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

Look Nerd, I'm not expecting you to suddenly change your beliefs here. I am, however, expecting you to read what I am saying.


"...it works by natural selection acting upon the genetic variation generated by RANDOM processes such as mutation. In that case, for every "positive" (beneficial) movement forward (towards more sophisticated organisms) thre would have to be an almost infinate number of botched evolutionary steps that were wiped out BY natural selection. Those *would* have random attributes."

If you are selecting something, and that something is randomly distributed, the selected subset are not random because they have been selected non-randomly. Imagine a large population of organisms. Mutation happens all the time. Most of them are neutral - neither harmful or beneficial. A large number of them are deleterious and decrease the individuals fitness, but are kept at a very low frequency by natural selection ("purifying selection"). They don't really have an effect on a large population. Then imagine a rare beneficial mutation that slightly increases fitness. "Positive selection" will tend to increase the frequency of this mutation in the population, maybe so every individual has this mutation. Repeat this process countless billions of times over billions of years.


"So, in that case, scientific "truth" can contradict itself? Idea A contradicts idea B but since A and B both sound good when "judged in their own right" they are both true? You're not making any sense at all here."

That's because you do not understand science at the most fundamental level.


"Someone who says their highly contraversial idea is accepted by "every reasonable person on the entire planet" is clearly not very reasonable themselves."

Not highly controversial. Bog-standard central theory of biology. It's not "my" theory, but the whole of science's. The above statement stands - compare it to "force your children to learn my fundamentalist religious dogma as scientific theory".


"The trouble with that is that it is a higly subjective interpretation. It may appear the most likely explanation *if you make the assumption of atheism* but, making no assumptions but those absolutely nessicary to practice science, the actual *evidence* is inconclusive."

WHERE does atheism come into it??? Nowhere! When I say science doesn't or cannot invoke God, it isn't atheism, it doesn't get that far! It does not make any conclusions or statements or judgements about the existence of any God(s) or otherwise. Maybe you should write this on a post-it note and place it on your moniter.

Also, that's one piece of evidence. In fact, it's the first piece of evidence. *You* think the evidence is inconclusive because you don't *believe* it. You can make conclusions based on that evidence, whether these conclusions stand the test of time is another matter. 150 years later...


"A (Scopes style) courtroom, in which God is being accused of non-existance."

Argh! God is not being accused of anything! How can he be? Is that what you think I am attempting here?

"...That would require *absolute proof*, something I thought we'd already agreed isn't there."

As I said in a previous post, it requires probability above a certain threshold. There are no absolutes.


"Just because we see some animals change in very minor ways doesn't mean a mouse can turn into a lion."

Nerd, can you tell me why I audible went "NNNnngggggg" when I read that sentence please? Sincere question.


"Also, like I've said before, that is completely open to different interpretations, and it seems to fit in with several different ideas very conveniently well."

Oh, so "theory" has morphed into "idea". Read Noggin's post.


"I think we're beginning to see what I've been saying all along. That evolution requires more assumptions than science in general - one of which, as you are demonstrating, is the assumption that there is no God. The rest of science does not require any assumptions to be made about God."

I think we're beginning to see what you think I've been saying all along. Where does God come into gravity? It's the same answer of "Where does God come into evolution?". God is not a valid explanation in science for reasons gone over too many times to count. Evolution does not assume a lack of God, neither does the rest of science. Please explain to me why you think this is.


"Eh? I don't really see the major distinction between the two. How could I observe evolution happening *without* observing a common ancestor? If the DNA from The actual common ancestor exists within organisms today (does it? I'm neither a geneticist nor an evolutionary geneticist) observing it might not be that difficult after all. It'd just be somewhat like a cloning procedure, although an impossible one at present."

We can infer some things about the common ancestor based on what we can observe. The DNA exists, but probably not all of it and the stuff that exists is probably slightly different. All life shares common core functions encoded by common core DNA. This is the DNA you're looking for.


"I think that's where our difference on the educaiton thing really lies: you think the government should be secular (making the assumption of atheism) while I think the government should maintain NPOV."

