There were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism. Some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools. (See Abadon's thread).
Interestingly, despite being an inherently religoius/metaphysical view (In my opinion), creationism seems to be predominantly concerned with the rebuttal of evolution. To that purpose, it takes on the appearances of a "scientific" view which is at least as verifiable/falsifiable as evolution (if not more so).
If we forget about evolution for a while, what is the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world? Remember that if it's to be "scientific", then it has to be reasonably coherent, and meaningful.
What would you begin with when trying to put together a "scientific-creationism" class in highschool? The order of creation? The possible role of cherubs in engineering the amoeba?
Or is it like imagining satanism without christianity? :)
(Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse).
Pole
Posts by Pole
-
19What do creationsts have to offer?
by Pole inthere were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism.
some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools.
(see abadon's thread).
-
-
Pole
-
43
Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr ini've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
some premises - .
evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
-
-
Pole
You mean we don't use letters and words to convey meaning -- ahhh no wonder its so hard to communicate :)
Oh, yeah, we use letters to "convey meaning". That's write. Urm, I mean, that's, rite, urrm, right. ( hope you'll get it. Sorry - but you wrote a rather dismissing post first.)
No the analogy stands. Its perfectly good. I can use computing language if its easier - I do that all day at work:(
Computing language is not "any language" (your original term). Unlike natural languages, computing languages can be exhaustively defined.
Assertion for assertion: The analogy is hopeless. BTW, there are no "perfectly good" analogies - by definition. Once again you prove to be a victim of metaphysics.
G'nite, I mean, good night.
Pole
-
43
Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr ini've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
some premises - .
evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
-
-
Pole
Qcmbr,
5/ A very elegant, simple code to life that could express extremelly complex ideas very simply but very precisely (any mistakes should destroy that code.) This code would bear the marks of intelligence (structure order, purpose, grammar, syntax) and should be readable as any other language. It should show the same traits as a language - gibberish if not compiled along strict rules and yet within the boundaries of those rules should be capable of expressing vast amounts of information.
I think this juxtaposition best illustatrates the problem you may have with interpreting material evidence. If you think you need metaphysics to understand the world, a material theory will never be enough for you. The idea of human languages being made of little bits of meaning formulated according to a set of strict rules passed from one speaker to another in a self evident-fashion is an utter misconception. I suggest coming up with a different analogy.
Cheers,
Pole
-
43
Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr ini've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
some premises - .
evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
-
-
Pole
bebu wrote:
Life just "happened" to spring into existence? In a 'non-existent vacuum', no less?? Spontaneous animation, except impossibly more impossible? I cannot accept what it all keeps boiling down to, which is (it certainly appears) a sleight of hand: sneak 'something' into that absolute 'nothing', and have it scientifically hatch...
funkyderek wrote:
I have no problem proclaiming my completely materialist view of the universe. I believe at some point, out of all the random stuff in the universe a self-replicating molecule happened to form. Once it did, it made copies which necessarily evolved and eventually led to the incredible variety of life we see today.
(...)
There's no sleight of hand involved. If you're talking about something coming from nothing, you've gone completely out of the realm of biology and are now back to the beginning of the universe.
The last paragraph points out an important misconception that tends to crop up in debates on evolution. A lot of people who think evolution was impossible, use the "absolute randomness" argument. I think we need to understand that in the material world, entropy (the level of randomness) in local environments is severly limited. There are always factors which help to produce certain outcomes. The universe seems to be at least partly deterministic.
Having said that, I would say even the most tentative "original soup" models (sorry if this is out-of-date) show some respect for this basic observation. You can argue about how probable it was for a self-replicating molecule to form in such and such environment. You can even quantify it and compare the "original soup" to a pile of beans (LOL - I guess one of the WT books had it). That's fair and debatable.
On the other, most creationist arguments pretend to stem from the deterministic principle ("there must have been an intelligent designer"), while having nothing to do with the factors that determine outcomes in the material world. In other words, something can be 0% probable in any observable or measurable material environment we can imagine, but the creationst still has the right to take it for granted. Something may have never been observed, but it is still accepted as a premise. God may move in at any stage with his magic and (sic) "sleight of hand". 0.00000000000001% probability is no longer sleight of hand. As opposed to 0% probability.
Creationists seem to glorify cause-effect reasoning at the metaphysical level, while sweeping it under carpet at the physical/material level. Whenever suitable, of course.
Pole
-
61
"Theocratic Warfare" - An Apostate Strategy?
by slimboyfat inwho here had ever heard of this so-called 'doctrine' of "theocratic warfare" when you were a jehovah's witness?
who has not heard of the so-called doctrine now that you are an apostate?
so why have witnesses never heard of 'doctrine', yet apostates seem to promote it as the last word on witness standards of honesty, integrity and decency?
-
-
Pole
I have heard at least two elders boasting they had used tricks, white lies and half-truths under oath. That was back in the days of communism when consciencious objectors were thrown to prison for 2 years. I'd probably do the same thing to save my butt.
I would have other problems with other aspects of the "theocratic war strategy", though. Like "protecting" the organization by making it difficult to oust pedophiles from the congregation. As others have mentioned, part of the stategy is not naming it explicitly. You can fool others well once you fool yourself.
Pole
-
21
Evidence for evolution, Installment 7: The Panda's Thumb
by seattleniceguy inhello, fellow science lovers!
i'm back with another edition in my series.
this article is about a very curious appendage on our friend the giant panda.
