Anyone want to have some fun with this?

[Silver]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sam Brownback on evolution. Next up, the NY Times will publish Lindsay Lohan's opinion on sobriety and how important it is to drive with a clear head.

[DRB]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sam Brownback on evolution. Next up, the NY Times will publish Lindsay Lohan's opinion on sobriety and how important it is to drive with a clear head.

no i will not login.... Silver will copy and paste ala N8.

[reflux]

Op-Ed Contributor
What I Think About Evolution
E-MailPrint Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy SAM BROWNBACK
Published: May 31, 2007
Washington

IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

[reflux]

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
So he's arguing for ID. What's new?

[Silver]

So he's arguing for ID. What's new?

No, he's arguing for straight out creationism. ID proponents leave wiggle room by stating that the designer could be like an alien or something, man.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Isn't that cute. I know many small children around the world who are convinced that there is a flying reindeer with a red nose that pulls a fat present dispensing machine around on Christmas eve.

They usually grow out of that though...at least before they make a Presidential run.

[Kihaji]

No, he's arguing for straight out creationism. ID proponents leave wiggle room by stating that the designer could be like an alien or something, man.



No, he is essentially stating what a wise man once said before:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

[LordOpie]

No, he is essentially stating what a wise man once said before:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Do you think Einstein ever got laid?

I'm not sure I'd take philosophy from a guy who never went out and partied once in a while.

[Kihaji]

Do you think Einstein ever got laid?

I'm not sure I'd take philosophy from a guy who never went out and partied once in a while.

Considering he was married, and regarded as a bit of a party animal, yes, I do think he got laid.

[ohio]

No, he is essentially stating what a wise man once said before:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Wow, that is one wildly hopeful interpretation of Brownstain's statements.

[reflux]

No, he's arguing for straight out creationism. ID proponents leave wiggle room by stating that the designer could be like an alien or something, man.
My bad.

As with most believers in creationism and ID, his understanding of the theory of evolution is poor at best. Note: my knowledge of said theory is nothing to brag about.

My favorite part:
Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge.
IMO, it holds little weight to start with a conclusion and pick-and-chose which evidence will be used to support the argument. Lame.

[Silver]

No, he is essentially stating what a wise man once said before:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

First off, you may want to check the background on that Einstein quote. What he means by religion is certainly not what Brownback means.

Secondly, if Einstein truly believed that, he wouldn't have bothered to come up with any of his insights, he would have merely said, "Yahweh did it!"

Thank God he didn't...

[BurlyShirley]

Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology

What?!?
Evolutionary theory never raised that question. Evolutionary theory STATES that man is a chance product of NOT-random, but rather logical and beneficial mutations. Furthermore, philosophy and theology are both irrelevant in that realm completely unless you're talking about what corrupted it in the last few thousand years.

[DRB]

Brownback thinks Einstein is the stinky jew that runs the deli around the corner.....

wait do they even have Jews in Kansas?

[Silver]

What?!?
Evolutionary theory never raised that question. Evolutionary theory STATES that man is a chance product of NOT-random, but rather logical and beneficial mutations.

Not necessarily logical, just mutations that were beneficial for survival and reproduction.

You have hit on something that I've seen Richard Dawkins do in interviews before. The person will ask, "So, you believe we evolved from monkeys by random chance!?"

Of course, asking that question to a biologist is like asking your mechanic if the problem with your car has something to do with the derailleur...

[BurlyShirley]

Not necessarily logical, just mutations that were beneficial for survival and reproduction.


What I meant was that the mutations that stuck around were logical in terms of their role advancing the species. There are tons of random mutations which obviously dont get expressed down the line because they arent advantagious. Some creationists miss out on that concept altogether and I dont see how. They think we believe a monkey just shat a human out its womb and we took off from there. They dont grasp speciation.

[narlus]

they don't grasp the branch/shrub comparison (ie, it's not a direct, linear progression from plankton to man).

[MikeD]

Philosophically, 'evolution' is a crock as well. It's an after-the-fact application of a process conceived by the human mind, laid over the history of all the accidents and interrelated causes that got us and everthing else to where and what it is today.

Sure, animals that survived passed on their genes. And those with advantages tend to survive better than those without. Other than that, there's no guarantee of survival of the fittest or anything else. Biological existence is the purest sort of accident, not the result of a process with rules and logic, to which most scienc-y types would like to elevate it.

We can draw some basic conclusions (those I stated in the previous paragraph) but we have no way to say that there's an actual process going on.

[ohio]

Philosophically, 'evolution' is a crock as well. It's an after-the-fact application of a process conceived by the human mind

No it's an after-the-fact observation of mechanisms and patterns (no different than many other theories). While the inputs may be random, that doesn't mean that at a high level there is not an observable order to the system.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "Philosophically." As I've stated before, science or the scientific method is not a philosophy or belief-system, it is a tool. It does not give "meaning" to the world around us, but it does help us understand that world.

[MikeD]

But naming the process assumes you 1) have all the evidence and 2) are drawing the correct causal connections, neither of which is in any way possible. We are incredibly arrogant beings in our assumptions about our own ability to know things.

We impart an idea of 'order' on the natural world. Things in the natural world happen in a pre-conscious state. Our consciousness is an abberation.

