# The Consequences of the Theory of Evolution



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2011)

So we've all argued for and against the Theory of Evolution on this board a number of times, and I doubt anyone has changed their mind.  So I'm not interested in arguing back and forth again.  The question that interests me is this:

Assume 20 years from now that everyone believes the Theory of Evolution is true.  What consequences do you think this will have on our society or life in general?

Apart from the evidence, it seems that many who do not believe in the ToE fear the consequences.  So what do you think will happen?  Will it mean the end of morality?  Of religion?  Tell me what's going to happen.


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Considering that the US is the only civilized society where those other theories have actually a popular backing....the rest of the world pretty much believes that Evolution is proven to be more than a theory....

Nothing happens.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So we've all argued for and against the Theory of Evolution on this board a number of times, and I doubt anyone has changed their mind.  So I'm not interested in arguing back and forth again.  The question that interests me is this:
> 
> Assume 20 years from now that everyone believes the Theory of Evolution is true.  What consequences do you think this will have on our society or life in general?
> 
> Apart from the evidence, it seems that many who do not believe in the ToE fear the consequences.  So what do you think will happen?  Will it mean the end of morality?  Of religion?  Tell me what's going to happen.



None.  The Roman Catholic Church has already stated that there is no conflict between belief in Creation and belief in Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Frankly, I do not know what _'the consequences'_ are that anyone should fear, whether or not they believe that organisms mutate over time.  Organisms will continue to mutate.  Some will survive, others will not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> Considering that the US is the only civilized society where those other theories have actually a popular backing....the rest of the world pretty much believes that Evolution is proven to be more than a theory....



I beg to differ...

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 29, 2011)

ya I am of the group that believes there is no conflict they both can and do exist together. Nothing to see here move on.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 29, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ya I am of the group that believes there is no conflict they both can and do exist together. Nothing to see here move on.



this


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 29, 2011)

I'm not sure that the societal consequences would be dramatic, they would be as evolutionary as the physical changes that creatures go through and so wouldn't be too disruptive to the fabric.

Indeed, as Bills chart up above shows, the countries that tend to have a better quality of life and a more harmonious society are the ones that have already decided that the "Creator Deity" theory (most popularly first posited by the Babylonians) isn't the credible one.  But there is still a percentage there that either don't know or still believe the 'magical' explanation rather than the scientific one.

That's a hopeful sign in my book that rationality and compassion are inherent characterstics of the species that have been selected for over the generations as group survival traits.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 29, 2011)

The consequence of accepting the ToE is merely 'you now have an understanding of the natural world and why there exist so many different kinds of species'.  


The more people are educated, the better chances of our survival as a species.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 29, 2011)

The importance of evolution for the next twenty years, or so I have read, is in diet. In most African countries adults don't drink milk where as in Europe Adults will drink milk their whole lives; so, survival may or may not dictate a change in diet. As we know lactose intolerant people lack the Enzyme needed to digest whole Milk, but if you drink it your whole life, losing the Enzyme is not as much of an issue. Hitler had a few scientists that delved into these studies, but it was more about identifying racial differences than human evolution.
Sean


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 29, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm not sure that the societal consequences would be dramatic, they would be as evolutionary as the physical changes that creatures go through and so wouldn't be too disruptive to the fabric.
> 
> Indeed, as Bills chart up above shows, the countries that tend to have a better quality of life and a more harmonious society are the ones that have already decided that the "Creator Deity" theory (most popularly first posited by the Babylonians) isn't the credible one. But there is still a percentage there that either don't know or still believe the 'magical' explanation rather than the scientific one.
> 
> That's a hopeful sign in my book that rationality and compassion are inherent characterstics of the species that have been selected for over the generations as group survival traits.


 

I saw nothing in that study that said the people who believed in evolution were athiests as well. Like I already said, the two are not in conflict as some on each side would have you believe... show me a poll in those same countries that says the belief in evolution is seperate from a belief in religion at the same time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 29, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I saw nothing in that study that said the people who believed in evolution were athiests as well. Like I already said, the two are not in conflict as some on each side would have you believe... show me a poll in those same countries that says the belief in evolution is seperate from a belief in religion at the same time.



Indeed.  I'm a firm believer in evolution and I'm a good Catholic.  Nothing says I can't believe both - and even the Pope says it's OK.  Not that I'd obey him if he said differently...but in this case, I'm off the hook.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Indeed.  I'm a firm believer in evolution and I'm a good Catholic.  Nothing says I can't believe both - and even the Pope says it's OK.  Not that I'd obey him if he said differently...but in this case, I'm off the hook.



Since everyone on the thread seems to be in basic agreement so far, why do you think that some on each side see the two as mutually exclusive?  Why does the ToE threaten faith, and vice versa?


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Since everyone on the thread seems to be in basic agreement so far, why do you think that some on each side see the two as mutually exclusive?  Why does the ToE threaten faith, and vice versa?




LOL, I suppose saying 'I'll be damned if I know' would be the wrong phrase here...


----------



## fangjian (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Since everyone on the thread seems to be in basic agreement so far, why do you think that some on each side see the two as mutually exclusive?  Why does the ToE threaten faith, and vice versa?



If one is superstitious, you believe a scientific claim with no evidence. The scientific method is in direct conflict with that way of thinking, since in science, you come to accept a scientific claim with reasonable evidence. 