NO. Secular DOES NOT MEAN ATHEISM. You do not understand the simple distinction between "not making a conclusion about" and "doesn't exist". This is VERY revealing.

Do secular schools have atheism classes? Do they teach there is no God? No, because they are not allowed (in the US anyway) to discuss religion in any form, and that includes a lack of a God. Science is also secular. It means it has nothing to do with religion. INCLUDING talking about the existence OR OTHERWISE of God. Are you seriously telling me that you think not making judgements about the existence of God equals atheism?


Ste

"If you are selecting something, and that something is randomly distributed, the selected subset are not random because they have been selected non-randomly. Imagine a large population of organisms. Mutation happens all the time. Most of them are neutral - neither harmful or beneficial. A large number of them are deleterious and decrease the individuals fitness, but are kept at a very low frequency by natural selection ("purifying selection"). They don't really have an effect on a large population. Then imagine a rare beneficial mutation that slightly increases fitness. "Positive selection" will tend to increase the frequency of this mutation in the population, maybe so every individual has this mutation. Repeat this process countless billions of times over billions of years."

OK ... I want to know something here.

Gary Karispov believe(s) that because Deep Blue made a series of moves in their famous chess tournament that appeared to be unlike the type of moves that chess-playing computers typically make, human intervention influenced Deep Blue's decisions, thus the IBM team was cheating. Do you think that Karispov's accusations constitute scientific proof?
Nerd42

"There are no absolutes."
I thought we established that, for all intents and purposes, there were in the first thread.

"NO. Secular DOES NOT MEAN ATHEISM. You do not understand the simple distinction between "not making a conclusion about" and "doesn't exist". This is VERY revealing."
Hold on a moment here, I'm the one arguing that the government should not make a conclusion about an issue. You're saying it should.

"Do secular schools have atheism classes?"
That depends on your definition of an "atheism" class. Do Christian schools have "Christianity" classes?

"Do they teach there is no God? No, because they are not allowed (in the US anyway) to discuss religion in any form, and that includes a lack of a God. Science is also secular. It means it has nothing to do with religion. INCLUDING talking about the existence OR OTHERWISE of God. Are you seriously telling me that you think not making judgements about the existence of God equals atheism?"
No.
Not making judgements about God equals agnosticism.
Assuming that God (any and all supreme being(s)) do/does not exist is atheism.
Science should have nothing to do with neither.
Evolution depends on assuming that one or more supreme beings had nothing to do with the creation of life in the manner that records (such as Genesis or any other religion's account) indicate - because so far your evidence has neither proven evolution nor disproven anything else.
Nerd42

"Not making judgements about God equals agnosticism. Assuming that God (any and all supreme being(s)) do/does not exist is atheism."

Agnosticism is a conclusion. It is a "I don't know". Science or any other secular things does not even make that conclusion. It isn't a factor.


"Evolution depends on assuming that one or more supreme beings had nothing to do with the creation of life in the manner that records (such as Genesis or any other religion's account) indicate - because so far your evidence has neither proven evolution nor disproven anything else."

Evolution does not depend on that. Just because science seeks naturalistic explanations for phenomena doesn't mean God is not involved. Science cannot detect the actions of any Gods or otherwise. It doesn't even look for them. If you want to say that God actively caused each mutation in DNA in every living thing ever then science would have no comment on that matter. Get it?

Ste

"Gary Karispov believe(s) that because Deep Blue made a series of moves in their famous chess tournament that appeared to be unlike the type of moves that chess-playing computers typically make, human intervention influenced Deep Blue's decisions, thus the IBM team was cheating. Do you think that Karispov's accusations constitute scientific proof?"

I don't think it has anything to do with science. It is a logical argument with weak, circumstantial evidence.

Ste

Even though I may be conveying a lot of frustration in my last few posts (apologies) I do think we are now getting down to the crux of the matter here...


Ste

Maybe we should try to find some common ground here.

When you get down to it, what I am actually saying might not be so far from what you're saying after all. We both agree that there are some similarities and some differences in all living things, that living things have a systamic design, and that this shows they all *probably* have a common origin/originator, whether they descended from it/him/her it or were designed by it/him/her. Whether they gradually came out of slime over millions/billions of years or were deliberately and calculatedly placed there a signifigantly shorter amount of time ago is where we disagree.

