On 20-Nov-08, at 7:37 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > Michael, you get today's prize for speaking the most and saying the > least. --
Do I get a trophy or a certificate or something I can mount? >> Firstly, there's nothing simple or random about the current state of >> our DNA. > > You realize that's a premise of ID, don't you? -- It's also a premise of Darwinism. This is the fittest form of our DNA to date. That's not random, that's a specific goal. >> We are alive today in our present form because this >> particular strain, with all of its mutations, has succeeded where >> countless generations have failed. Our DNA has been honed by the >> natural events on this planet. It is successful simply because all >> the unsuccessful strains are dead. > > Yeah. Evolution. Got that. But it doesn't answer the question of > our origins. -- No, it doesn't. >> Darwinism is simply that: living species are more successful >> organisms than dead ones, and tend to reproduce more. > > Is that Canadian for "survival of the fittest?" -- I often restate things in my own words. I think that one's perspective is the most precious thing we own, if not the only thing that truly makes us individual. Even a tiny shift in perspective can produce huge changes throughout one's world view. > I don't dispute that survival of the fittest leads to improvements > in any particular species. But it doesn't answer the question of > origins, nor does it explain how one species evolves into another. -- It doesn't answer the absolute origin of life, but it certainly helps us understand why we are what we are today. >> That's a choice. I know >> that humanity is going to have to come up with solutions to our own >> problems or die trying. Science is merely a vehicle for human >> curiosity and the product of our successful guesses. Faith in >> fundamentalist religion pushes for an end to curiosity, an end to >> rational thought, which is simply unacceptable. Arguing that science >> doesn't have all the answers is a straw man. Of course science >> doesn't have all the answers, that's why the effort continues. > > Again, for the one-thousandth fucking time, we're not talking about > fundamentalism. We're not even talking about religion. -- That's funny, because I don't know of many Athiests fighting to have ID taught at school. This is a religious issue, regardless of how much you swear. >> Religion has more answers simply because more of the answers are >> "because". > > Religion hasn't satisfied my curiosity about our origins. -- The guy in the white beard snapped and it all popped into being. >> That falsely allows you to maintain that your belief >> system is somehow more complete. I find one of the more interesting >> tenets of the bible to be "god helps those who help themselves." If >> we aren't going to be inquisitive about our environment and our own >> biology, even your god is not going to come to your rescue. > > Funny, you presume ID is about proving that God exists and that > science is about proving the God doesn't exist. There's the false > dilemma again. -- No, I haven't presumed that, but continue to hammer everyone's comments into your pet issue. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Einstein and Darwin both believed in a higher power. >> But regardless of my feelings on religion, science is never going to >> answer the questions you worry about. > > Hmph. In your opinion. -- Everything I write is my opinion, unless otherwise quoted and citation given. >> Unless we find videotape of the >> first amoeba tripping on a mote of dust and accidentally kick- >> starting evolution, there's just no way to prove that we're >> accidental or intended, and no way to know how that amoeba got there >> in the first place. > > How can you be so sure? -- I'm pretty sure that tape isn't going to turn up, as much as I'm sure that god's voice isn't going to boom from the heavens tomorrow and put the issue to rest. >> Science will never give us meaning. Science will >> never give our lives purpose. Discovering the "meaning of life" will >> always be of a personal and spiritual nature, and thus remain the >> purview of priests, philosophers and phone-in psychic hotlines. > > I'm beginning to sense you don't know a damn thing about science. -- Science is not about meaning, it's about process. If you don't understand that, then I don't know where this conversation is going. >> My personal feelings on religion notwithstanding, religion and >> science are not mutually exclusive and never will be. > > We agree! We agree! -- >> The bible is >> metaphor and allegory, a mix of hard reality and blatant fables. If >> it were not, there would be no "interpretations" of it. > > Well, at least we know from whence the Bible came. -- Do you? I'm pretty sure the writing and compilation of the new testament wasn't overseen by Jesus himself. >> The bible may say that God created heaven and earth, but it's short >> on details. Our current understanding of evolution may be incomplete, >> but it's still better than not searching at all. > > So, why constrain that search? -- You have a better idea? "God made everything" isn't exactly a route to further scientific research. >> The bible appears to leave plenty of room for explanations without >> discounting the >> existence of god, or refuting that evolution or any other science >> is not the will of god. > > Dayum! I agree. That's two instances in one thread. > > Are you really Michael? -- >> If the only thing you can >> count on is change, adaptation is the hallmark of success. The >> children of Abraham have spread and adapted in many different ways, >> and all believe they follow the true path. The rigidity of your faith >> is an illusion. > > So, are you opposed to finding our origins, or just some of the > methods used to do so? I'm not clear on where you stand on that > particular issue. -- I'm not sure what your pet definition of Intelligent Design is, since you throw that in everyone's face when they try to debate with you. "Intelligent design is the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation- evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations." That's from Wikipedia, and falls pretty much in line with my thinking on the subject, excepting that I don't believe natural selection is an undirected process. It's directed by our environment, other species on the planet, and the choices we make. Everything is directed by something, whether there is a plan or not. I don't like to generalize about the subject: specific events on this planet have each contributed, in however minor a way, to our current genetic makeup. I don't harbour any illusions that we'll discover our "origins". We're merely mapping the history of our species to the point where evidence dries up. I assert that there are rational ideas to fill those holes. ID supercedes the search for rational explanations, because the core of religion is an irrational belief in a supreme being who guides everything. Every time you fill a hole with "because god said so", you've perverted the intent of science. > Were Paley and Darwin alive today, knowing what we now know, I > wonder how different their theses would be. > > “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which > could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight > modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” -- Charles > Darwin > > BTW, isn't Darwinism a hypothesis rather than a theory? I know > we've witnessed species variations through mutation and adaptation, > but have we adequately observed or proven (which is necessary to > make a theory from a hypothesis) that such changes result in > separate species, which, by definition, can't successfully interbreed? -- There is good work being done on fruit flies and worms. More complex organisms, of course, require far more time. Genetic variation is the core of evolution, and significant DNA variation would prohibit interbreeding. That stands to reason, and it's a pretty damn good theory to follow up on. Not having that data doesn't disprove the theory yet. All of our existing data falls in line with Darwin. When it doesn't, we re- evaluate and move in a different direction. Of course Darwin knew that he could be wrong, that's why he did so much research. We're still trying to prove him right or wrong. It's a big idea, and it's going to require a lot of effort and time to prove. But proven or unproven, it won't prove or disprove the existence of God (despite your bullshit line about this having nothing to do with god), and inserting an "intelligent designer" into the mix doesn't change the results of observable data against the core theory. Besides "god did it", what theories of the existence of man have been passed over but the prevalence of Darwinism? ID is simply lip service for the religious, and has no place in science. -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
