I’m sure it’s been done to death, but I don’t have the time to browse through thousands of pages. So, I’m humbly requesting if anyone could give me some GOOD links to provide counter evidence against some of the creationists’ claims that evolution has no sound science to back it up.
I mean, I understand evolutionary theory, but I don’t know enough about science to know if, when creationsists say ABC is impossible (e.g., microevolution, macroevolution…), they are talking bunk or not. A few good links would be nice.
To complement that, a link or two on why creationists’ supposed “science” behind their arguments is bunk would also be greatly appreciated.
For anyone who can provide such links, I offer myself as a sex slave for all eternity in the afterlife (sorry, I’m not a virgin, but I can tighten my sphincter really tightly to simulate one… ).
You are really much better off checking out secondary, rather than tertiary sources on these issues.
For Evolution, Woese is an excellent primary source. Dawkins works as a secondary as long as you keep in mind that he is slightly bonkers.
For Creationism, the creation stories of every religion serve as a good primary. The Discovery Institute is the most respected secondary with its doctrine of Intelligent Design.
If you have any specific questions, I am confident a few people on the board would be able to answer them.
Why do you think Dawkins is slightly bonkers? Other then the admittedly all out war on religion, is there any other reason? Much of the time I find Dawkins to exhibit that highly respected virtue of science, where when a theory is not 100% concrete he’ll say so. He’s very cautious when new areas of research pop up, and he brings a sobering view to his field when he accuses colleges of too often trying to bring it all back to the genes. Admitedly he’s a staunch darwinian, and is in an all out war against religion, but hey, if that makes him nuts throw me under that category as well.
It’s a few things really. I actually agree with most of his points but they are, well, outside of the mainstream.
His war on Religion is a little indelicate. I’m no fan of religious zealots, but yelling back isn’t a sound strategy. Additionally, we you want a comparison of Creationism vs. Evolution, it’s always good to declare bias.
He has crossed the line from Scientist to Philosopher. While that is fine, it creates a situation where he can definately say more than is known/knowable within the present bounds of science. Since he is an ambassador to laypeople, I’m not so sure that’s the best approach to take. Science is exciting enough, it doesn’t need to be spruced up.
Not so sure how I feel about his ideas on Sublime Science, “The God of Einstein”. I think that produces a very slightly nuanced distinction between Religion and Science that really doesn’t need to be there. There is enough in science to get passionate about without having to become a missionary.
I’ll give you that as I said previously, but I think he does declare a bias.
Yes, but when he gives his perspective outside the realm of science he makes it clear he is doing so. Much like Penrose when he states his, in my view somewhat “out there” ideas( Penrose’s ideas not Dawkins, I find myself partial to Dawkins Ideas, yet not decided on some of the more ambitous flavours).
[quote=“Xunzian”]
Not so sure how I feel about his ideas on Sublime Science, “The God of Einstein”. I think that produces a very slightly nuanced distinction between Religion and Science that really doesn’t need to be there. There is enough in science to get passionate about without having to become a missionary.[/quote
I’ll agree with you there, but I think in his light, its just a tactic for apealling to a wider audience.
Yeah, I mean, don’t get me wrong: I like Dawkins. I just think that people 1) take him too seriously 2) get confused on where the science ends and where the philosophy begins. Even if he declares it, I’ve spoken with people who, you know, think that Memes are a soundly supported scientific idea . . .
If you wanted a source on the creationism/evolution debate, his iconoclastic nature might not be the best reading material.
I also do think that his ‘God of Einstein’ isn’t a tactic. I think he’s quite serious about it, and I’m not sure how I feel about that at all. Science makes a piss-poor religion because it doesn’t have a set of ethics. True, some have been imported . . . but they are ancilliary, to say the very least.
Let’s keep religion religious and science scientific. Blending the two is messy, messy business and, ultimately, doesn’t help the cause of science.
Insofar as I know the main argument with evolutionary theory is that when you get into the finer details of it, the random mutation schematic just doesn’t really add up. Apparently we’re seeing like, dormant changes to genetic material that comes into specific, active, play later on. (I think like even 7 generations in some cases). Basically the beat of the music our evolutionary motion dances to is just so complex that it seems unlikely to have simply occured.
In fact, just the other year a world famous athiestic evolutionary scientist converted to Christianity before his death as he saw the pattern as incomprehensibly complex, way too complex for anything other than God.
Personally I think we’re painting ourselves into a rather ignoranct
paradigm with a claim like that.
Xunzian,
I understand where you are comming from. About the “memes” I firmly support the idea, and you are partially right, it isn’t firmly grounded in scientific theory, but its more the case because it might not have any predictive power. Many of the leading anthropologists in the field such as Sperber, put forth ideas that are completely harmonious with the meme idea. No one doubts culture is lateral, and theres a large degree of imitation. So the main problem for the meme point of view is the question “does it have any useful predictive power?”. When it really boils down to it most of our data coincides with a meme view, but is calling it a meme useful? I would argue that it is, and in this particular case I don’t think Dawkins has gone overboard, far from the case. HE coined the term, but was extremely cautious about mentioning it for years after, and more then a few times he downplayed it. Dennett was the forerunner in my mind who took the idea and ran with it. In memetics Dawkins is more an observer, even though he coined the term
Saying science makes a piss poor religion, seems like you are saying you need a religion.In one light, science makes a great religion because it allows one to model ones actions in reality’s terms, not fantasy. Thus allowing us to throw away silly ideals, and directions of action, and thought.
