Before Darwin first came out with his theory, people had believed for thousands of years that Genesis was scientific truth. Don't you think beliefs like that take awhile to change?
I must say, the Escapist community is very mature. On any other message board I've been to, a discussion of religion is immediately locked.
Actually the theory of evolution was first mooted (that we know about) as early as 400 BC. As Lucretius wrote:-
And in the ages after monsters died,
Perforce there perished many a stock, unable
By propagation to forge a progeny.
For whatsoever creatures thou beholdest
Breathing the breath of life, the same have been
Even from their earliest age preserved alive
By cunning, or by valour, or at least
By speed of foot or wing. And many a stock
Remaineth yet, because of use to man . . .
During Darwins day basic evolutionary theories were flying around. Dinosaur bones had been getting uncovered for a while and about 3 years prior to the publication of the first edition of The Origin of Species Neanderthals had been discovered. I think this is why the church had come down so incredibly heavy on him - a link between man and beast had been discovered and raised an important theological conundra vis-à-vis god making man in his own image and man being simply a technological ape. That book put into words something that they feared but couldn't bear to contemplate.
I'm just a real nitpicky bastard when it's about evolution, but this is a proper moment to point at the difference between "evolution" and "evolutional theory". What you're really pointing out with your quote from Lucretius, is not that 'the theory of evolution' was first mooted back then, but evolutionary thinking. Or in other words, the recognition of a certain pattern in life on earth. And yes, that pattern has been recognised for centuries now. That pattern is what we call evolution, or in other words "the fact of evolution" and it's also true that people have been trying to explain that lóng before Darwin. Lamarck for example had a theory of evolution, now obsolete. Even Darwin's theory of evolution is now obsolete in many area's (another reason why the Vatican's 'approval' is completely redundant), something wich was brought up before.
Anyway, you're also right about the linking between man and beast, or simply sad that man was also one of the beasts. That's indeed what Darwin was mainly ridiculed about, with good ol' caricatures like
I guess Ive always kind of belived in both, Like there could be a god and evolution happened, or there isnt a god and evolution happened. Either way I enjoy life.
sheic99 said:
hem dazon 90 said:
umm people
THEY NEVER SAID EVOLUTION WAS FAKE!!!!!!! I swear atheists can really misinterpret well
Just barely. A lot of people assume that Darwin was Atheist. He did stop going to church late in life, so guess the proper term would be more like Agnostic.
To Cuddly Tomato: Darwin in no way was the original creator of evolution. He poplarized it amongst the masses, and his interpretation for the cause of Natural Selection was the most correct at the time.
Also, for anybody who doesn't know this(which is a lot of people) the "fittest" creature is the one that creates the most offspring. Right now Nadya Sulema is the one of the most "fit" people.
Also, for anybody who doesn't know this(which is a lot of people) the "fittest" creature is the one that creates the most offspring. Right now Nadya Sulema is the one of the most "fit" people.
Fun fact: fitness is actually something "real" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)] (as in, it's not an object, but it's actually a usefull piece of data) instead of a meaningless metaphore. It's also important to remember, that fittest doesn't mean perfect or even the best possible. A pretty funny story I heard a while ago illustrates this point:
Niels Bohr and Einstein (yea, a geek story, woot \o/) were walking through the woods one day. Suddenly they encountered a bear, who was clearly getting ready to attack them. Quikly, Einstein grabbed a pair of running shoes out of his backpack and put them on. "What?! Are you crazy?" Bohr responded, "You can't outrun a bear, it's useless!" With a grin, Einstein responded "I know Niels, I just have to outrun you."
Evolution sure is a painfull game, and one big culture of C-'s.
Also, for anybody who doesn't know this(which is a lot of people) the "fittest" creature is the one that creates the most offspring. Right now Nadya Sulema is the one of the most "fit" people.
Fun fact: fitness is actually something "real" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)] (as in, it's not an object, but it's actually a usefull piece of data) instead of a meaningless metaphore. It's also important to remember, that fittest doesn't mean perfect or even the best possible. A pretty funny story I heard a while ago illustrates this point:
Niels Bohr and Einstein (yea, a geek story, woot \o/) were walking through the woods one day. Suddenly they encountered a bear, who was clearly getting ready to attack them. Quikly, Einstein grabbed a pair of running shoes out of his backpack and put them on. "What?! Are you crazy?" Bohr responded, "You can't outrun a bear, it's useless!" With a grin, Einstein responded "I know Niels, I just have to outrun you."
Evolution sure is a painful game, and one big culture of C-'s.
Isn't that basically what I said? The woman is an idiot for not having any children aborted and now has 14 babies, but she spread her DNA through 14 children.
Another Fun Fact: The term Survival of the Fittest wasn't used until the 5th edition of "On the Origin of species etc."
