Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[C~G]

Jared Diamond talks funny.

In the case of him talking funny and talking stupid aren't the same thing.

 

[frob2900]

In the case of him talking funny and talking stupid aren't the same thing.

Who said he talks stupid? The stuff I've heard him say is all very intelligent. Yet Jared Diamond talks funny.

 

[C~G]

Who said he talks stupid? The stuff I've heard him say is all very intelligent. Yet Jared Diamond talks funny.

Yes I know, I was just making sure everybody understood that point also.

Sorry for the interruption.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Religious impact? Please.

The largest cause of the dark ages was the fall of the roman empire and the resulting increase in power of the barbaric tribes who had no use for science what-so-ever. Combine that with disease and plague and voila...nice 600 year period thats called 'the dark ages'.

The timeperiod after the fall of the Roman Empire gave birth to Christianity as a lasting factor of power in Europe - it was not a 'barbaric' period. The western part became mainly Catholic and the eastern part Orthodox. The 'Dark Ages' term also indicate that not much scripture from this timeperiod exists - we don't know much about how people lived these days etc.

The greatest plauge epidemics in Europe took place before the Dark Ages and in the late Middle Ages - these periods are not known as 'dark' because of that.

Oh, I think you very wrong in that. I am more than willing to bet the YEC folks are researching science to help them prove their theories. Now you may call their findings whack or whatever; but I dont think they are just sitting back saying thus and so.

I don't know if they are sitting back saying thus and so, but as long they seem to make the 'evidence fit their case' and discard or discredit everything that dosen't apply to their belief system, I couldn't care less about what they are really saying. If their scientific claims are to be taken seriously, they need to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method and sofar they don't.

 

[El_Machinae]

YECs don't know it, but they believe in 'hyperevolution': where massively fast changes in DNA occured, at only survivable locations in the chromosomes, to create the genetic diversity we have now. Of course, these rates of (survivable) mutation are utterly not available.

Either that, or they believe that the chromosomes contained extended repeats of gene variants and that 'somehow' deletion mutations occured to gives us our current genetic diversity. Of course, this theory predicts that older genetic samples would contain massively more DNA than current animals and that these massive samples contain multiple alleles of specific genes. Given our ability to sequence discovered DNA (in older animals) there's been able opportunity to prove this theory: but not only has this proof not happened, but all modern genetic techniques prove the Theory of Evolution.

The more science we do, the more ToE is proven (again and again). If people thought there was an argument between Creationism and Evolution 20 years ago, they should know that the amount of scientific data has increased 10x in that time period and ALL of it proves Evolution and DISPROVES Creationism.

Of course, parishoners are never encouraged to learn this.

 

[Elrohir]

I disagree.

Let me distill this. Science is here to answer the question of how. Religion is here to answer the question of why.

Oh I agree - but scientists are people too, and sometimes they let their ideas for how the world came into being influence why it did. I'm not saying they are any worse than the rest of humanity, because they aren't, but that doesn't mean they're all perfect people who never confuse science with their own personal beliefs, either.

The problem comes when the uber-pious get the 2 confused. I've yet to read one bit of evolutionary theory that says "God doesn't exist". I've yet to see any scientists barging into a Sunday morning service saying "THIS IS ALL WRONG! WORSHIP EVOLUTION!"

Ever heard of Richard Dawkins? He hasn't said that you should worship evolution, but he's pretty much said that evolution and science have "disproved" God. He wrote a book called "The God Delusion", for crying out loud. I'm not saying people like him make up the majority, but they're certainly loud enough to cause problems.

Yet, I see metric assloads of the uber-pious trying to break down the halls of science because they don't like the inference. They're the ones drawing the inference. Sure, there are some atheists who are loudmouth a-holes, but you're talking about an (admittedly) vocal tiny minority. Primarily the problem lies w/ those religious people who see evolution as a threat and infer the meaning that it may mean God doesn't exist.

And oftentimes they're being overly paranoid about it all. I can understand why they get upset, though, given how contempuous many people, especially scientists and others in the public square, are of personal religious beliefs in general, and Christianity in particular. I'm not saying the evolution side is all to blame, because they aren't, but they are just as guilty of this whole mess as the creationist side.

