Creation vs. Evolution

[Hank49]

If you believe that "god and creation" is an exclusive-or with "evolution" then (and only then), yes, you are correct. If you don't deny evolution and can still do the science while believing in "god and creation" then you won't wind up working for the Chinese.

Ignorance of science, genetics and evolution isn't going to help us compete in the 21st century. We already have a big enough problem with producing people with a basic scientific background in math, physics and chemistry -- believing that genetics and evolution are wrong as a core value of our culture isn't going to help us at all.

Well personally, I have nothing against working for anyone Chinese so that's a non issue for me. I doubt I'll be cleaning their house though....I MAY be managing their company's shrimp genetics program though. But other than that, I was giving you a hard time.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Frankly I'm sick and tired of casting pearls before swine. If you have a real interest in knowing rather than trolling ... take a biology class.

My question was simple enough and should have required a simple answer. Apparently though you'd rather paraphrase the Good Book. If I was trolling I'd ask "What is DIR, and if I am not DIR, am I doing it wrong?" In any case, time to shake the dust from my shoes.

 

[Warthaug]

I also learned from some very smart teachers that a person can be a person of faith and a person of science at the same time. You just have to be able to seperate the two and have the ability to realize the Bible, despite what some will tell you, is not a literal book and at the time, religion was used as a way to explain those natural occurances that people were unable, or unwilling to understand.

It never ceases to amaze me how many religious people miss out on this very basic point.

Over my scientific career I've met and befriended scientists of every religious slant you can imagine - every denomination of Christianity I've heard of, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sheiks, and every other thing you can imagine. Obviously they don't see a conflict between the faith they follow and the science they do as a living.

Likewise, many famous scientists were devout - Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and contrary to the claims of many creationists, Darwin himself.

As you say above, its only when people assume that their religious text is the literal word of god does a conflict enter. And given the poor history of success that literalists have had, I'm amazed any exist anymore.

Bryan

 

[webjr]

the only thing i find sad is the fact that atheist libs like yourself .......

What about us atheist cons ?

Talk about narrow minded ....... why do some people assume atheist = lib.

 

[Kim]

What about us atheist cons ?

Talk about narrow minded ....... why do some people assume atheist = lib.

....or lib = atheist for that matter.

My definitions tend to run more via closed/narrow vs open/broad minded. I really don't see all conservative people as close minded.

I probably truly am liberal by American definition - but I honestly prefer talking to an open minded anyone, than ANY kind of bigot!!!

bigot
Noun
a person who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race [Old French]

 

[Gombessa]

actually... you would have to go the other way for it to truly be considered evolution..

I know this was merely intended to be humorous, but it's ironic in that evolution has nothing to do with developing into more complex, intelligent, or "advanced" organisms. Evolution simply means becoming better-suited to survive the given environment.

 

[Sas]

I guess I am a racist. I don't think one race is inherently *better*...but I do beleive in differences in brain function in certain areas, etc.

Certain races have evolved various physical traits, based on their environment, etc. The brain is just an organ.

This is really just the Pitt Bull debate, if you ask me. People afraid to be scientific about racial differences are insecure. Yes, I am a racist in the purist sense. That does not mean I would not marry another race. It means that I think a Chinese brain might have strengths that mine does not have, and the reverse. In General, of course. And I do believe in evolution AND God.

Certain races are physically superior in certain areas and have evolved certain genetic weaknesses like Tay Sachs, etc.

There is no such thing as "race" Catherine, at least from a genetic point of view. Humans separate each other largely based on visual appearance and cultural groups, not brain function or genes. Most of what you are describing are cultural differences, not genetic differences. In fact the whole concept of "race" is pretty much rejected by every reputable discipline.

Also, the genetic weaknesses of which you talk about would occur in any group of people that breed within the group - even if they were a mixture of different ethnicities. So I would not attribute that to race, rather geographical proximity or even cultural values that mean people tend to procreate with others of similar ethnicity.

