| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/29 |
| 2004/1/30-31 [Science/Biology] UID:12040 Activity:insanely high |
1/30 Speaking of liberal vs. conservative, what's with conservatives and
biology education?
http://csua.org/u/5s0
\_ It's not even really "conservatives". It's the fucking
evangelicals.
\_ The Republican party is at their beck and call. Change that or
stop pretending there's a difference.
\_ Who are a huge power base in the Republican party, and voted for
Bush in record numbers, so he definitely owes them (84% of
evangelicals voted for Bush in 2000, as opposed to 75% for
Reagan).
\_ I'm a conservative (not the libertarian kind). Evolution can
be explained, IMHO, but not as gospel truth as it is told
today. Offering other theories as very good alternatives is
a great idea (it doesn't have to be the strict creationist view).
\_ I demand equal time for my religious creation theory,
namely, that I created everything and therefore, you
are all my property and owe me homage and service.
\_ creationism in any degree of strictness is a faith, not a theory.
\_ earth created in 7 days is a strict view of creationism
(versus earth created over many many years)
\_ Any view of creationism is based on faith.
A view that doesn't hold God to 7 literal days might
at least be compatible with the physical evidence,
but that doesn't make it a theory. -tom
\_ Accepting evolution with the kind of defensive
vehemence I commonly see among bio types has to
be based on faith too. Where do bacteria
come from? I don't have to be a religious nut
to be a creationist, nor do I have to be a
creationist to be sceptical about evolution.
I can postulate some hitherto unknown
mechanism for the creation of 'bacterial
nanobots' without invoking the ugly F
word.
-- ilyas
\_ tell us about the stars, ilyas
\_ Being skeptical and flat out rejecting are
(obviously) two very different behaviors.
--scotsman
\_ I was addressing Tom's claim that any view
of creationism is based on faith, which is
a false claim. -- ilyas
\_ Then you haven't made the point. Do you
have emperical evidence to base some view
of creationism upon? Or is this one of those
"unknown unknowns" discussions? Also, as
the person below pointed out, evolution doesn't
even attempt to explain the origin of life.
\_ by the way, "jove /etc/motd.public"
also doesn't provide privacy
protection, gmartin. -tom
--scotsman
\_ How is "some hitherto unknown mechanism"
different from God? Unless you're talking
about a physical process we don't understand
yet. There are plenty of plausible theories
as to how protein structures first started
replicating themselves which don't require
a deus ex machina. -tom
\_ I am not aware of any theory which presents
an unbroken line which starts with chemicals
and ends with bacteria (the simplest form
of life not counting oddly devolved
borderline cases like viruses). There is
also no evidence for any such chain to give
us hints. Currently, I conclude that either
life arose somewhere where such a record
does exist (Mars?) and moved here via
spores, or we got pollinated by ET or God or
something like that. I don't reject the
existence of God, so having to fall back
on something like that as a possibility
doesn't bother me, except in a sense that
it makes a hypothesis inelegant (but not
unfalsifiable, necessarily). -- ilyas
\_ OK, fair enough--you can believe
absurd things without believing in
creationism. Is that your point? -tom
\_ It's not "based on faith". Evolution doesn't
specifically cover the origin of the first life.
It's about *evolution*. We obviously don't have
a lot of evidence about the earliest life, or
how similar that was to bacteria.
\_ possible theories/views:
a. earth created in 7 days
b. Evolution
c. certainly there should be many other theories
not covering a) or b)
\_ There's also the "aged earth" theory. Similar to
how Adam was created with the appearance of a
grown man, rather than an infant, so too the earth
was created with the appearance of age.
\_ That's not a theory--it's completely
tautological. "The physical world was created
by God exactly the way it is now." It's
impossible to prove or disprove, because
it doesn't do anything at all to attempt
to *explain* the physical world, which is what
a theory does. -tom
\_ 'Theories which can not be tested are
critical
examination. They should be
taught to examine everything
philosophies.'
thumpers
with mentioning its
are the only ones trying to
suppress knowledge.