The problem specifically with the ToE is that in most religious views, humans are special and different than every other species, since the claim is we have 'souls' and such. I think it's kind of like if you accept the ToE, than who has souls and who does not?  What about_ Homo neanderthalensis_, _Homo ergaster_, _Homo hydelbergensis_, Homo erectus..................?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 29, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I saw nothing in that study that said the people who believed in evolution were athiests as well.




Fair point, *Lucky*.

There is a way to find a correlation by searching up an analysis of a nations views on religions and overlaying the two data-sets.  That would only give us correlative evidence of course i.e. no proof of causation.  I happen to think that it's a reasonable suppositon that someone who builds their world-view on logic, reason and evidentiary proof is unlikely to 'believe' in the God-of-the-Gaps and I am sure that there must be a simple survey somewhere where the questions have been posited to draw froth peoples views on both angles.

By the way, I have't said it for a while so it's worth drawing it to the fore again - in internet chat there is a distinct tendency for conditional clauses to be ignored {like the word 'tendency' for example }.  If there is an absolute it is that there are no absolutes, other than, perhaps, the fact that one exception disproves the rule (which is one of the foundations of science).  So when discussing something like the general concsensus view in a society on an issue, statements are always conditional.


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I beg to differ...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html





LOL

I find the graph kind of funny...

Even compared to countries who are heavily influences by religion, or have been oppressed...the US ranks near the very bottom...only Turkey ranks lower...a country with a very high influence of religion and - in large parts of the hinterland - poor education.
So basically - it illustrates my point rather nicely. Thank you!


----------



## elder999 (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So we've all argued for and against the Theory of Evolution on this board a number of times, and I doubt anyone has changed their mind. So I'm not interested in arguing back and forth again. The question that interests me is this:
> 
> Assume 20 years from now that everyone believes the Theory of Evolution is true. What consequences do you think this will have on our society or life in general?
> 
> Apart from the evidence, it seems that many who do not believe in the ToE fear the consequences. So what do you think will happen? Will it mean the end of morality? Of religion? Tell me what's going to happen.


 
As others have posted, and I've  said time and again, morality can be completely independent of religion-I've known many atheists to be moral, upright people. Likewise, religions have, do can and will evolve, just like the rest of us. They'll manage to accomodate evolution-where there is a perceived conflict-because they're not going away.


----------



## fangjian (May 24, 2011)

To answer the OP, the consequence, part of it, would be 'less religious beliefs' in general. Much of the magic and mystery of everything, is the complexity of life on Earth. Now that it is understood, Abiogenesis will be tackled. After those two things, all the religions have left, I think, is Cosmogony. And if humans last long enough, that may be solved as well. But I'm sure it will continue on. 
It would be a great thing if humanity had an understanding of our true place in the history of life. If anyone has any 'negative' consequences they can think of, I am intrigued. You almost have to think about it like, 'What are the (negative/positive) consequences, to accepting the Theory of Heliocentrism?" Anybody got anything interesting to add?


I am actually curious also, as to when it will be common for people who are 'anti evolutionists' or whatever they are called, to be 'openly mocked and made fun of'. 

There are still people out there who believe in Geocentrism, Flat Earth, Holocaust Denial, Moon Landing Hoax......All of those, er 'hypotheses' if accepted, are flat out 'made fun of'.

 I understand why many do not except the ToE by Natural Selection. Many just don't understand it, and I 'get' that. So of course, we are 'gentle' in our approach to explaining it. It is simple, yet so overwhelming. I also wonder, how many who reject it, also actually *do* understand it. But for some reason reject it anyway. 

If you accept the ToE, I dare you to watch this entire discussion, 1-7, and not pull your hair out. 

[yt]YFjoEgYOgRo[/yt]


----------



## SFC JeffJ (May 24, 2011)

Heck, if the ToE becomes the de-rigur belief, I think it will bring about good things. More people thinking critically can't be a bad thing.

Jeff


----------



## elder999 (May 24, 2011)

fangjian said:


> To answer the OP, the consequence, part of it, would be 'less religious beliefs' in general.


 

Why is that? The theory has been around for a loong time-religion endures. Evolution is both theory and fact.


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 24, 2011)

In response to the original posters' question about morality, I think that relgion is largely to blame for the decline in morality we are seeing and will continue to see.
Rather a failure of religion. Many people equate religion as the only avenue of morality and the fact that they doubt religion and see it as failing makes them doubt morality as well.
True ethics can be better developed through reason and therefore, humanities' ability to reason can help us here as well.

Unfortunately the propogation of reason is quickly falling by the wayside as societies are being dumbded down so that governments can take further advantage of the general populations.


----------



## fangjian (May 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Why is that? The theory has been around for a loong time-religion endures. Evolution is both theory and fact.



I would imagine that religious belief will _always_ endure. Even if/when humans (or whoever) solve the question of 'how the universe was created', there will likely be more questions. Whenever there is phenomena that is not understood, there will always be someone there to offer their 'belief'. All of the Greek/Roman gods are regarded as 'mythology', and we now have explanations for all of the phenomena like lightning, oceans etc, through scientific inquiry. So they all 'went away' for the most part as the people received more 'education'. 