I think I have summarized things fairly and rather well in that last paragraph, don't you think?
Nerd42

God could have created everything yesterday for all science cares. God could have created you, I, all our memories, all of the rest of life in exactly the way we see it now. Even so, science would still offer naturalistic, non-God explanations for what we observe because it only deals with what it can detect. You cannot detect God so science makes no conclusions about God. This includes theism, atheism, or agnosticism.

So, science says that life has a common ancestor based on all the information available to science. If a God *did* place everything here yesterday in the same pattern as science currently sees it, then science would conclude the same thing, even though there is a powerful diety at work. God and science are totally compatible with each other.

In fact, which is a cooler God? One that has to meddle with his creation constantly, nudging it here and there; or a God that is so f*cking amazing that he has to perform one single perfect act of creation? If I were shopping for a God, I'd know which I'd choose.


I think we are slowly and stutteringly coming to an understanding of each others' motives and arguments. I sort of agree with your summary.
- Do you see now why evolution AND the rest of science is secular?
- Can you see why secular things are nothing to do with religion (not making any judgements on whether that is a good thing or not)?
- Can you see how science cannot deal with God-things?


If God did place everything everywhere, even a few thousand years ago, He made sure to make it look like they evolved from a common ancestor (even though they did not if this were true).

That is a point at which we can agree, I think. It's one I cannot argue with, and it's a position that is compatible with your point of view.



Ste

"In fact, which is a cooler God? One that has to meddle with his creation constantly, nudging it here and there; or a God that is so f*cking amazing that he has to perform one single perfect act of creation? If I were shopping for a God, I'd know which I'd choose."
I actually think that is an interesting topic and worth discussing. What do you think is the fundamental difference between the two?

"I think we are slowly and stutteringly coming to an understanding of each others' motives and arguments. I sort of agree with your summary.
- Do you see now why evolution AND the rest of science is secular?
- Can you see why secular things are nothing to do with religion (not making any judgements on whether that is a good thing or not)?
- Can you see how science cannot deal with God-things?"
If we both agree that science can't make conclusions about God, morality or the supernatural, then the problem we are having with schools has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with government. The government *has* to deal with God-things somehow - because to censor is to deal with, and to preach is to deal with.

(evolution) "If God did place everything everywhere, even a few thousand years ago, He made sure to make it look like they evolved from a common ancestor (even though they did not if this were true)."
(Karispov) "I don't think it has anything to do with science. It is a logical argument with weak, circumstantial evidence."
(paranthesis added to show context)
Some people who have examined the games argue that IBM sure made it look like Deep Blue was cheating. Deep Blue appears to have made moves that are very unusual for a computer (by not capitalizing on several opportunities) and IBM has never released the logs and records of the Deep Blue project. IBM stock rose 15% the day that Deep Blue beat Karispov. (all this is assuming that the information in a film I saw recently called "Game Over" (a Michael Moore style documentary) is actually true, something I haven't fact-checked because I don't see the importance of a chess match either, except as an example)

I look at evolution as being like Karispov's argument. There are several pieces of circumstancial evidence that give IBM a motive and a means, and no way to prove otherwise. Was IBM cheating? I don't know.

Should schools teach that Deep Blue was cheating as an established historical fact? If all living Grand Master chess players agree with Karispov (they don't, this is a hypothetical scenario) THEN should they? If IBM tried to build another computer with Deep Blue's level of skill / strategy but could not duplicate the effect of being able to beat a Karispov level player THEN should they? At what point should schools teach only one viewpoint on a contraversial issue?

Answer: when there is absolute proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Nerd42

<"In fact, which is a cooler God? One that has to meddle with his creation constantly, nudging it here and there; or a God that is so f*cking amazing that he has to perform one single perfect act of creation? If I were shopping for a God, I'd know which I'd choose.">
"I actually think that is an interesting topic and worth discussing. What do you think is the fundamental difference between the two?"

