Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And BeardofPants, jerseydevil, whoever out there has some knowledge of evolution and this kind of thing, I don't want to be holding a private conversation with Cirdan. I'd rather hear of your opinions on this as well.

I don't have any special knowledge of evolution, but I may be able to comment within the framework of the examples you cite.

If it is possible for entire regions to change their climate and vegetation in such ways, it would seem to me likely that the fauna (which have legs, fins and wings, unlike plants - except ents of course) would follow to the areas which suited their form and function. "Follow" may even be a contentious word; from evolutionary first principles, they would die out in all areas except those which suited them. Also, there is no biological reason why a relatively small vestigial population of (say) elephants couldn't expand to fill a new, vacant niche in a relatively short period of time (hundreds rather than thousands of years).

Are you saying that there were NO (say) elephant-friendly environments during these periods? If so, I think the onus is on you to come up with some better evidence than a suggestion to search on Google.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Dunadan
So, either God exists or the world is just a chance combination of molecules. This is what I find depressing about Christianity: the idea that love derives from God, not from us. I also find it to be arrogant to relegate my most profound experiences to some bloke in a robe poking about in my subconscious.

I'm sorry if I offended you. It was unintentional. I personally don't find it depressing to think that I am able to experience these things because God has put some of his nature in me. And I can think of many people who might feel it depressing to think of some of these experiences as being derived simply from lower forms of life through natural selection. Nor does it have to be an either/or. What I was wondering is whether people believe that these things have intrinsic meaning or whether they only result as a chance combination of molecules and natural selection. If a person does choose that it is intrinsic, then there is also the question of whether our ability to perceive these things does imply intelligent design or not. Also, do you have to call God a "bloke in a robe?" I guess it is an indication of where you have formed your image of God, or of the Christian image of God, but it really doesn't harmonize with my image of God at all.

Doesn't this externalise love, taking it beyond the individual? In turn, doesn't this process reduce the individual's responsibility in the matter of morality, thereby permitting the rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history? [/QUOTE]

I really don't see this as externalizing love, not if God put a part of His nature in us (i.e. made man and woman in God's image). And, if a person can turn to God for help in the area of morality, I think it increases rather than decreases that person's responsibility. On the other hand, thinking that a person is simply the product of his or her genes and environment seems to diminish personal responsibility. However, I am very open to hearing alternative views than these. Again -- very sorry if I offended you.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I'm sorry if I offended you. It was unintentional. I personally don't find it depressing to think that I am able to experience these things because God has put some of his nature in me. And I can think of many people who might feel it depressing to think of some of these experiences as being derived simply from lower forms of life through natural selection. Nor does it have to be an either/or. What I was wondering is whether people believe that these things have intrinsic meaning or whether they only result as a chance combination of molecules and natural selection. If a person does choose that it is intrinsic, then there is also the question of whether our ability to perceive these things does imply intelligent design or not. Also, do you have to call God a "bloke in a robe?" I guess it is an indication of where you have formed your image of God, or of the Christian image of God, but it really doesn't harmonize with my image of God at all.

IMO, this was extremely well-stated, so I'm quoting it. It relates back (WAAAY back, probably 10 pages or so) to my discussion on the presence of moral values in all peoples. Are these observable moral values just another chance development? How are they explanable via the th. of evol.? Do you think that they have an intrinsic meaning? Do you really think God is wearing a robe? (actually, you don't think He exists so I suppose that question is n/a).

by Dunadan
Doesn't this externalise love, taking it beyond the individual? In turn, doesn't this process reduce the individual's responsibility in the matter of morality, thereby permitting the rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history?

Methuselah's answer
I really don't see this as externalizing love, not if God put a part of His nature in us (i.e. made man and woman in God's image). And, if a person can turn to God for help in the area of morality, I think it increases rather than decreases that person's responsibility. On the other hand, thinking that a person is simply the product of his or her genes and environment seems to diminish personal responsibility. However, I am very open to hearing alternative views than these. Again -- very sorry if I offended you.

