Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Truth About Evolution and Religion
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 419 (560660)
05-16-2010 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by dkroemer
05-16-2010 2:31 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
It is true that biology textbooks don't mention the human soul.
It's too ill-defined to mention.
However, science textbooks also don't mention free will and the conscious knowledge of human beings.
Psychology is in fact a science.
While many writers, even science writers, think natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved from single-celled organisms to chimps, no professional biologist says such a thing.
This is technically true --- the theory of evolution explains that. Anyone who says that "natural selection" explains that is using "natural selection" as a sort of shorthand for "the theory of evolution". (Or possibly they're actually mistaken.)
In my opinion, the so-called debate or "controversy" about evolution is pseudo-science and prevents people from believing in the Bible and the Koran.
Or from believing in biology. That's the trouble with fundies, they want to make it into a choice between the two.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dkroemer, posted 05-16-2010 2:31 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 419 (560730)
05-17-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 9:10 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion preaching
If you were a biology teacher and a student asked you if animals had free will, what would you say? This is a multiple choice question:
1) I don't know.
2) Free will is an illusion.
3) Ask your philosophy teacher.
4) Biology only studies the bodies of humans, not their souls.
How about if someone wanted to answer "yes"? Or "no"? Or: "that depends on the animal"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 9:10 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 419 (560731)
05-17-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 9:13 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
Memory has to do with past and future. But the past and future are mental beings. Past and future only exist when a real being is thinking about the past and future.
A curious idea which you have not tried to justify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 9:13 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 419 (560733)
05-17-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 8:36 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion preaching
I am interested in explaining biology, especially evolutionary biology. To understand biology, you need to understand metaphysics and understand why biology only studies the bodies of humans.
If you understand that biology only studies non-metaphysical things, then you understand that you do not need to understand metaphysical things in order to understand biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 8:36 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 419 (560734)
05-17-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 8:26 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
There is no evidence that we dream when we sleep.
Yes there is. That's how we know that we dream when we sleep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 8:26 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 419 (560739)
05-17-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 7:28 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
When a being changes in time, there is a contradiction. It is the same and is yet different. How can this be made intelligible? Ans.: A being is a metaphysical composition of substance and accidence. Likewise, a finite being is composed of essence and existence. A being that is a member of a class is composed of form and matter. For humans, the form is called the soul and the matter is called the body.
This raises a few questions.
You propose this thing called the soul to solve what we might call the Problem Of Continuity.
But it only does so if the soul always stays the same. Otherwise, the question: why would we call it the same soul? is just as relevant as question as why, despite the many changes I have undergone since my birth, we maintain that I am still the same person, and my body is still the same body. This concept of the "soul" only starts to solve the Problem Of Continuity if my soul always has exactly the same qualities. For it to solve the Problem Of Continuity my soul must have exactly the same qualities as it did when I was a babe unborn.
But this view of the soul as a permanent peg on which I hang my temporary spiritual qualities seems to be in sharp distinction from the view that religion takes of my soul.
So it seems at least that your use of the word "soul" must be highly idiosyncratic (or inconsistent).
Would you care to comment on this?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 7:28 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 419 (560740)
05-17-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
05-17-2010 9:50 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion preaching
Free will doesn't exist., free choice on the other hand, does.
I should say that that is a distinction without a difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 05-17-2010 9:50 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 05-17-2010 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 419 (560765)
05-17-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 10:53 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion preaching
I want to discuss my fax to the following organizations. So far, there has been no response from any of the objects of my criticism:
* snip *
Well, no wonder they ignored you.
We can try to put you straight about any delusions you may have about biology, but who else has to pretend to take you seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 10:53 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 419 (560766)
05-17-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 1:01 PM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion preaching
Kenneally, Pinker and Bloom are linguists, not biologists. They think that natural selection explains the complexity of life:
No, they don't. They mentioned "the inestimable back-and-forth of random genetic mutation with small effects".
C'mon, try a little harder.
I am certain that in a world of six billion people there must be at least one person who believes in evolution without believing in the theory of evolution.
You, for reasons that only you know, think that you would score some sort of a point if you could produce such a person.
You have so far failed to do so.
But if you ever prove me right, let me know. Then I'll explain to you why proving me right doesn't prove me wrong.
Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 1:01 PM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 2:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 419 (560855)
05-17-2010 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 2:53 PM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion preaching
Are you saying that everyone understand that natural selection explains only adaptation? That natural selection does not explain the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved from bacteria to mammals?
No. I know for a fact that there are lots of people who don't understand the theory of evolution. I've met lots of people who don't understand the theory of evolution.
So it is quite possible that there is at least one person in the world who misunderstands the theory of evolution in the specific way you're talking about. Let's call him "John Doe", since we haven't identified any specific person who misunderstands the theory of evolution in the precise manner that you're talking about.
So, let me stipulate that the existence of John Doe, though unproven, is at least probable.
Where do we go from here? What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 2:53 PM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 419 (560883)
05-18-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 11:34 PM


Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
You are repeating again the statement I am disputing. You are saying things biology textbooks and peer reviewed journals do not say. You are saying things that Kirschner and Gerhart do not say. You simply can't believe you are mistaken on this point because you have read it from unreliable sources and because you have believed it for so long. You are saying:
Natural selection + random mutations + genetic drift + billions of years + chemistry + etc explains the complexity of life.
And this is what the scientific community says en masse. If you think differently, this would be a good time to produce some evidence for your point of view.
"Considered thermodynamically, the problem of neo-Darwinism is the production of order by random events." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Chance or Law, in Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Macmillan Company, 1969, page 76)
Could you please quote the next paragraph of this essay?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 11:34 PM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by dkroemer, posted 05-18-2010 1:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 419 (560884)
05-18-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 11:34 PM


Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
You are repeating again the statement I am disputing. You are saying things biology textbooks and peer reviewed journals do not say. You are saying things that Kirschner and Gerhart do not say. You simply can't believe you are mistaken on this point because you have read it from unreliable sources and because you have believed it for so long. You are saying:
Natural selection + random mutations + genetic drift + billions of years + chemistry + etc explains the complexity of life.
Since I always try to think the best of everyone, I have so far interpreted your posts as charitably as possible; and the confusion and obscurity of your language has given me ample leeway to do so.
Nonetheless, I think that the nature of your delusion is becoming clear. You are trying to pretend --- are you not? --- that scientists don't believe in the theory of evolution.
If that is the ridiculous falsehood that you are trying to communicate, please man up and come right out and say it.
Then we'll prove that you are wrong and laugh at you. Try to look on this as a learning experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 11:34 PM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by dkroemer, posted 05-18-2010 2:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 419 (560886)
05-18-2010 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by dkroemer
05-17-2010 10:14 PM


Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
Gerhart and Kirschner are most certainly the final arbiters.
Oh, splendid. And as they are evolutionists, and you accept them as the final arbiters, doubtless you are now a staunch evolutionist.
You say natural selection explains diversity:
No, he didn't.
Please try to get into your head that the law of natural selection and the theory of evolution are two different things. The latter incorporates the former but is not identical with it.
This is another similar quote from Dawkins. Notice that there is no mention of complexity and only a mention of adaptation:
And? I could quote a zillion paragraphs from creationist halfwits that don't mention complexity. This does not prove that they think that their beliefs don't explain complexity, it just means that they don't mention complexity in every paragraph they ever write.
Here's another quote from Dawkins:
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. --- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
And here's another:
For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria. --- Richard Dawkins, Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder
Are you really going to try to pretend, on the basis of one single paragraph in which Dawkins doesn't mention complexity, that Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in common ancestry? Only if you are I'm going to have to think up some physiological response which goes beyond rolling about on the floor laughing.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dkroemer, posted 05-17-2010 10:14 PM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by dkroemer, posted 05-18-2010 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 419 (560898)
05-18-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by dkroemer
05-18-2010 1:59 AM


Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
The evidence that natural selection can't explain the complexity of life is the evidence supporting the second law of thermodynamics.
Oh, good grief, you're another creationist talking nonsense about thermodynamics. That is so nineties.
You've never studied thermodynamics, have you? You don't know the first thing about it, do you?
And yet you are willing to stand up in public and talk nonsense about it.
Does the phrase THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS mean anything to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dkroemer, posted 05-18-2010 1:59 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 419 (560899)
05-18-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by dkroemer
05-18-2010 2:22 AM


Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
Dawkins doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics. We know that the second law is valid, hence we know that evolution does not contradict it.
Of course we know that evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. You'd have to be a disgusting insane idiot or a creationist to pretend that it does.
The complexity of life does not come from the energy of the sun, as Dawkins mistakenly thinks. It comes from the complexity of the sun. It is not evolution that violates the second law, it is the theory of natural selection that violates the second law.
The reason that you know nothing whatsoever about thermodynamics is that you have never studied it.
And the strange thing, the thing I can never figure out about you people, is this. You must know that you have never studied thermodynamics. You must know, as a fact, that you have never studied thermodynamics and you know fuck-all about it.
And yet you put yourself up on a pedestal and lecture us about the subject when you have never been bothered to learn the first darn thing about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by dkroemer, posted 05-18-2010 2:22 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024