posted
For starters, I just want to let everyone know where I am coming from. I am a Monotheistic person, more specifically a christian. I believe in intelligent design and micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.
Now, for those who don't know, micro-evoution is evolution within a species, say, human skin tones being different depending on where you grew up. Macro-evolution is what most people think of when they think of evolution, say that humans evolved from monkeys.
Now, here's my dilemma. I'm sitting in my ancient history class, which I love. I can't stand modern history, but I can't get enough of the ancient kind. We have recently come to early christianity, and as I mentioned earlier, this is of some importance to me. There is also a buddhist/evolutionist in my class, and as you could guess, this causes some problems. We were talking and King Solomon was brought up, stating how he was the wisest man in the history of the earth. The buddhist (lets call him R) then asks me how I know this. I answer, because the Bible says so. He then asks how i know that the Bible is right. At which point the teacher, correctly, broke up our 'debate' and told us if we wanted to debate this it wold have to be done at another time. It was not five minutes later that he agains questions my beliefs, so i had to 'debate' him again. Again, it was broken up.
Now, I confront him at lunch ask him if he would like to debate it now (I'm actually excited about this becasue I know I can win.) and he answers that he doesn't want to get into it.
This is what irritates me the most, I respected his 'beliefs' when we were covering buddhism, but he can't do the same for me. Also, the one time a debate was allowed to continue, it was on evolution, and as soon as I brought up the difference between micro- and macro-evolution he was out of his depth and backed off.
If he would explain what he believes, I would respect him more, it's just that I am farelly sure he doesn't even know what he believes. I have talked to a devoted buddhist, and she said that when she asked him about buddhist type stuff he, again, seemed out of his league. It's not that he disagrees, with me that bothers me, it's the fact that he is not sure what he believes.
Just as a note that this is not personal, as long as we're not talking about religion, or where humans came from, we are fine with each other. this is really the only thing that bugs me about him.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people don't know what they believe, really, but do know what they don't believe. Especially in college (sounds like thats where you are), since thats where a lot of opinions form and solidify. Rather then debating with him, try asking him to explain what he thinks about his religion, and don't argue with anything when he responds. That should give you an idea about where he's coming from. Maybe he is questioning his religion right now, or wasn't raised in a very religious household, or maybe buddhism is something that his parents believe deeply, and so he identifies with strongly, but never was given any real education on what buddhism means.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've tried asking him what he meant, and he avoided it, and I know wasn't raised in a buddhist family. My personal opinion: He is trying to stand out, be different you know. I dunno, i think he just bugs me because im so set in my ways. oh well....
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, i dont think it would really bug me if he picked his nose (and ate it), it's not like i'll be kissing( ) him anytime soon Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also sounds like he was more interested in scoring debate points in public, rather than actually talk about anything.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as no "evolutionist" says humans evolved from monkeys, at all, you might want to reconsider that example.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On an only marginally relevant side-note, it was a pastor in the anglican chruch that changed me from a die-hard "literal genesis" creationist into (at that time) a believer in standard evolutionary theory, albiet god-directed.
I know where you're coming from Peter, I once had the zeal to attempt to debate my science teachers in school the relative merits creationsim vs evolution to their eternal exasperation.
The question is, why do you want to?
This is an interesting site which covers some of the micro/macro evolution stuff.
Not that I have any interest in getting into a debate with you (or anyone), I simply found that site to have an interesting perspective, not necessarily representative of anything I personally believe.
[edit to say...] whoops... I'm on holidays and looking after my little nephew. Looks like lots of us like talk-origins... heh...
posted
I think the whole idea of God going "poof" to start things going with a big bang or similar start to the universe, then guiding the universe's probabilistic processes through the creation of the cosmos, and then similarly guiding the process of biogenesis, life, and evolution here on earth, then taking the man-like animals and adding spirit to make the first human beings is a pretty powerful way to look at creation.
posted
It may be powerful, but it is totally useless : It does not make testable predictions. Why bother with the extra variable, then?
About the monkey : OK, we certainly aren't descended from any species of monkey alive today. Still, if you go back to our common ancestor, wouldn't it have a tail, live in trees, and all the rest? In short, it's an extinct species of monkey.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something can still be useful without making testable predictions. Knowledge of right and wrong, for instance.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter, I would like to recommend a book to you called Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He doesn't get everything right (in my opinion) But he makes a very convincing argument that Evolution is perfectly compatible with religious belief. Or rather, Catholic belief, as that's what he holds to be true (hence some of the small disagreements I have with him).
