories (if they are going to be taught in science classes then they need to meet the same scientific standards, although as Xanatic has pointed out belief still plays a big part).

Unfortunately the whole fundamentalism thing in the US just polarises the issue, and I do think there are serious concerns about fundamentalists