Dunadan, please don't over-generalize ("rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history"). I would say "characterized" is WAY off-base. Would you please choose your words more carefully - I find it hard to believe that you REALLY mean "characterize", which I would interpret to mean "the vast majority act this way". Do you really mean that? Are you saying that "non-religious" people have not committed horrific crimes and acts of hypocrisy? What about the many brave and noble deeds of religious people?

Anyway, I absolutely agree with Methuselah - I think that "thinking that a person is simply the product of his or her genes and environment seems to diminish personal responsibility." BTW, do you notice that the Christians here are very concerned about offending others? (I don't recall seeing th. of ev. people saying things like "I'm sorry if I offended you"). That's because we see you as created beings of great worth and wish to treat you with great dignity. (BTW, we can be greatly concerned about treating you with dignity and still discuss what we consider to be truthful with great vigor - the two are not incompatible. Treating others with love does not mean being spineless.)

AND I will say that OVERALL, EVERYONE here has been very courteous and considerate of others, which is why this has been a good discussion, and I hope people of both viewpoints have learned things. Please don't take my mentioning the "sorry if I offended you" concern as th. of ev. people NOT being concerned, I certainly do NOT mean that. I just find it interesting that the Christians are more visibly concerned.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, do you notice that the Christians here are very concerned about offending others? (I don't recall seeing th. of ev. people saying things like "I'm sorry if I offended you").

AND

Originally posted by Cirdan
If you feel offended by my opinions about the mixing of religious and scientific thought I am sorry, but I do come by them honestly.

From post #337

[Lief Erikson]

Dunadan, I was giving my source of information, and you don't seem to be arguing my dates or the accuracy of what I'm saying.

There are, I think, sufficient problems with your theory, Dunadan, and sufficient lack of evidence to discount it. You're basically saying that there are oases out there in which the creatures survive over the thousands of years until it's their time to thrive.

First of all, let's look at this from the environmental standpoint. There isn't any reason to believe that such oases existed, no evidence of any such patches of lush in the desert. Also, there is evidence during the period of 18,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago of an extra difficult time so tough that they don't even find much in the way of desert creatures surviving during that period. It seems unlikely that these patches you suggest could have endured such circumstances when other creatures didn't.

Second, let's look at it from the nature of the animals. You're assuming that many, many grassland and lush countryside creatures were lucky enough to get into these patches. So, we'll assume that by some lucky chance they got in. Now what? They have enormous difficulties over the available space (Which is very limited). These are large quantities of species cramped into tiny spaces and expected to live in quiet harmony for thousands of years until they can emerge to take over the world. These creatures aren't going to be living in harmony. There will be massive competition over available resources (Which are extremely limited), indeed enough that I think many of the species would have gone extinct.

Third, this is like assuming a Noah's ark without even the Bible to go on! And not only one, but two. You also have the desert creatures having to have survived in such "oases" of desert during the 125,000-120,000 year period. During that period there is no evidence at all of any desert life.

Fourth, we have to assume that the environmental shifts that we've observed in these places and others around the world aren't all the result of some extraordinary phenomena enclosed in the last million years. By extrapolation, it seems logical that what we're observing has happened thousands of times throughout the years since the beginning of life. That the creatures always tended to survive by oases throughout history seems a somewhat pathetic solution in the face of the enormous forces at work.

Fifth, for examples of the past, let's look at the present, shall we? Nowadays we see evidence of Natural Selection, something that your model completely ignores. We see little evidence in the current deserts and jungles of these little patches of desert in which desert creatures survive the powers of environmental change. On the contrary, there aren't really any oases in these areas, and there aren't any deserts in jungles.

Your theory also includes that the creatures might have lived on a grassland area that changed slowly, and that these creatures followed the grass. Samples taken show that throughout the entire stretch of deserts throughout the Sahara to the Gobi deserts show consistency, that everything was changing at the same time.

[Rían]

I logged back on to add a post to say again: --> I do NOT think that the th. of ev. are NOT concerned about others!! Please don't think that I mean that in any way, shape or form.

