Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South

Out of curiousity, would you have a problem with the idea that God didn't set up evolution per se, just created a starting point with some material and sent it on its way, and evolution is what happened?

 

on the surface, i'd say yes i have a problem with that. i'm not a deist. i think God had more than just a helping hand in creation. i don't believe you're here by accident, Jay. and, no, i can't use the scientific method to prove that up!

 

When you gave the thread the title "Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South." You repeated it when you said "The point of this thread was pointing out how these movies can't even make into [sic] museums in the South." Not a big deal; I'm just sensitive about characterizations of the South.

Two people mentioned it, but I wasn't trying to address the creationism in science class debate. That's where it hits the news the most, but there is a broad front where this philosophical battle is taking place. I won't even argue about the school issue, mostly since I agree with you (the proper place for the 2 theories to duke it out would be a philosophy class, not a science class. Otherwise, I do think creation should be taught in school in a theology class -- not teaching kids about the religions of the world seems like a grocery-store-aisle-wide hole in their educations. But, as I've said, that's another matter and another thread.) So I understand why you'd appeal to the classroom argument since it's a winner, but it really wasn't where I was headed.

Otherwise, I don't think it's true that the argument in public discourse is conducted on scientifically proving and disproving evolution. Even here, where we have well-educated people, it's mostly assertions of "it's just a theory," and "it is well-proven." There are some who are about the business of proving (like Daniel Dennett) and challenging (Behe), but these are scholars in the business, with PhDs and tenured positions. To me, it seems that the popular discourse is actually mostly ships passing in the night, with each side ultimately resting its case on an authority the other side doesn't recognize as legitimate.

All I'm trying to argue here (and really no more, since I lean more evolutionist than creationist), is that maintaining the argument on a scientific field is a great defense, but a poor offense. By saying you must confine the argument to a scientific one, you simply reassert science as the only source of knowledge and disengage from dialogue with the opposition. You can't really have a dialogue until you've found common ground for both parties to operate.

Finally, the reason why you won't manage to convince a creationist of the scientific veracity of evolution, is because they are distrustful of scientists, and maybe the scientific process. I would say they think scientists involved in issues around evolution assume what they are trying to prove, ignore evidence that contradict what they already "know", and perhaps go so far as to fabricate evidence to make the case stronger than it is (buoyed by a couple of cases where this has actually happened). Having several members of my family doing genetics research, I don't think the distrust is without merit.

Postscript: It would be a hard-core creationist, indeed, that would deny selection of traits over time within a species -- "micro-evolution." Evolutionists seem to think that all creationists think this way, perhaps as straw-man slander. Much more common, I think, is the creationist recognizes changes in the genetic profile of a species over time but not the speciation of macro-evolution.

 

Evolution isn't fact because it is science. It is science because it has undergone the tests and evidence to pass throught the process. The tests and evidence therefore make it a fact. Philosophy might enter into the why and how it works part, and would certainly enter into the various versions of creation.

But when comparing the two one is fact and one isn't, at least in a literal sense.

 

I guess I might as well chime in here to say that I do believe in creationism in that I believe God was the beginning of everything that exists. I've never had trouble fitting evolution into this belief. In fact, it fits right in, as far as I'm concerned. Why God would want to create something like the Universe in the blink of an eye when time must be pretty meaningless to Him is beyond me.

Sure, the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but then again it doesn't mention guinea pigs, either. Or even zebras! The Bible is about people, events and God. It's a religious text, not an encyclopedia. A religious text filled with parables, I might add.

I've never understood why evolution is seen as a threat to creationism and vice-versa. In the end, it just comes down to a choice. After all the data and reasoning, we each get to make this choice: Everything we can experience either happened for a good reason or it happened for no real reason. There's no "fact" in this area, just a blind choice. So whatever we decide, let's just go ahead and be considerate of others' choices.

I don't particularly like being associated with dumbass rednecks who somehow read the Bible only to come to the conclusion that "God Hates Fags," but it's my decision to think of myself as a Christian and live in the South, so I'd ask that people be considerate of that choice, too.

 

BINGO

 

The problem I have with this that evolution is a scientific theory and not a faith or philosophical theory. To the extent that it is faith or philosophy is to question the whole scientific methodology that produced that it.

