Darwin Correspondence Project

Darwin Correspondence Project:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/

Do you believe in Theory of Evolution or other alternative approaches, like Creationism?

Evolution.

Although I wouldn’t say I ‘believe’ in evolution anymore than I’d say I ‘believe’ in gravity.

“Although I wouldn’t say I ‘believe’ in evolution anymore than I’d say I ‘believe’ in gravity.”
ditto here!

I believe in intelligent design. I also believe that dinosaurs and humans walked side by side 10,000 years ago.

Thanks for the link Kate. Very interesting. Darwin has been one of my heroes since I was about 11 (and unlike some of my other childhood heroes, my respect for the man has not diminished).

Evolution is not a theory; it’s a fact, no? It’s no longer a question of belief. There are still lots of fascinating questions about mechanisms and exact meanings for terms like “adaption” and so on. SJ Gould offered some; but species evolved. The questions that remain have to do with the scope of explanitory power that Darwin’s observations and Darwinian science is capable of. That seems to be the hot topic as the cognitive sciences confront the human sciences. How much of psychology, sociology, aesthetics, etc. can be reduced to evolutionary logic?

I read that the cognitivists have made great gains at MLA [Modern Language Association] (more or less replacing the old “high theory” types) as they construct models to explain human language, the story-telling faculty, poetry, et al.

Personally, I have misgivings about it all; but species evoloved, it’s just a question of asking how significant that is. For example, isn’t it true that 99.something% of my genetic make up is the same as a chimpanzees? Why do I not have any chimpanzee friends, not even casual ones? Am I homo sapian centric? Or is it that that entire mass of genetic sameness is precisely irrelevant?

[quote=“Tralalangue”]Evolution is not a theory; it’s a fact, no? It’s no longer a question of belief. There are still lots of fascinating questions about mechanisms and exact meanings for terms like “adaption” and so on. SJ Gould offered some; but species evolved. The questions that remain have to do with the scope of explanitory power that Darwin’s observations and Darwinian science is capable of. That seems to be the hot topic as the cognitive sciences confront the human sciences. How much of psychology, sociology, aesthetics, etc. can be reduced to evolutionary logic?

I read that the cognitivists have made great gains at MLA [Modern Language Association] (more or less replacing the old “high theory” types) as they construct models to explain human language, the story-telling faculty, poetry, et al.

Personally, I have misgivings about it all; but species evoloved, it’s just a question of asking how significant that is. For example, isn’t it true that 99.something% of my genetic make up is the same as a chimpanzees? Why do I not have any chimpanzee friends, not even casual ones? Am I homo sapian centric? Or is it that that entire mass of genetic sameness is precisely irrelevant?[/quote]

anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

Basically, I can’t follow the discussion here well, but they did remind me of something. (Free-association)

In 2005, a group of Intelligent Design advocates appeal to present Intelligent Design along with Darwinian Theory in high school textbook in Pennsylvania. This case involved educational institution, parent organization, religious/social communities, experts and scientists from different fields. Intelligent Design and Darwinian Theory professional representatives had defense against each other in court. It was a war for their belief.

It was fun to read how they reasoned and interpreted the evidence they found through their research to support the points.

I am a Darwinian Theory follower, but this case makes me think why I take it for granted.
I learned Theory of Evolution since I was a kid. I never learned alternative theory to explain the origin of life. Theory of Evolution was taught as a fact.

But is it a fact?

How much molecular biology do you know ?

If you really want to see proof of evolution then learn molecular biology. Fossil records are just a small part of the facts these days. Most of the observations Darwin made are backed up by molecular studies.

Do you honestly believe the earth was built in seven days (sorry meant six) he took a nap on the seventh and had a cold beer ?

You can either choose to believe what the disciples of Jesus said or what nearly the whole of the scientific community believes now (nearly with a few exceptions).

Take your pick. The disciples could be right but I doubt it. After all the difference between a religious man and a scientific one is that the religious man is never prepared to admit he might just be wrong and their faith maybe is only a load of lies and fantasy while the scientist is prepared to believe that the facts do have a small chance of being wrong but you just have to prove it. That is the difference between faith and science.