But I really don't understand (I mean this sincerely) how you can reconcile being the product of chance and time with having moral values and making moral judgements. As I said before - what exactly do you find offensive about the D.C. sniper? He got rid of some people that were consuming resources, didn't he? (Don't REACT to this, please THINK about it - can you explain it to me?) Is their value perhaps that they could have furthered the species' development? Or were they valuable additions to the gene pool? Or do they have an intrinsic value just by being people, which is what I believe.

[Rían]

I just saw your post, Cirdan - thank you very much for finding that for me! I am very glad to see it. I said I didn't RECALL seeing it, as I hope you noticed, and I also hope you noticed I emphasized SEVERAL times that th. of ev. people have INDEED shown courtesy and respect, as have most people on this thread, which I really appreciate. Again, thanks! What are your thoughts on how th. of ev. and the presence of moral values go together?

And BTW, where did you get what appears to be a post #? I've been thinking about PMing the adminds to ask them to add it, it would be so much easier than saying "my post of 2 posts ago", and you can't use the time because it shows up differently for people in different time zones.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Dunadan, please don't over-generalize ("rank hypocrisy which has characterised the practice of religion throughout history"). I would say "characterized" is WAY off-base. Would you please choose your words more carefully - I find it hard to believe that you REALLY mean "characterize", which I would interpret to mean "the vast majority act this way". Do you really mean that? Are you saying that "non-religious" people have not committed horrific crimes and acts of hypocrisy? What about the many brave and noble deeds of religious people?

I'm sorry if I offended you. I have nothing but admiration and utmost respect for those who truly believe and practice a Christian morality, and regret any offence caused.

(However, I stand by my words. Characterise means a distinguishing trait, not a universal one. There are innumerable examples of Christianity's moral fabric being discarded when it suits the individual's or society's material ends. From the personal, everyday level to the institutional and national, there are loads of cases of Christians not "loving thy neighbour", but rather, smiting thy neighbour. I for one would be delighted if the world were full of truly moral Christians, but sadly it is not.)

The point is, I don't see the either/or of God or determinism. It seems that you are arguing that either the world is meaningless and developed by chance, or there is God. This leaves no room for the individual experience, free will (other than that which God gave us, of course) or choice.

Meaning derives, fundamentally, from within. Whether that is biochemical or not is neither here nor there. I have much sympathy with the "God is Love" position; however, in practice I have found that it is seldom disentangled from the mythology, factionalism and dogma inherent in organised religions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But I really don't understand (I mean this sincerely) how you can reconcile being the product of chance and time with having moral values and making moral judgements. As I said before - what exactly do you find offensive about the D.C. sniper? He got rid of some people that were consuming resources, didn't he? (Don't REACT to this, please THINK about it - can you explain it to me?) Is their value perhaps that they could have furthered the species' development? Or were they valuable additions to the gene pool? Or do they have an intrinsic value just by being people, which is what I believe.

Because we've developed as thinking and reasoning creatures. We have developed as a society by determining what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Clearly the Sniper was a danger to society. You might look and see the similarity of how people reacted in the Maryland area with how animals react when a hunter is in the woods. The Washington DC suburbs reacted to the situation as a matter of survival.

We don't need a god to determine what is right or wrong - we have a conscious mind. There was a time when primitive man used to let babies die that were born deformed. I'm not sure this still goes on with some of the primitive societies around the world today. In today's modern society, we have the resources to generally care for these people. But if there was a nuclear war or something - you better believe that man would go back to survival of the fittest. Less resources would be expended on children born deformed than those that are born healthy. Under this scenario - it could possibly be established that humans would evolve into a creature that could survive higher levels of radiation. The children that obviously could be born healthy and live under these conditions would pass on their genes. The ones born with deformaties and die - would not get a chance to pass on their genes (or at the very least would be slowly eliminated from the gene pool).

[Rían]

Thanks for your concern about offending me, Dunadan. You did NOT offend me at all, but I appreciate your concern. I was really wondering if you truly meant that statement as you worded it, because it seemed to me to be an overgeneralization. You obviously did, as you just stated, so we'll just have to disagree on that one. (ps - and thanks again for your consolation on the venting thread re my awful day! That helped me feel better.)

Meaning derives, fundamentally, from within. Whether that is biochemical or not is neither here nor there.