As I said I agree with you that there are limits to what science can teach us. I like to think of it that science can tell us the How but can't really tell us the Why. To the question of whether there is higher purpose to anything or if it is all just a causal chain arising from pure randomness is a question that I don't think could or even should be answered by science. Evolution though is merely the best explanation for how life developed and came to be as we know it. It's based and has been tested according to a rigid logical methodology designed to weed out contradiction and subjectivity. Beyond that it can't answer if there is greater purpose to life or a prime creator. All it tells us is method not reason. Therefore I don't see how there can be a philosophical debate regarding a faith idea vs. a scientific idea when they aren't even subject to the same logical rules.

While yes scientists have fabricated data and falsified results before but that is the beauty of the scientific method because it builds in skepticism. Things are never truly proven in science but everything is always open to testing. That said I would say its pretty much impossible to argue some grand conspiracy of scientists and secular humanists to create false theory of evolution because so many people have sought to debunk it for almost 200 years.

The problem that creationists and other have when arguing that science is basically a faith and no more true than any other faith is that the religion of science works. You can choose to believe that science is the same as any other faith but that doesn't change that planes fly and we're communicating on the internet.

Again this comes down understanding the logical rules with which science is derived. As I noted before the basic mechanisms of evolution can be seen by observing mutation and selective breeding. Using inductive reasoning you can move to the idea that the differentiation of species came about from the same mechanism. With evolution its further supported by such things as the fossil record, comparative anatomy and now genetic studies. Just looking at the vast diversity of life it may seem like a stretch but as I said the same logic that supports evolution is also the same logic behind the creation of the internet.

 

Again, you are demonstrating what I've been talking about in this thread. You're asserting an assumption that the empirical model is the source of knowledge -- how one knows what one knows -- and dismisses all other forms. But, the person you're arguing with may not agree. It's just an assertion, and one that isn't accepted by the other party. You can follow up with something akin to "anyone who doesn't accept it is a fool," but that isn't a basis for dialogue either.

 

What's wrong with that?

If we were comparing the mechanics of natural selection to the 6 days of creation, I'd agree there isn't much basis to compare. But, the comparison is actually, Did it happen this way or that way? We just want to know what is true. The scientific method is one tool for discovery.

It may be a better or worse tool. I would point out the quasi-religious faith many have in the inerrancy of the method (not even of those who practice, but of the method itself, which was created by man too). Are you certain it can weed out all contradiction and subjectivity (know, not in an empirical sense, but in a logical one?)? Is it really so infallible? If so, why? Can we know things empirically as certainly as we can know things logically?

I wasn't arguing that fabrication of data was an actual problem, only that the fallibility of man undercuts somewhat the authority of science. But, I wouldn't say it was impossible to argue for a grand conspiracy; not really as a conscious planned conspiracy, but a sort of phenomenon that feeds on itself. The development of the church seems to follow a similar pattern in many ways, likewise unplanned, but complex, robust, organic, and mostly sincere.

I don't want to go too far down this road and go beyond scope (any worse). I'd point out though that empirical study has always had its uses even before the advent of the scientific method and people have been inventing things for a very long time. The worship of the method, as opposed to its use, is a different thing again.

I noticed in your jump from micro- to macro-evolution, you also jumped from empirical observation to inductive reasoning. I'm not saying there's no place for induction, but it appears to be the weak link in the chain. It's a little different from a logical deduction from a complete set of facts; it has instead some overtones of intuition. Not to say that it is unreasonable, and the robustness of the other elements are important.

 

Evolutionists should be wary of evolutionists for doing this. Fraud happens. If the argument is going to be that you can't trust at all because some people are lying, then it is pointless to even discuss. Fortunately, the reason for this fraud in the first place, greed, is probably as much a driver for "good" science as "bad"

Why be comfortable with one and not with another? Because the implications are that humans came from monkeys? Is that the only reason?

If the evidence that exists today concluded that the speciation of macro-evolution exists (as it seems to), but not for humans (which doesn't seem to be the case from the fossil record, but for hypothetical purposes let's say it is), whom are a special case, would a creationist then be okay with macro-evolution?

 

I don't dismiss anything. I'm actually in the camp that believes biblical creation and Evolution go hand in hand, and that the two aren't mutually exclusive of one another. I also haven't followed it up with anyone who believes differently is a fool. I don't know why you would presume that I would follow it up with calling somebody a fool.

But one is a scientific theory and the other doesn't meet that level. The theory of evolution like other scientific theories meets the same criteria. It measures up to and meets the same criteria as the theory of gravity, germ theory, etc. It has gone through the same type of proofs, with the same kind of evidence. Biblical creation has not met that criteria. It has not gone through the same type of tests, and does not have the same type of evidence supporting it.