-
-
Pole
SNG,
Does that answer your question at all? I was just reading about new traits that appeared in E. coli after something like 2000 generations. I'll see if I can find something concise on that for my next article.
Thanks for an exhaustive answer. Yes, it does make sense to me as long as I accept a set of assumptions (which I have to for lack of a better answer). Such as random spots gradually becoming regular wasp-likes stripes due to to the fact that they allow the flies to survive better. The thing is though that over here wasp-like flies are much rarer than "normal" flies that typically fall prey to frogs. But from what I understand, you are saying that there may have occurred a niche environment in which looking more like a wasp gave the fly a competitive edge (for instance in swampy areas inhabited by frogs). That would make sense.
So maybe the fault is with my reasoning. When I read facts such as:
"The Virginia opossum rolls over and lies still with its mouth open and a glassy look in its eyes"
or
"The hog nosed snake also pretends to be dead and may even give off a rotting smell. Before it resorts to this, however, it mimics a rattlesnake, raising its head as if about to strike and making a rattling sound."
(http://ladywildlife.com/animal/howmimicryprotectsanimals.html)
I tend to think there must be a metaphysics that acounts for it. I find it demanding to think there must have been a random mutation in a bunch of chicken-shit hog-nosed snakes which made them drop unconscious and smell bad when facing an enemy. And that this weakness of character turned out to be advantageous especially when used in tandem with pretending to be a rattle snake before fainting.
But as I said when I take a few assumptions for granted I can see how what I call mimicry may have been caused by a series of "random" factors. After all biological randomness is not mathematical randomness.
Thanks again, your reply got me thinking.
Pole
-
21
Evidence for evolution, Installment 7: The Panda's Thumb
by seattleniceguy inhello, fellow science lovers!
i'm back with another edition in my series.
this article is about a very curious appendage on our friend the giant panda.
-
-
Pole
Interesting and makes sense on the whole.
This is a very good example of evolution in action because it showcases several key aspects of evolution:
- The design is not "good" by any definition of the word. It is a jury-rigged system that used what was available to the advantage of the panda.
- By co-opting existing features and slowly adapting them to another purpose, evolutionary forces have introduced a new biological feature (a new appendage).
I have no problem accepting one-step at a time evolution.
At the same time, I think evolutionary theory in the forms I've seen has to depend on a very poor metaphysics (one-link cause-effect relationships) which is very difficult to accept in certain cases. Such as certain species of animals pretending to drop dead when in danger and even emitting a carrion-like smell to discourage other species from eating them. It makes perfect sense for the human observer, but how much sense does it make in terms of the mechanics of the evolution? Or flies pretending to be wasps. I saw one of those last summer. It has a yellow thorax with black stripes but no sting. So, although it was harmless, it took me a while to figure out it was a fly and not a wasp. One almost has to personify evolution to explain that.
Now, as a layman in the field I'd like to have this explained in one of your installements, SNG.
Pole
-
9
Spritual Armor: The Facts
by Farkel inspiritual armor: the facts.
dubs and their religious leaders are legendary for the incredible and astounding claims they make about themselves: they are the only "true" religion.
they are the only group who will be saved from god?s murderous wrath they are the "oldest" religion which ever existed.
-
-
Pole
it would not be surprising to conclude that over several decades, a person would have spent as much time as would be necessary to receive several Doctoral degrees in traditional religious studies.
Yes, I think you could draw this analogy assuming there is a course of PhD studies made up of some 20 classes recycled over and over again with some adjustments made every few years (due to the "New Light" thing).
So, after decades of work and study, dubs really turn out to be "scholars" armed with the "spiritual armor" of a pitiful few verses found among the many, many thousands of verses in the Bible.
I guess one of the reasons why they still consider themselves to be the best Bible scholars around is because the WTS gave them "indexes" and concordances for the publications which they then use for theocratic school assignments. They get TMS assignments on such fascinating bible books as Leviticus (). And there you go: every dub becomes a scholar for at least 5 minutes every few months. They spend 2 day researching WTS literature only to find out that " The noun de´shen (used at Leviticus 1:16) is also rendered ?ashes? by many translators, as when referring to the wastes from the tabernacle?s altar of sacrifice" . This sure gives one a feeling of scholarly fulfillment.
Pole
-
9
DID ANYONE ON THE DOORS SAY IT WAS a lot of rubbish?
by badboy in.
i understand from someone that they were visited by jws a few years ago.. the lady said that in a paradise earth, they would be lions walking all over her garden(something like that).
she replied `what a lot of rubbish' or something like that.. were there similiar experiences when you were on the doors?
-
-
Pole
I remember feeling stupid when offering a brochure to a guy who said he didn't read comic books any longer. It dawned on me he was right. But then I explained it away by thinking only "the mild ones" can grasp "the truth".
Pole -
7
Excellent WT logic
by ljwtiamb ini just love the logic that was applied in last week's wt study, paragraph 3:only a god of infinite wisdom could be responsible for the miraculous formation of a new living human.
for thousands of years, reasoning people have credited the formation of a child inside its mother's womb to the grand creator.
who am i to go against thousands of years of reasoning people?
-
-
Pole
*** kl chap. 2 p. 17 The Book That Reveals the Knowledge of God ***
For example, at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the prophet Isaiah referred to it as a ?circle? (Hebrew, chugh, which here carries the idea of ?sphere?). (Isaiah 40:22) The idea of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until thousands of years after Isaiah?s day.
Pole