America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[cwes99_03]

This is in fact a common way of thinking. Nearly as common as the other way of looking at these scriptures that I propose. Saying that it is common in no way reflects that those who think that way are common. There are various academics who believe both ways.

 

In particular, there is a website that expressly looks over this issue in great depth.

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html

 

The conclusions by the sites author is that circle means circle in the strictest geometrical sense, that the idea that the earth sits suspended by nothing in a void is overreaching the words found in the scriptures on the part of some translators, and that

The biblical writers offer believers a valuable lesson for interpreting the doctrine of creation:

one can take whatever is

the current cosmological model and use it to understand

more deeply and clearly

God's relationship to the creation.

 

The last quote there shows the author believes that we can only read scripture as people of the time would have understood them. Thus if people of that time could not have known the earth was suspended in the vacuum of space, then that could not be what the Bible was saying in Job.

This is tantamount to saying that people can't have knowledge/beliefs in things that are as of yet unsubstantiated.

This of course is the opposite of what the Bible actually says, in that the inspiration for the Bible was God and his knowledge. Since God created the heavens and the earth then it would stand to reason that he would know exactly how it was created.

So, when I get back to this tomorrow I will either start a new thread on this particular subject, or discuss it here if everyone would like (since it may pertain to this thread.) Perhaps, even revive a thread on the flat earth myth, though that will require some extensive reading of the existing posts.

 

Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see 1) how social evolution is connected with biological evolution, 2) evidence that there were humans practicing religion 100,000 years ago, and 3) a better explanation of how religion is an evolving social experiment and has no divine origins. (number three may be explained above already, but I have still not taken/had the time to read the website suggested on current research.

[learnin to learn]

Ok I will attempt to answer #1. How are social and biological evoultion connected? Survival of the fittests my friend. I will expand on this later! right now I am going to take some Nyquil and go to sleep!!B):lol: :sleep:

[ughaibu]

1. http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=evolution+agriculture+neolithic&ds=jnl&ds=nom&ds=web&g=s&t=all

 

3. appears to be an attempt to switch the burden of proof.

[Dov Henis]

Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see 1) how social evolution is connected with biological evolution, 2) evidence that there were humans practicing religion 100,000 years ago, and 3) a better explanation of how religion is an evolving social experiment and has no divine origins.

 

1)You might read again my earlier posting(s) explaining (+ genetic evidence) that human culture is an extension-elaboration of human biology.

 

2)Google the phrase 'evidence for religion 100,000 years ago'.

 

3)Religion, like each and every and all other cultural artifacts is/are ...see 1) above...

 

This obvious simple common-sense observation does not need explanation. I do not understand what "divine" is thus I do not understand what is "divine origin".

 

Respectfully,

 

Dov

[cwes99_03]

Here is a review of a book about religion as a result of evolution:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/05/RVGE9GTMIE1.DTL&type=books

 

First to return to this point, I have read the article which reviews Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

The review basically boils down to this:

 

Indeed, the desire to appeal both to proponents and skeptics of religion makes for an oddly disjointed, tonally inconsistent and somewhat baggy book. Partly, too, this is a result of Dennett's desire to answer any and all objectors to his project, be they religious conservatives or postmodernist skeptics about science. One understands the desire, but the result is unfortunate: Since most of these objections are highly abstract, they push the book too often in the direction of arid and intangible conceptualization and away from the concrete details of religion as manifested in people's actual lives. A more compelling way of proving the legitimacy of the naturalistic approach might have been to find more points of contact between the theoretical suggestions and people's actual religious practices.

 

However, in reading the full review, I got enough out of it to realize that Daniel Dennet 1) believes that some religions appeared out of nowhere (generally a good sign that they were created, thus not a slow evolutionary process) and 2) that the majority of adherents to religions today are not actually adherents, but profess-ors, those who profess to adhere to parts of a religion but in their lives prove to not actually believe what the religion teaches (1 Tim. 3:5 "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its powers")

 

Thanks Tormod, for backing me up. :)

 

I will likely begin a new thread though to discuss many of the things brought up in that review of Dennet's book, and post a link here as it shows to me (according to the review) that Dennet has well overlooked much simpler answers to the nagging questions people have about the origins of religion.

[Turtle]

Thanks Tormod, for backing me up. ;)

 

I will likely begin a new thread though to discuss many of the things brought up in that review of Dennet's book, and post a link here as it shows to me (according to the review) that Dennet has well overlooked much simpler answers to the nagging questions people have about the origins of religion.

 

Your continuing backhanded compliments are as unwelcome as having yet another thread from you, and your illucid manner of reasoning gussied up in religous garb is apparently the reason so many in America don't believe in evolution. :)

[Dov Henis]

My remarks re review of Dennett's book, back on Jan 11, 2006

In biologicalEvolution forum

 

 

I saw a book review in the Jan 2006 Scientific American, reviewing D.C.Dennett's book "Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon":

 

A. "Breaking the spell:Religion as a natural phenomenon", gee, what an admirably profound, sophisticated and impressive book title and subject!

 

And SciAm's book review title "Getting a rational grip on religion; is religion a fit subject for scientific scrutiny?", wow! how exhilarating and daring! how scientific!

