The evidence for evolution
Discussion
Yes, it causes problems for religion when the stories they have been passing down for generations are shown to be factually incorrect. But it's not about religion, any more than particle physics or behavioural ecology are. If it's inconvenient for believers (and it is) that's something they need to deal with.
ash73 said:
I assumed it was a faith school from their attitudes, but Google says it's just a normal high school. Very odd. Perhaps schools are too shy to teach kids the truth for fear of offending parents? Or maybe the teachers are just crap.
My wife's a maths teacher and reckons these days they have to teach them to pass exams, not to think. She's given students maths problems that they need to think about to relate to other problems they understand, and quite a few are lost. Sadly the ability to question the world and make your own observations seem to be being lost in favour of dogma.Moonhawk said:
I also see that the utterly predictable "it's just a theory" line also got thrown into the mix at 22 minutes in.
I still think "So's gravity" is the best answer I've heard to that.otolith said:
Evolution doesn't say anything about gods.
In some ways it does it's not just physical creatures that evolve, but ideas do too, and that is probably how religions came about.RizzoTheRat said:
In some ways it does it's not just physical creatures that evolve, but ideas do too, and that is probably how religions came about.
Dawkins' memes? Yeah, an anthropologist can use the concept of evolution and apply it to cultural knowledge, but it's more metaphorical than literal. V8LM said:
Yes, there is an importance difference between evolution and selection. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive - a God may be driving evolution. However, evolution by (natural) selection is counter to the idea of God the designer.
This is exactly my point. Firstly, the semantics of definitions mean bugger all and frankly people need to stop being smart arses about who is right unless it changes something. Evolution, or the process of natural selection, by definition contradict the idea of intelligent design. There is literally no crack, whatsoever, anywhere, that allows the two theories to co-exist.
Evolution excludes god. If you don't see this, I'm afraid you can't understand it.
The thing is, if you believe in an omnipotent god with unlimited magical powers, all rational bets are off. It might have restored the universe from a back-up image ten minutes ago. It might have invented the pre-history of the Earth as a thought experiment and then created it 6000 years ago. Once you start making s
t up, anything goes.
t up, anything goes.Prof Prolapse said:
Evolution excludes god.
Well that rather depends on the specific god(s) in question.If you believe an intelligent entity seeded the first organic molecules that would then go on to form the earliest single-celled organisms, then what you believe is in no way contradicted by evolution. Having said that, everything we have discovered about the universe suggests it's materialistic in nature rather than supernatural, so I'm not sure what conundrum the god I described above is necessary to explain.
Evolution certainly destroys biblical literalism, but seeing as hardly any Christians believe the Bible to be literally true as it is, I'm not sure that's much of a problem. And it's obviously quite possible for someone to be a Christian and also accept the fact of evolution; even if a certain amount of compartmentalisation has to occur.
Rubber Stamp said:
Well that rather depends on the specific god(s) in question.
If you believe an intelligent entity seeded the first organic molecules that would then go on to form the earliest single-celled organisms, then what you believe is in no way contradicted by evolution. Having said that, everything we have discovered about the universe suggests it's materialistic in nature rather than supernatural, so I'm not sure what conundrum the god I described above is necessary to explain.
Evolution certainly destroys biblical literalism, but seeing as hardly any Christians believe the Bible to be literally true as it is, I'm not sure that's much of a problem. And it's obviously quite possible for someone to be a Christian and also accept the fact of evolution; even if a certain amount of compartmentalisation has to occur.
No. God is excluded from the process of evolution regardless of what imaginary friend variations you throw in.If you believe an intelligent entity seeded the first organic molecules that would then go on to form the earliest single-celled organisms, then what you believe is in no way contradicted by evolution. Having said that, everything we have discovered about the universe suggests it's materialistic in nature rather than supernatural, so I'm not sure what conundrum the god I described above is necessary to explain.
Evolution certainly destroys biblical literalism, but seeing as hardly any Christians believe the Bible to be literally true as it is, I'm not sure that's much of a problem. And it's obviously quite possible for someone to be a Christian and also accept the fact of evolution; even if a certain amount of compartmentalisation has to occur.
You're going on a tangent with the rest, origins of life, supernatural, materialism, I'm not commenting on any of it here.