I read this for my BYU biology class at the recommendation (nay, insistence ) of my LDS professor. I rather liked it.
posted
Incidentally, how is it possible to believe in intelligent design, but not macro-evolution? I suspect comrade Peter has mis-understood the theory he claims to be an adherent of.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not be testable, but it can solve a lot of contentious issues for christians who are having trouble reconciling some of the more fundamentalist attitudes towards evolution. There's no need to take everything in the bible as a literal truth. This kind of thinking made sense to me when I was a christian. I could quite easily believe that the creation tale was imparted to its author in such a way that it would make sense to someone of that era but not literally contradict evolutionary theory.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shoehorning scientific theories into religious beliefs is certainly one possible use, but it is what is technically labeled a kludge. The elegant solution is to give up the unnecessary hypothesis, to wit, divine intervention.
Edit : Dag, that is preciely what I am asserting. Do you have a counterexample?
[ December 17, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientific theories, within science, are useful insofar as they allow prediction. Since not all knowledge about the world is ascertainable through science, predictiveness is not the mark of all usefulness.
For example, a hammer is useful because it hammers nails, not because it makes predictions.
Similarly, religion is usful because it explains many things which science is incapable of explaining. It is not useful because it makes testable predictions.
Science can't tell me that God made the world. It might be able to cast light on the methods He used.
posted
I considered myself a creationist in high school. I was vehement about it and loved to debate people all the time. I thought that believing in evolution meant that you disbelieved in God.
I've since learned, during a period in my life where my religious convictions actually grew stronger, that you don't have to "believe" anything about science. No one is asking you to swallow a doctrine that throws you on one side or another. Science, though many scientists are atheists, is not a religion. It is a method of learning what we can from the evidence we have. Many educated people believe in the usefulness of science and still believe strongly in an all-powerful God.
Incidentally, I have also learned in recent years that debating is not something I like to engage in. I don't think that being eloquent and making witty rebuttals ever proves anything other than that you're a good debator. A good debator can make a convincing argument for anything - it's not a good technique for winning anyone to your side or convincing anyone of the truth. Thus, I usually try to avoid debates. This may be how your friend feels - he doesn't want to trot his religious beliefs out when he thinks they might just be made fun of.
I find that when I talk to people that have fundamentally different beliefs than me, I like to talk about things that we have in common and build a level of trust and respect before discussing things that we disagree about. That way, we both know that we're not just arguing to be mean and spiteful.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incidentally, I have also learned in recent years that debating is not something I like to engage in. I don't think that being eloquent and making witty rebuttals ever proves anything other than that you're a good debator. A good debator can make a convincing argument for anything - it's not a good technique for winning anyone to your side or convincing anyone of the truth. Thus, I usually try to avoid debates.
Well-formed rhetoric is capable of crystalizing issues and discovering where the insurmountable premises lie.
posted
That's just my personal sentiment. I'm not saying anyone else has to take things that way. I thought it may be a good example of what the other boy in this scenario may be feeling.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may disagree with previous incarnations of yourself, but there clearly exists some granulation of time sufficiently fine that you do not change your mind within it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we're into metaphysics. Technically, by your reasoning, I probably never agree OR disagree with anyone, because I doubt I'm considering issues at the precise time as anyone else.
posted
True, but irrelevant to my purpose. I set out to prove that there exists at least one member of the board with whom you do not disagree. If, in the course of that proof, I manage to prove that you never disagree with anyone, so much the better - what was to be proved easily follows from that statement.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no reason whatsoever to debate evolution vs creationism, unless attractive women could take up contrary positions and enter into a vigorous debate involving oil of some kind.
There's really no conclusion to reach, because each side (and there are many more than two) has a hefty element of faith mixed in. The most one could expect is to shift someone's position slightly.
Now, arguing about evolution in schools, that I'm always up for.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If he would explain what he believes, I would respect him more, it's just that I am farelly sure he doesn't even know what he believes."