\_ And the dinosaur bones were planted by god to
tempt the weak of faith.... If we're going to
go down this route, let's remember the good
Bishop Berkeley who wrote that we are all but
thoughts in the mind of god; there's as much
evidence for that as there is for creationism.
\_ you overwrote my post. use motdedit.
\_ sorry. but motdedit has no privacy protections
\_ why does it have any less privacy protection
than "jove /etc/motd.public". It doesn't
log accesses, and if you don't want to
wait in queue, then use motdedit -n
\_ where is motdedit?
/csua/bin/motdedit
/csua/bin/motdedit -h for help
\_ and when you're a complete moron, you need
privacy protections, eh?
"earth created in 7 days" is not a theory.
It's not supported by a single observable
fact. It might have been a hypothesis at one
point, and now it's been shown to be false
by the vast preponderance of physical
evidence. -tom
\_ look. I'm not a supporter of a.
I'm thinking more about the lines of
b) and c) above. Schools tend to
teach b) as gospel truth.
\_ yes, tom found me out.
\_ They also teach Physics as gospel
truth. There's about as much
evidence for evolution as for
reason.
\_ I think you don't realize
how much our understanding
that model, so why do conservatives
suddenly start hedging their bets
when the subject of biology comes up?
we should teach the first tier
theories first.
- yet another poster
of the laws of physics
changes all the time. Does
the discovery of a new type
of quark invalidate GR?
\_ There is a theory that
birds are descendants of
dinosaurs. It is a low
tier theory because while
there are evidence supporting
it and evidence countering
it. Macro evolution is
lower tier than our many
laws of physics for the same
that model, so why do conservatives
suddenly start hedging their bets
when the subject of biology comes up?
\_ not all conservatives believe
in 7 day creationism.
\_ they teach evolution just like they
teach any other scientific theory.
Why should it be singled out?
\_ There are many tiers of
theories based on how strong
the evidence is. theory of
gravity is first tier. theory
of evolution is second tier
or third tier depending on
which part of this complex
theory you are talking about.
In particular, macroevolution
is much weaker than micro-
evolution. I am not against
teaching evolution but we need
to mention the holes in it
when teaching it. And all
other factors being equal,
we should teach the first tier
theories first.
- yet another poster
\_ I agree.
\_ Why don't they teach the holes in
Christianity? Actually, they're not
"holes" so much as "tenets incon-
sistent with scientific facts".
Evolutionary theory is pretty well
established. There isn't any theory
that is 100% known and hole-free.
\_ Christianity does not claim
that it could be empirically
proven. Yea, I agree that
a woman giving birth without
having sex is inconsistent
with scientific facts. Is
that your point?
\_ Are you interested in
teaching our kids to
examine evolutionary theory
critically, or are you more
interested in covering up
its holes so as to use it
to advance your anti-
Christianity agenda?
\_ Science is all about
critical examination.
They should be taught
to examine everything
critically. The bible-
thumpers are the only
ones trying to suppress
knowledge.
\_ don't forget the
anti-Christian fanatics
who want to teach
evolution theory
without mentioning its
flaws.
\_ I haven't seen any
evidence that anyone
wants to hide "flaws"
in evolution. -tom
\_
Really? I have.
let's put it this way,
I won't tell my kids birds
are descended from dinosaurs
and I don't feel
that our educational system
should tell my kids that
humans are descended
from amoeba without
presenting it as a theory
with very significant holes.
\_ you haven't specified any
of the holes.
\_ well, I haven't
heard anyone say
why it is a good
theory either. Go
pick up a book or
stfw if you want to
go into the details.
\_ Sounds like you're
the one who needs to
pick up a book.
\_ I see what your issue is,
now. The fact that *you*
don't understand something
doesn't mean that the
theory is bad. -tom
\_ Do *you* understand
everything about it?
If not, how did you
conclude that the
theory is good?
\_ All the evidence so far
indicates that birds are
descended from dinos. While
I agree that we need to
teach children to question
I think it's pigheadedness
to deny that the argument
for birds being descended
from dinos is strong.
