Microbiology, biochemistry, and Evolution

[Snorri1234]

If you want to bring in purpose/why, absolutely there is room for debate. Most Christians seem to be comfortable with something close to the Intelligent design, if it is meant to broadly be the idea that God designed the universe or set in motion the various factors, knowing the outcome. However most Christians also fully accept evolution. The group that is currently promoting Intelligent Design insist it has to be taught in opposition to/as an alternative to Evolution. Not as the "why" behind evolution, but they insist that evolution is strictly an athiestic theory and that this other theory is to be taught so Christian kids won't be taught the Bible is wrong. In reality, it is not about education, it is just one more attempt to bring their very narrow religious view of creation into science, to label it as somehow "equal" to the process of proof and validation that makes true science. It is not education, it is limitation. AND, the scary part is they are gaining serious ground.

I agree fully.
I think all christians except creationists believe in ID, but it's just not actual science.

[OnlyAmbrose]

that natural selection does occur is not debateable.

To clear up that point, I don't think I've EVER heard anyone try to debate that natural selection doesn't occur.

There's some fascinating literature on this debate. Like I said I really don't see this as a relevant issue at all, in terms of any argument between atheism and theism. It's just an interest I've picked up. It's almost dramatic how many personalities are springing up on both sides, I've already got several names I can associate with both sides.

[Frigidus]

that natural selection does occur is not debateable.

To clear up that point, I don't think I've EVER heard anyone try to debate that natural selection doesn't occur.

There's some fascinating literature on this debate. Like I said I really don't see this as a relevant issue at all, in terms of any argument between atheism and theism. It's just an interest I've picked up. It's almost dramatic how many personalities are springing up on both sides, I've already got several names I can associate with both sides.

People just stake so much in it's existence or non-existence. If I was proven wrong I wouldn't be shaken, but that isn't the case for everyone.

[tzor]

No, Evolution (big E) is not. However, evolution (small e) is ... things DO change over time. Also, as I said, there are a lot of facts to back it up. Where the "Creation Science" movement errs is in failing to distinguish between things that are proven and things that are up for question. I know you read at least some of Widowmaker's thread. If you didn't read the first few pages, do.

In effect you are redefining evolution to those elements that can be generally proven. This is because "evolution" can mean many things to many people so you only have to prove something vaguely evolution related to have satisfaction.

I'll be quite frank here, I think "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to explain a pre-conceived notion grabbing anything that supports the argument and ignoring anything that does not.

Intelligent design is another interesting notion. I think I addressed the "Intelligence" part in a previous thread; are we viewing the intelligence of another or are we projecting our own intelligence on what we view? I generally look at Intelligent Design from a smaller level. On the level of basic physics and chemistry the universe is simply brilliant. Consider the fantastic and fascinating properties of Hydrogen Hydroxide, for example; how it forms a less dense state when it is in a soid form, for example.

[PLAYER57832]

No, Evolution (big E) is not. However, evolution (small e) is ... things DO change over time. Also, as I said, there are a lot of facts to back it up. Where the "Creation Science" movement errs is in failing to distinguish between things that are proven and things that are up for question. I know you read at least some of Widowmaker's thread. If you didn't read the first few pages, do.

In effect you are redefining evolution to those elements that can be generally proven. This is because "evolution" can mean many things to many people so you only have to prove something vaguely evolution related to have satisfaction.

No, I am using the definitions that have been tought in biological science text books for quite some time as the acceptable scientific definitions of these terms.

In literature and other applications "evolution" with a small "e" does have varied definitions, though all are variations on that basic theme -- changes through time.. In science, the THEORY of Evolution is signified with a capitol "E" to distinguish it from these varied definitions. Small "e" is used to refer to general changes ... as well as the acknowledgement that in other applications, disciplines it can have varied definitions. The Theory of Evolution has undergone a multitude of changes, as do most scientific theories.

I'll be quite frank here, I think "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to explain a pre-conceived notion grabbing anything that supports the argument and ignoring anything that does not.

This is my primary point .... and that there is a movement much, much larger than most people realize trying to paint this otherwise.

Intelligent design is another interesting notion. I think I addressed the "Intelligence" part in a previous thread; are we viewing the intelligence of another or are we projecting our own intelligence on what we view? I generally look at Intelligent Design from a smaller level. On the level of basic physics and chemistry the universe is simply brilliant. Consider the fantastic and fascinating properties of Hydrogen Hydroxide, for example; how it forms a less dense state when it is in a soid form, for example.

The tricky part here is that while I agree with you in concept, this term has been co-opted by the "Creation Science" (their name, by-the-way, if that wasn't clarified earlier). So, when you listen to news reports/debates about Intelligent Design, you have to be sure you are understanding the definition used by all concerned.

Intelligent Design has become the most recent incarnation of "Creation Science" attempt to make their views more palatable.

As a Christian, of course I look to God for my ultimate explanation of the wonder of all around me. But, as a scientist I see no reason not to explore and try to understand the many processes that he set into motion. In many ways, it is that very intricacy that makes me even more sure God does exist. As an inherant Analyzer and thinker, I naturally like to explore the edges and overlaps between them all.