[quote=“kate.lin”]Basically, I can’t follow the discussion here well, but they did remind me of something. (Free-association)

In 2005, a group of Intelligent Design advocates appeal to present Intelligent Design along with Darwinian Theory in high school textbook in Pennsylvania. This case involved educational institution, parent organization, religious/social communities, experts and scientists from different fields. Intelligent Design and Darwinian Theory professional representatives had defense against each other in court. It was a war for their belief.

It was fun to read how they reasoned and interpreted the evidence they found through their research to support the points.

I am a Darwinian Theory follower, but this case makes me think why I take it for granted.
I learned Theory of Evolution since I was a kid. I never learned alternative theory to explain the origin of life. Theory of Evolution was taught as a fact.

But is it a fact?[/quote]

Were the Taliban reps invited to the discussion ? I’m sure they have plenty of common ground with the intelligent design theorists.

Thanks to fenlander for the link. 98% of my DNA is the same as a chimps, according to that link. Also, interestingly, that link reports the discovery of the “human regulator gene” which accounts for the tiny variation that allows humanoids to develop more complex brains.

Here’s my question: Who named it the ‘human regulator gene’? Or did it come with a label? How is that label scientific since it presumes we know for sure what counts as specifically human and what doesn’t (and therefore only need to look for the causes and antecedents for what is already chisled in stone)? (My main beef with science, when I have a beef (which is not too too often), is usually at the level of language: labels, names, basic concepts, causalities, etc. ) How long before the ‘homosexual regulator gene’ is found? Or the ‘terrorist regulator gene’?

Kate.lin: If evolution is not a fact, then there are no facts, only theories; not only that, there are no objective observations, only subjective perceptions. If you (or anyone) commits to denial of evolution then I think you are committed to denial of things falling off shelves during earthquakes, today’s temperature, that Wang is from Taiwan and pitches for the Yankees, the Holocaust (i.e. the extermination of the six million Jews during WW II), that the sun appears every day, that you are reading this and that I, Tralalangue, wrote it, and so on, and so on. If you want to go down that path, I say fine; but it seems like it will get very lonely after a while. I think the more interesting thing is to examine carefully what people (including scientists) say about evolution (and other scientific things).

Ah, I just read fenlander’s reply to Kate.lin and I have to run but I really quite strongly disagree that kate.lin (or anyone) has to choose between the religious and the scientific community. In fact I can’t emphasize enough that that is a false choice, and indeed completely unnessary, and one that is driving a stupid and unproductive debate in the US. Not everything important is dialectical…this would take me some time to formulate but there is a certain arrogance in forcing choices “between communities”…

…anyways…this could be a fine discussion if others are interested…I’ll try to formulate something about this when I get back on line…

…it reminds me of when Whitehead introduced Russell on his visit to Harvard. Paraphrasing from memory, Whitehead said: Bertie has for a long time thought I’ve become muddle-headed [because Whitehead had drifted into metaphysics]; but that’s OK because I think Bertie [Russell] has remained simple-minded.

To be a scientist you must be open-minded and not bound to any one belief. Paradigms can shift. And when they do you must be able to toss out the beliefs that you had previously about that subject and move forward with the new facts.

To be religious you must bind to a certain belief even in light of flimsy evidence in its favor and much evidence against it.

The two of these fit?

Faith is evidence of things un-seen. Scientists believe strongly in “dark matter,” which they can’t see, aren’t even sure what is, but “know” exists because without it, all their calculations about the density of the universe are wrong. Their “faith” is in their own mathematics and they have declared that this dark matter exists because they couldn’t possibly be wrong. I find that both arrogant and ironic.

Science can’t “study” faith, so can’t understand it. The faithful man can understand science but choose to continue his faith. It’s more than fossil records and molecular biology. Guess what? I think the scientists are right about thier “dark matter.” I also believe that organisms “evolve” in the sense that they continue to adapt to their environments, and continue to mutate, and that over time, these actions change them and enable them to survive. But I do not believe that Species evolve. 98% is close, but not human. It’s odd to me that people even wonder about that because you never ever here people debating whether or not a jackass or zebra is a horse, or evolved into a horse. And those ‘see-la-can’t’ fish that I won’t even try to spell, the ones with the boney fins that were thought to be extinct, did not evolve and eventually crawl out of the see and become a land animal. They can’t live out of the water, or even above about 200 feet below sea level, for more than two hours. Not long enough to walk and breathe and procreate and grow fur.

