As liberals attempt to make science the enemy of religion, conservatives dignify this idiocy with "intelligent design."
Charles Krauthammer wrote good piece on intelligent design for the Washington Post. To a certain degree, it changed my mind on the subject.…
Article comments
26 - Victor Plenty
Spicy Mexican ice cream is delicious.
27 - ryan
----------------
if there is something we don't know, we should never plug god into that empty space, scientists are trying to understand and explain the natural world, it's counterproductive to continually try and stick a supernatural bandaid over the patch we don't yet fully understand
----------------
you do realize that I agree with that, and in fact, that very idea is what motivated me to write my article right?
28 - Maurice
Nice job, Ryan. I got a kick out of the book reference. Long live overeducated white trash!
This debate reminds me of the debate over light. Is it a wave or a particle? The wave people are very convinced that the particle people are idiots. The particle people can't believe the wave people can ignore the scientific evidence.
As far fetched as evolution appears to be, it should be considered in science classes as a possibility.
Ignatius Reilly lives on in this thread.
29 - The Fifth Dentist
Good point about the wave/particle theory being open to debate. I think each school board should decide for itself what to teach in a number of subjects including:
-- whether light is a wave, particle or small piece of linguini
-- whether to teach the Heisenberg uncertainty or the theory put forward by the guy who lives down the street from me and collects petrified dog shit in a coffee can in his living room
-- whether the earth is billions of years old or was created in 1958
-- whether President Kennedy was assasinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, or was killed in a smelting accident in Milwaukee
-- whether the US entered WWII after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor or after the Belgian navy attacked attacked Passaic, NJ
Children have all the options presented to them so that they can decide for themselves what to believe.
30 - Maurice
TFD
I am guessing you are a fan of Feynman.
Don't be so sure. There are very few absolutes in science.
You strike me as a "tastes great!" guy. Ryan is a "less filling!" guy. I just like beer.
Hope this is not too subtle for you....
31 - gonzo marx
just one bit on this Thread fer me ta chime in on...
ya'll are Aware that Krauthammer is one of THE founding neocons...with Wolfowitzh anbd Kristol, they studied under the Founder , Leon Strauss at thge University of Chicago
just wanted to point this one out, especially since all those mentioned are reformed Jews and NOT christians...
as for the rest...Bog knows i have ranted on it enough in other Threads...
Excelsior!
32 - The Fifth Dentist
Maurice:
I wouldn't presume to argue the merits of the ID / evolution "debate." I am qualified to observe however that ID is accepted by the tiniest fringe of "scientists" in the field. You could probably find as many practioners of astrology as ID. It is patently absurd for a school board or other political institution to inject itself into a scientific debate which doesn't even exist among real scientists. Such institutions should concern themselves only with distinguishing mainstream scientific thought from crackpot bullshit. I recognize that sometimes, the mainstream scientific community is wrong. Eventually, it rights itself. That's when you adjust your curriculum.
33 - td
"Merely presenting a simple allusion and mentioning repeatedly that there is in fact another side is all that it takes."
Ummm, how about we don't mention ID at all. That works better for me.
Or if you'd like, maybe we can mention in religion class that many scientist don't believe in any existence of god.
You know, just present a simple statement about the other side is all it takes.
For ex: "And now before Billy reads from the bible I would just like to remind everyone that many Scientist and historians believe the bible is just a bunch of bullshit written by peasants over 2000 years ago, that is only around today because the it was a conveniant means of controlling the poor."
I mean, if you want to compromise that is.
34 - gonzo marx
argh!!
one last time fer the cheap seats...
ID is NOT a scientific Theory by definition...look it up
Evoloution IS a scientific Theory, also by definition...