[PLAYER57832]

From the Rolling Stones article: (Thanks Reminisco)

Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues. While forcing federally funded agencies to remove from their Web sites scientific information about reproductive health and the effectiveness of condoms in combating HIV/AIDS, and while peremptorily overruling staff scientists at the Food and Drug Administration on making emergency contraception available over the counter, Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."


As I said earlier ... the Creationist movement (MANY of the "movers and shakers" behind Bush) is actively changing government policy RIGHT NOW!

[Neoteny]

Everyone should read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. It will make you angry if you care about science.

[Jenos Ridan]

At the risk of reveiling my utter geekness, I know the episode you are referencing. I gave up on The Next Generation for two reasons: truely bad science and blatant pseudo-utopian communist propaganda (eg: flawless society, no crime or poverty, etc.).

The initial setting of TNG turned me off because when they started pushing "kiddies in space." (They even had a kids contest where the lucky child would be in an episode.) .

That bothers me too. So much so I have sworn off anything and everything past the numbered movies and related books.

Actually the "pseudo-utopian communist propaganda" was always in Star Trek, they just had better writers in the original series.

I don't remember it being nearly as rampant, I recall that there remained some measure of capitalism in the TOS. I'll agree, they did have better writers.

I retuned to TNG shortly after they killed off one of their characters (death by vile sentient oil sludge) because the actress dared to appear partly out of uniform in Playboy.

heh heh heh, that was funny in it's own demented way.

The old series never bothered with continunity, (and most of the real utopian stuff came after the series had ended) and TNG was horrid at it. They ruined a number of plot points because of the inability to extend them across the seasons. The Q, the original Borg, are two examples of where in the old series you would use them and then promptly forget them. (Consider the race that literally ended the Federation / Klingon war by making all weapons too hot to handle. Once the episode was over you never saw them again ... NEVER.)

Good point. I'll bring this up next time my friends want to bounce ideas off me for their book.

[AlgyTaylor]

I'm doing more research before I comment on the matter again. I'm more or less undecided at this point.

tbh I've never really researched evolution before this point. Y'all may have noticed that I've mostly steered clear from evolution threads, mostly because I don't really care one way or the other. And I still don't. As Kenneth Miller said of evolution: "to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom." And I've always held to that point. But this whole issue of natural selection acting over a long period of time intrigued me, so I'm looking into it out of interest.

You can trust that my arguments for/against theism will remain largely cosmological and metaphysical, this is just a side-interest

Again on the subject of books - go down to your local library, take out a copy of 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin (you've heard of him).

That was a conclusive enough argument for me to take away any nagging doubts about whether Darwin was right or not. Gets a bit heavy in parts, but if you're interested in natural history (plants, animals) then it's a good read anyway.

[MeDeFe]

I'm doing more research before I comment on the matter again. I'm more or less undecided at this point.

tbh I've never really researched evolution before this point. Y'all may have noticed that I've mostly steered clear from evolution threads, mostly because I don't really care one way or the other. And I still don't. As Kenneth Miller said of evolution: "to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom." And I've always held to that point. But this whole issue of natural selection acting over a long period of time intrigued me, so I'm looking into it out of interest.

You can trust that my arguments for/against theism will remain largely cosmological and metaphysical, this is just a side-interest

Again on the subject of books - go down to your local library, take out a copy of 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin (you've heard of him).

That was a conclusive enough argument for me to take away any nagging doubts about whether Darwin was right or not. Gets a bit heavy in parts, but if you're interested in natural history (plants, animals) then it's a good read anyway.

Much of it isn't really up to date anymore though. It might be useful as an introduction but other than that I don't really know.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'm doing more research before I comment on the matter again. I'm more or less undecided at this point.

tbh I've never really researched evolution before this point. Y'all may have noticed that I've mostly steered clear from evolution threads, mostly because I don't really care one way or the other. And I still don't. As Kenneth Miller said of evolution: "to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom." And I've always held to that point. But this whole issue of natural selection acting over a long period of time intrigued me, so I'm looking into it out of interest.

You can trust that my arguments for/against theism will remain largely cosmological and metaphysical, this is just a side-interest

Again on the subject of books - go down to your local library, take out a copy of 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin (you've heard of him).

That was a conclusive enough argument for me to take away any nagging doubts about whether Darwin was right or not. Gets a bit heavy in parts, but if you're interested in natural history (plants, animals) then it's a good read anyway.

Much of it isn't really up to date anymore though. It might be useful as an introduction but other than that I don't really know.

I've read good chunks of Origin of Species. Like MeDeFe said, it's largely out of date, and can't really be applied to this thread. Microbiology in Darwin's time was looking at little blobs. No one had any idea how they worked.

There are actually several clauses in Origin of Species which ID advocates use to debunk Darwin's theory.

But as note AGAIN, I am not an ID advocate. I'm on the fence I don't think that the philosophical implications of either ID or Evolution necessitate me making a decision one way or the other at this point.