 

B. And since the SciAm book review brings in also "memes", a term I have seen occasionally but so far not ever looked up, I now searched and found:

 

" As defined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976): "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation." "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called memory..."

 

Gee wheez and double wow! how elegant and wise! The coupled words and terms "communications" and "memories" and their connotations are simply too mundane and not scientific and impressive enough...

 

C. Some people do get high on verbiage...

 

Dov

[cwes99_03]

Dov, I don't quite understand that post. Are you saying that the book is badly written? Are you saying reviews don't give the book a just chance? Or are you saying that the ideas are forward thinking on the idea of religion?

If the last part is what you mean perhaps you should go back and read some of the reasons for starting the theology forum, the rules thread, and the are religious texts useable as support on the theology forum thread. These came about before the SciAm article.

 

You do touch on a subject though that is connected with why I would start a new thread to discuss some things in the review. One of those things is that the author chooses to call those who completely view religion from the outside as brights. This is of course suggestive that those who are religious are dim(witted). The author (according to the review) makes no attempt to say that isn't true. He then goes on to say they can choose a name for themselves such as supers (because of their belief in supernatural things). Interesting since non-super is not a derogatory remark against those on the outside of religion.

 

Why not just call those on the outside of religion the outsiders and those on the inside the insiders? Or if he wants to keep his label of brights (which accuses those inside of being dim) then let those on the inside be called the brighter (at least from a Christian standpoint this can be associated to the light getting brighter Prov. 4:18) which would at least in some way deny any thought of those on the inside of being dim(witted).

[cwes99_03]

I have also gone in search of a Flat Earth discussion on Hypography and found nothing more than a couple of short arguments (certainly nothing really in depth) and most of those arguments involved former members who most did not find to be basing their opinions on anything scientific.

Perhaps some can help me in finding these discussions of the flat earth myth or of whether or not the Bible says the earth is round (as in a sphere) according to Isaiah. If we don't find one in the next few days, I'll go ahead and start one in the theology forum.

[cwes99_03]

1. http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=evolution+agriculture+neolithic&ds=jnl&ds=nom&ds=web&g=s&t=all

 

3. appears to be an attempt to switch the burden of proof.

 

 

Ug, could you review the link you sent me. I'm not really sure how that ties to

1) how social evolution is connected with biological evolution

Perhaps you could narrow down to one article there. I am looking for something specific, not a blizzard or worthless sites to sort through.

 

As to number three, there's no switching anywhere. The burden of proof has always been on whomever made the claim and would not support it and those who take his side. (It is closely tied to point number one.) Nice to see someone again make me look like a criminal (hyperbole).

[InfiniteNow]

Let's see if I can steer this conversation back toward something more productive... :)

 

 

How is social evolution connected with biological evolution?

Society and everything which comes with it is inextricably tied to our biology. The way we interact with others, with the environment, and with ourselves are all emergent properties of our biological evolution, coupled with our previous experience.

 

When certain traits are advanced through evolution, because they offered some benefit to the organism, those traits often come together across members of the group in what might be called society.

 

As an example, if an animal is biologically more likely to be a fighter, viscious and mean, but this meanness offered an advantage, then a pack of such animals will have different social customs than another pack which has found success in symbiosis (working together for mutual benefit). As the individuals in these societies evolve, so too does the society itself, and all social parameters that come with it.

 

To evolve simply means to develop, adapt, or change, and changes in biology will generally be expressed socially.

[ughaibu]

"Non-super" is to 'super' as 'non-bright' is to "bright", 'sub' is to "super" as "dim" is to "bright".

 

About the link I posted: the adoption of agriculture is a significant event in human social evolution, read some of the articles concerning various proposed biological consequences for humans, or think about cows, sheep, domestic fowl, etc.

[Dov Henis]

Dov, I don't quite understand that post.

 

And I thought that I express my thoughts in language used when asked 'what do you mean by...'.

 

The major point of the post is Some people do get high on verbiage....

 

The other points are mockery of some things, and further explanation is like explaining a point of a joke, which I'm incapable of...

 

Dov

[Qfwfq]

Gee wheez and double wow! how elegant and wise! The coupled words and terms "communications" and "memories" and their connotations are simply too mundane and not scientific and impressive enough...

A 'gene' might be defined like: "The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring", but I guess that would be simply too mundane and not scientific and impressive enough.... :lol:

[cwes99_03]

"Non-super" is to 'super' as 'non-bright' is to "bright", 'sub' is to "super" as "dim" is to "bright".

 

Dealing with just this, you are mistaken. The reason you are mistaken is because you did not 1) read the article 2) read my comments on the origin of the terms "bright" and "super" in the context of the article. "Bright" is to "dim". This part is true, as it was expressed that way in the article, and even in the views of the author of the book being reviewed.

"Super" is not to "sub". This is because "super" comes from "super"natural. There is no "sub"natural. Thus "super" is to "natural". Now does the word "natural" carry with it any negative connotation? Does the word "dim" carry with it any negative connotation?

Do you understand your mistake in association?