I'm pretty sure that the more educated a community/state/country is, the less religious belief there is. The studies do exist. Accepting the ToE is a matter of science education.  

So, the more people accept the scientific explanations for things like evolution, lightning, planetary movement etc., the less of a chance they will attribute it to a god/goddess or whatever. Hence the community will be less religious. 

Th


----------



## elder999 (May 24, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I So, the more people accept the scientific explanations for things like evolution, lightning, planetary movement etc., the less of a chance they will attribute it to a god/goddess or whatever. Hence the community will be less religious.
> 
> Th


 

Many religions siumply don't offer alternate explanations or attributions. Correctly, neither Chrisitianity nor Judaism do: the Gneesis creation story hould be interpreted as an allegory-and mostly was until the middle ages, the writings that show as much are still with us. Thus it is that taking the creation story literally is literally "dark ages" thinking.

And, in fact, many communities are more or just as religious as they were 100 years ago, especially in this country.


----------



## fangjian (May 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Many religions siumply don't offer alternate explanations or attributions. Correctly, neither Chrisitianity nor Judaism do: the Gneesis creation story hould be interpreted as an allegory-and mostly was until the middle ages, the writings that show as much are still with us. Thus it is that taking the creation story literally is literally "dark ages" thinking.
> 
> And, in fact, many communities are more or just as religious as they were 100 years ago, especially in this country.


Many religions DO offer alternate explanations. They do not view it as *just* symbolic. This is the entire conflict! Morality, evolution, cosmogony etc.  Of course, religions offer alternative explanations.   What are you talkin about? Did I misunderstand something?  

Half of America doesn't accept the ToE, because they don't understand it. It hasn't been thoroughly explained to them. I understand why they don't accept it.


----------



## fangjian (May 24, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Half of America doesn't accept the ToE, because they don't understand it. It hasn't been thoroughly explained to them. I understand why they don't accept it.



This is usually how it goes. 

"If humans came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"

"Well what the scientists say is, 'First there was some slime then magically, it turned into dinosaurs, then through luck, they turned in to humans'.  Do you honestly believe that?!?!!"


lolz.


----------



## cdunn (May 24, 2011)

The only connection that Evolution has with Atheism, really, is that it is the last step we needed to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. We now have a valid answer to "how did we get here?" That alone won't even dent the meme of religion. Might it start a few more down the pathway of deconversion? Possibly, but only the few who feel lied to or cheated.

What would happen immediately is that millions of tax dollars would be saved as texts full of outright lies are discarded, and lawsuits over injecting religion into the school curriculum would hopefully mostly cease. That's about it from direct effects, though.

I would hope that, within two decades, we would have a medical and technological revolution on our hands, as a larger fraction of the children of today would discover that, yes, biology really is a deep, complex, and _interesting_ science, as they are taught its fundamentals by interested and aware teachers, rather that read a script from a book by a teacher who is too afraid of the community to teach it properly or who believes he should be teaching them something else. Without the lenses of evolution and development, absolutely nothing in biology makes sense. If nothing else, maybe we'd finally get a handle on the human-forced evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. But, really, who knows?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 24, 2011)

If the US were to wholeheartedly accept ToE as fact, the switch itself would have very little affect. 

However.

This would only happen if the parties that used ToE vs Creationism as a political tool had finally lost that ability or stopped doing so.

_That_, I suspect, would have far-reaching consequences....or would be the consequence of other significant changes.

Imagine...a country without judgment over consensual sexual practice, where abortion was a decision based on the medical and social facts, practical application of stem cell research and a sensible policy about voluntary end of life....


----------



## elder999 (May 24, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Many religions DO offer alternate explanations. They do not view it as *just* symbolic. This is the entire conflict! Morality, evolution, cosmogony etc. Of course, religions offer alternative explanations. What are you talkin about? Did I misunderstand something?


 
In the case of CHristanity, where the fundamentalists insist on strict literal interpretation of Genesis?

*They're wrong.*. As in not in accordance with Christian teaching. Mistaken. Led astray. 

View Genesis as allegorical and there is no conflict with evolution.

In fact, there mostly is no conflict with evolution, if one takes the concept of "God's time" into account.



fangjian said:


> Half of America doesn't accept the ToE, because they don't understand it. It hasn't been thoroughly explained to them. I understand why they don't accept it.


 

Really? *Half?* As in 150,000,000 people? 

I'd like to see the data.....:lfao:


----------



## fangjian (May 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> View Genesis as allegorical and there is no conflict with evolution.
> 
> In fact, there mostly is no conflict with evolution, if one takes the concept of "God's time" into account.


Of course there's no conflict if you look at it as just a story. Genesis is just a creation myth among countless myths. 



> Really? *Half?* As in 150,000,000 people?
> 
> I'd like to see the data.....:lfao:


All the evidence points to about 50% of Americans accepting ToE. This is well known. Just look at the top of Page 2 of this thread. Why? What are you suggesting is the real %?


----------



## elder999 (May 24, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Of All the evidence points to about 50% of Americans accepting ToE. This is well known. Just look at the top of Page 2 of this thread. Why? What are you suggesting is the real %?