Prof Prolapse said:
No. God is excluded from the process of evolution regardless of what imaginary friend variations you throw in.
You're going on a tangent with the rest, origins of life, supernatural, materialism, I'm not commenting on any of it here.
I wasn't saying I believed in any of the above, just that it is possible to be religious and also accept the fact of evolution.You're going on a tangent with the rest, origins of life, supernatural, materialism, I'm not commenting on any of it here.
ash73 said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Evolution excludes god.
I think this (incorrect) interpretation may be why people on either side of the debate refuse to listen. The real problem is religion doesn't adapt when we discover something new, and when our ethics "evolve".Better still, where is the evidence claims of potential supernatural involvement? This is the alleged science forum after all.
I'll listen to anyone, but let's be clear, claims produced without any evidence can be dismissed without any.
ash73 said:
The real problem is religion doesn't adapt when we discover something new, and when our ethics "evolve".
It can't. It has a book of divine truth. Accepting that bits of it are wrong cast doubt on the rest of it. Of course they do try to move with the times, but it gradually makes the whole thing visible for the makey-uppy nonsense that it is. I've more respect for the biblical literalists than the "Oh, that bit which used to be literal truth is now to be read as a metaphor, but that bit, that bit is nailed on literal word-of-god" people.I totally agree Otolith. Moderation is for chumps, I like my religion lunatics to be fully committed to their bullst.
I do often wonder how even the fundamentalists reconcile certain things though. Like the fact Mohammad was actually a pedophile, he is documented as having had sex with a 9 year old.
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' -Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
He's actually worse than Rolf Harris.
t.I do often wonder how even the fundamentalists reconcile certain things though. Like the fact Mohammad was actually a pedophile, he is documented as having had sex with a 9 year old.
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' -Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
He's actually worse than Rolf Harris.
ash73 said:
Meanwhile atheists do themselves a disservice imo by always attacking literal interpretations of the Bible, there are more elegant ways to dismiss religion. The important thing is to get people to learn about, and understand, evolution as a simple natural process.
The problem for science, certainly in the US but also in some communities in the UK, is that it isn't their side doing the attacking. If we could all agree that evolution belongs in science lessons and creationism belongs in RE there would be a lot less friction.ash73 said:
God <> Religion, think about it, the latter is a collection of inadequate man-made attempts to interpret the former, and evolution doesn't say anything about creation, therefore it is incorrect to say evolution excludes God. A Deistic viewpoint is fully compatible with evolution, that is to say God creates the universe and lets it get on with things. Even Abrahamic religions are compatible given a sensible interpretation (such as that made by the Pope). In science it may yet turn out some things are inconceivable, given our own limitations, and there may be a requirement for God, or there may even be a God. I think that's ok, as long as we don't stop asking questions.
Obviously believers have to adapt (while avoiding the pitfall of a God-of-the-gaps) but it's a simple fact of nature the human brain can easily maintain separate belief systems which on the face of it may appear incompatible. We all do it, all the time. Meanwhile atheists do themselves a disservice imo by always attacking literal interpretations of the Bible, there are more elegant ways to dismiss religion. The important thing is to get people to learn about, and understand, evolution as a simple natural process.
Nobody here is claiming supernatural involvement in evolution, so your second question is moot.
How can religion be anything but man-made given god is precisely that? Is there even a religion which has no god? Or a god which no religion?Obviously believers have to adapt (while avoiding the pitfall of a God-of-the-gaps) but it's a simple fact of nature the human brain can easily maintain separate belief systems which on the face of it may appear incompatible. We all do it, all the time. Meanwhile atheists do themselves a disservice imo by always attacking literal interpretations of the Bible, there are more elegant ways to dismiss religion. The important thing is to get people to learn about, and understand, evolution as a simple natural process.
Nobody here is claiming supernatural involvement in evolution, so your second question is moot.
We're not discussing the existence of god or the universe. We're talking about Evolution, I stated the theory did not require god to function and was damaging to it especially the Abrahamic religions, you've misunderstood if you think I'm saying you can disprove the existence of all gods on the back of Evolution. You can do that with no theories at all.