 

"About the link I posted: the adoption of agriculture is a significant event in human social evolution, read some of the articles concerning various proposed biological consequences for humans, or think about cows, sheep, domestic fowl, etc.

 

Yes about that link. I too can do a generic search of any number of websites and find any number of links to websites that propose that social evolution is thought to be connected to biological evolution. Are you saying adoption of agriculture is part of social evolution? If so, then focus on one article there that explains it. I pretty much already understand the stance, i.e. a change from hunter gatherer/nomadic way of life to a ag based/stationary way of life. I don't need an article to tell me that thought.

What I am looking for is an article explaining why this has to be thought of as an evolutionary (biologically speaking) process that is natural only because humans are evolving. In other words, who me what biological changes occured that caused humans to stop being hunter-gatherers and to become agriculturalists. Further more, give me proof that 1) there are no longer hunter-gatherer societies on earth (because if there are then we must look upon them as behind the evolutionary curve) and 2) ag based societies are an evolutionary step forward.

 

The reason I ask these things is because the theory of biological evolution is so ingrained in your minds as the source for all change that you can't see how ludicrous it sounds from those "outside" of the evolutionary mentality.

 

Why did societies change from one form of government to another to another. Simply because each of those types of governments failed. Why? You say because society evolved (biologically) and thus a change had to accompany that evolution. I say because that type of government was not able to satisfy all the imperfect desires of men (quite simply there will always be someone who wants more power and thus will invent new ways to put themselves ahead of others) which have not changed since the earliest recorded history of men. I of course speak of Adam and Eve wanting more. Cain killed Abel because he wanted to be greater and Abel showed him up. Etc. etc. etc.

This requires no belief in evolution. However you all pre-suppose evolution and then try to link it to everything else. How is that different than what you all accuse religious people of?

 

When certain traits are advanced through evolution, because they offered some benefit to the organism, those traits often come together across members of the group in what might be called society.

 

As an example, if an animal is biologically more likely to be a fighter, viscious and mean, but this meanness offered an advantage, then a pack of such animals will have different social customs than another pack which has found success in symbiosis (working together for mutual benefit). As the individuals in these societies evolve, so too does the society itself, and all social parameters that come with it.

 

Infinite comes the closest in being able to explain how the two are linked.

However, if what he says above is true 1) what evidence is used to support this idea in all biological societies (say wolves, gazelles, hyenas, lions) have their societies been evolving as well? 2) what evidence is there that man has evolved (biologically) in recorded history (say since 3000-1500 BC) thus causing a need to change his social behaviors?

 

 

To evolve simply means to develop, adapt, or change, and changes in biology will generally be expressed socially.

 

Sorry, Infinite. This is wrong when speaking in the context of biology. Adaptation and change mean adaptation and change. They are not equivalent with evolution. Evolution is a theory that states biological processes create change in the genetic makeup of an organism (microevolution) and that over time these minute changes result in totally new species (macroevolution).

Adaptation and change do not require changes in the genetic makeup.

I can change my mind on whether or not to send this post, but that doesn't mean that my genes are changing.

[InfiniteNow]

Adaptation and change mean adaptation and change. They are not equivalent with evolution.

 

Let's get one point clear. There is a difference between the theory of evolution through natural selection, and one's interpretation of that theory...

 

 

Have you any thoughts on the most recently awarded Nobel Prizes (2006)?

[cwes99_03]

Let's get one point clear. There is a difference between the theory of evolution through natural selection, and one's interpretation of that theory...

 

 

Have you any thoughts on the most recently awarded Nobel Prizes (2006)?

 

Natural selection is somewhat separate from evolution. Perhaps you need to think that comment through a bit more ..... and not trail off.

 

Natural selection says that given a couple of different microevolutionary strains, one will show itself to be more dominant than others in the environment in which the change occured. Thus natural selection says if one microevolutionary step is for the ears to grow larger and the other is for the ears to grow smaller (both due to new genes) that the larger eared animal will be naturally selected if increased hearing is necessary for survival and the smaller eared animal will win if the animal need crawl through very tight spaces that the longer eared animals can't fit through.

 

Notice natural selection is simply stating the obvious. However, when coupled with the idea that evolution occurs (which it, IMHO, does not) explains why certain evolutionary lines are chosen over others. Evolution can stand alone without natural selection. But if it did, there would be thousands of more varieties of plants and animals and living things. So many that it would be impossible to tell where one began an another ended. There would be thousands of different species of humans all existing at the same time because none of them would have a natural advantage over the other.

 

As this is how societies of humans exist, you could therefore say that there is little to no natural selection for human society. There are still hunter gatherer cultures, there are still cultures with women completley subjugated to men, there are still monarchy's, there are still communist states, theocracies, democracies, repuplics, dictatorships, etc. etc. etc.

 

There is no link between biological evolution and social change, as far as the evidence you all have suggested thus far. Things change because they can (nothing is predestined) and because imperfect beings cause change (if we were perfect, we would be able to easily identify and conform to a perfect societal structure.)

 

Still no proof that religion existed among humans 100,000 years ago either. I'll give it another couple of days before I declare the earlier comment false.