|
| Posted by: angryChair
- [459171622] Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 21:07
I look forward to reading this new book. It has gathered
mounds of evidence in support of the big E by experts from the
National Academy of Sciences.
If anyone out there readds it as well--please chime in on your
observations, etc.
aC
Description:
How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can
help us understand our past and prepare for our future.
Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls
show that many people turn away from science, seeking other
explanations with which they are more comfortable.
In the book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of
experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the
Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of
science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of
biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives
offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including
"intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating
inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work
in preventing and treating human disease, developing new
agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The
book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not
teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions,
Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and
religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the
world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each
other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible
with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers,
community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who
seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this
publication will be an essential resource. |
| | | 1 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 22:12
|
Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the
world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers,
community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.
The fact that some people think we even need a resource that explains that evolution and religion need to be separate is a sad state of affairs. Thirty, forty years ago, did we need a book to hold the evangelical's hand and talk to them softly, telling them that it is okay to learn about our planet scientifically? "Intelligent Design" zealots are American wannabe mullahs who envy Sharia law. How they long for their own lash to whip our own infidels.
Back to the outer fringe for you!
|
|
| | | 2 | angryCHAIR
ID: 29955918
Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 23:44
|
Wow Zen---stuck a chord, eh?
I think the part of the book that interests me is that this helps support the reality of evolution even more. It focuses on ALL aspects of evolution, not the cliche': ape became man.
Books like this will be around along time---there will always be two sides to stories like this. It's the nature of the beast. The "evolution" of the great debates!
|
|
| | | 3 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 00:30
|
If you can't understand the difference between Christians and Muslims. you are an idiot.
I am a firm believer in evolution, because I am pretty sure Zen is a desendent from an ape.
|
|
| | | 4 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 00:49
|
I meant descendent, I wanted to correct it before Zippy did.
|
|
| | | 5 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 01:12
|
Yeah, Jag, I'm pretty sure that it will be many millennium before you & yours even get up to the level of ape.
|
|
| | | 6 | Tree, in BC
ID: 10025114
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 02:57
|
I meant descendent, I wanted to correct it before Zippy did.
probably should have corrected the first line of your post while you were at it.
there are certainly differences between christians and muslims.
however, the difference between radical christians and muslims, are slight. the bottom line for many on either side of the radical coin is that they believe their way is the right way, and they will kill to prove it.
|
|
| | | 7 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 06:12
|
Let's just be happy that Zen replied with words instead of pictures. He's graduating from cave paintings.
|
|
| | | 8 | walk
ID: 1603745
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 06:38
|
What Zen said. If anyone doubts that we evolved like everythign else on this planet, then you have yet to evolve.
|
|
| | | 9 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 09:19
|
the bottom line for many on either side of the radical coin is that they believe their way is the right way, and they will kill to prove it.
Pretty liberal use of the term, "many" there, Tree. Just how many people do you think have been killed in the name of Christianity in the last 20 years?
|
|
| | | 10 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 09:34
|
Still gets this thread off-topic. The fact that creationism or intelligent design (as-if) is conceivable relative to evolution is mind boggling to me. I see unintelligent design as mere cognitive dissonance: if we evolved, then there is no god, and my beliefs are moot, and I have wasted a lot of time and energy." This highly black & white thinking of me, as I think one could be comfy with "hey, god set it up, and then we evolved based on god's plan," but I just see how or why there's a god in the first place. It's a fairy tale...but that's somewhat off topic, too. Sorry to offend.
|
|
| | | 11 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 12:54
|
Nice impressions of Rosie O'Donnell, Zen and Tree, if you can gain 50 pounds and bang a lesbian you will really have it down.
I find it odd how Liberals feel they can bash Christians, but it the same breath take up for every other religion.
If I made a comment about Jews even close to the one Zen made about Christians, Tree would be crying PREJUDICE!
|
|
| | | 12 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 13:09
|
Zen's comment wasn't about Christians in general, unless you think all Christians are "intelligent design zealots".
|
|
| | | 13 | angryChair
ID: 100501014
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 13:37
|
Walk---There is a great book titled: "What I believe, But Cannot
Prove" that you might like. It has more than100 of the world's
leading thinkers write about things they believe in, despite the
absence of concrete proof. It is edited by John Brockman,
copyright 2006.
