by hamilcarr 360 Replies latest jw friends
Satanus, the laws and instructions given to God's people in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are without parallel.
Now, don't get me started on how much damage has been done to the Earth due to the selfishness and greed of humans.
It's not about not knowing, it's about not caring.
Sylvia
I don't know, we seem to be going around in circles.
I read "no plant of the field was yet in the earth", and I understand that to mean what is written - no...plant...in...earth. If you understand something else, well, OK.
It's been fun!
Until next time....
I read "no plant of the field was yet in the earth", and I understand that to mean what is written - no...plant...in...earth. If you understand something else, well, OK.
It's been fun!
Until next time....
Salutations!
Sylvia
burn
Really? What does the Catholic belief in God have to do with the Modern Synthesis at all?
That's my entire point and Dawkin's too.
Re. Benedict
69
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
This is simply wrong.
Quod erat demonstrandum for an informed dweller of the early 21st century. This account would speak to his/her understanding of cosmology, a cosmology that has an inherent finality implied in your "updated" creation story.
My little creation myth is generalistic enough that it is unlikely future scientific discoveries would render it as laughable as Genesis. Why is it so important that you defend the possibilty that Genesis may have been inspired?
You want Scripture to be 100% consistent with modern science when modern science is not 100% consistent with TRUTH.
Oh good lord. You just capitilised truth. And made a strawman argument against all science. Modern science is interpretation of the facts as we know them. No claim to absolute truth. And I want anything claimed as inspired not to CONTRADICT modern science, okay? :-)
And science is fire; it provides heat AND light. And can burn you if you are not careful.
snowbird
laws and instructions given to God's people in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are without parallel.
Yeah, women ARE dirty after they mensturate and give birth and SHOULD be made to sleep in a tent for a week. LOL. Good thing I have a fringe round my skirt! Let's go stone a gay guy!! Woo! Oh no, I'm wearing polycotton, I am sinful ARGH!!
This is simply wrong.69
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
From a scientific viewpoint, one could argue that the process of evolution is guided by environmental pressures even though the relationship between environment and (population of) organism(s) is at least bidirectional.
That's my entire point and Dawkin's too.
No it is not, your point is that (and I quote you):
The CATHOLIC (emphasising not shouting) belief of God is not consistent with Modern Synthesis.
That is pretty plain English.
69
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
This is simply wrong.
How so? How can you scientifically prove evolution is absolutely unguided? I would like to see this.
My little creation myth is generalistic enough that it is unlikely future scientific discoveries would render it as laughable as Genesis.
LOL. It is not laughable to our current understanding, but that understanding is evolving. It could be laughable to a future malapert.
Why is it so important that you defend the possibilty that Genesis may have been inspired?
Why is it so important that you defend the view that there is no possibility for inspiration in Genesis?
And science is fire ; it provides heat AND light. And can burn you if you are not careful.
Science is what you do with it. Of itself, it is meaningless.
Oh good lord. You just capitilised truth.
Oh good Lord, you don't understand capitalizing for emphasis?
Modern science is interpretation of the facts as we know them. No claim to absolute truth.
Well there you go, you want inspiration to agree with a knowledge that is at best provisional and subject to change. You made my point.
As I've said, today's modern science will be tommorrow's Ptolemy. I don't subscribe to your hubris.
BTS
As I've said, today's modern science will be tommorrow's Ptolemy. I don't subscribe to your hubris.
I partially agree though you shouldn't forget science is accumulative, with a fresh theory building on the previous. I think it's highly unlikely this will result in a total negation of current findings.
Anyway, I think this shows that one needs to embrace what's relevant for the here and now. Evolution perfectly fits this requirement, hence, should be taught at public schools.
from the first post:
Why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum ...
Optimism in Evolution
By OLIVIA JUDSON
LONDON
When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America’s science classrooms.
In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It’s discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.
This is a travesty.
It is also dangerous.
Evolution should be taught — indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes — for at least three reasons.
First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution — and it becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes) to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become interesting.
The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. And I’m not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.
For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)
Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.
Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them. And, perhaps, to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead.
The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, “The Republican War on Science,” the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.
Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)
But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It’s that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don’t have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.
Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.
Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The Wild Side at nytimes.com/opinion.
What is the evidence that anyone is trying to drop any evolution "from the curruiculum entirely"?