 

How unscientific of you. Since we don't know the polled demographic at all, it can't possibly be considered representative evidence-they could have just conucted the poll in Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri, for all we know.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> How unscientific of you. Since we don't know the polled demographic at all, it can't possibly be considered representative evidence-they could have just conucted the poll in Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri, for all we know.



Will you trust Gallup's methodology?  They describe their sample, their confidence interval, and their error at the bottom of the page.  They have belief in the US at 39%, disbelief at 25%, and "no opinion either way" at 36%.


----------



## fangjian (May 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> How unscientific of you.



*gasp*  You my good sir, are challenged to a duel. I demand satisfaction!!!


> Since we don't know the polled demographic at all, it can't possibly be considered representative evidence-they could have just conucted the poll in Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri, for all we know.



Yes of course. I doubt the poll was only of Biology graduate students, as well. I'll ask again though. What do you think the actual % is then?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 24, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Of course there's no conflict if you look at it as just a story. Genesis is just a creation myth among countless myths.



Indeed, it is just a re-telling of earlier Babylonian and Egyptian myths.


----------



## PooterMan (May 24, 2011)

That sort of jives with the list of "least religion counties" (though not sure how scientific the survey was)listed at:
http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Though Iceland is not listed here, but was on that chart listed above in #1 spot of believers in evolution.

shrug....I guess 28% of statistics are made up anyway. heh!


----------



## MA-Caver (May 24, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ya I am of the group that believes there is no conflict they both can and do exist together. Nothing to see here move on.


Same here... I came to the conclusion that you cannot create something and not expect it to evolve. :uhyeah: 

This includes humans.


----------



## WC_lun (May 25, 2011)

In my opinion, most people don't have an issue with the ToE and faith coinciding.  I'm not sure why those who are at the far end of the spectrum on the issue believe in only this or that.  Perhaps it is fear, ignorance, or arrogance.  For the faithful, denying the science would be like denying thier God set creation up to change and contmue.  For the scientist that dismisses faith completely, it ignores most human belief and supposes others are wrong when there is no proof one way or another.


----------



## fangjian (May 25, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> For the scientist that dismisses faith completely, it ignores most human belief and supposes others are wrong when there is no proof one way or another.


-no proof one way or the other-

I have to disagree with your sentiment, I think. 

Just because we don't know exactly how the universe was created, doesn't make ALL explanations valid. 

We can assume one thing.  Religions. _One_ of them is right, or _all_ of them are wrong. Using's Occam's Razor, which anwer is most likely?


----------



## elder999 (May 25, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Will you trust Gallup's methodology? They describe their sample, their confidence interval, and their error at the bottom of the page. They have belief in the US at 39%, disbelief at 25%, and "no opinion either way" at 36%.


 
Sure. I'll accept Gallup's methodology-however, fangjian said fully 50& of the country's populace didn't believe in evolution, while Gallup shows that it's half of that again: 25% don/t believe, while 39%-somewhat closer to 50% than 25%- do.

That 36% don't give a **** doesn't surprise me in the least.:lfao:



			
				fangjian said:
			
		

> Just because we don't know exactly how the universe was created, doesn't make ALL explanations valid.
> 
> We can assume one thing. Religions. _One_ of them is right, or _all_ of them are wrong. Using's Occam's Razor, which anwer is most likely?


 
Stop misusing Ockham's razor that way; you'll cut yourself. :lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2011)

So whatever way you count the figures, a sizeable portion of American's elect to put their fingers in their ears and do the La-la-la-I'm-not-listening-to-you song?

Crikey!  That just goes to prove that you should never underestimate the capacity for stupidity in humans when they amass in numbers in one place.  I suppose it's a side-effect of our inate need to 'group'; it's what makes us a social animal at the end of the day.  The rejection of evidence and the acceptance of fable by such groups is something that still makes me doubt we'll make it as a species tho'.


----------



## elder999 (May 25, 2011)

PooterMan said:


> shrug....I guess 28% of statistics are made up anyway. heh!


 
[yt]IUK6zjtUj00[/yt]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2011)

With regard to belief or or lack of belief in evolution, what does it matter?  It either happens or it does not, regardless of who believes in it.

Although I will confess to being perplexed by a guy I met once who was a brilliant software engineer and firmly convinced that the Grand Canyon was carved by nature in just 6,000 years, since that's how old the world is (literal creation believer), I am also somewhat bemused by those who are worried over what others believe with regard to evolution.  So they don't believe in it.  So what?


----------



## Carol (May 25, 2011)

Exactly my thoughts, Bill.  I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in my thyroid meds or my electric lights.  I accept the science behind them, certainly.  But it is not a belief.


----------



## fangjian (May 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> , I am also somewhat bemused by those who are worried over what others believe with regard to evolution.  So they don't believe in it.  So what?


 I am also a product of Natural Selection. As a social animal, it is important how others believe and behave, as it influences my life and my children's lives. I care what people in my community believe, as it effects their behavior. My survival, the survival of my kids, and the survival of my species is dependent on this. It is important that as many of us as possible has a grasp of reality ( as close to it as is possible). 

It is highly probable that _Homo sapiens_ will eventually meet their possible extinction event. I like to think that what I do while I am living, and spreading science education, may _help us win. _ in the end. And our descendants will live for new adventures.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I am also a product of Natural Selection. As a social animal, it is important how others believe and behave, as it influences my life and my children's lives. I care what people in my community believe, as it effects their behavior. My survival, the survival of my kids, and the survival of my species is dependent on this. It is important that as many of us as possible has a grasp of reality ( as close to it as is possible).