I must say I really enjoy people engaging with this topic in a respectful manner! For that reason I will not quote anybody in this post because I dont want to make it seem like I am pointing fingers at anybody. I wish keep the conversation to the level it has reached.
As a post already observed "usually these topics get locked".
Note that this post is only a collection of points. I cannot write down a thesis on the matter in an internet forum. This is not the place for that. Anyways, here is what I wish to add to the conversation.
This is an internet forum and thereofore a discussion is almost impossible. What we have here is simply a collection of statements that pile up and thus most are left unanswered.
Secondly. To those who try to turn believers into atheists (myself included). We must realize that one becomes an atheist on his own. It is his own thinking patterns and logical deductions that will lead one towards atheism. Still, I do wish to press on the matter that "atheism" as a term is widely misused so just to clear up my position here is where I stand. I consider myself a "complete agnostic". This only means that I cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher entity. BUT I have no reason into postulate one, and I have many reasons to reject any of the entities described in all major religions.
That is the only position I can defend. I can only defend an attack (paradoxical as this sounds) on the established religions. But, it is not my default position to attack people. I get along with religious people just fine but I do think that I stand in a better position than most of them do and I believe I can back up my position.
One more point and that is it.
When discussing a topic, it is possible that one stands in a better position than the other. At some point, one of the two sides will lose their footing. The supporting evidence will disolved and no longer serve their purpose. I think that is the case when I argue with Christians. I believe they lose their footing from a point onwards whereas a position that is non-dogmatic and is self-regulating and adaptive leads to a better understanding and approach.
And yet children were still being taught by their parents that Genesis was 100% fact. It's not the opinion of academics that decides history, it's the opinions of the people. I don't think we can blame the church for not accepting Darwin immediately.
Yep. Hard to blame anyone at all for not accepting it immediately. Evolution is the currently widely accepted theory. But let's just suppose that tomorrow morning someone published a book which stated, based upon evidence discovered on an unknown archipelago thousands of miles away, that animals didn't evolve but were redesigned in small factories by billions of ants. This new theory states that when animals are going extinct, a few of them are taken to this factory to be redesigned to survive in the future. Just how would the world respond to that? The scepticism was reasonable and, in my opinion, healthy. The hostility towards it was not however.
Religion takes a lot of flak for not just dropping everything it believed and accepting concepts such as evolution right away, but what is often overlooked is that most scientists also couldn't bring themselves to believe what Darwin was saying. Not because of religious righteousness, but simply because it challenged scientific theories which had been fundamental to human knowledge at that time.
1. Not hostile to the scientists that stayed out of areas that the they felt conflicted with their scripture, otherwise you could end up on trial for heresy -- that doesn't exactly sound scientific to me.
One, that sounds more scientific than hostile to all scientists.
Two, again you're twisting history: you didn't have to stay out of those areas, you could explore those areas as theoretical constructs, but you couldn't say that that's the way the actual world worked.
I thought he was put on trial for writing "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which was a hypothetical discussion. You are keen to point out he wasn't tortured earlier, which is true. But what would have happened to him if he hadn't recanted? The fear of the fires of the inquisition was pretty much the motivating factor, that and for the sake of his daughters -- stop trying to make the situation out to be more amicable than it was.
2. There may have been science on both sides but it was definitely an unfair trial.
You haven't but Pope Benedict has said it was a fair and just trial, which is why I have such a bee in my bonnet. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/15/pope.protest/
As for your attack on the Reformation, yeah, there was a lot of rough treatment on both sides. But you honestly can't tell me they were worse, you can accuse me of distorting history all you like.
In that link you posted it even mentioned that the Catholic church was also participating in witch burnings too. It has a long history of persecuting heretics, also mentioned there. So it still doesn't seem worse to me because all this unrest was a response to an oppressive and authoritarian brand of Christianity.
See, the thing is that anti-religious thinkers are, by and large, culturally Protestant. Anti-religious thinking may be hostile to all religions, but, like the idea from Animal Farm, 'some are more equal than others' and while anti-religious thinking may be anti-religion, it still retains a prejudice against Catholicism as it developed out of people who were culturally Protestant for the most part.
Well you can try and colour all Atheists as disgruntled protestants if you like but it isn't true. There are plenty of Catholic atheists, but I suppose they are less vocal because they were subject to a more authoritarian religion. You said earlier atheists don't treat all religions as equals (in a manner trying to imply I am some sort of communist apparatchic -- which is pretty ad hominem). Well that is because they aren't, they are treated according to their levels of authoritarian behaviour. The Catholic church is for example more authoritarian than the Church of England, it has a sole authority who is supposed to be representative of all Catholics -- C of E doesn't have such a figure is quite benign by comparison. Consequently C of E receives a lot less flak from atheists. Some protestant churches are more authoritarian than even the Catholic church (they tend to be the creationist ones) and they draw a lot of fire from atheists. You said earlier I was trying to turn history into an anti-religious parable, but its really more about authoritarian religion. Why? Because authoritarian religion ends up persecuting those people who don't share their views, which includes atheists amongst many others.
