Comments on: Evolution wars: what do they teach children in school these days? http://www.bloggernews.net/15741 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:14:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Sweet Violet http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-12411 Sweet Violet Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:18:25 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-12411 I did not understand this article to mean that there necessarily must be a "loving father" in the mix, only that evolution and the concept of creation by god(s) need not be mutually exclusive. Those of us who like to think of ourselves as having an open mind must concede the possibility. The fact that no one has proven the existence of a supernatural being is not proof that he/she/it does not exist...we regularly discover new plant and insect species, new microbes, new heavenly bodies...does that mean they did not exist before we were able to discern their existence? That is not to say that I ascribe to the concept of the "loving father as symphony conductor" idea, only that our belief/disbelief is not the same as fact or even well-grounded theory. To deny that the *possibility* exists is to commit the same sins of hubris and close-mindedness of which we so often accuse our Creationist brethren. I did not understand this article to mean that there necessarily must be a “loving father” in the mix, only that evolution and the concept of creation by god(s) need not be mutually exclusive.

Those of us who like to think of ourselves as having an open mind must concede the possibility. The fact that no one has proven the existence of a supernatural being is not proof that he/she/it does not exist…we regularly discover new plant and insect species, new microbes, new heavenly bodies…does that mean they did not exist before we were able to discern their existence? That is not to say that I ascribe to the concept of the “loving father as symphony conductor” idea, only that our belief/disbelief is not the same as fact or even well-grounded theory.

To deny that the *possibility* exists is to commit the same sins of hubris and close-mindedness of which we so often accuse our Creationist brethren.

]]> By: Rob http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-11802 Rob Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:36:55 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-11802 What do you mean "we can't explain love or altruism"? That is ridiculous. And we can probably measure them as well. You don't need to resort to mysticism to explain either of them. There are TONS of scientific papers on Darwinian explanations for altruism, mostly centering around indirect reciprocity (if not direct reciprocity), as well as such things as being byproducts of kin selection. But you dismiss it with a simple sentence. Sad. What do you mean “we can’t explain love or altruism”?

That is ridiculous. And we can probably measure them as well. You don’t need to resort to mysticism to explain either of them. There are TONS of scientific papers on Darwinian explanations for altruism, mostly centering around indirect reciprocity (if not direct reciprocity), as well as such things as being byproducts of kin selection.

But you dismiss it with a simple sentence. Sad.

]]> By: another James http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-11011 another James Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:34:05 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-11011 Asking the question "Why?" is only valid for things designed with a purpose. It begs the question that there is a designer. For example, you could ask, why a golf club? Well, to hit a golf ball of course. But what about, why a rock? Well, that's just an irrational question. Science answers How while religion pretends that there is a reason to ask Why and then declares ownership of the answer. Asking the question “Why?” is only valid for things designed with a purpose. It begs the question that there is a designer. For example, you could ask, why a golf club? Well, to hit a golf ball of course. But what about, why a rock? Well, that’s just an irrational question.

Science answers How while religion pretends that there is a reason to ask Why and then declares ownership of the answer.

]]> By: James Torrelli http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-10967 James Torrelli Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:22:29 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15741#comment-10967 The reason that electrons are regarded as both particles and waves (and, in fact, so is all of matter; it's called a De Broglie wavelength) is that this model explains all known phenomena involving electrons (and other particles as well). In reality, an electron is neither a particle nor a wave, since a pure wave (like sound) can't act like a particle, and a theoretical "perfect matter particle" could never act like a wave. It's a construct based on empirical data; whether an electron acts like a wave or particle depends on the conditions of a given experiment. While the map isn't the terrain, it does allow us to make predictions, repeat results, and take measurements. Evolution is just the same. While evolutionary biology can't give us every detail of what happened in the distant past, it does allow us to make predictions (about population growth rates, results of intra- and interspecific competition, antiibiotic resistance and likely changes to pathogenic organisms in the future, etc.) Like quantum theory, evolutionary theory is based on measurement and experiment. Both theories rely on objective, empirical data, and both are subject to revision as new data becomes available. That's how science works. To make the assertion that one need include a "loving Father" in this, then, requires that one provide the same kind of evidence for His existence. If it can affect material things, then those effects can be measured and quantified using material instruments of some kind. If something affects one kind of material object, it will affect all kinds of material objects. There are no exceptions to this. Interestingly, to make the statement that one must include a "loving Father" in evolutionary theory is doing exactly what you say is a problem at the end of your post. Namely, to reject reason and say instead “that’s the way I feel, so it’s the truth for me”. Unless you can provide measurable and empirical evidence of it, it's precsiely the same thing... phrased less abrasively than some, certainly, but essentially no different in substance. The reason that electrons are regarded as both particles and waves (and, in fact, so is all of matter; it’s called a De Broglie wavelength) is that this model explains all known phenomena involving electrons (and other particles as well). In reality, an electron is neither a particle nor a wave, since a pure wave (like sound) can’t act like a particle, and a theoretical “perfect matter particle” could never act like a wave. It’s a construct based on empirical data; whether an electron acts like a wave or particle depends on the conditions of a given experiment. While the map isn’t the terrain, it does allow us to make predictions, repeat results, and take measurements.

Evolution is just the same. While evolutionary biology can’t give us every detail of what happened in the distant past, it does allow us to make predictions (about population growth rates, results of intra- and interspecific competition, antiibiotic resistance and likely changes to pathogenic organisms in the future, etc.) Like quantum theory, evolutionary theory is based on measurement and experiment. Both theories rely on objective, empirical data, and both are subject to revision as new data becomes available. That’s how science works.

To make the assertion that one need include a “loving Father” in this, then, requires that one provide the same kind of evidence for His existence. If it can affect material things, then those effects can be measured and quantified using material instruments of some kind. If something affects one kind of material object, it will affect all kinds of material objects. There are no exceptions to this.

Interestingly, to make the statement that one must include a “loving Father” in evolutionary theory is doing exactly what you say is a problem at the end of your post. Namely, to reject reason and say instead “that’s the way I feel, so it’s the truth for me”. Unless you can provide measurable and empirical evidence of it, it’s precsiely the same thing… phrased less abrasively than some, certainly, but essentially no different in substance.

]]>