Check it out, if you'd like.
aC
|
|
| | | 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 13:42
|
Zen's comment wasn't about Christians in general, unless you think all Christians are "intelligent design zealots".
Now c'mon MITH. You know full well, that nuances of the English language escape Jag entirely.
|
|
| | | 15 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:05
|
Walk, I don't think you can have an intelligent design debate. A religious person would have to deny their religion to agree with you and the rest already agree with you.
|
|
| | | 16 | Tree, in BC
ID: 10025114
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:14
|
the bottom line for many on either side of the radical coin is that they believe their way is the right way, and they will kill to prove it.
Pretty liberal use of the term, "many" there, Tree. Just how many people do you think have been killed in the name of Christianity in the last 20 years?
read what i said. i wasn't talking about Christianity per the every sunday church going folk. i was referring the radical side only, and i was referring to those who will bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors, and the related.
no, radical christians have yet to crash a plane into a building. but, the belief that it's ok to kill in the name of your belief is the same.
I find it odd how Liberals feel they can bash Christians, but it the same breath take up for every other religion.
see above. i'm not bashing christians at all. just the radical element who somehow see it as acceptable to kill in the name of your beliefs.
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 5803649
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:17
|
Nonsense, Jag. Do you think the Pope is denying his religion?
The truth about creation comes from God. A Godly person would accept God's truth and not set themselves up as the sole arbiter of what is true and what isn't. Use your God-given gifts of free will and intellect to see the truths about God's creation.
|
|
| | | 18 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:26
|
Tree
wasn't talking about Christianity per the every sunday church going folk. i was referring the radical side only, and i was referring to those who will bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors, and the related.
I'm well aware of what you meant. My point remains: how many people do you think have been killed in the name of Christianity in the last 20 years? Christianity doesn't have anything close to the problem that Islam does with regard to murderous fundamentalists.
That you claim otherwise exposes blatent ignorance - or worse, support for an anti-Christianity agenda.
|
|
| | | 19 | Tree, in BC
ID: 10025114
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 15:58
|
oh, that's just absurd MITH.
anyone who kills in the name of religion - Muslim, Christian, Jew, or otherwise - i wrong. i don't care if it's one death, or 1000 deaths - killing in the name of religion is wrong.
even so, you're picking a small block in history. *some* Christians have historically used violence and even killed in the name of their religion, and it still happens world wide.
A Christian mob murdered some Muslims in Indonesia a few years back. a few years ago some brothers in oregon tried to destroy a synagogue during services.
one of the problems is that some of the bigger "names" like McVeigh and Rudolph - certainly used some aspect of Christianity behind their beliefs that it was ok to kill, but they inevitably had bigger beefs.
Christians do kill in the name of their religion. to accuse me of doing something other than stating the facts shows an ignorance and bias on your part, not on mine.
|
|
| | | 20 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 16:19
|
anyone who kills in the name of religion... one death, or 1000 deaths - killing in the name of religion is wrong.
No argument. Nothing I've said contradicts this.
you're picking a small block in history
I picked a block of time that is reflective of current, present-day events. I did so because these are the terms you set when you said, in the present tense the difference between radical christians and muslims, are slight... they believe their way is the right way, and they will kill to prove it. You were not speaking in historical terms. You were talking about the way things are today, which is also what the terms of this discussion topic are, the current evolution/creation debate.
Christians do kill in the name of their religion.
Agreed, this occasionally still happens today.
to accuse me of doing something other than stating the facts shows an ignorance and bias on your part, not on mine.
What you did was imply that murder at the hands of Christian fundamentalists occurs on a scale similar to that of Islamists. If you didn't mean this at all I'll chalk it up to sloppy writing and let it be. But I have a feeling, based on many previous forum posts you've written, that you meant exactly what you wrote.