Evolution is only a theory anyway, I don't see why everyone treats it as fact. Sure, it's a good theory that's likely to be true but let's not forget that we thought the world was flat not too long ago.
Evolution is only a theory anyway, I don't see why everyone treats it as fact. Sure, it's a good theory that's likely to be true but let's not forget that we thought the world was flat not too long ago.
1. There is no such thing as "only" a theory. To state this betrays a complete lack of understanding of science. Theories, in science, are the strongest, most well tested explanations for the available facts.
2. Evolution is also a fact. Species change over time, and speciation into distinct non-breedable groups (the creation of new species) is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how that happens.
3. No-one credibly thought the world was flat either. The ancient greeks had not only worked out that it was curved, but how big it was to within an acceptable degree of error given the fact they used trigonometry to do so.
Well, the Catholic Church never really did reject it. They just kind of went with it. The Church has done some messed up stuff over the years, but I am sure that they have done more good than bad.
Evolution is only a theory anyway, I don't see why everyone treats it as fact. Sure, it's a good theory that's likely to be true but let's not forget that we thought the world was flat not too long ago.
1. There is no such thing as "only" a theory. To state this betrays a complete lack of understanding of science. Theories, in science, are the strongest, most well tested explanations for the available facts.
2. Evolution is also a fact. Species change over time, and speciation into distinct non-breedable groups (the creation of new species) is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how that happens.
3. No-one credibly thought the world was flat either. The ancient greeks had not only worked out that it was curved, but how big it was to within an acceptable degree of error given the fact they used trigonometry to do so.
dito... also if u want some bonified proof that evolution does happen look at HIV. the reason that its so impossible to kill is because of its extraordinarily fast level of mutation
This compleatly contradicts what they have been preaching since the start of the religion. Does he go through the bible with a pen and cross out what he doesn't like and add his own stories? Another reason I'm athiest.
I can see the plan:
Cardinal: "My lord, the plan is going how you said it would. People are accepting us more than we thought now that we belive of evolution"
Pope: "Good, good"
Cardinal: "What now my Lord?"
Pope: "How do those collection plates in our churches going?"
Cardinal: "Slow, my Lord. We have only made $34 Million"
Pope: "Build more churchs with it, then we have more income, then we will build our $15.6 Septillion Battle station!"
Cardinal: "Yes, my Lord"
Those that can admit they or their religion has made mistakes in the past are certainly better than people like you - spiteful and hatefilled.
No, I'm not Catholic, at least not in the traditional way. I don't believe in Bible, I think the only book worth reading is the last one, about Apocalypse. Because all those signs are fun.
But being paranoid about "ZOMG THE CHURCH IS EVIL" is getting a bit old.
Huh? I guess I missed the part where I said I was spiteful and hatefilled. I only mentioned that that churches change what they say, do and believe to match the current popularity. Calling Darwin a heritic when he first came up with the theory of evolution and then adapting thier own beliefs to match the trend and evidence is being hipocritical. This is why I don't believe in religion, because it is fallable and changed to suit people.
And I never said they were evil, I was just referencing he looks like Palpatine.
Before Darwin first came out with his theory, people had believed for thousands of years that Genesis was scientific truth. Don't you think beliefs like that take awhile to change?
I must say, the Escapist community is very mature. On any other message board I've been to, a discussion of religion is immediately locked.
Yes, that is true (not for thousands of years tho as the origional Roman gods where still the dominate religion till just after 5 AD. We all thought the world was flat and krackens ruled on the edges of the sea, but even that was disproven by navigating the globe. But as I posted after this post you quoted me, isn't the bible supposed to be the word of God? If so, why is it incorrect?
Well, the extent to which it's the word of God really depends on your religion. Catholics are the type of Christians that rely on the Bible the least out of all possible sources. Besides two readings during mass (of stories with discernible morals) the Bible isn't really spoken about during church.
The best summary of Catholic belief is the Nicene Creed, which goes as follows:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
Notice nowhere in there is a reference to the Bible being absolute. The only mention of it is the part where it says that Jesus died as the Old Testament predicted. Outside of these tenets, Catholics are allowed to believe what they wish. This creed was written in order to establish the beliefs that you must have to be considered Catholic.
Wow, this is really old news. Pope John Paul the 2nd declared that evolution happened at least 10 years ago and that teh creation story was about he creation of the soul and not the body
I would like to point out that there is in fact a difference between a pope saying he agrees with something and an official statement from the Vatican. While the church has been leaning towards this for a while( Like you said, John Paul II accepted it), It only recently became their official position. Unofficial things can be ignored by religious zealots. Official statements on the position of the Church are much harder to ignore without seeming sacrilegious., although I'm sure people will continue to ignore it anyway.