That interferes with my freedoms.  Your right to order society as you wish ends with your desire to tell me how to live, believe, or think, so long as my actions don't infringe on your rights either.

As much as I think people who believe in literal creation and reject any concept analogous to gradual change in organisms over time are wrong, I also accept their right to believe as they wish as long as we leave each other in peace.  If they want creationism taught in schools, I have a problem with that.  If they believe it and teach it to their kids in their home, it's none of my business.  Or yours.

It has been my observation that certain enlightened minds feel not only a strong desire but an actual obligation enforce their concepts of truth on the rest of us poor deluded creatures.  It's contrary to the concepts of freedom, and that gets my back up.



> It is highly probable that _Homo sapiens_ will eventually meet their possible extinction event. I like to think that what I do while I am living, and spreading science education, may _help us win. _ in the end. And our descendants will live for new adventures.


_Apres moi, le deluge._


----------



## fangjian (May 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That interferes with my freedoms.


How does me expressing my opinion, violate your freedoms?  



> Your right to order society as you wish ends with your desire to tell me how to live, believe, or think, so long as my actions don't infringe on your rights either.


I'm not _ordering_ anything. I'm just expressing my opinion. 





> As much as I think people who believe in literal creation and reject any concept analogous to gradual change in organisms over time are wrong, I also accept their right to believe as they wish as long as we leave each other in peace.  If they want creationism taught in schools, I have a problem with that.  If they believe it and teach it to their kids in their home, it's none of my business.  Or yours.



Of course they have a _right_ to believe as they wish. It's not about that. 





> It has been my observation that certain enlightened minds feel not only a strong desire but an actual obligation enforce their concepts of truth on the rest of us poor deluded creatures.  It's contrary to the concepts of freedom, and that gets my back up.



So you don't care if 99% of humanity excepts Evolution by NS or the Heliocentric Model or 'Whether the Holocaust happened'. I understand. But I do care.  And that doesn't infringe on any _rights_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2011)

fangjian said:


> How does me expressing my opinion, violate your freedoms?
> 
> I'm not _ordering_ anything. I'm just expressing my opinion.
> 
> ...



You said, _"As a social animal, it is important how others believe and behave..."_

This social animal prefers to stick to his knitting as regards how others believe and behave, so long as they don't infringe on my rights.

Freedom is not conducive to survival over the long term.  Oh well.  Like I said, when I'm gone, I could not possibly care less what happens after that.


----------



## fangjian (May 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> , I could not possibly care less what happens after that.



Until you have one a victory for mankind, be ashamed to die. -H. Mann


----------



## fangjian (May 25, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Assume 20 years from now that everyone believes the Theory of Evolution is true.  What consequences do you think this will have on our society or life in general?



If most people excepted and understood the ToE, there would be major scientific breakthroughs in all fields. The most impacted would be Biology, since the ToE is the foundation for it all, and Chemistry, I guess. If that is true, breakthroughs in medicine would follow. 

Also other fields. The ToE raises your consciousness to how nature works in general, as well. Physics, Cosmology, Economics etc. 

Also fields that seem very distant from Bio. 

ie. I'm not so sure I remember the Calculus I was working on earlier this year. However the mere fact of doing it, understanding it is beneficial for your mind. It will help you later, even if you _forget it._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Until you have one a victory for mankind, be ashamed to die. -H. Mann



Ashamed or proud, die I will; and so will you.  How would I care if others mark me a heel or a hero after my consciousness no longer exists?  Therefore, I must conclude that exhortations to be mindful of the impact my choices will have on future generations are mere attempts to shame me into behaving as others think I should.  _Non servium._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If most people excepted and understood the ToE, there would be major scientific breakthroughs in all fields. The most impacted would be Biology, since the ToE is the foundation for it all, and Chemistry, I guess. If that is true, breakthroughs in medicine would follow.
> 
> Also other fields. The ToE raises your consciousness to how nature works in general, as well. Physics, Cosmology, Economics etc.
> 
> ...



Once upon a time, scientists believed that rocks did not, could not, fall from the sky.  Simple country folk who had seen and reported seeing glowing rocks falling from the sky were judged mad, and locked in bedlam for their own good.

The world, it seems, would have been a much better place if people would have simply chosen to believe the truth - the truth was that rocks DID NOT fall from the sky.

But time passed and fashions changed and science eventually discovered that rocks did and do fall from the sky.  No apology was issued, no damages repaired.  It was simply declared that if one did NOT believe that rocks fall from the sky, one was damaging the fabric of society.  If only people would believe the truth, the world would be a much better place.  The truth was that rocks DID fall from the sky.

Science today believes in evolution.  And so do I.  But alas, it is the folly of every age that science refuses to accept that having once been wrong, it could be wrong now.  Those previous scientists were babbling fools, ignorant savages.  We scientists of today have the answers, and what's more, we can prove them as well.

The world would be a much better place if people only believed the truth, that evolution exists.

Until tomorrow, perhaps.