Communists

(but actually I'm serious, look into Lysenko, a soviet biologist)

I see your point, but again - this isn't a thread about fundamentalism. This is a thread about creationism and evolutionism, and why there is such a violent reaction between the proponents of each idea.

So what? I've been to conferences in several cities and talked to scientists and science students from all over the place, but I still realize that the sample is much too small for me to be able to claim that I am a "voice of the community". People are much too diverse.

Fine. If you don't want to take my word for it, then fine. I know what I'm talking about, but I can't make you see it if you don't want to.

My evidence doesn't need to support that, since I never claimed it.

(hint: support can take other forms than money)

Yes, you did. You made a comparison between creationism, and a resurgent astrology group "with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress." That makes no sense in the context that you said it unless you think there are creationist groups that get millions of dollars in funds from Congress.

I then asked you "Who is getting millions of dollars from Congress? Can you point to a specific Creationist group that is getting millions of dollars and open support from Congress?" You then said "Enlighten yourself", and provided two links, neither of which backed up your idea of Congress funding creationist groups. Now you're backtracking and saying that you never said it, but you did.

I can provide links to all of these old posts, if you want, or you can go back and look at them yourself - or you can just admit that you made a statement you can't proven, and then got called on it.

 

[Homie]

Oh I agree - but scientists are people too, and sometimes they let their ideas for how the world came into being influence why it did. I'm not saying they are any worse than the rest of humanity, because they aren't, but that doesn't mean they're all perfect people who never confuse science with their own personal beliefs, either.


Ever heard of Richard Dawkins? He hasn't said that you should worship evolution, but he's pretty much said that evolution and science have "disproved" God. He wrote a book called "The God Delusion", for crying out loud. I'm not saying people like him make up the majority, but they're certainly loud enough to cause problems.


And oftentimes they're being overly paranoid about it all. I can understand why they get upset, though, given how contempuous many people, especially scientists and others in the public square, are of personal religious beliefs in general, and Christianity in particular. I'm not saying the evolution side is all to blame, because they aren't, but they are just as guilty of this whole mess as the creationist side.


I see your point, but again - this isn't a thread about fundamentalism. This is a thread about creationism and evolutionism, and why there is such a violent reaction between the proponents of each idea.


Fine. If you don't want to take my word for it, then fine. I know what I'm talking about, but I can't make you see it if you don't want to.


Yes, you did. You made a comparison between creationism, and a resurgent astrology group "with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress." That makes no sense in the context that you said it unless you think there are creationist groups that get millions of dollars in funds from Congress.

I then asked you "Who is getting millions of dollars from Congress? Can you point to a specific Creationist group that is getting millions of dollars and open support from Congress?" You then said "Enlighten yourself", and provided two links, neither of which backed up your idea of Congress funding creationist groups. Now you're backtracking and saying that you never said it, but you did.

I can provide links to all of these old posts, if you want, or you can go back and look at them yourself - or you can just admit that you made a statement you can't proven, and then got called on it.

pwned!

 

[frob2900]

I know what I'm talking about, but I can't make you see it if you don't want to.

I'm sure that's how a lot of evolutionary biologists feel

Yes, you did. You made a comparison between creationism, and a resurgent astrology group "with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress." That makes no sense in the context that you said it unless you think there are creationist groups that get millions of dollars in funds from Congress.

I then asked you "Who is getting millions of dollars from Congress? Can you point to a specific Creationist group that is getting millions of dollars and open support from Congress?" You then said "Enlighten yourself", and provided two links, neither of which backed up your idea of Congress funding creationist groups. Now you're backtracking and saying that you never said it, but you did.

I can provide links to all of these old posts, if you want, or you can go back and look at them yourself - or you can just admit that you made a statement you can't proven, and then got called on it.

Oh dear.

Let me explain it for you a third time, Elrohir: "with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress"
Those are two different statements. The congressional support is not implied to be monetary

But feel free to ask again. I'll be glad to keep explaining it

I'll be counting

pwned!

He sure was!

 

[Elrohir]

I'm sure that's how a lot of evolutionary biologists feel

And your point is....what, exactly?

Oh dear.