I strongly disagree mainstream religions are compatible with evolution. Even the Pope's buckling under enormous pressure was incredibly ill-conceived. If it was all just a story, who the hell committed the first sin to which Jesus Christ was crucified so that we might avoid eternal damnation? The answer is currently, no one. The bible makes even less sense than it did before; God sent his son, which is actually himself, knowing he would kill him(self), all so that he could save our souls because in a story god became outraged at the eating of fruit, which he knew was going to happen anyway.
If I was an English school teacher, I would fail any kid who wrote a story like that. I would probably request he receive counseling.
Also we can do nothing but stop asking questions if we have "faith". That is exactly what faith is. Moderation just means we become too lazy to ask questions all the time and just do as we're told.
I don't dispute compartmentalisation. It's a well documented phenomena, but that doesn't mean it's useful. It is a state of being where we deny the truth so much the brain fragments. Is that really a healthy mind?
Prof Prolapse said:
V8LM said:
Yes, there is an importance difference between evolution and selection. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive - a God may be driving evolution. However, evolution by (natural) selection is counter to the idea of God the designer.
This is exactly my point. Firstly, the semantics of definitions mean bugger all and frankly people need to stop being smart arses about who is right unless it changes something. Evolution, or the process of natural selection, by definition contradict the idea of intelligent design. There is literally no crack, whatsoever, anywhere, that allows the two theories to co-exist.
Evolution excludes god. If you don't see this, I'm afraid you can't understand it.
"Evolution" and "the process of natural selection" are different things. However, the wealth of data and information relating to the evolution of life on earth is that it is driven by natural selection, and not selection by some etherial being. So yes "[Evolution driven by] the process of natural selection condradicts the idea of intelligent design", but evolution per se isn't restricted to natural selection so that doesn't.
Edited by V8LM on Tuesday 11th August 17:24
V8LM said:
Evolution does not have to be by natural selection. A genetic algorithm is a piece of software that has been designed to evolve by selecting outcomes based on the specified fitness criterium.
"Evolution" and "the process of natural selection" are different things. However, the wealth of data and information relating to the evolution of life on earth is that it is driven by natural selection, and not selection by some etherial being. So yes "[Evolution driven by] the process of natural selection condradicts the idea of intelligent design", but evolution per se isn't restricted to natural selection so that doesn't.
You've made up a definition contrary to the one under discussion and you're proposing you're correct. The definition is not yours to decide. Just look at the synonyms."Evolution" and "the process of natural selection" are different things. However, the wealth of data and information relating to the evolution of life on earth is that it is driven by natural selection, and not selection by some etherial being. So yes "[Evolution driven by] the process of natural selection condradicts the idea of intelligent design", but evolution per se isn't restricted to natural selection so that doesn't.
From the Dictionary;
Evolution
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
Prof Prolapse said:
V8LM said:
Evolution does not have to be by natural selection. A genetic algorithm is a piece of software that has been designed to evolve by selecting outcomes based on the specified fitness criterium.
"Evolution" and "the process of natural selection" are different things. However, the wealth of data and information relating to the evolution of life on earth is that it is driven by natural selection, and not selection by some etherial being. So yes "[Evolution driven by] the process of natural selection condradicts the idea of intelligent design", but evolution per se isn't restricted to natural selection so that doesn't.
You've made up a definition contrary to the one under discussion and you're proposing you're correct. The definition is not yours to decide. Just look at the synonyms."Evolution" and "the process of natural selection" are different things. However, the wealth of data and information relating to the evolution of life on earth is that it is driven by natural selection, and not selection by some etherial being. So yes "[Evolution driven by] the process of natural selection condradicts the idea of intelligent design", but evolution per se isn't restricted to natural selection so that doesn't.
From the Dictionary;
Evolution
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
8.
a. Biol. The transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations; the transmutation of species (cf. transmutation n. 3f); the origination or transformation of an organism, organ, physiological process, biological molecule, etc., by such a series of changes. Also fig. Cf. evolve v. 7, development n. 3b.
b. theory of evolution n. (in general) the proposition that all living organisms have undergone a process of alteration and diversification from simple primordial forms during the earth's history; (in particular) a scientific theory proposing a mechanism for this process, now esp. that based on Darwin's theory of the natural selection of genetically inherited and adaptive variation (cf. neo-Darwinism n.).
Darwinism and natural selecton is only mentioned in terms of the current basis for the theory of evolution of living organisms on earth.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff