51% of Americans have yet to evolve.

[Andrew Green]

Why would people that don't believe in evolution elect a monkey...



ok, I couldn't resist

 

[hardheadjarhead]

More details here:
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html

Isn't it our Holy Day today? Shouldn't people be bringing us beer and viands?

I myself was going to pillage a monastary.




Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

A couple of points:

1) The degree to which science explains "absolute everything" in the universe is dependent on what you mean by science in the first place. A popular usage of the term "science" among some is simply as another word for naturalism, in which case it can only explain a very limited subset of phenomena --- not to mention hypocritically denying scientific validity to a bulk of tools and means that naturalists use every day (abstract mathematics, logic, etc).

2) Contrary to popular belief, there is a modicum of "faith" by which you have to take many of the claims in science, because you can't simply validate or confirm every single claim that you come across. However, this is not blind faith, or faith in the "you have to believe what I say because I/tradition/our holy book say so" variety. This, of course, is the vital importance of peer review in science; it keeps everyone honest (for the most part).

3) Humans have had a "God detector" for the past 5,000 years or so. Its called meditation, and its not the unique to Eastern cultures.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

It may be difficult for an individual to become learned enough in every field of science to replicate every experiment ever concieved to prove our day to day existance.

However, if an individual undertook the study to understand how to conceive of, control, execute, and evaluate an experiment in one specific field. They would gain a level of understanding about science that should allow them to accept the results of similar experiences from other scientists.

So, perhaps, an individual undertakes an experiment on genetics; mating a black mouse with a white mouse, for five generations. Regardless of the results, the individual should be able to review and understand the basics of an experiment in a different field, such as Chemistry.

Of course, those of us with a bit of experience should be able to predict the results of the genetic tests ... and it would not be magic.

The issue, to a great extent, is that American's are not skilled at the basic tools and vocabulary of science. We learned enough to pass the class, but not enough to comprehend and retain it taught us. And on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, we gather to learn of a simpler way.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The issue, to a great extent, is that American's are not skilled at the basic tools and vocabulary of science. We learned enough to pass the class, but not enough to comprehend and retain it taught us. And on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, we gather to learn of a simpler way.

With each passing day I appreciate more and more the education I received in high school. My son got through high school without having to take chemistry, and had a rudimentary biology class. I HAD to take science every year...biology and chemistry were required, and as electives I took marine biology and oceanography. All my science classes were taught by PhD's...the perks of going to a private academy (The Punahou School). I was fortunate.

I daresay that most people--secular or religious--can't even give a person a rough idea of what the scientific method is.


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

I agree, Steve.

I attended a public high school in south Florida. Luckily for me, however, I was enrolled in the International Baccalaureate program in my school, receiving the equivalent of honors-level classes during my underclassman years and the equivalent of college-level classes during my upperclassman years. They even managed to squeeze in a few AP classes in between.

And, while I absolutely sucked at it in high school, we were continuously taking some level of biology during every semester there, which included laboratory experiments. In the end, I didn't get any college credit for biology (but I did manage enough overall credits to get the IB diploma), but having the material consecutively pounded into my brain for the better part of three years (in addition to the anatomy/physiology and psychobiology courses I later took in college) left a lasting impression.

Ironically enough, even in IB the topic of evolution was given only cursory attention --- and it was often accompanied with 'alternative' accounts of the origins of life. The teacher seemed almost worried to be teaching the subject.

Laterz.

 

[Kane]

I think I have to agree with michaeledward on this one. I definatley believe in a higher power but hold science as our main source in understanding His mind.

So if I voted in that poll I would have chose "Humans evolved, God guided the process". Why couldn't God guide process? I think it is because many people in America still blindly believe the Bible creation myth . The Bible is a great book containing some good moral philosophy and history (with some supernatural elements) but believing everything in the Bible happened exactly and believing that no other myth such as the Illiad did not happen is ignorance.

No offense to any Christians here .

 

[Shaolinwind]

How do you wonder people will ever explain the DNA simularities between the apes and humans. Can you expalin my primal response to the funky, tribal drumming of adam and the ants?