The truth that is contrary to what you wrote is that as a whole, Christian fundamentalists are quite different from Islamists in their tendency toward violence. In one case you are talking about a handful of examples. In the other you are talking literally about multiple attempts at genocide. Five or six abortion clinics does not equal 3,000 NYC residents, much less hundreds of thousands of Sudanese.
|
|
| | | 21 | walk
ID: 1603745
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 10:35
|
Thanks angry chair. Since evolutionary theory is post-hoc, and is not "proven," it's an interesting opportunity for scientists and others to discuss the specifics of the discipline and other possibilities. I feel that the alternative views, which are largely based on creationism, are guided by man's hopes that there is something higher or greater out there that we can have faith in, look up to, and also, to use as a basis for some fcuked up behavior and to avoid personal responsibility. The collective beliefs allow us as humans to have communal bonds and also to form distinctive differences, which make it easier to identify "us" vs. "them." (different religions, different gods). It's easier to deal with differences, even if the categories are based on devised beliefs. Wow, I am getting obtuse. These are the views of an atheist and of someone who is a hard-line empiricist (me).
Anyway, I enjoyed a lot of reading and interest in evolution when I took some courses in this area in college, and still have some texts, but don't have the interest or the doubts right now to learn more (how arrogant!) as I guess I am comfy in the science and the plausibility of the theory. I also fall asleep a lot when reading non-non-fiction! ;-) cheers
|
|
| | | 22 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 18:23
|
and also, to use as a basis for some fcuked up behavior and to avoid personal responsibility. The collective beliefs allow us as humans to have communal bonds and also to form distinctive differences, which make it easier to identify "us" vs. "them." (different religions, different gods).
I am not a religious person, but I can not understand the need by many athiests to emphssize the negatives and ignore the positives of religion. Religion has helped those who otherwise would have no hope, charitablc donations by religious organizations to feed and clothe the poor is considerably more than the amount contributed by athiests. I have not heard of a group similiar to the Salvation Army organized by pot smoking hippies like Seattle Zen. It seems athiests talk a good game, but it is the religious zealots acually doing the helping.
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 3302057
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 18:49
|
You mean like how religious people emphasize the positives of atheism? You've got to be kidding me with your argument.
|
|
| | | 24 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 19:10
|
#22
Lots of charities that aren't religion based don't promote atheism, which is in itself a religion.
For instance, consider the non-religious charity America's Second Harvest
America's Second Harvest - The Nation's Food Bank Network feeds America's hungry through a nationwide network of member food banks and engages our country in the fight to end hunger. It is the nation's largest charitable hunger-relief organization, with a network of more than 200 Member food banks and food-rescue organizations serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. America's Second Harvest supports approximately 50,000 local charitable agencies operating more than 94,000 programs including food pantries, soup kitchens, emergency shelters, after-school programs, and Kids Cafes. Last year, the America's Second Harvest Network provided food assistance to more than 25 million low-income hungry people in the United States.
|
|
| | | 25 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 11:43
|
I feel that the alternative views, which are largely based on creationism, are guided by man's hopes that there is something higher or greater out there that we can have faith in, look up to, and also, to use as a basis for some fcuked up behavior and to avoid personal responsibility.
i think that in a way this may be an incorrect statement i think that creatationism may acctaully be a inherent part of man kinds behavior just as evolution is and that creationism part manifest itself in religion to fill in gaps, the human mind can not see how to envolve into something unknown. but process of evoloving works for us on everyday sense as we see our selves evolve through time. the piont i guess i am trying to make is that i think on some level that the debate between evolution and creationism is not a religios one but a natural response to the world.
|
|
| | | 26 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 12:06
|
Well, it's a bit of a radical statement, made in part, to show an opposite view that is seldom seen outside of the blogosphere.
boikin, I do agree with you that in our efforts to explain what is very difficult to explain, our minds tend to fill in gaps so that we are "comfy." This is actually a big part of the cognitive information processing field within psychology. I actually took three courses on this stuff (at times interesting, but can also be really dry) in grad school in psych. We stereotype, categorize, form schemas, and even make up facts to reconcile inconsistencies and "connect the dots." So, in that regard, yes, evolution and creationism, when considered as explanations for our existence, can be reduced to our minds' attempts to fill in gaps and not be left in a state of mental anxiety (which is uncomfy). Our attempts to explain things, whether it be our existence, or any other psycical science or social scientific theory fall into this realm of trying to make sense of our world.
However, I think then beyond this attempt to fill in these gaps and answer questions about our existence that plague our minds, evolutionary theory is far more scientifically based, parsimonious and plausible than creationism which is not even a theory, in the literal sense (Kuhn).