My definitions tend to run more via closed/narrow vs open/broad minded. I really don't see all conservative people as close minded.

I really like this idea of yours Kim, and I agree totally. I know just as many close minded liberals as I do conservatives so it really is to do with how open minded one is rather than political allegiance. Also many people can't be just lumped in to either group really. I mean, I am very socially liberal but a big believer in free market economics!

untill you have the answer i go with a higher power it has nothing to do with lazy its called faith

In my opinion, this is the epitome of laziness. I find it sad that so many people in today's society have no interest in even researching basic questions about human existence, and instead, just make it out like it was all God. I also get disturbed by how highly society values faith, which is by definition just accepting something without proof. In many societies this is valued far higher and seen as showing more strength of character, than researching something and finding evidence that you are right. One of my favourite quotes (from Richard Dawkins) sums up this problem very nicely: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

I only ever learned about evolution and many scientific breakthroughs as an adult due to being raised in a very fundamentally religious family (evangelical Christian) and the world is so much more interesting these days now that I know why and how things work and don't just think "well God did it". I am glad the brainwashing didn't stick

 

[Warthaug]

There is no such thing as "race" Catherine, at least from a genetic point of view. Humans separate each other largely based on visual appearance and cultural groups, not brain function or genes....

Couldn't have stated that better myself. Just to add one small point, a lot of genetic analysis has been preformed, with over 6 million gene variants being cataloged in humans so far.

Analysis of that data has clearly shown that there is no genetic basis to race. While some genes are more common in one "race" verses another, its not actually possible to determine a persons "race" by the genes they carry. Take for example the gene which causes sickle cell anemia (if you have two copies of the gene) and provides malarial resistance (if you have 1 copy). Its found predominantly in blacks originating from northern Africa, but is rather rare among blacks from other parts of Africa, and on top of that it can also be found in the spanish & other meditranian caucasians, arabs, indians (from india, not north america) and in a measurable proportion of caucasians of norther european descent in the USA.

I find it sad that so many people in today's society have no interest in even researching basic questions about human existence, and instead, just make it out like it was all God. I also get disturbed by how highly society values faith, which is by definition just accepting something without proof.

More to the point, science and faith represent two completely different mind sets. I think Steven J Gould first came up with this analogy, but its a good one and worth repeating.

Most people know the cautionary tale of "doubting thomas". For those of you who missed that day at sunday school, Thomas was one of Jesus's disciples. When Jesus was resurrected everyone but Thomas dropped down and did the whole "god has risen" thing. Thomas doubted Jesus's resurrection, and didn't believe it had occurred until he'd actually thrust his hand into the wound on Jesus's side.

In the religious world this tale is used as a caution against doubting ones faith and questioning religious authority. The term "doubting thomas" is generally considered to be derogatory in general society as well, used to describe anyone who doesn't believe in things they do not personally witness.

The scientific world takes the exact opposite slant on the story - for us, Thomas is the hero, not the antagonist. Instead of jumping to a conclusion like everyone else he demanded exactly what science demands - evidence.

Bryan

 

[H2Andy]

There is no such thing as "race"

other than as a cultural construct, i am with you 100%

that is, the concept of "race" is artificial, a man-made concept

Analysis of that data has clearly shown that there is no genetic basis to race.

yup yup ... few people realize that genetically speaking, men and women are much more different from each other than say, a Norwegian woman and a pygmy woman are, or an Italian and a Chinese men are from each other

in terms of DNA, humans are fragging almost identical, regardless of "race"

 

[AXL72]

Darwin was devout about what?? what....? I only ask because here is what Darwin wrote:

....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....
....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine....

Other interesting and poetic quotes:

Voltaire (the new one in the last couple of decades) is quoted as singing, "...u know hell don't exist....except in the minds of those who beleive..."

as well as, "...don't go looking to God for the answer...he is the one that gave you the cancer..."