Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 12040
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/05/28 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/28    

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.
Cache (244 bytes)
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.
Cache (8192 bytes)
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...
Cache (256 bytes)
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.