Let me explain it for you a third time, Elrohir: "with millions of dollars in funds and support in Congress"
Those are two different statements. The congressional support is not implied to be monetary

But feel free to ask again. I'll be glad to keep explaining it

I see what you are saying now, but you didn't make that clear when you made that statement initially. What was I supposed to think when I asked for proof that creationist groups were getting money from Congress and you provided links saying "enlighten yourself"? You need to communicate better.

He sure was!

Don't get uppity. You haven't proven a single significant point in this thread, and you've dropped (IE, lost) the ones that actually matter - the ones about actual relations between creationists and evolutionist groups. All that you are still arguing about is petty semantics. You say that you've "pwned" me, while in reality you've come out the worse for wear, since you've obviously stopped actually debating any material which is actually on-topic.

 

[frob2900]

I see what you are saying now, but you didn't make that clear when you made that statement initially. What was I supposed to think when I asked for proof that creationist groups were getting money from Congress and you provided links saying "enlighten yourself"? You need to communicate better.

I explained it three times to you. Sorry for not trying harder!

Don't get uppity. You haven't proven a single significant point in this thread, and you've dropped (IE, lost) the ones that actually matter - the ones about actual relations between creationists and evolutionist groups. All that you are still arguing about is petty semantics. You say that you've "pwned" me, while in reality you've come out the worse for wear, since you've obviously stopped actually debating any material which is actually on-topic.

I assure you that "uppity" is far from my mind

I pride myself in weaving a tapestry of valid reasoning around the on-topic points of a thread. Feel free to chat about any point you feel lacking

 

[Elrohir]

I explained it three times to you. Sorry for not trying harder!

No, you misled me by implying several times that creationist groups did indeed receive federal funding and then backtracked on that.

I pride myself in weaving a tapestry of valid reasoning around the on-topic points of a thread. Feel free to chat about any point you feel lacking

Why? You can't keep to the subject and keep dragging out discussion off onto talking about semantic arguments that don't really matter. As far as I can tell, you haven't had anything actually substantive to say in this entire thread, so I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you further unless you can bring up a good response to what I said earlier in your next post.

 

[frob2900]

No, you misled me by implying several times that creationist groups did indeed receive federal funding and then backtracked on that.

Now you're backtracking on this:

I see what you are saying now, but you didn't make that clear when you made that statement initially. What was I supposed to think when I asked for proof that creationist groups were getting money from Congress and you provided links saying "enlighten yourself"? You need to communicate better.

Sorry for not being good at communicating, I'll try to work on that

Why? You can't keep to the subject and keep dragging out discussion off onto talking about semantic arguments that don't really matter. As far as I can tell, you haven't had anything actually substantive to say in this entire thread, so I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you further unless you can bring up a good response to what I said earlier in your next post.

You don't want to bring up some interesting on-topic things to talk about? I was kind of looking forward to continued discussion

 

[C~G]

Ever heard of Richard Dawkins? He hasn't said that you should worship evolution, but he's pretty much said that evolution and science have "disproved" God. He wrote a book called "The God Delusion", for crying out loud. I'm not saying people like him make up the majority, but they're certainly loud enough to cause problems.

Single person is loud enough to cause problems for religious people?

No wonder they are scared if it spreads.

Everyday numerous people sermon that God exists and those who disapprove it are wrong and even that creationism is right and single person stating otherwise is considered a problem?

 

[drachasor]

That's the feeling of the academic elite of course. The problem isn't that scientists aren't trustworthy, but rather that they do distrust the public to eventually make the right call on their own, when they face questioning. Which is why the public must continue to be kept at arm's length from science.

Nope. You tend to need faith to believe in something you cannot see or understand, like God or science, which tends to be the case if you are an outsider to the scientific process. Once in the inside belief in research is not really required, is it, just to know how to use the process.
I think you may be the one confusing the two here.

You seem to be equating the word "belief" with having irrational faith in something. That's not what the word implies or means. Faith is a word with multiple meanings, one of them is belief without evidence (Look it up!). It can also just mean trust, and you can trust something based on the evidence. For instance, I have faith that my brother isn't going to stab me in the back with a rusty knife, because I know that isn't how he behaves (based on observation and other sources of knowledge). That's how faith is sometimes used, particularly when people talk about faith in others. One can have that sort of rational faith in the scientific process and community -- based on the fact that it delivers and works. You don't need to know all the ins and outs of what is going on to rationally trust the system.