One is better than the other. One is perfect, infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and less fickle. Sounds like a good God to me.


"If we both agree that science can't make conclusions about God, morality or the supernatural, then the problem we are having with schools has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with government. The government *has* to deal with God-things somehow - because to censor is to deal with, and to preach is to deal with."

It is to do with science because there are science classes in schools. Science has limits and boundaries. Teaching religion in schools is not allowed. Teaching religion is science class is ludicrous. Unless you agree with me that religion (such as ID) should stay out of science classrooms.

I think that science can give us information that *informs* moral issues. Like when is death? When the heart stops or brain death? The supernatural (including God(s)) I agree with.

I really do not agree that government is censoring religion. The government is not allowed to deal with religion because the US constitution is stricly secular - which facilitates freedom of religion. I personally think religious education classes are a good idea (I had them) because it exposes you to different worldviews, but that is not constitutional here. It is in this setting that teaching creationism would be appropriate. Notice that the government is not stopping you believing in anything by being secular (so it is not censoring it), but the very secular nature of the US system *encourages* religion. Not coincidentally, the US is by far the most religious Western country.


Deep Blue analogy:
I don't see the connection between the two of my quotes. I think I know what you are attempting but the two statements are not comparable. Unless I'm missing something...

Also, the evidence for evolution cannot be compared to a complaint from a disgruntled chess master. How are they similar? Where does the motive fit in?

Evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know you don't believe this but it is simply true. Only certain fundamentalist Christian sects hold out. Science is in agreement on this matter.

I think a better analogy is needed again...


Ste

"One is better than the other. One is perfect, infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and less fickle. Sounds like a good God to me."

The one that "meddles" fits that description ... you really don't know much about God do you ... (that was NOT intended as an insult to your intelligence!)

"It is to do with science because there are science classes in schools. Science has limits and boundaries. Teaching religion in schools is not allowed. Teaching religion is science class is ludicrous. Unless you agree with me that religion (such as ID) should stay out of science classrooms."
Intelligent Design is not religion! It may be classified as a conspiracy theory, but ID has nothing to do with religion, let alone any particular religion. It is merely the concept that the universe is based on an organized design/pattern - and is in fact not contradictory to evolution now that I think about it.
Nerd42

"I think that science can give us information that *informs* moral issues. Like when is death? When the heart stops or brain death? The supernatural (including God(s)) I agree with."
Something like that, yeah, though I don't think I'd put it quite that way. In that case, right and wrong are right and wrong without reference to scientific conclusions. (i.e. the standard is there before you examine a specific case) Science can produce data *about* a specific case, but cannot dictate a course of action or a goal. Or, what I'm trying to say here is, that science is a tool: a means to an end that is determined by other means.

"I really do not agree that government is censoring religion. The government is not allowed to deal with religion because the US constitution is stricly secular - which facilitates freedom of religion. I personally think religious education classes are a good idea (I had them) because it exposes you to different worldviews, but that is not constitutional here."
what? religion classes are unconstitutional? no they aren't.

"It is in this setting that teaching creationism would be appropriate. Notice that the government is not stopping you believing in anything by being secular (so it is not censoring it), but the very secular nature of the US system *encourages* religion. Not coincidentally, the US is by far the most religious Western country."
Wait a moment here ... what exactly do you think a "balanced curriculum" (like non-evolutionists argue for) would entail?

Deep Blue analogy:
"I don't see the connection between the two of my quotes. I think I know what you are attempting but the two statements are not comparable. Unless I'm missing something..."
No, I was saying that my view of the evolution contraversy (in one of the quotes) is similar to your view of the Deep Blue contraversy - I was not trying to imply that those two positions are contradictory at all. I was just trying to get you to understand how I look at it.

"Evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know you don't believe this but it is simply true. Only certain fundamentalist Christian sects hold out. Science is in agreement on this matter."
Now *that* statement *is* contradictory with your previous statements. And furthermore, it is not true. There are Jews and Muslims and other religions and even some atheists who reject evolution also. It may be that only certain fundamentalist Christian sects have organized a major *political movement* related to this issue in the United States, but not that Christians are the only people who reject evolution.