Aye, or the urge to never stop being dandy.. That's gotta come from somewhere.

 

[Loki]

Personally, I think science is a means of acquiring and analyzing data and, as such, does not have 'feelings' or 'thoughts'.

Laterz.

Science agrees with you on that definition. (Could you, btw, write a thread where you explain what a neo-Hegelianism is if you haven't already?)

Personally, I'd think belief in godless evolution is tantamount to atheism/agnosticism, and since atheism isn't widespread in America (according to this site), the rough correlation between the percentage of atheists/agnostics and believers in godless evolution seems to make good sense.

Humans evolved, God did not guide process 15%

Atheists and agnostics comprise 9% of adults nationwide.

 

[heretic888]

Science agrees with you on that definition.

Hah, irony!

(Could you, btw, write a thread where you explain what a neo-Hegelianism is if you haven't already?)

Its my own term for the metaphysical philosophy of Wilhelm Hegel supplemented with the findings of postmodern philosophy, developmental psychology, and evolutionary biology.

But, we can start another thread on that if you'd like.

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The 9% of atheists that Barna reports is a low-end figure. I don't think he's under-reporting, necessarily. Such it is with stats. He might be using a different definition for determining what an atheist is. Others who report 15% might be including other non-religious categories.

As to whether God guided evolution or not, I suppose that could be. For it to be taught in a science class, however, one has to have a testable hypothesis and data for it to be presented as science. If we teach intelligent design in the classrooms, we're making a vague apologetic appeal, and not doing science.

Leave the intelligent design theories for the churches, synagogues, and mosques. Teach science and science alone at school. Seems an easy enough compromise, doesn't it?


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Sounds fair to me, Steve.

Laterz.

 

[Kane]

The 9% of atheists that Barna reports is a low-end figure. I don't think he's under-reporting, necessarily. Such it is with stats. He might be using a different definition for determining what an atheist is. Others who report 15% might be including other non-religious categories.

As to whether God guided evolution or not, I suppose that could be. For it to be taught in a science class, however, one has to have a testable hypothesis and data for it to be presented as science. If we teach intelligent design in the classrooms, we're making a vague apologetic appeal, and not doing science.

Leave the intelligent design theories for the churches, synagogues, and mosques. Teach science and science alone at school. Seems an easy enough compromise, doesn't it?


Regards,


Steve

Why couldn't God guide evolution? Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God". A lot of people view Nature as a God (or in the case of Mother Nature, a Goddess). My belief is that Nature is an aspect of total sum of God (Nature IMO is physical reality), and Her works have lead to the homo genus to where it is today.

 

[Ray]

Why couldn't God guide evolution? Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God". A lot of people view Nature as a God (or in the case of Mother Nature, a Goddess). My belief is that Nature is an aspect of total sum of God (Nature IMO is physical reality), and Her works have lead to the homo genus to where it is today.

A personification of nature that is looked upon as a "god/godess" is not the nature that science uses, IMO.

For a scientific inquiry of "how we came to be" since God is "supernatural" (or held to be "outside/over" nature) He doesn't come into consideration. The question of whether or not God guided evolution cannot be tested. Evolution, as a hugely long process, can't be tested although experiments/observations on a smaller scale seem to confirm evolution as a fact.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I sorta remember recalling that many of the early scientists in the the middle ages, the ones responsible for the Enlightenment, took it as a given that because of the nature of God, the science was actually possible. By that, they viewed that since God was rational and intelligent, that He had set up the universe to work in an ordered and consistant way without interference. Unlike say, Greek gods who were capricious and got involved in the day to day running of reality, God's omnicience and omnipotence and rationality allowed Him to set up a universe that worked in a predictable and measureable way, which made scientifc discovery possible because you could explore and measure and describe the universe in preditable and repeatable ways. Scientifc investigation is/was possible *because* of God, in a sense, not as a challenge to faith or religion.

Which is why, as someone who would be called a 'born-again Christian' by most, I don't quite understand why many Christians today look for the 'breaking point' at which the universe doesn't work without interference from God because I think in a lot of ways that undermines the capabilities of God.