And especially what is the evidence that anyone is trying to drop things such as drug resistance or other observed biological changes from the cirriculum?
To my knowledge Creationist and ID organizations are generally not even opposed to the teaching of the full "evolutionary version of history." Though they would also prefer alternatives or at least "evidence against" as well as the "positive evidence" presented.
As far as the things listed in the arcticle (drug resistance etc.) such things are even taught in dedicated creationist literature. So who is trying to drop them?
Burn
How so? How can you scientifically prove evolution is absolutely unguided? I would like to see this.
I said Benedict's statement was wrong; as hamilcarr points out, for a START no evolutionist CAN claim evolution is unguided as the theory states various selection pressures control the 'direction' of the process. That is 'guding'. If Pope Benedict meant non-biological paranormal guidance, then again, Benedict is wrong as evolutionary theory does not require a paranormal plate-spinner to keep the process going.
It could be laughable to a future malapert.
You say malapert like it's a bad thing ;-)
Dear burn, overcoming ground-in dogma that isn't based on fact requires more than the scholarly presentation of facts. You HAVE to rattle windows. You might not be able to lead a horse to water, but you CAN (sometimes) make it think, LOL. And although those that malaperts engage in direct discussion with might be incorrible (hooberus being a case in point) I KNOW a number of 'those who lurk' whose opinions over time have been overturned by lively discussion such as this who I now see arguing from the opposite side of the fence (or at least astradle it). And from personal correspondence I know more who never say a word also have their opinions overturned; not neccesarily by me or others arguing for a modernistic viewpoint but ny the consistant failure of those arguing against it to do justice to their own opinions.
No. I stand by what I said. It is unlikely that future scientific discoveries would render my little creation myth as laughable as that of the Bible/Quran/Bhaghadvita/Norse Mythos/Greco-Roman mythos/Pre-Colombians/Aborigonals.
To make my silly little creation myth as silly as those would require that the basic scientific understandings of cosmology and natural selection were totally wrong. This is rather unlikely; details, yeah, fine? Total re-writes of modern understanding comparable to geocentric -> solarcentric or flat earth -> round world are simply VERY unlikely. Unlike a dogmatic believer using a holy book as my definiton of facts I would embrace such re-writes if they came though.
Oh, please give me an indication of why you think modern science is 100% wrong. Otherwise you are rejecting a valid point on fanciful grounds. You're free to do that, but I am free to point it out.
Ancient creation myths were made up by ill-informed primative people and mine is a deliberate attempt to illustrate how claims to 'inspiration' and ancient people 'doing their best with their understanding' are pointless apologisms for uninspired rubbish. IF god HAD inspired a creation myth then it would be easy to do one consistant with a/ modern science and b/ elastic enough to cope with future refinement. QED Creation myths are uninspired.
Why is it so important that you defend the view that there is no possibility for inspiration in Genesis?
So, you avoid the question (and by doing so answer it - LOL). But I am not afraid of answering yours; because Genesis (and the rest of the Bible et. al.) isn't just used as a nice fluffy thing. It is used by intolerent bigots to validate their intolerent bigoted world-view ON THE GROUNDS IT IS INSPIRED. By all means take the good from it (and the Quran/Bhaghadvita/Norse Mythos/Greco-Roman mythos/Pre-Colombians/Aborigonals). But strain out the bad. Why do you want to swallow the camel Burn?
Science is what you do with it. Of itself, it is meaningless.
No it isn't. Science defines and predicts things even if you do nothing with it. It did so before it (as in the rules) were discovered and will do so when the last person knowing the rules dies.
Oh good Lord, you don't understand capitalizing for emphasis?
Yes, and I was pointing out the thinking behind you emphasising it, and also that you were making strawman argument. Any comment about that?
As I've said, today's modern science will be tommorrow's Ptolemy. I don't subscribe to your hubris.
Rubbish, justify your statements. All I hear from your argument is the sound of someone scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to defend the right of some people to be totalitairian and dogmatic and to cling to a belief in inspiration. At the same time you ignore the fact people like me will happily embrace revison of scientific understanding as it comes whereas those you defend will STILL cling to their dogma no matter what current understanding of science may be.
You totally miss the point and defend the indefensable.
Came across this today and had to share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA
The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next - Ralph Waldo Emerson