Yes, and it works fine as long as they are simply happy using the gadgets. Problems arise when they start asking questions. Even if they are, and there is no stopping them, they shouldn't really be doing that, should they, as it's not a useful activity from your perspective?

That's ridiculous. Asking questions is fine and dandy. Wanting to know how things work is fine and dandy. I am just saying most people don't care to know all that, and it is OK if they don't want to. If someone does want to know, then scientists are generally happy to answer (when they aren't busy working). People can also go to libraries and book stores to get answers to most of their questions. If they are more advanced than that, then they can subscribe to scientific journals or check out those journals in a library.

This is about who is allowed to speak in the name of science, and under what conditions.

If you mean speak with some confirmed authority on the matter, then it is much like anything else in life (politics, sports, law, etc). People with experience in the field (and a few people who just talk really well about it).

This is about who is allowed to speak in the name Being open to questions only really applies if you're an insider. If not, you can be ignored, and mostly you are. Science is an eltist activity. It's inherently designed to be so. It's even internally very stratified. The best and most successful scientists seek out their peers that can give them interesting input on things. As Francis Crick put it: "Don't mix with stupid people", as part of his list of advice on how to win a Nobel Prize.

You can't quote one scientist and say all scientists believe the same thing. Heck he might not have been seriously or might have been speaking in a very specific context (when working on something important, don't work with people who aren't smart).

Anyhow, sure Science is an elite activity. Most people don't want to go and take the years required to learn all the math and other knowledge required. It can take a decade or more. Professional sports is an elite activity, politics is an elite activity, lots of things are elite in this sense. It's not because the community doesn't let interested people join, but rather because to join up requires developing certain skills that are NECESSARY for playing an active role. That said, most scientists I've met are happy to share information and answer questions, but like anyone, they can get annoyed by stupid questions (e.g. ones you'd find the answer to in a book for beginners). There's no reason that the best scientists in the field should be fielding questions a well-informed 3rd grader (or high school student, in some cases) could answer.

One of the most salient features of how modern research is organised is actually how to restrict access to the star-scientists, or else they would become totally mobbed by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Restriction of access is essential, or nothing useful will get done.
You want in on the process of research, but can't really bring anything interesting to the table of these top guys? Forget it. You won't be invited to share in the process, but you are free to pick up the results in the other end.

If you want in on the process of research, then there are a lot of ways to get in. You DO need to be educated. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. That's how it will always be. Just like someone with no math knowledge can't contribute in mathematical research. Well, perhaps in some sort of labor capacity (e.g. construction worker) in the sciences, but they generally aren't going to have meaningful input because they don't know what meaningful input is. If an outsider wants in and educates himself though, he can get in and contribute. Einstein did it. Is it harder? Sure, but that's because it isn't that hard to get into science through the traditional method, though it does take time and require going to a university.

All this of course gets interesting when the public doesn't accept the assigned roles anymore, which I believe is what we are talking about. This occurs on the level of public opinions and politics, from which the represenatives of science feel they should be securely insulated.
What offers this insulation? The public and political sphere for the most part. Science relies on these to uphold its autonomy, which is why the questioning in these spheres actually matters.

"Assigned roles?" That's an inappropriate use of "assigned" if I ever saw one. I think that scientists probably don't want undue interference from political sources, but that's only because a bunch of arbitrary rules passed through the political process can stifle scientific work. Now, if the political process uses expert opinion properly, which it has often done, then this isn't a problem. Like anything however, ignorant people who have no desire to make informed decisions can muck things up. Scientists don't like that anymore than a construction worker would like the public randomly interfering with his job (in an uninformed manner).

How does this not qualify as "Respect mah' Authorita'!", albeit being framed and presented in a much more reasonable and civilised tone of voice?

Because "respect mah Authoritah" implies there is no good reason for that respect. It implies the authority is arbitrary. That's not the case in science.

Democratisation implies that the way scientific research is organised can change. (And looking at the history of science it probably will, because it always has so far.)
It hasn't been attempted yet, so for the time being it is simply an intellectual exercise to try to think about as a way of catching out how science is organised and positioned in our society — not how scientists regard themselves and their activities, but how it actually operates.