I once knew another Christian who explained that the six-day creation account in Genesis was not meant to be taken seriously as a true even that had happened and that all cultures had stories that they would use to explain themselves to other cultures and that much of Genesis was the Jews' stories that they used to explain their relationship of God to themselves, not to be taken as a literal account. I find that plausible.

There are things in in 'evolution' that don't always make sense to me. Everytime I watch a nature show and they show a hundred bay alligators head the lake and 80% or so of them get eaten randomly I think to myself, "how in the world does natural selection work with *that*? All these mechanisms in adult alligators to ensure the best genetic material gets passed on and it doesn't mean nothing because the adult alligators are just randomly selected anyway because some snake turned left instead of right and gobbled this one instead of that one" . That's just me, though

But, anyway, I think it's sorta a dis-service to God to assume that he could manage to engineer gravity and quantum mechanics and who knows what else but couldn't quite manage to get life working sufficiently in a way that doesn't require his intervention. I don't know all the answers, but I kinda go back to the original point; the universe works, science seeks to explain how it works and in my mind, God set up the universe to work properly in a way that is predictable so that science is even possible, so explanations that say 'well this just doesn't work without God' I think to me are not only unscientific, but also unfaithful

 

[arnisador]

Why couldn't God guide evolution?

He could! It's juts not a scientific question, that's all.

Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God".

Well...I think of a God as an intelligent, personified entity, so I wouldn't say it quite like that.

 

[Kane]

In regards on what exactly God is, God means different thing for different people. For some people, such as Christians, Muslims, or Jews, God is a literal supernatural being.

My view of God is different. God to me is not an object or literal being. He It's an idea, a philosophy, a thought. We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is" .

Therefore in my opinion God can very much be considered the total sum of the physical and spiritual universe. I believe that spiritual reality is God and physical reality is Goddess, two realities that function differently but are still tied together and fundementally the same. Whether they have have an intelligent thought can never be known, but I do think we are in fact the minds of God trying understand himself (if you understand what I mean by that).

Even these people that claim to be atheist according to my ideology do still believe in a God, only one aspect of God (physical reality). Einstein knew this and believed in a similar way. If you notice Einstein refers to Nature in his work as God.

Get it?

 

[Loki]

Why couldn't God guide evolution? Even if you don't believe in a literal transcended figure, Nature in many ways can be considered a "God". A lot of people view Nature as a God (or in the case of Mother Nature, a Goddess). My belief is that Nature is an aspect of total sum of God (Nature IMO is physical reality), and Her works have lead to the homo genus to where it is today.

I consider that a bit misleading. It's personification of a bunch of phenomena, nothing more. Why call it "God" if you can call it "nature"? I think it's pointlessly confusing.

There really is no way to prove that God, if he/she/it exists didn't guide evolution, but junk DNA, human tail bones, lethal recessive genes and a whole bunch of other things cause me to think otherwise. Some are listed here.

 

[Ray]

We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is"

I've been thinking lately...if you have a line segment then it is finite from any way you look at it.

A geometric "line" goes to infinity in either direction and looks like infinity any way you look at it.

If you have a geometric "ray" (or a "line" that starts at one point and goes infinitely at the other end then) it looks finite at the starting point. If you are at the middle of the ray (or at the infinite end), then it looks infinite in either direction.

So who says the infinite can't have a starting point?

 

[Flatlander]

There really is no way to prove that God, if he/she/it exists didn't guide evolution, but junk DNA, human tail bones, lethal recessive genes and a whole bunch of other things cause me to think otherwise. Some are listed here.

Here's a really interesting point from your link.

Hundreds of millions of tons of pollen are cast into the air every year, with only the tiniest of fractions reaching its desired destination. (Mind you, compare Genesis 38:9-10: wasting one's gametes was a serious enough sin for Onan to be killed in punishment. Yet the Good Lord is supposed to have created things which by their very nature spill so much seed on the ground?).

This is highly illogical, Captain.