But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

[Rían]

Clearly the Sniper was a danger to society.

Are you saying that society (i.e., a group of people) is good? What you you base that on?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

No - we as a society has determined what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Of course much of it is brought over from the Chirstian religion- but this and of it self does not mean there is a god.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Are you saying that society (i.e., a group of people) is good? What you you base that on?

I'm basing my statement - "Clearly the Sniper was a danger to society" - on the fact that when people are afraid to leave their house, go to school, go out to dinner - that it is a detriment to society.

And yes - I think that society overall is good. Our survival as individuals is paramount - and then secondary is our survival as a species. We will attempt to save others from a burning building - but most people will not rush into a burning building if they really feel they will only die in the process. We weigh the chances of saving someone when our own lives are at stake or before putting ourselves in that same situation.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Thanks for your concern about offending me, Dunadan. You did NOT offend me at all, but I appreciate your concern. I was really wondering if you truly meant that statement as you worded it, because it seemed to me to be an overgeneralization. You obviously did, as you just stated, so we'll just have to disagree on that one. (ps - and thanks again for your consolation on the venting thread re my awful day! That helped me feel better.)



But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

Only within the bonadries for which it is approved. If all the New Guina tribespeople decide as a group that cannibalism is okay, then it is within that group. I use this extreme example to show that group mentality exists prior to religion as shown in cave paintings and many other artifacts of tribal ritual. Our sense of right and wrong is innate but we all agree as a group to abide by certain principles, with individual exceptions, of course. These exceptions are known as criminals. No matter what the rules there is always people who make them people who follow them and people who don't. Even Christians have sects that don't agree on everything. Quakers believe it is wrong to kill fellow humans no matter what. Other sects allow for war and capital punishment. Which is more godly? It all depends with whom you mingle.

All these types of social development are the result of the extension of the adaptation by physical fitness to adaptation by thought and idea. The transfer of ideas within a culture is a basis for greater survival. Large brains gave us the ability to make tools but the ability to pass along the techniques for doing so are just as relevant. Moral ideas are part of the social tools we developed to allow groups to grow larger and more diversified with less disorder.

[Dunadan]

Thanks for the calming words, RÃ*an.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But does it then follow that ANY meaning that ANY person finds to be their truth is OK?

Sure, by definition what you experience to be true is, subjectively, true. What's then important is the interaction of that truth with others, and with the outside world. One might usefully propose an evolutionary model to account for these processes, such as Cirdan does above. Certainly science is one such process.

Again, in the context of this thread, why deny exposure to this process? What is creation afraid of, if it's so "absolute"?

Oh, and I did say "practice of religion", not "practitioners of..." If only Muslims/Hindus in Gujarat, Catholics/Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews/Muslims in Palestine, Christians/Jews in the past 2000 years, etc etc would agree to disagree like us..

Anyway, cheers for now.

d.

[Lief Erikson]

There's no reason to deny exposure to the process, that I can see, except for those at a young age. This is primarily because at a young age, a child is more easily influenced. Things engrained at that time are difficult for them to change their minds about at a later date. Evolution is still, as Methuselah says, at a rather primitive stage. More things have yet to be discovered about it and the current model is still only the current model. Therefore teaching these things to young children as fact can be a mistake. Later on, like when the child enters high school or college level instruction I think would be a good time to teach them about evolution more thoroughly, for then they'd have the ability to more easily discern between fact and theory.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Again, in the context of this thread, why deny exposure to this process? What is creation afraid of, if it's so "absolute"?

I'm not saying deny exposure to this process (I assume you mean th. of ev.) (which is, after all, not proven, and is outside the realm of complete scientific proof), I'm saying don't be afraid to evaluate the scientific aspects of it, and any other reasonable theory, such as the theory of creation by intelligent design, honestly and carefully. Were you talking about people on this thread when you say "afraid", or was that just a general statement?

Oh, and I did say "practice of religion", not "practitioners of..." If only Muslims/Hindus in Gujarat, Catholics/Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews/Muslims in Palestine, Christians/Jews in the past 2000 years, etc etc would agree to disagree like us..