Lets keep science sceintific, and through religion out the door.
*** NEWS FLASH*** MILLIONS OF ATHEIST SCEINTISTS HAVE DIED WHILE STILL DENYING THE EXISTANCE OF GOD …Not a catchy news story huh… well what would be better…
*NEWS FLASH MILLIONS OF ATHEIST SCEINTISTS HAVE DIED WHILE STILL DENYING THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, BUT A SMALL 1% HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO CONVERT… not quiet right…
*NEWS FLASH FAMOUS EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST RENOUNCES SCIENCE "BECOMES A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN ON HIS DEATHBED!!! Quite catchy.
As I explained before, they are identical in so many ways that to talk of them as separate is tenuous. Science cannot keep itself scientific because it is only ever as ‘good’, as ‘correct’ or as ‘objective’ as those people using it. In truth there is no ‘science’ and there is no ‘religion’, there are merely people having various discourses that are arbitrarily named in different ways. Science relies on language, which is metaphysical and always deconstructing itself. This makes it no different, epistemologically, to fairytales.
On a side note, evolutionary theory cannot explain the complexity of language yet language is an integral part of the theory (it is what enables the abstraction from the data to the theory). This is a massive potential ground for attack that remains largely unexploited by crackpot creationists or more well meaning critics. But of course the whole discussion takes place in such basic and generally antagonistic terms that few actually bother to place the logic of the thing under scrutiny. As you know, I haven’t a clue as to the origins of life or speciation. But I don’t go around telling other people what to believe about it like the religious scientist Dawkins or like the evangelical Creationists. Nor do I insist that my beliefs are the only ones that should be taught to young people. I recently read a story that Creationism was even being banned by some ‘liberal, scientific’ schools from being taught in religion classes or from being taught in science classes as part of the history of changing beliefs and how scientific theories fit it to all that. This is the danger of religious scientists purporting to be reasonable. To me that’s more dangerous that teaching ID as a scientific theory…
I really have no understanding of the Creationism vs. Evolution argument … it’s apples and eggs comparison.
Evolution describes the order of established life, and admittedly cannot be reverse engineered to define singularity of creation. Abiogenesis has already been proven to be statistically impossible, which leads to current theory being that of a possibility of a meteoric bound life form landing here.
That arguement is so flawed that its hardly worth talking about. Yes science is only ever as ‘good’, as ‘correct’ or as ‘objective’ as the ability of the sceintific community use it. Well no shit… Saying something is human is not a valid comparison of two realms of human culture. There are good ideas, and bad ideas. Those who believe in looking both ways before they cross the road have discovered a valuable “truth” and predictive power about the world. Looking both ways is simply a good idea. Those who believe that not looking is a “truth” are simply mislead. Saying that those who believe in looking, are as human and flawed as those who believe in not looking is a superfluous a statement as you can get. Those whose “truth” is not looking will time to time get hit by a fucking car. Thus the idea of not looking better. Some of those who believe in looking, may forget time to time, their vison may be poor, or they may find themselves blinded by light, or unable to see in the darkness, thus they can not carry out the idea to perfection… still looking is by far a better idea.
As for the rest of your post, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, try to at least be informed on an issue before bothering to type.
X is only as good as the human that applies it. Y is only as good as the human that applies it. This is a textbook example of a valid comparison. Of course the person who wrote the ideas for that textbook was religious so in your eyes everything that they said was wrong…
Show me how science is a superhuman measure of the difference between good and bad ideas and you’ll have an argument. Right now you just have a bunch of unrelated assertions.
Yet again, induction is flawed and you know it. You are arguing on the basis of something not in evidence and assuming that the future will replicate the past. Try again.
I’m separating out this sentence to highlight to everyone just how weak your argument is. This is the equivalent of ‘it is obvious’ or ‘it is common sense’ or ‘I’m right and you are wrong’. It’s a crap argument…
So says Brother Dawkins… (deliberate reference to Nathan Barley)
Praise be!
Amen, brother!
Incidentally, scientists and other people who believe in induction are involved in car accidents in approximately the same ratios as sceptics. This would indicate, scientifically, that Brother Dawkins’ argument is incorrect.
Most ‘common sense’ is based upon observation. The arguement that looking before crossing was a better idea was based on observation, and this is good science… but alas I’ve failed to show that looking before not looking is a better idea… yes… yes… silly arguement. You’ve thoroughly convinced me, not looking has its merit… but alas I’m a silly scientist so I’ll continue in my pointless quest, but by all means don’t feel compelled to look before crossing the road…
Quite seriously, Brother, it does. Do you honestly want to live a life without any surprises?
Here we see why many scientists are totally unfit to be the moral/political authorities that we’ve made them, they totally lack compassion for their fellow man (or woman).
).
well what would be better…