It was odd to me, at the OP, to read that “creationism” was thought of as an alternative. And evolultion, as in from particles of hydrogen into human and all points in between, is theroy, NOT fact; since we are only human, part of the evolutionary chain in this theroy, we cannot look on, scientifically, as only an observer and not participant, so evolution theroy cannot be proven as fact by humanity. So. . . you know where that brings us.

We’re back to “evolutionary dark matter.” Hmmm. I have no problem with the idea that God might be black.

Scientists can’t study faith?? Really now! I have read at least 2 dozen articles discussing the scientific origins of religion. Many theories explain religion as a byproduct of evolution. Scientists have also studied religions effect on health and some have gone as far as to say there is a “god part of the brain” that allows for us to be inclined towards believing in the supernatural.
None of that is science studying faith?

[quote=“housecat”]Faith is evidence of things un-seen. Scientists believe strongly in “dark matter,” which they can’t see, aren’t even sure what is, but “know” exists because without it, all their calculations about the density of the universe are wrong. Their “faith” is in their own mathematics and they have declared that this dark matter exists because they couldn’t possibly be wrong. I find that both arrogant and ironic.

Science can’t “study” faith, so can’t understand it. The faithful man can understand science but choose to continue his faith. It’s more than fossil records and molecular biology. Guess what? I think the scientists are right about thier “dark matter.” I also believe that organisms “evolve” in the sense that they continue to adapt to their environments, and continue to mutate, and that over time, these actions change them and enable them to survive. But I do not believe that Species evolve. 98% is close, but not human. It’s odd to me that people even wonder about that because you never ever here people debating whether or not a jackass or zebra is a horse, or evolved into a horse. And those ‘see-la-can’t’ fish that I won’t even try to spell, the ones with the boney fins that were thought to be extinct, did not evolve and eventually crawl out of the see and become a land animal. They can’t live out of the water, or even above about 200 feet below sea level, for more than two hours. Not long enough to walk and breathe and procreate and grow fur.

It was odd to me, at the OP, to read that “creationism” was thought of as an alternative. And evolultion, as in from particles of hydrogen into human and all points in between, is theroy, NOT fact; since we are only human, part of the evolutionary chain in this theroy, we cannot look on, scientifically, as only an observer and not participant, so evolution theroy cannot be proven as fact by humanity. So. . . you know where that brings us.

We’re back to “evolutionary dark matter.” Hmmm. I have no problem with the idea that God might be black.[/quote]
Not everything needs to evolve into another species. No offense but you don’t really understand evolution. Things evolve when there is a mutation that is advantageous for the enviornment that they are living in. If there is no advantage in the mutation then it dissapears (the mutation not the fish). Most fish do just fine where they are. Read up about the over use of antibiotics that creates heavy selection pressures allowing for new resistant strains of bacteria to evolve.

Off the top of my head life has been around on this planet 1.5 billion years.
Of course fish don’t just jump up sprout legs walk off and become accountants. Milllions and millions of years of mutational changes have taken place. For fish that have an environment that they can reproduce in then they will reproduce and live on as fish. If the environemnt changes then the suriving fish will be the ones that have mutations that allow them to survive and reproduce. Water drying up will kill most of the fish in a river, but maybe some survive because of mutations. Maybe they survive in small pools of water rather than a deep river. Then maybe later even smaller pools allow some fish to sruvive and not others and on it goes (but maybe none evolve and that dried river of fish all dies) Just like humans now are changing. Getting larger and larger brains and heads etc etc

Anyway too much typing to go into too much detail. Plenty of books about it if you would take the time to read them.
(I have read the bible and the koran)

[quote=“SuchAFob”]Scientists can’t study faith?? Really now! I have read at least 2 dozen articles discussing the scientific origins of religion. Many theories explain religion as a byproduct of evolution. Scientists have also studied religions effect on health and some have gone as far as to say there is a “god part of the brain” that allows for us to be inclined towards believing in the supernatural.
None of that is science studying faith?[/quote]