ID = Metaphysics
Evolution = Science...as imperfect as it is
in those HS biology classes the differences between a Law and a Theory ARE well defined and taught...then Evoloution is bought out in biology class as a THEORY
sooOOOooOOOooo...where's the problem here?
the caveat that Evoloutionary Theory is NOT perfect, but does provide the best model at the moment, one that changes as new facts and data are discovered, is ALREADY being taught in the scince classroom..and at the college level the students are challenged to prove/disprove any of it that they can..( read:Thesis papers and Masters/Doctorate Dissertations)
so the canard that it is being taught as "fact" is just so much horseshit flung by theofascists to further their agenda of bringing back the Dark Ages where the only Authority was the priest telling the flock what God wants them to do today
fuck that
ID makes for interesting sophistry and woudl be a blast to get into in a Metaphysics discussion...
but it ain't science..and it ain't a Theory...in the terms of science it woudl be "an unprovable Hypothesis"
nuff said?
Excelsior!
35 - The Fifth Dentist
Gonzo:
In my opinion, you are a genius.
36 - Prospector Pete
The compatibility argument makes sense, but there are three major problems with disallowing a Creation class for parents to send their kids to.
First, there is the matter of choice. A parent pays for public school, not the government, not a random egghead, not the NSF, nor any political party, so the parents should be able to have a say in what their own kids learn.
Second, science in general suffers from a widespread abuse of the concept of biological and geological time overestimation that the estimates they make at large become so unscientific it ceases to be science. Just to populate the PRESENT day species of earth evolution would have to crank out a biologically impossible amount of organisms at a physically impossible rate, now add in the PAST species and you come to a figure that is laughable. Problems like these aren't peripheral for science, they are integral.
Third, it is not well known that philosophy is the trunk of the tree of knowledge. So to argue that that religion "philosophizes" science too much is to misunderstand the structure of knowledge itself.
Until this stuff gets worked out, I will be Creationist.
37 - troll
*First, there is the matter of choice. A parent pays for public school, not the government, not a random egghead, not the NSF, nor any political party, so the parents should be able to have a say in what their own kids learn.*
In (pseudo scientific) theory - the government is 'of the people' and therefore the parents do have a say through some kind of representative process
take your sedition off my bridge
troll
38 - troll
* Just to populate the PRESENT day species of earth evolution would have to crank out a biologically impossible amount of organisms at a physically impossible rate, now add in the PAST species and you come to a figure that is laughable.*
pains of improbabilities are basic to science - they let the scientist know that there must be physical laws yet to be uncovered
IDers and creationists are quitters
take your feint hearts off my ever so scientific bridge
troll
troll
39 - Maurice
I am not supporting ID at all. In fact I endorse Ryan's second sentence.
The point I was trying to make is that scientists are constantly wrong. Science is so boring that it doesn't get air play when it falls on its face. Medical science on the other hand has gotten tremendous attention when things went wrong. Thalidomide is probably the most well known booboo.
When scientists say they have a theory you can just about bet it will soon be supplanted by yet another theory.
That is why Ryan's second sentence caught my eye.
40 - JR
Prospector Pete: First, there is the matter of choice. A parent pays for public school, not the government, not a random egghead, not the NSF, nor any political party, so the parents should be able to have a say in what their own kids learn.
Schools aren't a simply a service for parents, catering to their every whim like a hired nanny. The government, funded by all of the taxpayers, not just the parents, provides schooling to further the goals of the nation as a whole. As a nation, we need a voter base knowledgeable in empirically demonstrated "truths", or at least the best possible estimates. It is in our interest that students are exposed to ideas and politics broader than and often in direct contradiction to the often narrow views of their parents. Moreover, given the importance of technology, it is in the nation's economic interest that students be educated in the most accurate technical knowledge and scientific theories, as can only be reliably determined by those who are already successful in the technical and scientific fields: scientists.
Therefore, the science curriculum in public schools should be determined by proven experts like the NSF, rather than random parents.
Second, science in general suffers from a widespread abuse of the concept of biological and geological time overestimation that the estimates they make at large become so unscientific it ceases to be science. Just to populate the PRESENT day species of earth evolution would have to crank out a biologically impossible amount of organisms at a physically impossible rate, now add in the PAST species and you come to a figure that is laughable. Problems like these aren't peripheral for science, they are integral.