People are free not to believe in gravity, germ theory, or evolution all they want. They can have whatever rationale they want. But without meeting the same level of scutiny, testing, evidence and proof, it won't be on the same scale.

Talking about how one knows what one knows is a philosophical question. I can understand that, and that may have been what you were getting at before, and I was too dense to get it.

I don't believe in one way of knowing what one knows at the exclusion of all others. I can sometimes know that a person hates me or likes me by how they act. It certainly isn't scientific, but sometimes I still believe I know. But, what can be proven can be proven.

Let's substitute another theory for evolution like that of gravity. I don't think it would be wrong for me to say that despite anyone who doesn't beleive in gravity, it has been proven. They are free not to believe in it, but it is wrong from preventing that knowledge getting to others who don't have the facts.

 

because i can see micro-evolution. it's pretty hard to deny. we see it within a generation. the example i always hear coming up is the moths that changed color to blend in with trees that darkened over time because of pollution in the northeast.

i still have a harder time getting to the notion that there are common ancestors of every species on the planet. that we all derived from one single cell. i think it's pretty easy to see why that's a more difficult conclusion than the first.

 

And you can see God, much less observe him creating species....??

 

here's another problem with these discussions. someone pulls out gravity as if it can be equated in terms of general acceptance to macro-evolution. gravity is something we experience..we observe it. we don't observe macro-evolution. we look at fossil records and make best guesses. After hundreds and hundreds of years, statistical palenotology tells us we should probably already see some common ancestors for the bat and the whale....but we don't.

here's another problem for evolution...natural selection only choses systems that already work...how do you "build" an organism slowly over time in pieces? the example i've always heard is flagellum (spelling?) for bacteria...it's a tiny, tiny part but hugely complex. all parts of it have to be present for it to work at all; for it to make the bacteria move. it spins at about 10,000 rpm and requires some number of proteins to begin in the first place. eliminate one part, and it doesn't spin. how does it ever form?

i think the bigger concern for macro-evolution at this point is the complexity within single cells. darwin argued that complexity came as systems developed...that it went from simple to complex. what we've learned is that the smaller and smaller we are able to see into the cell, the more complex it is. particularly in the reproduction and transmission of DNA "message." essentially, we have mini-computers living in our cells translating language. this is the very building block of life, and it's ridiculolusly complex. a teaspoon of DNA can hald all the precise structures of all proteins in every creature ever and still have enough space to hold the information in every book ever published. if this is the beginning, then we have incredible complexity from the very beginning.

and we're still left with the doozie...how do chemicals turn into organisms?

 

wait a second..i never said i could prove God up to you. i'm using your own way of arguing. because JV is right...if i resort to theology, it's not persuasive with someone who isn't inclined to hear that language. i could tell you all the reasons i believe in God...maybe it would work something in you. but it's not necessarily logical. it's not logical to serve a God who says you should value others more than yourself. certainly not from the world's perspective.

in a mere comparison between micro- and macro- evolution...which was the topic at hand..you asked, why be comfortable with one and not the other. i attempted to answer that. at least from my own perspective.

 

how do you explain every living creature using DNA to perpetuate their respective spieces? There are ancient creatures still living on earth and they show that dna replication and therefore evolution has been taking place for at least 500 million years (see Elephant Shark, Coelacanth) not picking a fight or anything, just curious how you can see this as some sort of amazing coincidence

 

All phenomena arise as causes and conditions arise; all phenomena cease as causes and conditions cease.

I can see that plainly.

 

Wanting to believe something is fine but it's doesn't make true.
The best system we humans here on planet reality have come up with to try to advance knowledge is the scientific method. The perception of 'fact' within it can change as better information becomes available and is verified, repeated and debated but we use the information available to define the current best 'truth'.

Yes the data is empirical. That is what seperates science from philosophy and religion. If you want to be a philosopher or a religious scholar, go stand over there, get out of the science department, you are wasting our time.

 

Except you didn't resort to theology. You just said because you couldn't see it, you didn't mention anything about theology?? And I don't even know if "because you didn't see it" really was were answer, or just you "using (my) own way of arguing."

That said, if it really is your opinion, resorting to theology is fine. I find it a little rigid to resort to theology for all things that are non-observable yet nonetheless potentially right.