|
|
Post by rickus on Sept 12, 2005 11:08:25 GMT -5
I know it's short notice but, I'm inviting any who wish to attend to the Interfaith Forum on Intelligent Design, being hosted by my church, Mayflower Congregational. If you like you can meet me at my house at about 6:30pm and we can car-pool to the forum.
Who: Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma.
When: 7 p.m. Monday.
Where: Mayflower Congregational Church, 3901 NW 63.
Keynote speaker: Brad Williamson, past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers.
Information: 525-6551.
Glossary
Intelligent design: The belief or theory that life forms are so complex that their creation cannot be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone. The complexity indicates the presence of intentional creation, presumably divine.
Creationism: A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in the biblical book of Genesis.
Evolution and natural selection: A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Sept 12, 2005 11:27:55 GMT -5
I'd be curious to know what the group consensus is on this particular issue. I imagine that a great many of us embrace or at least lean toward the 'evolution and natural selection' option. But I also know that we as individuals tend to defy categorization (often as a point of character), and we frequently put our own personal spins on standard concepts. So, I bet the real option many of us would claim as ours is 'evolution and natural selection with certain qualifications.' If so, what would those qualifications be?
Oh, and although we'd like to make it, I think Mandy and I will have to pass on this one, Rick. But thanks for the invite!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 12, 2005 15:35:33 GMT -5
I too would like to know the standing opinion on this issue. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Sept 12, 2005 15:43:07 GMT -5
My vote? Creationism, but not Christian Creationism. As a would-be Norseman, I know for a fact that the world rests on a tall tree growing out of the center of a dead giant, and that all living things arose from his drying body fluids as his corpse decayed. It says so in the Sagas, and Odin wouldn't lie to me, as that would make Him less than the ALL-Father. Don't believe me? Well, I guess we'll just see on Ragnarok!
|
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Sept 12, 2005 16:42:58 GMT -5
I'd try to be clever and funny but it wouldn't work. So I'll simply say that I don't believe that God directly created the first man or the first anything for that mater. However, I feel there is something that sets us (living things) apart from mud. And that something is a teeny tiny bit of divinity. I think God created the universe even if God didn't know It did it. And that is the source of our Life.
So to re-cap. God (which is unaware of it's own existence) accidentally created the universe and thus we evolved out of the muck.
I know. Sounds stupid doesn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 13, 2005 8:41:53 GMT -5
I'm throwing my hat in with the Raelians. They use hot women and sex for conversion and they target nerds. Freaking genius. www.rael.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Sept 13, 2005 9:22:16 GMT -5
Ty, Intelligent Designers from outer space? www.rael.org/download.php?view.1You know it's only a matter of time before they insist that you cut your member off and commit suicide. Turn away from Mr. Flying Saucer man. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 13, 2005 10:06:17 GMT -5
They had a spread in Playboy including 3 of their top 5 members.
Their leader is really into racecars.
Who designed the intelligent designers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Sept 13, 2005 10:19:51 GMT -5
Okay, in case you couldn't tell, I was just being a little silly when I said I believed the Norse origin stories. In reality, I'm a full-on evolutionist. I think the idea of speciation is probably one of the most important conceptual innovations ever. It's right up there with the calculus, which of course, is quite related. The central idea behind both is that what we see as static and distinct is in fact not static at all, and any distictions we perceive are relative to the other fluidities we know of at the same time. So, what we think of as a discrete unit, such as sheep-ness, or the result of a particular function at point x, or the language Romanian, or rock & roll, or whatever is really only a unit with respect to what came before and after (diachronic perspective) and what is pending at the same time (synchronic perspective).
I can't ever get over the fact that the speciation model is so easily adaptable to other fields. The classic example here is evolution of language in terms of speciation. One of the key definitions of species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. There are many problems with this definition, but the very same problems also show up in language. Yes, even in its flaws the analogy holds! For example, the North American deer mouse (a mouse, not a deer) live in a broad band, and evolution would tell us that the extreme edges are probably less genetically related to one another than to the ones in the center. It's true. The eastern mice and the western mice cannot produce fertile offspring with one another, but both can with the central mice. Are all three members of the same species? It depends on your perspective. Back to language. From the Western edge of Pakistan all through India to the very tip of Bangladesh, people in every town can freely speak to people in the next town over with completely mutual intelligibility (the analog of offspring fertility). However, this area is home to as many as twelve languages, each of which is related but as a whole not intelligible with any of the others.
The principles associated with evolution are quite fascinating, but one I find particularly intriguing is the idea of punctuated equilibrium. That is, things progress (by way of mutations that can be evaluated in terms of fitness at a surface level) over time at a particular rate that doesn't change much...except when it does. At these moments, the punctuation, the more or less flat rate of change experiences huge spikes. For instance, bats as a species are little more than mice or rats whose foreleg flesh has grown in folds back to their sides. But, did this happen gradually over time (if so, what was the fitness advantage of the mid-way ratbat?) or did this suddenly happen all at once?