Peter, I'm not sure that you don't want him to explain what he believes only so that you can attempt to pin him down in logical inconsistencies and/or flaws that you can address. I certainly suspect that he suspects this. And whether his own beliefs are tentative or unformed, or whether he is Buddhist enough to seek to avoid unnecessary conflict on this issue, you would do well to first assure him that your interest is not argumentative nor persuasive in nature; I think you need to show him that you're genuinely interested in understanding him as a person, and not in trying to find the right buttons to push.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, I don't think the granulation of time needs to be made as fine as all that. If, for example, I had to divide time into Planck units (10^-43 seconds) then the definition would be reasonably useless. But I suspect there are many one-minute periods in which you do not change your mind on a given issue, possibly even one-hour periods. In periods of hours, we can probably find someone else thinking about the sme issues, judging by the post rates on the board. So I haven't - quite - defined 'agree' into uselessness.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I guess I'll have to fall back on intentionalist construction. It is clearly the intent of the framer of the statement that "members" meant the "set of members not including the 'I' in the subject." Drafters are presumed to not have intended meanings that are obvioulsy incorrect or illogical.
quote: You underestimate the extent of my mental instabilities
So what exactly is the difference between creationist, evolutionist, etc. I'm having trouble figuring out where I stand on this issue because I don't really understand it to begin with.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Creationist" generally means a literal intepretation of Genesis - that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that the animals were created in the order specified in Genesis, that there was a world-encompassing flood survived by one family of humans and the animals carried on the Ark.
Evolutionists believe that species evolved from a common ancestor (or ancestors) via the mechanism of natural selection.
Some evolutionists believe that life was created essentially at random through chemical reactions. This is not properly a part of evolutionary theory.
Some evolutionists believe evolution is the method used by God to create the various species. Others are atheists or deists who believe it was entirely random.
There's also intelligent design, which I don't fully understand. I believe it states that examining the world can demonstrate it was not developed by chance.
Edit: One thing I hoped to make clear is that there are people who believe God created the world but do not fit under the common usage of "creationist." The word has been coopted.
posted
I hold that there are virtual universes that are almost identical but not quite the same as ours that interact with each other only on the quantum level.
It is therefore important to realize that this interaction could result in a flow of negative entropy from the universe of highest possible order, therefore pockets of spontaneous order can occur at the quantum level.
These pockets are large enough to encompass DNA molecules and could give rise to very rapid evolution. This means that the highest possible order is dragging the rest of the universes along behind it.
I do not argue with Creationist because they embarrass me. I just feel bad for them, so I nod and go on and hope they have a good life! They are like children who believe in Santa!
posted
One acronym you'll see somewhat if you do reading in the subject is YEC -- Young Earth Creationist.
Then there's OECs (though that's used less often), which means the obvious. These are somewhat less common, as then they have to explain the gradual appearance of species, and generally someone who is willing to accept the age of the earth is willing to accept some change.
An important point: Microevolution and macroevolution are not two different things. They are the same thing, except that they are somewhat descriptively useful ways of dividing evolution into "little bits of evolution" and "lots of evolution".
Intelligent Design relies on there being evidence for Intelligent Designer, which is why it is separate from the beliefs of "theistic evolutionists". Its important to note that there's no theory of theistic evolution or anything like that. "Theistic evolutionists" consider evolution to have happened in basically the same way as any other "evolutionist", they just also think its because of God. Most people who think evolution is the best explanation are "theistic evolutionists".
Also, its important to note that, while scientists do make inquiries into the probabilities involved, no part of any theory of Abiogenesis asserts it "happened randomly" or anything of the sort. Abiogenesis theories concern themselves with if it did happen, how it might have happened, and what the probabilities of that happening are under various circumstances. One can think a theory of abiogenesis is best supported by evidence and believe god did it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag -- You likely saw it, which would be good because I can't recall enough to pull it up quickly, but I saw a bit ago an article that found many judges were throwing out good scientific evidence (particularly in cases dealing with medical circumstances and the environment, iirc) because they didn't understand it (or its context in science). Sort of tangential to this topic, but thought it might be interesting.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't see that article, but will go back and look.
There's a case (Daubert??) that mandates that judges keep out "junk" science. The standards have still not been clarified by SCOTUS - the Court actually encouraged the lower courts to experiment to come up with good methods.
The central problem, of course, is that a jury is no more likely to be able to understand scientific testimony than a judge. You can be sure scientists and engineers are kept off juries in cases with lots of scientific testimony.
If the information can't be understood, it can't be introduced, because likelihood of confusion is one of the standards.
Something radical is going to happen in this field in the next 20 years. One good provision is that judges can call their own experts. Judge Jackson, who handled the Microsoft case, does this very well.
But many judges just are not up on it. I think there needs to be a way to "qualify" judges in particular fields. Not as experts, but as knowledgable laymen.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
) him anytime soon ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) of my LDS professor. I rather liked it.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