For the record, I doubt that evolution is much in error.  I also doubt that we have all the answers.  And I believe that very few people on this planet can actually explain how evolution is supposed to work; perhaps less than a million scientists out of how many billion people.  The rest simply believe (or don't believe) and their belief is no different than religious faith.  They simply put their trust in men and women who wear white lab coats instead of funny hats and collars.

The world would be a much better place if we all just believed the truth.  The problem is, the truth is subject to change.  Good scientists know that.  Believers always think they have a corner on the truth market - religious believers and science believers.  They're often wrong.  So I reject them utterly.

Your science will be different tomorrow than it was today.  And yet you think I should place my faith in it as fact today.  I think not.


----------



## fangjian (May 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ashamed or proud, die I will; and so will you.  How would I care if others mark me a heel or a hero after my consciousness no longer exists?  Therefore, I must conclude that exhortations to be mindful of the impact my choices will have on future generations are mere attempts to shame me into behaving as others think I should.  _Non servium._



Hahaha I wrote 'one a victory' instead of 'won a victory'. FAIL


After your consciousness no longer exists, of course you wont care. Our ego is not the point. 

Also I understand why most Americans don't care about the future of Homo sapien. I bet somewhere between 70-95% of Americans believe that they have an immortal 'soul'. If we all just have souls, then who cares if a cure for HIV is possible or if we can develop sophisticated space travel?


Bill Mattocks said:


> The rest simply believe (or don't believe) and their belief is no different than religious faith.  They simply put their trust in men and women who wear white lab coats instead of funny hats and collars.



Yes the 'faith in' or 'trust' is similar. But one of those has predictive value, the other so far, does not. I doubt there are many people who can explain to me 'how we know' that those white dots in our night sky are actually 'suns'. We've come very far with this 'silly faith' in science.


----------



## elder999 (May 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> you don't care if 99% of humanity excepts Evolution by NS or the Heliocentric Model or 'Whether the Holocaust happened'. I understand. But I do care.  And that doesn't infringe on any _rights_



It's worht pointing out here that the Catholic Church has survived 400 odd years of the heliocentric model. They've been wrong before. They'll.be wrong again. They'll carry on.
p


----------



## cdunn (May 26, 2011)

The basic problem with rejecting theories that fit observable facts is one of societal and technological consequences. 

Evolution and development theory are the fundamental underpinnings of biology, and therefore also the "deep magic" of medicine and biology. When do they matter in your life? It matters when your doctor gives you an antibiotic for a viral sinus infection, and it alters your body to favor the growth of MRSA and _C. difficile_. It matters when Joe Ordinary the farmer accidently breeds a weed that chokes out fields by over using Roundup. It matters when we overspray DDT in Africa, and malaria rates go up because it stopped working. And it matters when policy makers, who are not scientists, go, "Nope, no evolution, can't happen!" and make malinformed decisions based on that idea. 

The most important thing we gather from the sciences is not 'Oh, that's the way the world works', it is the ability to make predictions based on observed patterns. Even if the prediction is not perfect, it can still be 'good enough'. For example, there are issues with our understanding of relativity and quantum physics; in their current forms they cannot both be true. Yet, GPS, nuclear power, and moon landings. And much of what we learn from evolutionary theory both informs us of useful paths in biology, agriculture, and medicine, and warns of pitfalls that we can fall into. (Oh hi thar Lysenko!) 

Do I personally care if some guy in the South Appalachians accepts that the theory of evolution works? Ideologically, no. Am I concerned with the consequences of his vote and actions? Well, they do affect the society I live in.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> After your consciousness no longer exists, of course you wont care. Our ego is not the point.
> 
> Also I understand why most Americans don't care about the future of Homo sapien. I bet somewhere between 70-95% of Americans believe that they have an immortal 'soul'. If we all just have souls, then who cares if a cure for HIV is possible or if we can develop sophisticated space travel?



Position 1: Immortal souls do not exist.  Life is an accident, the universe is an accident.  There is no point to anything other than the pleasure we can derive for ourselves while we live.

Position 2: Immortal souls do exist.  Life is not an accident, the universe is not an accident, but a planned creation by a superior being.  There is a point to life beyond what we can experience while we live.

In only one of those two scenarios does it make sense to plan for a future beyond our own existence, to attempt to ensure the survival of our species and our environment, and to behave in a selfless manner.  Hint: it's not Position 1.

I am not saying that atheists and believers in scientific explanation for all things are not capable of selfless acts or of thinking beyond their own generation; they clearly are and do.  I am saying that they have no compelling rational argument for doing so, other than they want to.  A perfectly good reason, by the way, but not a perfectly good reason for imposing it on others.

If there is nothing beyond death, and the universe is an accident, then there is exactly zero point to anything, save our own enjoyment, since we find ourselves here and capable of enjoyment.  Any other consideration is meaningless.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 26, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Do I personally care if some guy in the South Appalachians accepts that the theory of evolution works? Ideologically, no. Am I concerned with the consequences of his vote and actions? Well, they do affect the society I live in.



That's the point.  In a society that gives each an equal vote, you're perfectly right to care about the ignorant vote and the effect it has on the society you live in, but you are not perfectly right to do anything about it.  He as as much right to be ignorant as you do to be enlightened.  If one embraces rule by the people, one embraces the notion that the people are largely clueless and vote their emotions and grubby desires.  It's a contradiction to want a logical society and a free one.

