Evolution interferring with religion?

[Stargazer]

So limited time duration = lack of meaning? Just because the universe might not be around forever doesn't imply it lacks meaning. If so... everything under the sun is meaningless.

Maybe there is a meaning to all of this, but how would we know? It would imply that there is someone who created it all, with an intention for something. When I say the universe has no meaning, I'm saying that whatever meaning it does have is whatever meaning we give it. Mostly because nothing else can do that, but we can. So the universe is without meaning in one way, and not in another.

 

I think you were making the point that the universe is meaningless... but the argument doesn't make sense. Trying to anticipate the argument- since you see no evidence of meaning, the universe is meaningless. I can't give you physical evidence of meaning, so don't bother asking :(, but personal evidence, how we all feel about ourselves, how people throughout history have sought (and found meaning), perhaps thats something.

It's impossible to find the meaning of the universe, since we have yet to meet whoever gave it meaning... right? And yes, I agree, the only meaning there is, is whatever we can give it, which also, of course, means that it's just a matter of subjective opinion - much like we have subjective opinions on what music is good etc. It's not an objective truth.

[Stargazer]

You are unclear. Is this YOUR point or are you laughing at someone? Because this is a hilarious statement. How can you know that A) the universe lacks meaning,

I was poking at those who always claim that the universe is finetuned for life.

 

:( that it won't exists forever

It will not exist in a way that will sustain life forever. The universe is expanding in an accelerating rate, and stars wont live forever either. Whether it will die a heatdeath or in a big rip, life will be difficult to preserve forever.

 

C) that it is fine-tuned to life?

Creationists are saying this. I'm certainly not! Sorry if I was unclear.

 

The universe certainly has a meaning to me.

Exactly, but it's not an objective meaning. Before there was life in this universe there was nothing that could look at the universe and marvel at it as we do. It's subjective opinions and feelings, but not an objective truth.

[Tormod]

As long as you respect the rules of the Lounge, I see no reason for you not to post there. I'll add you right now, unless someone has already done that. Please make sure that you read the special rules that apply there, and remember that it is not like the rest of the Forums, ok?

 

Just remember that for anyone to be able to post in the lounge they need to read the "Lounge Rules" sticky thread in the lounge, then apply to join the lounge via their user control panel > group memberships.

[Stargazer]

And Stargazer, chill out. Nobody is trying to force you to believe in God, or IPU, or anything else.

Force wouldn't work anyway. Evidence would be much more effective. When people say they have strong reasons to believe the biblical creation while rejectiong theories backed by evidence, I don't think I'm going too far by asking what those reasons are. I'm clearly wasting my time, but that's my time. I know that I will never be presented with evidence of any kind. We all know why!

 

As long as there are people that DO believe in those things though, they deserve the same amount of respect that you do.

Terribly sorry, but I can't respect such beliefs. I respect people as people. I accept their beliefs (I'm a liberal, freedom and all that), but I can't make myself to respect them. Sorry. If someone believe in something that does not go against actual evidence, then sure. But when someone decides to believe in something that is clearly not true, then it could be because of honest misunderstandings and honest ignorance due to them living in pre-technological cultures or perhaps in poor countries where they couldn't recieve an education. But I would like to think that in Europe and North America, for example, there is education for everyone, there are libraries, and these countries are at the forefront of science... it's just strange that one would decide to reject a highly successful theory and pick something that goes against all obsevations.

 

Whether or not you find their beliefs or positions valid or deplorable, you are not superior to them in any way, nor are they superior to you. Your skepticism is bordering on scorn, and that is not acceptable here.

My skepticism is skepticism. Maybe it's how I present it that offends people who are not skeptics, who think science and reason can be ignored?

 

Is it really that strange that I find it frustrating to hear people say all kinds of unsupported and even false things, and when asked for any kind of evidence, I get nothing? No, it's not.

[Tormod]

And C1ay and Tormod, quit fighting.

 

Oh darn, Irish is back. Sorry, C1ay! :(

[IrishEyes]

Maybe it's how I present it that offends people

Yes, this could very well be true.