I don't get your objection. Proposing a very large estimate of elapsed time should bring down the rate of generation required to account for the number of organisms. Why do you have a problem with overestimation of time? Given your objections, shouldn't you be accusing them of underestimating the time?
(Or perhaps I misunderstand your objection; your writing is a little unclear to me. For instance, what exactly is the "concept of time overestimation" and how is it abused? What does it mean to populate a species? And what distinguishes the estimates they make "at large" from any other estimates they may make?)
And how do you decide what constitutes "biologically impossible"? What would be a possible "amount of organisms"? And on what experimental results do you base your estimation?
41 - td
How do you confirm that something is "biologically impossible" without using science?
Science based upon testable hypothesis. Which Creationsism is not. And therefore should not be in the Science class.
When a you come up with a testable alternative hypothesis for explaining the development of life on earth then it can and should be presented in science class.
Science class is about teaching kids the scientific method. A method that has worked to create all the wonderous technologies that we have today.
Creationism fits into the scientific method once as a hypothesis for the development of life on earth. But since it cannot be tested it is deemed and untestable hypothesis and you move onto the next hypothesis.
That's it. You cannot keep proposing an untestable hypothesis. This defeats the purpose of what you are trying to teach students. Students who will go on to apply there scientific schooling in jobs, most of which will have nothing to do with evolution.
Is it worth harming the scientific education of children just for your own beliefs. Beliefs that you can preach to your own children for hours every night if you so wish. And if evolution is so full of holes, why are you afriad that your children will believe it over creationism.
42 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I read Ryan's piece and have slogged through the comments here. It's hand spreading time.
I pull my data from the ideas of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an oceanographer who studied physics and graduated from MIT. He teaches here in Jerusalem.
I suggest that you ALL look at two books of his - "Genesis and the Big Bang", and "The Science of God." Both deal with the idea that science and religion are converging and are definitely not opponents in man's search for knowledge and truth. I suggest a further book, "Cracking the Bible Code," by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. All three are available from amazon.com. In these books, you will see all that I say below.
Not all Jews accept the assertions I make below. Haredím, in particular those who follow the teaching of the Lubavicher Rebbe, reject them.
1. Evolution is a theory. As originally posited by Darwin, it just doesn't work. The archaeological record does not indicate a slow, steady evolution of species, but rather sudden jumps and sproutings. Therefore, one needs to change the theory to fit the evidence - not the other way round. That is scientific method.
2. According to Maimonides, the story of creation is hidden. The story we read in the text is essentially for those who can absorb their moral lessons no other way.
3. The story of creation as related by Nahmanides, a Jewish scholar who derived it from hints in Torah, is a relatively close match to the big bang as described by physicists and cosmologists. One needs to bear in mind that Nahmanides was not a nuclear physicist, and his frame of reference was a bit different.
4. The age of the universe, approximately 14.3 to 15 billion years, was determined by Jewish scholars some 2,000 years ago, and confirmed 800 years ago. This information was obtained from hints in the Torah and Tana"kh, NOT through astronomical observation.
5. The ages of the universe can be roughly divded into six eras, each era half as long as the previous one, that roughly equal the "days" described in the first several chapters of Genesis. They end with the creation of Adam, which according to Jews is an event that occured 5,766 years ago. After that, you get into real time history.
6. Adam was not the first man. According to Nahmanides, he was the first man with a "neshamá," a soul capable of recognizing G-d. This solves a number of difficult questions raised in the Torah. Like why was Cain afraid that someone would kill him after G-d told him that his brother's blood screamed up from the ground, and who Cain married.
7. Finally, Ryan is right on the money about Isaac Newton. Newton was a theologian whose main work was trying to decipher the codes in the Bible that he suspected were there. Not having a computer to do all the math for him, he was unable to pull it off. His work on gravity was just stuff on the side.
43 - JR
Ruvy in Jerusalem: The archaeological record does not indicate a slow, steady evolution of species, but rather sudden jumps and sproutings.