And as an aside, I again introduce the point that science is absolutely correct today.  Tomorrow, those things that were absolutely correct may be seen as absolutely wrong.  Embracing science also means embracing error.  You can be no more sure that your facts about antibiotics and MRSA are correct than the fellow who thinks they are God's judgment on a wicked society.  You just *think* you can.

Last note.  I repeat, once again, that all believers in science utterly reject the notion that today's science might not represent the final word.  All science of the past that was proven wrong was not of course science and we won't talk about that anymore.  All science of today is utterly, completely, factual, and there is zero chance it could be wrong, so let's build our society based on these things that are absolutely true.  These believers are as blind and shuttered to the reality of history as the religious are to the reality of science.  I won't trade rule by mindless drones who watch wrestling and dancing with celebrities on TV for science sycophants who feel that facts must rule society and they are in possession of them.  Science could use a little humility before it desires to rule.


----------



## elder999 (May 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And as an aside, I again introduce the point that science is absolutely correct today. Tomorrow, those things that were absolutely correct may be seen as absolutely wrong. Embracing science also means embracing error. You can be no more sure that your facts about antibiotics and MRSA are correct than the fellow who thinks they are God's judgment on a wicked society. You just *think* you can.
> 
> Last note. I repeat, once again, that *all believers in science utterly reject the notion that today's science might not represent the final word.* All science of the past that was proven wrong was not of course science and we won't talk about that anymore. All science of today is utterly, completely, factual, and there is zero chance it could be wrong, so let's build our society based on these things that are absolutely true. These believers are as blind and shuttered to the reality of history as the religious are to the reality of science. I won't trade rule by mindless drones who watch wrestling and dancing with celebrities on TV for science sycophants who feel that facts must rule society and they are in possession of them. Science could use a little humility before it desires to rule.


 
As a scientist, I have to disagree, somewhat.

As I've posted before, science doesn't give us answers:it gives us _models_, and scientists-the ones that do good science, anyway-recognize that the models change.Thus, _scientific_ believers in scince-that is to say, _scientists_-know for a fact that today's science doesn't represent the final word-that there is no "final word."


----------



## fangjian (May 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Position 1: Immortal souls do not exist.  Life is an accident, the universe is an accident.  There is no point to anything other than the pleasure we can derive for ourselves while we live.
> 
> Position 2: Immortal souls do exist.  Life is not an accident, the universe is not an accident, but a planned creation by a superior being.  There is a point to life beyond what we can experience while we live.
> 
> In only one of those two scenarios does it make sense to plan for a future beyond our own existence, to attempt to ensure the survival of our species and our environment, and to behave in a selfless manner.  Hint: it's not Position 1.


There are, as I'm sure you know, more positions than that. But, no matter. 


> If there is nothing beyond death, and the universe is an accident, then there is exactly zero point to anything, save our own enjoyment, since we find ourselves here and capable of enjoyment.  Any other consideration is meaningless.


What's the point in going out to the movies or going out on a date, if you know it won't last forever? 


Bill Mattocks said:


> That's the point.  In a society that gives each an equal vote, you're perfectly right to care about the ignorant vote and the effect it has on the society you live in, but you are not perfectly right to do anything about it.  He as as much right to be ignorant as you do to be enlightened.  If one embraces rule by the people, one embraces the notion that the people are largely clueless and vote their emotions and grubby desires.  It's a contradiction to want a logical society and a free one.


 This is not about 'rights'. Nobody here is saying we need to take away _rights_. Funny story.  I was at a family function a couple months ago. My aunts come to me and say, "  Hey what's with all of this stuff you posted on Facebook recently? What are you some kind of ATHEIST?"  I responded calmly " Yeah"  They immediately got very defensive and one said " OH YEAH?  WELL I BELIEVE IN GOD!! "  My response was calmly, "Cool". Then she said,  " Well, it's my *right* to believe and it's your *right* not to. "

Why do people turn this into a _rights_ issue?  Why have you, Bill? None of us ever said that we need to have _laws_ about excepting scientific knowledge. That would be catastrophic. 




> You can be no more sure that your facts about antibiotics and MRSA are correct than the fellow who thinks they are God's judgment on a wicked society.  You just *think* you can.



Hahahaha



> And as an aside, I again introduce the point that science is absolutely correct today.  Tomorrow, those things that were absolutely correct may be seen as absolutely wrong.  Embracing science also means embracing error.
> Last note.  I repeat, once again, that all believers in science utterly reject the notion that today's science might not represent the final word.  All science of the past that was proven wrong was not of course science and we won't talk about that anymore.  All science of today is utterly, completely, factual, and there is zero chance it could be wrong, so let's build our society based on these things that are absolutely true.  These believers are as blind and shuttered to the reality of history as the religious are to the reality of science.  I won't trade rule by mindless drones who watch wrestling and dancing with celebrities on TV for science sycophants who feel that facts must rule society and they are in possession of them.  Science could use a little humility before it desires to rule.