The ideas of punctuated equilibrium, ultimate origins, and a few other points of interest in the evolutionary framework of course point me to back up to heaven. I'm not saying necessarily that God dipped Its finger in the water with the intention of skipping over the ratbat, but that at the very least is a possibilty, and I don't immediately discount it. "That shit don't matter. God got involved, Ringo..." And, no, I don't personally believe that God has anything approaching a plan for the future, but I do believe It's responsible for continuation of all things on a moment-by-moment basis.
I also agree with Rick about the spark of the Divine, but I think I extend that to all things by way of speciation. A rock splits into two rocks. Are they now half as divine as before? An elephant comes and smashes one into a thousand pieces, etc. I guess I'd believe the same degree of divinity is found in all pieces by virtue of the fact that we can perceive each piece as synchronically discrete. Anyway, that's sorta how I see things.
By the way, how was the forum last night, Rick?
|
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Sept 13, 2005 11:34:19 GMT -5
Well, I've discovered that those who do not believe in evolution are quite rude. Despite the repeated calls for civility, a good many of them (about 25 out of an audience of about 250) interrupted and attempted to talk over 3 of the speakers who disagreed with including ID (intelligent design) in state Jr. and high school curriculum's.
The panel was composed of a former member of the Kansas State Board of Educations Science Committee, a Bio Chemist from the OU Health Science Center here in OKC, a retired Zoologist from OU, a biology teacher from Putnam City Heights, a Jewish rabbi, a minister from a local LDS Church, and lastly a "representative" from the Islamic community.
I lean heavily toward evolution, so many of the arguments made by the religious leaders I felt didn't address the issue that ID is an idea that is outside of the sphere of science. And while they don't outright say that the "intelligent designer" is God, it was clear that they each attributed the origin of life to God. They repeatedly stated that both evaluation and ID should be presented to school children. That this would encourage critical thinking skills and cover all "scientific" theories regarding the origins of life.
The scientist, many of whom professed to be Christian, said that the supposed controversy is occurring outside of the scientific community. That this is a movement from the religious and political right. Looking around the room I kind of had the impression that this was true. Most of the audience it seamed was composed of religiously minded folk, not scientists. I saw several wearing large crosses, and opening Bibles to quote scripture from for their questions. While there were a few people who applauded the strong points that the scientist made, there were many more who applauded the calls by the religious representatives for presenting both sides to school children.
Due in part to the continuous interruptions from the audience members (a couple of whom were asked to leave but didn't) the projected 2 hour time frame for the whole conference was just getting to the "Q&A" session at 9:00pm. I wasn't able to stay any longer and didn't get to hear any of the questions formally put to the panel. But I think I heard most of what they were going to ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 13, 2005 11:44:29 GMT -5
flipping morons
|
|
|
|
Post by katie on Sept 13, 2005 11:48:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 13, 2005 12:08:36 GMT -5
Not a lot of time here, so I really can't explain everything. But some philosophers argue that there is a reason to believe in some kind of intelligent design. These arguments proceed independently of any appeal to the existence of God. Rather, they rely on probability theory. The idea is to conceive of viable organisms as islands in a sea of unviable ones. Then assign a probability to the randomized move from one island to another. The argument goes that if the movement is entirely random, then speciation cannot be adequately explained. It takes some kind of direction to make the numbers work.
Evolutionists respond that the Intelligent Designers are not adequately taking into account the direction already provided by working from an existing organism.
At any rate, this argument is highly mathematical in nature, and I have only read a few papers on it. What is important is that IDers of this stripe argue that their hypothesis is a scientific one, that it is rigorously testable, and that it deserves a fair hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 13, 2005 12:50:53 GMT -5
Some philosophers argue that my ass should be a national monument.
That does not make it so.