\_ I don't think you can say that
the Theory of Gravity (do you
really mean to say General
Relativity?) is any stronger or
weaker than the Theory of
Evolution. Both are subject
to modification in light of
new information. Both have
a tremendous body of evidence
supporting them. If anything,
The Theory of Evolution is
more important because of its
larger impact on societies
view of itself and probably
it is more important to teach
it. -biophysics grad
\_ There is a theory that
birds are descendants of
dinosaurs. It is a low
tier theory because while
there are evidence supporting
it and evidence countering
it. Macro evolution is
lower tier than our many
laws of physics for the same
reason. As for importance,
sure (that's why I said
"all other factors being
equal" above), but we need
to becareful here because
its very importance makes
its teaching subject to
non-science related pressures
from all sides.
\_ I think you don't realize
how much our understanding
of the laws of physics
changes all the time. Does
the discovery of a new type
of quark invalidate GR?
\_ You miss the point.
Let me ask you this:
Do you agree that some
theories are stronger
than others? If you
do, we have no
disagreement. If your
point is that your
knowledge of physics
is better than mine,
I agree with you.
\_ If you're not going to use motdedit, at least
have the courtesy to run an editor that can
tell you when changes have been made to the
file, then copy your work, exit w/o saving,
reopen the file, and paste your work. I don't
use motdedit, but I don't overwrite other
people's posts, either.
\_ is there such a thing as a Jewish Creationist?
\_ http://www.orot.com/ec.html#Anchor-19500
\_ http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html
there are darwinians, neo-darwinians, and non-darwinians. |
| csua.org/u/5s0 -> story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040130/ap_on_re_us/striking_evolution_3 Yahoo! News - Page Not Found. News Home - Yahoo! Yahoo! News. Search. Document Not Found The document you requested is not found. It may have expired. Try these links: Yahoo! News home page Yahoo! Copyright 2002 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. |
| www.orot.com/ec.html#Anchor-19500 -> www.orot.com/ec.html Evolutionary Creationism Torah Solves the Problem of Missing Links By Susan Schneider Contents Torah, Science, and Creationism: Three Frames Of Conception and Preconception A Methodology Of Dynamic Paradox Darwin and Genesis: Their Status Quo Sorting Out Their Spheres Of Discussion 1. When science 1 discovers the mechanics of a natural process it imagines itself to have proven the nonexistence of G-d in that realm, relegating Divinity to increasingly remote corners of reality, ie those areas not yet illuminated by the scientific mind. Wherever a natural explanation exists G-d cannot, and so it postulates a mutually exclusive relationship between science and religion. Jewish theology asserts the opposite and practicing Jews affirm the principle in their twice daily recitation of faith called the Shema, Hear Israel, HaShem 2 our Lord, HaShem is one. The two names of G-d here HaShem and Lord express two modes of Divine interaction with creation. HaShem Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh the four-letter, unpronounceable name of G-d is the transcendent aspect of Divinity, perfect and absolute, that exists beyond time and space, and beyond name and form. Conversely, Lord Elokim, is the name used throughout the creation chapter of Genesis. It refers to Divine expression that operates within the system of natural law that G-d devised to govern the world in accordance with His 3 will. When science discovers the secrets of photosynthesis, the way a cell extracts energy from its food, or why it rains, they are simply articulating the mechanism of Divine manifestation as it operates through the physical world. Einstein is considered the most brilliant of men because he discovered that E mc2. He did not invent it, he did not create a universe based on that principle, he simply articulated a relationship that was already there. The Nobel prize should have gone to the One whose wisdom conceived the idea in the first place and Who designed the universe based on that and other yet to be discovered truths. It is like giving credit not to the inventor but to the one who made a generic imitation when the patent expired. Einstein himself believed in G-d, as did and do many of the greatest minds in physics. Their faith is not contingent upon unsolved riddles in nature, rather it derives from awe and humility before creations superhuman brilliance of design. Many of sciences masters report their experience of a living Consciousness that permeates and organizes the natural world, and whom they meet, face to face, mind to mind, as they unlock creations secrets. Any discrepancy between the empirical facts of nature and the theological facts of Torah is only apparent, and resolution must be sought. First, one must examine the experimental evidence as presented by science and assess its reliability. What underlying assumptions might distort interpretation of the data? Second, one must look within the vast body of material that comprises the traditional teachings of Torah and search for supporting evidence: statements in the Bible, Talmud, Midrash, or later writings which present compatible ideas or suggest