*sigh* It's so sad....

by Cirdan
I use this extreme example to show that group mentality exists prior to religion

Yes - prior to religion, but NOT prior to God! (by group mentality you seem to be saying what I call a moral code for a particular group).

by Dunadan
Sure, by definition what you experience to be true is, subjectively, true. What's then important is the interaction of that truth with others, and with the outside world.

Well, you seem to be just backing it up a step, but the problem remains. What is "important"? Is it whatever is good? How can "good" have context if we are created by chance? Isn't one "chance" just as good as another; or rather, both are amoral, aren't they? To go back to an early statistics example, pulling socks out of a drawer, is the sock you pull out "good"? If we evolved by chance, how can we be "good"? See, I think that without even realizing it, you have added morals to an amoral process. No matter how far you back up, eventually you will be falling back on a moral judgement.

And re society falling back on letting babies with birth defects die in event of a nuclear war, etc. and going back to survival of the fittest - would that be a sad thing, or something that you would regret? If so, why? Is it "better" to not let them die?

[Lief Erikson]

Meanwhile, Cirdan, I strongly disagree with you about your earlier statement that the fly is a simple creature, and thus whether it can sprout a pair of wings to adapt to its environment or not is irrelevant.

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

A human can't just look at a fly and say, "Oh that's just a fly. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

A fly might look at an ant and think to itself, "Oh that's just an ant. It's tiny and simple, what does what it can do have to do with anything?"

Meanwhile an Elephant might look at a human and say, "What is that to me? It's only a human. It's tiny and simple, and if it suddenly sprouts another leg, what does that show? It is irrelevant."



Cirdan, that was a very weak argument, and I'd like to hear you bring up even a scrap of evidence which shows the fly to be "simple."

[Rían]

I completely agree with you about the fly, Lief - and I would like to add that besides being EXTREMELY complex, the fly is also EXTREMELY annoying!

And, BTW, no wonder people nowdays believe so firmly in the th. of ev. - they have been taught, from their youth up, from many different authority figures, that it is the only "intelligent" theory out there! No wonder they believe it! And even those teachers who have the intellectual honesty to say that it IS a theory, and that there are other theories out there held by intelligent scientists, can do so much by a smile, or a laugh, or rolling the eyes, to show that they REALLY believe that any other theory is ridiculous. Very scientifically dishonest, in my opinion, to not consider other reasonable theories.

And creation by intelligent design is an ENTIRELY reasonable theory, based on an extremely reasonable premise, based on intelligent observation of our surroundings! I look at my computer - it is designed, not formed by chance. I look to the right and see a nice bookcase - designed, not formed by chance. I'm getting into my well-designed car in a few minutes to take the kids to visit my parents. If anyone can point out a car that is better than mine, that was put together by chance in an auto junkyard (which contains intelligently designed auto parts, BTW), then please show me. When I step outside, I'll see so many complex and well-designed things that it defies description - trees, insects, a weather system that is incredibly complex and yet stable, and people - the most incredibly complex intelligently designed creation around - and also one with a moral code firmly implanted in them, that says honesty is good, and that will (hopefully) bug them if they try to say that it is NOT reasonable to assume the possibility of creation by intelligent design!!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Meanwhile, Cirdan, I strongly disagree with you about your earlier statement that the fly is a simple creature, and thus whether it can sprout a pair of wings to adapt to its environment or not is irrelevant.

Did you know that the fly has at least 6,000 lenses in its eyes? Do you know the have any idea of its structure, evolution, and growth? Complexity due to size is all relatively speaking.

A fly is relatively simple creature in terms of certain aspects. It's much simpler than a human, which has a much more advanced brain, more complex spinal system, digestive system, etc. It is much simpler than a bird or othe more complex animals. Just because it has thousands of lenses in it's eye - does not mean that the fly itself is an overly complex creature.

By the way - there is evolution in action everyday. Viruses are one of the most simple of "creatures". One of the reasons that developing medicine to combat viruses - including HIV - is so difficult is because they evolve and become immune to the medicine. Of course it would take much longer for a virus to evolve into some other life form - but through these little steps is how creatures evolve.