What exactly are you proposing? You've already admitted that you can't let every random person into the research process, because that would stymie all efforts of research. You seem very critical of how things are done, yet seem to admit there is no other way to do them. You also take a very negative slant on anything that restricts the access of the random person, and by "access" you mean active involvement. Well, I guess you must have similar problems with sports and politics, because those are also fields that require work to get in. In fact, you must have a problem with most of the world in general, anything that requires experience and knowledge must seem awful to you.

I'll say that science education could be better, that would do a lot to help foster trust. There are plenty of scientists that regularly reach out to the public, but apparently you choose to ignore them because it invalidates a lot of what you are trying to say (that scientists hide away in ivory towers and don't want the 'peasants' bothering them in any way).

-Drachasor

 

[MobBoss]

The timeperiod after the fall of the Roman Empire gave birth to Christianity as a lasting factor of power in Europe - it was not a 'barbaric' period.

Actually, that came earlier when Constantine embraced Christianity as the Roman state religion. And I think the goths, visigoths, vikings, huns, vandals, etc. would argue about being called barbarians, but thats pretty much what they were.

The western part became mainly Catholic and the eastern part Orthodox. The 'Dark Ages' term also indicate that not much scripture from this timeperiod exists - we don't know much about how people lived these days etc.

Well, we know that the period was rife with great migrations of peoples drivin across europe in waves. Trade practically stopped as roving bands of wandering peoples made it hugely unsafe to do so. Also there was a global cooling during the period that greatly effected agriculture at the time and made food scarce. The population of europe actually declined during the period by estimates of up to 20%.

Religion didnt cause that.

Anyway, religion and the dark ages isnt the topic, so there is not much use in continuing that branch of the thread.

 

[Verbose]

What exactly are you proposing? You've already admitted that you can't let every random person into the research process, because that would stymie all efforts of research. You seem very critical of how things are done, yet seem to admit there is no other way to do them. You also take a very negative slant on anything that restricts the access of the random person, and by "access" you mean active involvement. Well, I guess you must have similar problems with sports and politics, because those are also fields that require work to get in. In fact, you must have a problem with most of the world in general, anything that requires experience and knowledge must seem awful to you.

To cut this short, the concern is if this state of affairs is a stable system, considering that the autonomy of science is in fact in itself not a stable variable.

 

[Smidlee]

Everybody knows science, just like religion requires faith. Take your computer for example. Stop believing and it will disappear in a puff of smoke... [/sarcasm]

This sarcasm would also apply the other way around for just because someone stop believing in GOD, spiritualities, Etc. wouldn't cause them disappear in a puff of smoke either. Also I do have to put faith in technology (science?) for I trust my car with my life every time I enter it. I also put a lot of faith in a yellow line in the middle of road as if that's all stand between me and the other car coming at me head on.
*************
As far as the topic I believe knowing why someone preach what they do sometimes gives you more insight than actually what they preach. Thus is really the important question.

 

[drachasor]

To cut this short, the concern is if this state of affairs is a stable system, considering that the autonomy of science is in fact in itself not a stable variable.

Who's proposing that science be completely cut off from the rest of society? It's a part of it. All I've said is that scientists should be recognized as experts in their respective fields.

 

[El_Machinae]

Science surely doesn't want to be cut off from society!

There're projects which have requested the public's help in identifying galaxies (IDing hundreds of billions of galaxies require a lot of work). The Stardust project wants people to help find space dust in their samples of pictures!

There are thousands of psychology, sociology, nutritional and medical studies that would very much LOVE volunteers to be subjects in. (No, you needn't try experimental pills, there are thousands of perfectly safe studies they want NEED subjects for). Your local universities and hospitals would LOVE to ask you some questions.

I don't know a single museum that wouldn't LOVE if you shipped them rock samples that you thought were unique!

There are hundreds of seminars available for people to watch, attend, so the scientists can show off their work!

There are organisations like TreeofLife.org that want help getting evidence regarding all the species, everywhere!

Oh, and there are hundreds of books, textbooks, and lectures available for free (or purchase) out there about science.

It's not 'science' failing to reach out. It's the public ignoring science in lieu of leisure activities.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You should start a thread about all the ways that individual volunteers can contribute, then.