I also did not ask you to respect anyone's beliefs. I do REQUIRE that you show respect to the members of this forum, regardless of what beliefs they hold or do not hold. This particular point is *not* open for discussion. I am not, hear me again - NOT, asking you to respect any belief that you do not accept, but I am telling you that while in this forum, every member *deserves* the same amount respect. If you refuse to exhibit that respect, or if you show *dis*respect to any member, we will have problems. This is NOT directed only to Stargazer, but to EVERYONE that visits Hypography. NOBODY is above this. I can not stress this point enough.

No more discussion should be necessary on this "respect" point.

Period.

[bumab]

Back to the topic... I've heard that prior to the 70's or so, evolution was not perceived as a "threat" by most religious folk, this reactionary attitude is more of a recent phenomenon. On the Scopes thread, that observation was made by someone else as well. I looked for some data, but couldn't find any. Does anybody know of some actual evidence that is true? i.e. polls, public opinion stuff, etc.

[Fishteacher73]

Here is a fantastic study about the evolutionist/creationist conflict thoughout the US. It breaks down the specific events (Such as the first pro-creation agreement by a schoolboard, 1969 California Board of Education) and someof the resoning used behind the creationist argument.

 

Well worth the look.

 

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

[bumab]

Very interesting... so the 1920's seem to be the beginnings. Far to much attention is payed to those militant folk who think evolution is the ultimate evil, and not enough (if attention must be payed) to those who find no conflict, like this author, apparently.

 

It would be an interesting social study on the rise of the anti-evolution movement. I assume it was caused by a general dissatisfaction with the world science seemed to be proposing, resulting in an extreme knee-jerk reaction in the other way. It's sad people can't see how amazing evolution is, what a marvelous system is in place and working on it's own- might remove some of those barriers people have towards understanding the theory.

[C1ay]

Here is a fantastic study about the evolutionist/creationist conflict thoughout the US. It breaks down the specific events (Such as the first pro-creation agreement by a schoolboard, 1969 California Board of Education) and someof the resoning used behind the creationist argument.

 

Well worth the look.

 

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

 

Nice paper. I only noticed one particular point that I do not necessarily agree with, that also does not mean that I wholly disagree. Near the end it states in conclusion,

 

"Personally, I do not feel that teaching the evolution theory leads to evil, communism, and violence. I do, however, believe that excluding the teaching of religious views in schools may be the cause. There is such a big hype over the separation of church and state and discussion of religion in public schools. Isn't almost all of religion part of history, sociology, and anthropology? Why is it so wrong to teach about religion in schools? These questions may need their own papers for discussion."

 

I very much agree with the point that teaching evolution does not lead to evil in and of itself. I also feel that religious teachings have helped herd many away from evil beliefs towards moral lives. I do not necessarily agree with teaching religious beliefs in schools. This leads to the slippery slopes of which beliefs will be taught and which left out and the larger argument of who is right and who is wrong. I would not want any State making this decision for me, it should be up to me as a parent to decide what religious beliefs I want my children exposed to.

 

OTOH, I am not necessarily opposed to a discussion of religion in a class on Philosophy. It is a part of sociology so it is in the interest of the children to learn that they do have different beliefs and that they must cope with this in society. I think that much of the faith that is taught in the home is done so from the view point that 'my belief is the correct one'. This is how hatred is born between those of different beliefs. Look at the results of the little suicide vests some parents make for their children in some parts of the world :( These children learn to hate based on the parents beliefs. In this respect it can be argued that religion teaches evil and violence to at least some unlike the teaching of evolution.

 

I am very opposed to any such discussion in science class. IMO, religion is not science, it is philosophy. Even though it may be claimed for instance that creation is a theory just like evolution it does not meet the same tests of scientific method that we teach as criteria for science. Why teach it in science class as an exception to the rule when it could be discussed in philosophy just as effectively.