I also do feel though that there is a religious aspect to this argument. To some, acceptance of the theory of evolution may preclude the existence of god, or at least the way god created man, as some religions espouse. I think then that some creationists are put off by the theory of evolution. (As an aside, I'm with Bill Maher on the view that religion does more harm than good.)
|
|
| | | 27 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:22
|
i was not trying to disreguard the religios aspect of the argument just that it hides a deeper arguement. I use to see creationism as a joke but while doing disertation research on new product design i kept finding that themse of evoltion and creationism reappearing in how we conceive new products designs. It led me to see that evolution debate was continuation of this. On another topic me and friend were just comenting on how there is growing bread of ultra conservtives who find their driving influence not in religion but else where.
|
|
| | | 28 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:36
|
but process of evoloving works for us on everyday sense as we see our selves evolve through time
OK. How have you seen yourself evolve over time? Since it's an everyday sense I would imagine that you have some examples.
|
|
| | | 29 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:55
|
I can't help speak for boikin, Box, but I would imagine that one could sense how one evolves over time through:
- learning, changing, adapting from previous experiences
- growing, maturation, literally physically and mentally
- undertaking new life experiences such as work, education, marriage, parenthood, or taking a journey (e.g. "into the wild," a very moving movie and book I recently read)
- and being self-aware of these learning and changes...experiences that result in new ways of thinking, altered beliefs and values, and different behaviors.
etc.
|
|
| | | 30 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 13:55
|
you learn new things by expanding and augmenting what you allready know. For example at first you only make simple senteces with nouns and verbs: I am hungry. then you learn to enhance sentences with adjectives: I am very hungry. you evolve through time by trial and error and augmentation, you are not instantly there. a physical example would be how you grow you are not born an adult.
|
|
| | | 31 | angryChair
ID: 100501014
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 15:06
|
Another example, from inside of us, is how some bacterium
have evolved to become immune to antibiotics. So, in return,
our knowledge has to evolve to battle the change in the
bacteria. This is a big problem for the medical world.
|
|
| | | 32 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 15:53
|
walk, boiken: What you are saying is "evolution" is really not in my book. Now I fully believe it's possible for evolution and religion to coexist, just not in the ape to man sense. Evolution would have to be something inherently passed on to your offspring from your genes. There's a difference between evolving and learning.
|
|
| | | 33 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 16:24
|
How old do you think the Earth is?
|
|
| | | 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 1803267
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 16:27
|
just not in the ape to man sense
Evolution does not say this. Evolution theory says that man and ape have common ancestors. No evolutionary scientist proposes that man descended from apes.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 16:38
|
How old do you think the Earth is?
Good God, who knows? One day I hope to ask him.
|
|
| | | 36 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 16:40
|
Evolution theory says that man and ape have common ancestors.
Yes it does and I fully disagree with it. I believe that man is a specific creation by God.
|
|
| | | 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 1803267
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 16:49
|
That's fine (really. And, as an aside, evolutionary theory doesn't necessary say that your point is not true).
But you can't mischaracterize what evolution is actually saying. That's a strawman argument. It is like me saying "Boxman believes that men came from whales, and I disagree with that." I might, indeed, disagree with it but it doesn't mean that I've correctly quoted you. And it doesn't advance the argument.
Evolution does not say that man came from the apes. Nor does it say that God had no involvement. It doesn't speak to God at all.
|
|
| | | 38 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 17:13
|
Evolution does not say that man came from the apes. Nor does it say that God had no involvement. It doesn't speak to God at all.
And like I said, I can see evolution and creationism coexisting. I just want to reiterate my belief that man was created by God.
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 1803267
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 17:19
|
Well then, we agree. Holy crap.
|
|
| | | 40 | walk
ID: 1603745
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 19:54
|
Aaaaaaaaaaargh!
|
|
| | | 41 | angryCHAIR
ID: 29955918
Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 20:42
|
Oddly, enough Darwin was a religious man (Fundamentalist, in fact--even was going to join the Clergyman)---and his releasing of his theory tore him up inside. He agonized over what releasing it to the public would do. And, man, that fear is prevalent even today.
I believe it was after the death of his daughter that he became very frustrated with religion! He became an Agnostic.
Darwin seemed to agree with a bunch on this post that religion was more of a convenient way for people to explain what they did not understand, or in some cases "want" to understand.
|
|
| | |
|
|