"Also, the evidence for evolution cannot be compared to a complaint from a disgruntled chess master. How are they similar? Where does the motive fit in?"

One moment please ... I will respond to this part in a bit ...
Nerd42

"Also, the evidence for evolution cannot be compared to a complaint from a disgruntled chess master. How are they similar? Where does the motive fit in?"
That is a very interesting and thought-provoking question. I had an answer once ... but I am not sure it is appropriate here and now.

So ... let me first ask you: What are your motives in arguing with me?
Nerd42

"The one that "meddles" fits that description ... you really don't know much about God do you ... (that was NOT intended as an insult to your intelligence!)"

I don't see how. I suspect I know as much about God as the next person (and no insult taken).


"Intelligent Design is not religion! It may be classified as a conspiracy theory, but ID has nothing to do with religion, let alone any particular religion. It is merely the concept that the universe is based on an organized design/pattern - and is in fact not contradictory to evolution now that I think about it."

ID talks about God. God is the intelligent designer. Are you actually arguing that point? It seems clear to me. ID is less contradictory to evolutionary biology than flat-out creationism, but it still disagrees that it is possible for certain things to evolve and hence must have been designed *by something* (hmm, guess what that something is).

ID itself may not be a religion, but it is a religious idea. It offers a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, so cannot be science. I like the idea. I think it's an interesting one deserving of discussion in the appropriate place - it's a shame the proponents of the idea tried so aggressively to only have their idea talked about in a single context - as scientific truth.


"what? religion classes are unconstitutional? no they aren't."

Please explain why you think that. The constitution and decades of supreme court rulings seem to disagree.


<"It is in this setting that teaching creationism would be appropriate. Notice that the government is not stopping you believing in anything by being secular (so it is not censoring it), but the very secular nature of the US system *encourages* religion. Not coincidentally, the US is by far the most religious Western country.">

"Wait a moment here ... what exactly do you think a "balanced curriculum" (like non-evolutionists argue for) would entail?"

Letting students know there are alternative theories to evolution in science (untrue). What is your point?

This is the same "reasonable language" that you have used before that merely appears reasonable-sounding when it is in fact saying "force my children to learn your fundamentalist religious dogma as scientific truth" - scary and totally UNreasonable. ID is another language trick - it is wrapped up in sciencey-sounding words but comes nowhere close to science.


"No, I was saying that my view of the evolution contraversy (in one of the quotes) is similar to your view of the Deep Blue contraversy - I was not trying to imply that those two positions are contradictory at all. I was just trying to get you to understand how I look at it."

Gotcha. I disagree.


<"Evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know you don't believe this but it is simply true. Only certain fundamentalist Christian sects hold out. Science is in agreement on this matter.">

"Now *that* statement *is* contradictory with your previous statements..."

How? Note the use of the words "beyond a shadow of a doubt" - they do not mean "certainly".

"...And furthermore, it is not true. There are Jews and Muslims and other religions and even some atheists who reject evolution also. It may be that only certain fundamentalist Christian sects have organized a major *political movement* related to this issue in the United States, but not that Christians are the only people who reject evolution."

Ok. I could see how Islamic fundamentalists and ultra-orthodox Jews would agree with fundamentalist Christians because of their religion. What nice company you keep. I would love to talk to the atheist. They could be the control group in our discussion here.


"What are your motives in arguing with me?"

- To discuss the evolution-creationism issue - i.e., fun
- To inform/teach someone about evolutionary biology
- To defend science
- To show that religion and science are in harmony



Ste

"ID talks about God. God is the intelligent designer. Are you actually arguing that point? It seems clear to me."
No - Intelligent Design by itself does not make any conclusions about who the Designer is/was or what his/her/it's motives are/were. That is the main difference between it and creationism. Creationism is when God comes into the picture.

"ID itself may not be a religion, but it is a religious idea. It offers a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, so cannot be science. I like the idea. I think it's an interesting one deserving of discussion in the appropriate place - it's a shame the proponents of the idea tried so aggressively to only have their idea talked about in a single context - as scientific truth."