 

As for the teaching of evolution in science class I think it is a fair request from the faithful that Darwin's Theory of Evolution be taught as the theory of evolution. I don't see the extra need to go out of the way to point out that it isn't fact as long as it's taught as a theory. Theories and hypothesis' are some of the basics of science that are taught and we should not have to use additional language on every theory to point out that it is a theory and not fact. This is redundant and borders on obsessive.

[lindagarrette]

Here is a fantastic study about the evolutionist/creationist conflict thoughout the US. It breaks down the specific events (Such as the first pro-creation agreement by a schoolboard, 1969 California Board of Education) and someof the resoning used behind the creationist argument.

 

Well worth the look.

 

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

 

I don't notice any reasoning at all in this study, much less creationist reasoning, which is an oxymoron.

[Tormod]

As for the teaching of evolution in science class I think it is a fair request from the faithful that Darwin's Theory of Evolution be taught as the theory of evolution. I don't see the extra need to go out of the way to point out that it isn't fact as long as it's taught as a theory. Theories and hypothesis' are some of the basics of science that are taught and we should not have to use additional language on every theory to point out that it is a theory and not fact. This is redundant and borders on obsessive.

 

Don't you contradict yourself in this paragraph? Why bother with the extra term Theory of Evolution when everything is a theory anyway?

 

Because I agree with your conclusion. Otherwise this would necessitate that chemistry be taught as "experiments based on the theory of atomic interaction", mathematics as "a set of theories and axioms based on the assumption that numbers have any practical use in the real world", and physical education as "theories on physiology and excercise". ;)

 

IMHO different varieties of evolution are taught today and it's been a long time since Darwin formulateed his theories, which of course were built on earlier theories. just lke theories of electromagnetism and nuclear forces have changed over the past century, the theories of evolution have also changed. We have a lot more knowledge and insight into how the evolutionary process works now than Darwin could ever have.

[Tormod]

I forgot to add: whether evolution is taught as a theory or not does not mean it is not a fact of nature. Evolutionists have enough evidence to consider evolution a fact. This is of course not the same as to say it is a "truth". Evolution may be different than what we think. There are always things in any theory that will turn out to be wrong. But the theory of evolution as a whole has a very strong track record.

 

So the anti-evolutionism that is being discussed here is very interesting from a historical perspective. But don't forget that Darwin's ideas were controversial from the very beginning and were difficult to swallow for the church, and also for a lot of scientists at the time, because it went against a lot of current thought.

[Fishteacher73]

One issue seems to be the ideas of evolution and creationism are two differnt concepts focusing on different aspects. While there is some overlap, evolution deals with how organisms have changed over the aeons. There is hard evidence illustrating this concept. Evolution hints at possible origins of life, but itself is not a theory of biogenisis. Creationism seems to be hinged on the what the name of the theory describes, creation. There is hard fact to support common ancestry that contradicts creationist theory and the idea that "Poof" there was man and aardvark and bacteria and dinosaur fossils suddenly. The two theories are focused as I said on different points, but the acceptence of one has implications in the realm of the other theory.

 

Darwin titled his work Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

[bumab]

The two theories are focused as I said on different points, but the acceptence of one has implications in the realm of the other theory.

 

Sure-

 

Evolution says Genisis is not a literal account. It could still be alligorical.

Genisis says creation has a purpose. <- Far more debatable.

[C1ay]

Don't you contradict yourself in this paragraph? Why bother with the extra term Theory of Evolution when everything is a theory anyway?

 

Yeah, but...

 

We just had an issue here locally where the school board wanted to put stickers in all of the biology books that simply said, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact". It didn't matter that the text books already referred to it as a theory, they wanted this additional clarification. I was only pointing out that this is silly and pointless because there are schools that will go to this extreme.

[C1ay]

I forgot to add: whether evolution is taught as a theory or not does not mean it is not a fact of nature. Evolutionists have enough evidence to consider evolution a fact.

 

IMO, I think the fact that we need a new flu vaccine every year is evidence that it is indeed a fact. For those that want to nit pick though, this does not say that it is how life began, it simply says that some life evolves and there is evidence to support that. That's why I don't understand why there are those that are so threatened by it.