Your responce indicates a lack of understanding of what faith is. I realize that scientists study people who are sick, religious and non-religious, and form theories about the effects of their faith on their health. I’ve heard of the “god part of the brain” theroy. Yes, yes. But that is not studying faith. It’s studying physiology or behavior.[/quote]

[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“housecat”]Faith is evidence of things un-seen. Scientists believe strongly in “dark matter,” which they can’t see, aren’t even sure what is, but “know” exists because without it, all their calculations about the density of the universe are wrong. Their “faith” is in their own mathematics and they have declared that this dark matter exists because they couldn’t possibly be wrong. I find that both arrogant and ironic.

Science can’t “study” faith, so can’t understand it. The faithful man can understand science but choose to continue his faith. It’s more than fossil records and molecular biology. Guess what? I think the scientists are right about thier “dark matter.” I also believe that organisms “evolve” in the sense that they continue to adapt to their environments, and continue to mutate, and that over time, these actions change them and enable them to survive. But I do not believe that Species evolve. 98% is close, but not human. It’s odd to me that people even wonder about that because you never ever here people debating whether or not a jackass or zebra is a horse, or evolved into a horse. And those ‘see-la-can’t’ fish that I won’t even try to spell, the ones with the boney fins that were thought to be extinct, did not evolve and eventually crawl out of the see and become a land animal. They can’t live out of the water, or even above about 200 feet below sea level, for more than two hours. Not long enough to walk and breathe and procreate and grow fur.

It was odd to me, at the OP, to read that “creationism” was thought of as an alternative. And evolultion, as in from particles of hydrogen into human and all points in between, is theroy, NOT fact; since we are only human, part of the evolutionary chain in this theroy, we cannot look on, scientifically, as only an observer and not participant, so evolution theroy cannot be proven as fact by humanity. So. . . you know where that brings us.

We’re back to “evolutionary dark matter.” Hmmm. I have no problem with the idea that God might be black.[/quote][/quote]

Not everything needs to evolve into another species.

[color=darkblue]I don’t think I said that everything evolved into another species. In fact, I think I agreed with your explanation of the evolution process.[/color]

No offense but you don’t really understand evolution. Things evolve when there is a mutation that is advantageous for the enviornment that they are living in. If there is no advantage in the mutation then it dissapears (the mutation not the fish). Most fish do just fine where they are.

[color=darkblue]But, at some point, evolution of one life form into another must have taken place, according to Darwinism, else how’d we get here? We’re evolving larger brains and bodies. Okay, maybe. But we weren’t just smaller brained and boned, and less self aware a few millinea ago. Those are chimps now, and they were then. We are human–now and then (heh heh, pun perversly intended.)

Anyway, I’m not telling you what to believe, or believe in. I’m saying what I believe in and why. That was what the OP asked for, right? And I haven’t even mentioned that your response didn’t touch on the fact that as products of evolution a human cannot be trully scientific about it’s study where humans are concerned, or that Darwin later wrote strenuosly that he was WRONG about evolution, and that he believed in creation! Well, I guess now I have mentioned it.[/color]

Faith is psychological. Psychology is a science. I’m really quite curious as to what you think “faith” is.
They are able to study hallucinations. They are able to study religious experiences. They are even able to study what in the brain makes a person able to believe in the supernatural. How does this not relate to faith?

[quote=“SuchAFob”]Faith is psychological. Psychology is a science. I’m really quite curious as to what you think “faith” is.
They are able to study hallucinations. They are able to study religious experiences. They are even able to study what in the brain makes a person able to believe in the supernatural. How does this not relate to faith?[/quote]

Faith is not psychological any more than a scientist’s belief in dark matter is psychological. It just can’t be measured with calculations. This is just what so many people have such a hard time with. When I said “Faith is evidence of things un-seen,” that’s what I ment. I didn’t mean that beliefe in something we can’t see or physically verify is evidence of a psychological phenominon genearally called faith. Faith equals evidence. The fact that men have faith is evidence that there is something in which to have faith. I don’t have more time now. I hope this is a little more clear.