"Please explain why you think that. The constitution and decades of supreme court rulings seem to disagree."
First of all, I think the courts are out of control - they have gone far beyond the intended scope of the judicial branch of government in many cases. I am one of those who believes in interpreting the Constitution as it's writers intended it to mean. For example, the First Ammendment does not prevent individual states from establishing state religions. (it refers to congress) If it had, the Constitution would probably never have become law. I am not in favor of states establishing state religions, but my point is that the federal government has exceeded it's powers though back-door political tactics, including using the judiciary to legislate.

I believe (as many early Americans did) that when the church and the government are combined, the church does not purify the government, but instead the government corrupts the church. However, just because the two cannot and must not be combined (into the same organization) does not mean they should be completely seperate. As Benjamin Franklin said,
"I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth —That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, —and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages."
- Benjamin Franklin's speech to the Constitutional Convention (June 28, 1787)

Because of this sentiment we have many national religious traditions, such as Congress having a chaplain, courts having the Ten Commandments on display, and our national monuments being practically covered in Scripture. The religious reference in the First Ammendment exists for one purpose and one purpose only: for the benefit of religion - to protect religion from the government, not to ban religion from the government. The United States is described as a "Christian nation" because that is, in fact, what it is - and it is because of Christian belief that protection for all religions (including atheism) in the US was first established.
Nerd42

Oops ... that was supposed to have been a preview ... I'm not done here ... ignore the second time I quoted you in that last post OK .. I somehow didn't type my response to that.

"No - Intelligent Design by itself does not make any conclusions about who the Designer is/was or what his/her/it's motives are/were. That is the main difference between it and creationism. Creationism is when God comes into the picture."

But this "designer" is unseen, unobservable, powerful enough to "design" life. Are you seriously telling me this is not a God we're talking about here? How is anyone expected to believe that?! And it *just happens* that fundamentalist Christians propose this pseudo-thoery. Hmmm. Whatever you say it is, it's supernatural = not science.

Can you now see why evolutionary biology is science, and ID is not?


The constitution means what the supreme court says it means. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. Trying to figure out what the authors of the constitution meant when they wrote it is as much interpretation as what the courts do. It's unavoidable.

I have never been able to figure out just why fundamentalists so desperately want to label the US as a "Christian nation"? It doesn't seem like a very Christian thing to do.

The organisation of the government is clearly secular, with some Christian trimmings thrown in due to history.

Ste

"The constitution means what the supreme court says it means. "
Really, I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

According to you, the constitution means what the supreme court says it means. History is what scholars say it is. Science is what the scientific community says it is.

I disagree. I think that individuals can examine the evidence and make up their own minds.
Nerd42

<"The constitution means what the supreme court says it means.">
"Really, I think this is where we fundamentally disagree."

Y'know, that's just the way the system works. It really isn't a point of debate. You can argue whether that's a good thing or not, but you cannot say that doesn't happen. It's a successful system.

Anyone could easily say: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - means that you are only allowed arms if you are in a well-organised militia. That's what the contitution meant because that's what it says, otherwise, why would it mention militias?

You are just falsely claiming YOUR interpretation of the constitution is the ORIGINAL one that the authors meant when in fact it is just another interpretation that suits your politics. It's another way of claiming you're in a "no spin zone" - you are so mired in your own beliefs you cannot see outside of them and see just how politically extreme they are.


"I think that individuals can examine the evidence and make up their own minds."

If you want to remain in your own solopostic fantasy realm then go ahead. If you want to avoid objective reality for religious or political reasons then go ahead. Just don't try and force your fictions onto others' children, that's all I want.


So, let's get off the path of parroting Republican Talking Points(TM) and get back to it:
- Evolution is science, all forms of creationism (including ID) is not science.
- Even if you personally disagree with this statement, can you now understand why people think this?


A Prediction: After a few years of licking their wounds from the ID defeat, creationists will return to the classrooms but will not mention God at all. They will demand singling out evolution for special criticism.


Ste

I don't think we have any more grounds for conversation.
Nerd42