Kind of, except that Pope John Paul or any Pope for that matter makes catholic doctrine and he didn't just say that he thought it happened, he said that all the scientific proof is undeniable and changed the church's stance on it. However, I will say that if my religion classes at my private catholic university have taught me anything it is that most Catholics don't know their own religion all that well
2. Evolution is also a fact. Species change over time, and speciation into distinct non-breedable groups (the creation of new species) is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how that happens.
Yep, but there are multiple theories on how it happens which are all undergoing constant revision. The original theories about survival of the fittest and natural selection were found to be full of holes due to many factors, not least of which was nobody really understands what constitutes "fitness" for survival. The lack of ability to really pin down what constitutes a "species" has also a problem.
The differences between real scientists on the process of evolution are about the fiddly details, gene selection or individual selection, mostly. Not about the actual process itself.
The original theories about survival of the fittest and natural selection were found to be full of holes due to many factors, not least of which was nobody really understands what constitutes "fitness" for survival.
Nobody who hasn't studied biology, anyway. "Fitness" for survival means the ability of a gene to leave more copies of itself in successive generations than any of it's alleles. The only people who will tell you there are "holes" in the theory of natural selection are people with a political motive to do so (usually religiously derived).
The lack of ability to really pin down what constitutes a "species" has also a problem.
Nobody who hasn't studied biology, anyway. "Fitness" for survival means the ability of a gene to leave more copies of itself in successive generations than any of it's alleles. The only people who will tell you there are "holes" in the theory of natural selection are people with a political motive to do so (usually religiously derived).
As a matter of fact, you are provably wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenoptera]. There are species all over the world which are successful because a lot of their members don't go around leaving copies of themselves in the next generation, which creates problems for evolutionary theory formulation. If survival of the fittest is the yard-stake of success, how is it that animals evolve in such a way as to not survive to ensure the survival of others? As those animals that die are key to the survival, but fail to pass on their genes.
Incidentally, true science concerns itself with disproving theories and hypothesis, only when science becomes religiously dogmatic of itself does it not take into account new theories which don't conflict with the facts at hand.
GloatingSwine said:
Not really. Again it's more of a fiddly detail, of interest more to taxonomists than anyone actually studying evolution.
There are species all over the world which are successful because a lot of their members don't go around leaving copies of themselves in the next generation, which creates problems for evolutionary theory formulation. If survival of the fittest is the yard-stake of success, how is it that animals evolve in such a way as to not survive to ensure the survival of others? As those animals that die are key to the survival, but fail to pass on their genes.
I'm sorry, you appear to believe that the Hymenoptera are a particular problem for the concept of natural selection, rather than an interesting case study to demonstrate why gene selectionism is a more complete explanation of the theory than individual selectionism.
All of the non breeding members of the order hymenoptera are acting in ways which ensure the survival of copies of the same genes as are within their bodies. A gene (or more properly a group of genes, because the sting is no use without the behaviour, and the behaviour is no use without the sting) which, for instance, causes stinging of intruders to the hive can prosper despite being fatal to the individual because it preserves copies of itself in the larvae protected by this suicidal behaviour.
So you see, there is in fact no problem with natural selection due to the hymenoptera, once you realise what is actually being selected. Genes. For more about hymenoptera I'd reccommend reading The Extended Phenotype, which goes into some detail about the various behaviours of breeding and non breeding members, and how they attempt to maximise the survival of copies of their genes.
Ahhh.. once again you are provably wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem].
Your wikipedia article is, once more, all but entirely concerned with taxonomy (the identification and classification of species) which actually impinges very little on evolution as it is scientifically understood (the change in frequency within a population of genes relative to their alleles over time).
Also, I find it highly amusing that you accuse me of being "internet scientist" and then use, of all sources, Wikipedia as "proof" that I am wrong. How do you know I haven't just edited the page you linked to to say "GloatingSwine is Always Right"?
May i direct everyone to science talk podcast Darwin day special part 3 where the head of the long island council of churches gives a speech explaining why the Christians who disagree with Darwin are a) vastly outnumbered and b) idiots.
Hehe I've now lost the slightest respect I may have had for the Church, I mean even if your completely wrong about something you should never admit it, at least if they stuck to their beliefs I'd have respect for them, though I'll not give them more creditability.
If you're wrong, and can be proven thus, it takes more balls (and thus is more deserving of respect) to say "Yes, I was wrong." and alter your beliefs to more accurately reflect reality.
Well when the church finally admits that it has been wrong about God and the whole Bible farce and there is in fact nothing their then I'll admit they have balls but this is just pandering to popular opinion
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