Really? How sudden? Like, does the archeological record indicate that dinosaurs sprouted wings in two generations, or what? Give us some references, please.
44 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
JR, I gave you three references, if you were looking. Google up Gerald Schroeder on the net. I'm sure he has something about this in an article somewhere. Also, just for the heck of it, Google up "archeopterix."
45 - JR
Schroeder highlights the Cambrian explosion but he gives no indication of how long he thinks the "event" was. How can he claim the appearance of several new forms was sudden without a timeframe? Sounds like an unfounded assertion until I hear some more numbers.
He also seems to confuse the lack of new phyla (which are mere classifications specifically invented to impose categorical simplicity on the variety of life forms), or even his purported lack of new body parts (hmmm, what about wings?) since the Cambrian with an absence or decrease in biological evolution. Most musicians have been using the same twelve notes for hundreds or years now; does that mean there has been no musical innovation since the Renaissance?
And his statistical arguments strike me as completely unfounded. He argues: "Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times."
This assumes that viable proteins are unrelated, which is patently untrue - once one good protein is found, many others can be close variations. And it says nothing about the number of tries nature makes in the course of a million years, so his numbers lack meaningful context. Even at that, unlikely things can happen in few tries. The odds of winning the lottery are hundreds of millions-to-one, yet some bozo often does it in less than twenty tries.
He has a habit of making misleading references to things such as the Science article "Did Darwin Get It All Right?" (Neither the question nor the answer address whether the theory of evolution is significantly flawed). Loading an article up with what is essentially spin doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the actual logic of his argument.
And I can find no reference to tell me exactly how many years passed between Archaeopteryx and its nearest previous fossil ancestor; in fact, I can't even find dates on the Archaeopteryx fossils to within millions of years. Sudden? Who knows?
46 - Bucephalus
Pete: You got a lot of snark off one post. Congratulations. Watching species numbers dwarf evolutionary time tables isn't convincing evidence to some people, maybe it is their sense of duty towards science. I have to agree with the troll, if a disinterested gang of microphoned-up pressroom jockeys doesn't stop that Creationism class from forming then Mr. Wizard HIMSELF will reap vengeance on us all. Science right or wrong I guess...
SNARK ON!
47 - Luke
Science thinks that supernatural forces are bunk, that's obvious, and then the creationists come along and say, that's unfair, the definition of science is geared towards naturalistic processes, it doesn't allow for other explanations, well when was the last time a science professor got up and said, 'unfair, the definition of religion is geared towards supernatural forces, they don't allow for the naturalistic alternative, we should be allowed equal time to put forth our view in the religious studies classroom' and then when they're teaching theology is the classrooms, who's theology is it? does the judeo-christian god/muslim god/norse mythology/ancient egyptian gods get equal time? science says the earth is round, where's the proof, I want to present the alternative view that the earth is a flat disc held up by 3 elephants standing on a turtles back, ok that's a bit preposterous, but what about history, there are alternative views of history too, why don't they teach the 'man never went to the moon theory' or the 'jews convinced japan to attack pearl harbour to get america into the war theory' or how about health class, why is there no explanation of energy centers or shakras, we need to get both sides of these things, japan needs to teach proper WW2 history, they need to know that japanese soldiers were slaughtering innocent women and children dammit, or else china will nuke them for not being sorry enough.
48 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
JR,
Thank you for looking.
Like I said, this is hand spreading time. Biology is not my strong point, but looking at the numbers alone tells me something is not "kosher." Dr. Schroeder implies that the universe was created 15.75 billion years ago, which is what 6 ages starting with 8 billion for the initial age and decreasing by half each age woirks out to. But 6 trillion days (divided by 365.25) works out to 16.427 billion years. He uses 6 trillion days to explain the six day concept. If you were at the center of the universe at its creation you would perceive the entire creation as taking place in Six Days - at least that's what I think he meant. His book was a lot clearer.