(Which philosophers you ask? I and my Id. We disagree on so much that I refer to him as a separate entity now.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Sept 13, 2005 13:01:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tylers Superego on Sept 13, 2005 13:17:09 GMT -5
I'd like to, on behalf of Tyler and his Id, apologize for his above comment. No philosopher alive or dead endorses Tyler's bid to have his ass made a national monument and it was shameful of him to suggest so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 13, 2005 16:57:00 GMT -5
Your point is well taken, though. There is no proposition so foolish but that some philosopher didn’t count it a universal truth. Still, I would urge the same caution that I have recommended for the last two weeks on this board: Let’s think carefully about the best arguments for ID and give serious thought to refuting them. Appealing to the disagreements among philosophers or even between you and your own ass is not a reductio ad absurdum. Just because people disagree doesn't mean that no one is right. Arguments and evidence should settle the disagreement, so long as both sides are committed to being reasonable. And when we don the mantle of science, there is no escaping reasonability. Here are some observations: I. Science appeals to just enough explanatory apparatus to get its data explained. The simplest explanations are thought to be best because they appeal less to untested and untestable processes and entities. From a scientific point of view, if evolution successfully accounts for the data, then there is no need to appeal to anything else. I would argue that evolutionary theory comes pretty close to accounting for the data. There are problems, though most of these concern clarification of core concepts deployed by the theory: A. What are the objects being selected: genes, organisms, or groups of organisms? Most evolutionists think that selection works at the level of organisms, but not all…Richard Dawkins is a famous example (cf. The Selfish Gene). (Secondary aside: Dawkins is married to the actress who played Romana II on Dr. Who. Cool, eh?) B. Which traits are selected and which are just free riders in the selection process? It would be nice if selection worked entirely independently for every gene, but this is not the case. When selected traits are always or almost always exhibited together, it becomes difficult to determine which is selected or if both are. C. What is the definition of a gene? D. What do we mean by adaptability and functionality? (Crucial questions and neither has been answered satisfactorily!) E. As a theory, how exactly does evolution work? It is quite unlike most other theories in its predictive capacities. How should it be evaluated? What would count as a critical blow to the theory? F. What implications does the theory have for ethics? E.O.Wilson, whom I think takes things way too far, makes the case that ethics is a function of evolution. G. Does the theory account for the behavior of animals or just their traits? And if it accounts for some behavior, does it account for any human behavior? If you have ever heard anyone talking about evolutionary psychology, how can we ever know if their just-so stories are correct? H. Ever heard of a meme? Does evolution actually apply to ideas? And so on… Despite some real problems, evolutionary theory seems as well founded as, say, general relativity. I don’t think that it will ever be shown to be wrong in its fundamentals. That is, even in future science I think it would at least hold a place equivalent to Newtonian mechanics in physics or atomic theory in chemistry. All this is to say that a wise ID theorist would not try to completely displace the theory, but to supplement it. II. This is exactly the suggestion that I hear IDists propounding. Justin and Rick have even alluded to it, since both leave open the possibility that God is directing evolutionary change. But as Justin notes, science may never need to appeal to God if ID is just a means of overdetermining the causal mechanisms involved in natural selection. That is, if evolution accounts for all the data, then any appeal to ID would be extraneous. So, the serious IDists are bent on showing that evolutionary theory is “gappy” and cannot account for all the strange leaps in probability it is committed to. Again, the arguments for this are very technical and mathematical in nature. I have only worked through two papers on the subject. But rest assured: There are real scientists out there who embrace ID and defend it with more logical rigor than I can muster on a good day. This doesn’t mean that ID should be taught in public high schools. The position is a minority one. And it involves understanding complicated mathematical arguments to understand the evidence on its behalf. I would like to see the basic controversy taught as part of a comprehensive history of science class. But that is a story for another day… Jeff PS Some links to the ID argument I keep talking about. Note: None of these actually gets too involved in the math. Pro www.designinference.com/www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/design.aspCon www.csicop.org/creationwatch/probability-one.html |
|
|
|
Post by tenzingcory on Sept 13, 2005 21:42:58 GMT -5
here is the answer to the question of "intellegent Designer" www.subgenius.com/no need to thank me.. and now you can take the night off |
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Sept 14, 2005 9:37:33 GMT -5
E. As a theory, how exactly does evolution work? It is quite unlike most other theories in its predictive capacities. How should it be evaluated? What would count as a critical blow to the theory?
My knowledge of biology and evolution is insufficient to answer with satisfaction any of the questions posed by Jeff. Like many of our recent discussions, especially in Papal Indulgence, all I'll be able to offer are ideas. Unfounded ideas at that. However, in an attempt answer to the question above I'm going to try to repeat how one of the panelist the night before described evolution. I'd never heard this before and thought it was kind of clever. He said something like this, (note the heavy use of paraphrasing):
If I ask you to get into a car and drive randomly for a hundred hours in any direction of your choosing, it is unlikely that I will be able to predict with any certainty where you will be at the end of the trip, but you will be somewhere. You could be as far away as Alaska or only across town. Given geographic constraints and the limitation of one hundred hours, I can make some clear determinations as to where you will not be.
If you called me and we discussed the trip, and you gave me some general clues about it, I could put together a working hypothesis as to how you got to your destination.
This panelist also described how chemist at some pharmaceutical companies are using the evolutionary algorithm to produce new drugs. And, he added that evolution was a filter through which all living things flow. Those that are successful pass through the filter, while those that are not die off.
I know that this hasn't really done much to further our discussion on evolution but I wanted to let you know a little of what I heard the other night, that I thought addressed some of what Jeff asked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 14, 2005 14:52:45 GMT -5
Kurt Vonegut on 'The Daily Show'
"Your subject this week is evolution and my training is science fiction, but I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some divine engineer I can't help thinking that and uh this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why and where evolution is headed. And uh, that's why we have giraffes and hippopotomi and the clap."
|
|