equivalent frameworks. In this way one fashions a synthesis between science and Torah, reconciling their contradictory perspectives into a larger context that holds them both. It is important to note, that nothing of science gets superadded onto the traditional system of Jewish thought, the entirety of which was revealed at Sinai, though in an exceedingly abstract and concise form. Finding correspondence between the Torah of symbol science and the Torah of scripture simply unpacks the dense and esoteric profundities of the Sinaic revelation, making them comprehensible to the modern mind and unlearned thinker. Science becomes a hands-on model which grounds the abstractions of Torah in a more tangible form. With nature as a teaching aid, the implications of an esoteric topic can be explored more deeply. Science benefits from this methodology for when a discovery finds its niche within Torahs all encompassing framework of cosmic truth and spiritual law its significance becomes clear, and the next research step is clarified. This is the methodology here employed to approach the conflict between Darwin and Genesis. It resolves their contradictions by identifying a context which incorporates both of their truths, and reconciles them. DARWIN AND GENESIS: THEIR STATUS QUO Any resolution of science and Torah must begin by clarifying their points of disagreement and defining their terms. Sorting Out Their Spheres Of Discussion What questions does each system of thought presume to answer? While the history it contains is accurate, this is not its primary intent. Scientific theories on the origin of species are solely concerned with the historical development of form on this planet. Context Torah begins with the absolute unity of the Infinite One and describes the subsequent process of creation and unfolding of diversity. Scientific theory on the origin and propagation of life takes our present experience of diversity and extrapolates a hypothetical origin and process. First Cause Torah is premised entirely on the assumption of One G-d as architect and creator of the universe. Proposing no theory of first cause, it neither affirms nor refutes the concept of deity. Author Torahs creation narrative begins in the super-conscious, supra-rational omniscience of G-d. Scientific evolutionary theory originates in the experience and rational mind of man. Clarifying Terminology Next one must rigorously determine what the term evolution means within each framework. Science Darwins specific theory of evolution or micro-evolution states that as a species adapts to a changing environment, utilizing the mechanisms of random mutation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest; It is possible that, at some point, a new and reproductively isolated species may arise, though this phenomenon has not yet actually been observed. Darwins specific theory of evolution describes how changes take place in an already established species but makes no retroactive assertion about how that animal type itself came into being. Darwins general theory of evolution or macro-evolution extends the previous theorem to describe the origin of life and appearance of all known creature-types. Thus it postulates that the various species themselves also evolved from a common ancestor, branching forth from simple to complex, with all their astounding diversity, through a similar process of random mutation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. Scripture Torahs notion of spiritual evolution teaches that in every instant the universe progresses toward perfection. Whether from choosing good, or suffering the purging consequences from choosing the opposite, progress happens. There is no moment that stands outside G-ds will for creation to realize its perfection. This is an evolutionary process: who we are now is the raw material for who we will become. There is always motion and only progress though appearances may be to the contrary. This evolutionary progression began before Genesis and will extend beyond the Messianic end of-days. Torahs physical evolution, as articulated in Genesis, presents an evolutionary-like sequence of creation whereby each day introduces a qualitatively higher level of life form. Only after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil, and the world turned inside out and upside down, did reality become as we know it today. There was the territory of holiness and the territory of impurity, and they did not mix. In our world there is no good without evil and no evil without good, but this was not always so. Adam and Eve were pure, saintly beings without a trace of impurity. We, on the other hand, experience inclinations both toward good and toward evil, both toward spiritual service and toward self indulgent gratifications. Evil existed in Eden, embodied as the serpent, a creature outside themselves. To eat from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil was to bring an intermingling of good and evil into themselves-into the very substance of their being. This fact is communicated by the t... |
| www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html Timeline of Evolutionary Thought To read more on the life and work of notable people who have contributed to evolutionary thought, click on any of the listed individuals below. Please note that some of the links go to pages that have not yet been finished. |