I'm no mathematician, but faced with the math he is faced with I'd have increased the length of the ages a bit to fit the model.
The reason I present Sr.Schroeder's work is that I think he is on the right track.
Of course it could be that a billion years here and there don't make a difference btween friends, but somehow that doesn't seem like what Dr. Schroeder is getting at. I'll have to e-mail him with some questions.
Thanks again for looking.
49 - gonzo marx
Ruvy in comment #42 sez...
*1. Evolution is a theory. As originally posited by Darwin*
incorrect...Evolutionary theory was originally posited by Lamarck...Darwin addd to it, and what is used today is as far from Darwin's original work as the Human Genome Project is from Friar Mendel's work with fruit flies...
Ruvy then sez...
*They end with the creation of Adam, which according to Jews is an event that occured 5,766 years ago. After that, you get into real time history*
well, the "iceman" found in the Italian alps a few years ago has been dated to approximately 7500 years ago...he had worked metal tools, as well as a bow and arrow...kind of throws off the 6000 year thing....as does other archeaological evidence....China being a big one, the HIstory and dating of the "Middle Kingdom" really screws up the timeline you propose...
and then Ruvy sez...
*Adam was not the first man. According to Nahmanides,*
and here we get to the crux of the matter when it comes to dealing with any kind of "holy" text
who is Nahmandies and why should we believe what he has to say?
this can go on and on when it comes to ANY "holy" book...ALL of them were written by fallible Men...even tho some claim to be "divine revelation" or "prophesy"...i for one, remain skeptical...could have been bad mushrooms....a political ploy...a tool to keep "priests" from having to work for a living
on and on
but it does make for some fascinating discussions
it also has very little to do with objective and empirical data gathering...you know...science?
Excelsior!
50 - Mark Schannon
Ruvy, you can always be counted on to throw in some of the most fascinating comments--no saracasm--I love your posts even when I disagree.
But...my dear fellow posters and postees, how much longer must we keep having this debate? Except for the problem of misrepresenting liberal positions, I was pretty impressed with Ryan's initial post. I read the same piece, and the fact that he admits that it changed his views shows an intellectual honesty and integrity that's, alas too rare. Now if he'll look as honestly at liberal vs. conservative philosophies and discover that both have long ceased to have any meaning, he'll be doing just fine.
And Sir Gonzo, alas, you labor mightily in the fields, but your sagacious wit is strewn among rocks and mud. They'll never understand.
Let's be simplistic, shall we.
One, scientific theories always evolve and change as new information is discovered. That doesn't mean Darwin was wrong. That's like saying Einstein's theories were wrong when he posited the cosmological constant.
Two, evolution says nothing about creation. Nothing. Nada. Bubkes. Zero.
Three, no teacher or scientist I ever met would claim that evolution is perfect and complete.
Forth, I have no problem teaching religion, ID, or creationism in school--as long as they're in philosophy classes. They don't belong in science classes because they ain't science. That's not bad--it's just different.
Five, I'm getting bored with this whole issue. We're never going to change each other's minds. Let's all go out and drink and dance and think deep thoughts about the eternal and everlasting beauty of chocolate and fine Irish whiskey.
In Jamesons Veritas
51 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jewish tradition, which is what Dr. Schroeder draws on, says the following,
Torah, the first five books were dictated to Moses letter by letter by G-d - excepting that portion at the end dealing with his death.
The other portions of the Hebrew Bible were written by men.
Thus, Torah is the word of G-d. Does this mean that it is the "literal truth" the way Christians seem to understand that phrase?
No.
There are many "errors" in the Hebrew - mispellings, grammatical irregularities and so forth. Did G-d need a spell-checker? Did He need a secretary or an editor?
No.
The mistakes are flags for those reading the Torah to look further and contemplate. In other words, there is more to the text than meets the eye.
So Jewish scholars look into the text. One such scholar was Maimonides, who argued that the first 31 sentences of Genesis were truth - but under that truth was a further story to be looked for.
Who is Nahmanides that we should pay any attention to him? Picked up the following on the net.
Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (RaMBaN)
Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1195-1270), known as RaMBaN or Nachmanides, was one of the greatest medieval Jewish scholars.
He was a rabbi and a physician who wrote commentaries to the greater part of the Talmud and Pentateuch. In his commentaries, he often brought Haggadic and Kabalistic interpretations to the plain text.
Nachmanides tried to save European Jews of his time from a schism over the issue of the great philosopher Maimonides (RAMBAM). Nachmanides had duel feelings toward the Maimonides; on the one hand he had reverence for the work of Maimonides, and on the other hand he disagreed with Maimonides' rationalizing of the Scriptures, his rejection of miracles, and his enumeration of the 613 Commandments. Nachmanides tried to reconcile the supporters and opponents of Maimonides. After King Louis of France burnt all copies of the Talmud in Paris, the opponents of Maimonides decided to back down from this matter and all matters that cause division among the Jewish People.
After a series of public debates in which Nachmanides defended Jewish beliefs, he was banished from Spain on a charge of blasphemy. He traveled to Palestine, and settled in Acre. He spent the last years of his life trying to educate the Palestinian Jewish community.
Gonzo, what I said was "Adam was not the first man. According to Nahmanides, he was the first man with a "neshamá," a soul capable of recognizing G-d."
So where is the problem with finding the bones and remains of someone previous to this?
52 - Christopher Rose
I must be some kind of throwback then; I've looked everywhere and don't seem to have a neshamá.
53 - gonzo marx
thanx for the bio, Ruvy....a fine bit of info
taken from what you have then i am to extrapolate that either ALL humans are descended from Adam and Eve OR is it just the tribes of Israel that come from them and the rest are descended from those who came before without "neshama"...or souls
i ask from curiosity raised by DNA data and the minimum required gene pool for species propagation
there's also some severe Incest Questions to be raised...either some of these "neshama" folks were "doing" their sisters OR they mated with those who did not posess "neshama" (see:Lilith)
again, allow me to assure you, Ruvy , that i mean no insult nor disrespect...i am truly interested in this exchange and the chance to expand Understanding....
however, i remain....apostate and heretic
Excelsior!
54 - ryan
thanks mark.
55 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo, Chris, the idea here is that Cain was afraid of the folks who did not have a neshamá killing him - and that he also mated with these folks. Pesumably Seth mated with them as well, creating a mixed race of sorts. One would have to dig a little deeper to find out who was sleeping with who, but some sources may exist on this as well. This is something I'm not sure about.
You stumbled upon something interesting with your question on incest, Gonzo. The definition of incest must have been a bit different in the ancient world than it is now.
The royal houses of Sumer and of ancient Egypt tended to have the sons marry half sisters, with kings taking more than one wife as a matter of normal practice.
Abraham, who did come from a Sumerian royal house, married his half sister, Sarah (which means "princess" in Hebrew), and his brother married a woman named Milka (which means "queen" in Hebrew).
Evidently, the Holiness Code in Leviticus was designed, among other other things, to mark a break from this practice.
I'm not sure, but I think that the ancient houses of Sumer and Egypt were imitating those whom we westerners tend to think of as their gods. I'm not sure that the entities worshipped by the Sumerians and Egyptians were not real. The Torah talks about "nefilím," fallen ones. G-d seems to be talking to somebody when He decides to kick Adam out of Eden and when He decides to confuse the languages of Babel.
There are questions in Genesis big enough to drive a tank through. The normal response is to say that the Bible is a pack of bull. That used to be mine. That is Chris's and apparently yours. There may an entirely different approach to it all.
Got to run.
Sabbath is almost here.
Shabbat shalom,
56 - JR
The royal houses of Sumer and of ancient Egypt tended to have the sons marry half sisters...
The way I heard it, the Pharoahs married full sisters. It works as long as they have no potentially detrimental recessive genes (and divine beings wouldn't). In fact it's a way of preventing recessives from entering the family line, at least until a mutation occurs.