[suggs]

No one with a brain can take intelligent design seriously.

[Neoteny]

I think I'm going to go see Expelled tonight. I'm excited.

[PLAYER57832]

There are actually several clauses in Origin of Species which ID advocates use to debunk Darwin's theory.

But as note AGAIN, I am not an ID advocate. I'm on the fence I don't think that the philosophical implications of either ID or Evolution necessitate me making a decision one way or the other at this point.

Truth -- There is no real theory of "intelligent design" opposing Evolution. It is merely a re-wording of Scientific Creationism, in an attempt to make it seem this is a Christian versus non-Christian debate.

IN truth, MOST of the US is Christian. When it comes to Evolution and Genesis, you can add in Jews and Muslims and you have the overwhelming majority of individuals, particularly scientists. Further, when talking about God and creation, you can add in any number of other religions that ascribe to some sort of diety.

the MAJORITY of ALL these folks believe BOTH that God created the universe AND that Evolution is real, though some details are debated.

COULD another theory come up and completely blow Evolution away? Remotely possible ... at this point, VERY remotely. Essentially, you would have to prove that the world, in the past, has operated very, very different (including laws of physics) than it does now.

"Intelligent Design", when expressed as an opposition to Evolution, instead of complimentary to Evolution is Creation Science. It pretends to use scientific principles to "prove" Evolution inaccurate. What it really does is prove how little many people understand of science.

[jonesthecurl]

At the risk of stepping on people's toes, I will at this point use my skills as editor/guy who gets the committee to move on by summarising various positions and seeing if we can stop arguing over minor points, and look at the major, even if there are any.


Does everyone agree on the following?

1: (e)volution is real. Species die, germs, cockroaches, whatever, "learn" to resist pesticides, immunisations, etc.
2: It is possible to change living species deliberately - see previous mentions of dogs, etc (and consider horses, wheat/grasses, types of tomatoes etc.
3: Deliberate (e)volution is possible - and proven. (see 2)
4: the "cause " of (e)volution that is not either deliberately human ("let's breed a faster horse") or accidentally human ("whoops, there go the dodos")is...
natural selection/intelligent design - the core of the argument.
5: this is the point at which the discussion continues.

[Neoteny]

At the risk of stepping on people's toes, I will at this point use my skills as editor/guy who gets the committee to move on by summarising various positions and seeing if we can stop arguing over minor points, and look at the major, even if there are any.


Does everyone agree on the following?

1: (e)volution is real. Species die, germs, cockroaches, whatever, "learn" to resist pesticides, immunisations, etc.
2: It is possible to change living species deliberately - see previous mentions of dogs, etc (and consider horses, wheat/grasses, types of tomatoes etc.
3: Deliberate (e)volution is possible - and proven. (see 2)
4: the "cause " of (e)volution that is not either deliberately human ("let's breed a faster horse") or accidentally human ("whoops, there go the dodos")is...
natural selection/intelligent design - the core of the argument.
5: this is the point at which the discussion continues.

I'd reword some things, but I suppose I agree with the premises.

[Ray Rider]

At the risk of stepping on people's toes, I will at this point use my skills as editor/guy who gets the committee to move on by summarising various positions and seeing if we can stop arguing over minor points, and look at the major, even if there are any.


Does everyone agree on the following?

1: (e)volution is real. Species die, germs, cockroaches, whatever, "learn" to resist pesticides, immunisations, etc.
2: It is possible to change living species deliberately - see previous mentions of dogs, etc (and consider horses, wheat/grasses, types of tomatoes etc.
3: Deliberate (e)volution is possible - and proven. (see 2)
4: the "cause " of (e)volution that is not either deliberately human ("let's breed a faster horse") or accidentally human ("whoops, there go the dodos")is...
natural selection/intelligent design - the core of the argument.
5: this is the point at which the discussion continues.

I think anyone who knows a bit about science knows that micro-evolution (such as the examples you've given) happens all the time. What creationists don't believe in is macro-evolution, frog-to-prince, dirt-to-dog, scenarios.

[PLAYER57832]

At the risk of stepping on people's toes, I will at this point use my skills as editor/guy who gets the committee to move on by summarising various positions and seeing if we can stop arguing over minor points, and look at the major, even if there are any.


Does everyone agree on the following?

1: (e)volution is real. Species die, germs, cockroaches, whatever, "learn" to resist pesticides, immunisations, etc.
2: It is possible to change living species deliberately - see previous mentions of dogs, etc (and consider horses, wheat/grasses, types of tomatoes etc.
3: Deliberate (e)volution is possible - and proven. (see 2)
4: the "cause " of (e)volution that is not either deliberately human ("let's breed a faster horse") or accidentally human ("whoops, there go the dodos")is...
natural selection/intelligent design - the core of the argument.
5: this is the point at which the discussion continues.

I think anyone who knows a bit about science knows that micro-evolution (such as the examples you've given) happens all the time. What creationists don't believe in is macro-evolution, frog-to-prince, dirt-to-dog, scenarios.

Also, by any theory, natural selection is one of many things influencing evolution.