Nobody says today's science is the _final word_. Science could use a little _humility_?  Hahaha. There is nothing more humbling than learning about our universe. From the Observable Universe and beyond, all the way down to the Planck Length and the natural laws that made it possible for us to exist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 26, 2011)

elder999 said:


> As a scientist, I have to disagree, somewhat.
> 
> As I've posted before, science doesn't give us answers:it gives us _models_, and scientists-the ones that do good science, anyway-recognize that the models change.Thus, _scientific_ believers in scince-that is to say, _scientists_-know for a fact that today's science doesn't represent the final word-that there is no "final word."



That's scientists.  Most people are not scientists.  Most people exhibit belief in science.  That is no different than belief in religion, magic, or the Easter Bunny; not that it isn't more often accurate belief, but that it is belief at all.

Most people do not understand magnetism.  They understand the principles as they have been explained to them.  If those principles turn out to be wrong, magnetism still works.  But their belief was based on faith, not facts.

_Science_ deals in theories and probabilities.  _People_ turn that into cold, hard, fact.  Then they insist that others behave the way that favors their 'facts'.  It is only the latter that I have a problem with.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There are, as I'm sure you know, more positions than that. But, no matter.



There are not.  There either is or there is not life beyond physical death.  One can parse one's answer in a variety of ways, but the question is binary; thus there are only two positions.



> What's the point in going out to the movies or going out on a date, if you know it won't last forever?


Personal pleasure.  I can take pleasure when I am alive.  Once I am dead, nothing matters at that time.  Thus, taking action on the basis that it will give pleasure when I am gone is illogical; I won't be able to enjoy it.



> This is not about 'rights'. Nobody here is saying we need to take away _rights_. Funny story.  I was at a family function a couple months ago. My aunts come to me and say, "  Hey what's with all of this stuff you posted on Facebook recently? What are you some kind of ATHEIST?"  I responded calmly " Yeah"  They immediately got very defensive and one said " OH YEAH?  WELL I BELIEVE IN GOD!! "  My response was calmly, "Cool". Then she said,  " Well, it's my *right* to believe and it's your *right* not to. "


Of course it is about rights.  Not the right to believe, but the right to act in a manner consistent with those beliefs.  To live in a free society in which everyone's vote counts, the ignorant must have the same voice as the educated.  Democracy is inconsistent with a logical science-based society.  Global warming?  As long as a majority don't believe in it, and choose not to vote based on those issues, then that's the end of it.  The end result; potential destruction of human life, doesn't matter if you want freedom.  Choose one.



> Why do people turn this into a _rights_ issue?  Why have you, Bill? None of us ever said that we need to have _laws_ about excepting scientific knowledge. That would be catastrophic.


Because a simple statement, such as "people ought to think X" becomes "people ought to be made to believe X," historically speaking.  One can substitute any value for X, from belief in God to belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming.  And proof of this is seen in our laws and proposed laws on a daily basis.  People have their beliefs; then they attempt to inflict them on others.  One seldom stops at personal belief.  I point no fingers - we're all guilty.


----------



## Carol (May 26, 2011)

Should we not post high voltage warnings because that invokes the theory of electricity?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If most people excepted and understood the ToE,




and if you knew how to spell "accepted", i wouldnt have gotten a chuckle this morning....


----------



## fangjian (May 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are not.  There either is or there is not life beyond physical death.  One can parse one's answer in a variety of ways, but the question is binary; thus there are only two positions.


There were just other items in those positions that carried a bit more baggage. But yes, if the issue is 'consciousness after brain death', than yeah, you can 'believe' or 'not believe' in that concept.   


> Personal pleasure.  I can take pleasure when I am alive.  Once I am dead, nothing matters at that time.  Thus, taking action on the basis that it will give pleasure when I am gone is illogical; I won't be able to enjoy it.


 I wouldn't say 'nothing matters'. Well _I_ wouldn't, at least. The things I do may give 'others pleasure' after I am gone. Through Natural Selection, life has evolved to _survive_. If evidence suggested that there was a 98% chance that an asteroid will impact Earth in the year 2098, would you 'care'? We will both be gone by then. 


> Of course it is about rights.  Not the right to believe, but the right to act in a manner consistent with those beliefs.  To live in a free society in which everyone's vote counts, the ignorant must have the same voice as the educated.  Democracy is inconsistent with a logical science-based society.  Global warming?  As long as a majority don't believe in it, and choose not to vote based on those issues, then that's the end of it.  The end result; potential destruction of human life, doesn't matter if you want freedom.  Choose one.
> 
> Because a simple statement, such as "people ought to think X" becomes "people ought to be made to believe X," historically speaking.  One can substitute any value for X, from belief in God to belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming.  And proof of this is seen in our laws and proposed laws on a daily basis.  People have their beliefs; then they attempt to inflict them on others.  One seldom stops at personal belief.  I point no fingers - we're all guilty.


 But science itself is all about free speech and public inquiry. Silencing people would create a new 'dark ages'. Am I missing your point?



Twin Fist said:


> and if you knew how to spell "accepted", i wouldnt have gotten a chuckle this morning....


Hahaha Awesome. There are a few words that I consistently always spell wrong. That is one of them. Funny.  Well, I'm happy I gave you a chuckle. 


One more thing. I am still interested in the 'consequences'. I listed some of mine earlier, but they were for the most part, positive. There has to be negative consequences. Anybody got anything besides 'a possibility of some twisted ideology making use of that science, like the Eugenics program'? What else?


----------