My argument about evolution is like my argument about mathematics. Mathematicians think they're learning fundamentals of the world...a metaphysics of sorts. Yet, all math is simply a description of the world, a language which lets us approximate to varying degrees the workings of the world around us. It's an extremely useful tool, but not a way to get at "truth" or "reality" or some other metaphysical concept.

[Kihaji]

First off, you may want to check the background on that Einstein quote. What he means by religion is certainly not what Brownback means.

Secondly, if Einstein truly believed that, he wouldn't have bothered to come up with any of his insights, he would have merely said, "Yahweh did it!"

Thank God he didn't...

I very well do know what Einstein thought of when he was talking of religion. It may not have been the personal God, pray and worship ivory tower religion, but it was a faith based in something not rational. An overarching power of "Mother Nature", which he most certainly did believe in.

And if you believe that a strong sense of Science and logic precludes someone from a sense of Faith and Religion, you are sadly mistaken. In fact Einstein and many scientists hold Athiests in the same light as religious nutters.

[Silver]

I very well do know what Einstein thought of when he was talking of religion. It may not have been the personal God, pray and worship ivory tower religion, but it was a faith based in something not rational. An overarching power of "Mother Nature", which he most certainly did believe in.

And if you believe that a strong sense of Science and logic precludes someone from a sense of Faith and Religion, you are sadly mistaken. In fact Einstein and many scientists hold Athiests in the same light as religious nutters.

So, Einstein was at best a loose Deist,which, like I pointed out, is nothing compatible to what Brownback believes, and it still leaves another unanswered question: Who created the Deity? (Another side note: Picking Einstein is odd. I wouldn't hold up the fact that E.O. Wilson has referred to himself very loosely as a deist to prove my point in a discussion about black holes. Why you would throw a brief quote from Einstein into a discussion of evolutionary theory is a little curious.)

I certainly don't believe that scientific beliefs preclude religious ones. It's quite obvious that there are people who can hold both. It's also fairly obvious that most religious people flee from their beliefs when science can do a better job. After all, most church going folk opt for the chemo instead of praying. Have you ever wondered why that is? It is pretty clear that the more educated you get, the less people of faith there are hanging around. Care to explain why that is?

[MikeD]

NPR had something good the other week on how Einstein's quotes on religion are pretty much cherry-picked, and he had a huge disdain for any kind of belief other than a vague wonder at the mechanics of the universe.

[reflux]

Have you ever wondered why that is? It is pretty clear that the more educated you get, the less people of faith there are hanging around. Care to explain why that is?
Religiosity vs. intelligence is deserving of its own thread.

[Kihaji]

Who created the Deity?

And I give the same answer that scientists give for the question "What about the time before the big bang?"

Nothing, much like god/diety, time did not exist until it did. With the big bang, time was created, along with everything else.

It is actually quite amazing how scientific explanations parallel religious texts when it comes to origin.

[Silver]

It is actually quite amazing how scientific explanations parallel religious texts when it comes to origin.

Scientific explanations (and we're not speaking of evolutionary theory at this point, we are talking about the origin of the cosmos. You keep trying to conflate the two issues, but they are NOT the same) make it pretty clear that we aren't 100% sure, but we're working on it. (What we are sure about is that God didn't create the Universe on Day 1 and wrap it up on Day 6. There is simply no evidence for that.) It's also possible we may never be able to figure it out, or at least explain it in a way that makes intuitive sense to us.

Religious texts, on the other hand, are long on magical specifics and their believers are convinced that they are right. And they have to be, because a religious leader loses power and credibility when he says, "I'm not sure."

Now, to get back to Einstein, I have to wonder which group is showing that doubt and wonder he talked about...

[Silver]

Religiosity vs. intelligence is deserving of its own thread.

I didn't say intelligence. I said education.

[MikeD]

And they have to be, because a religious leader loses power and credibility when he says, "I'm not sure."



To be fair, scientists and academics are vulnerable to the same thing. And there are religious people who say "I'm not sure" to a variety of topics.

The history of science is rife with competing theories and personalities, and it's not such a pure world that popularity, presentation, or even ready comprehensibility affect what becomes accepted scientific theory/fact/paradigm.

[kidwoo]

Our consciousness is an abberation.


Whatever.........jesus loves me so.




My argument about evolution is like my argument about mathematics. Mathematicians think they're learning fundamentals of the world...a metaphysics of sorts. Yet, all math is simply a description of the world, a language which lets us approximate to varying degrees the workings of the world around us. It's an extremely useful tool, but not a way to get at "truth" or "reality" or some other metaphysical concept.

Gawd damn that drives me crazy when there's some dipsh1t "mathmatics expert" who uses the success of the 'language' to verify the existence of the baby jeebus. Also heard on NPR was one of those freaks who's too stupid to realize what you've just described and takes the intricate functionalities of mathmatics as evidence of perfection....and therefore teh gawd.......completely disregarding the fact that mathmatics exist as an after effect of trying to describe already functional systems in nature.

ooooohh I just hate them!!!

It's like dropping to my knees when I discovered xtr componentry in the 90s.

[MikeD]

Woo, I'm backing away, very slowly. Even leaving behind some purple-anodized cranks as a distraction...

[kidwoo]

and it's not such a pure world that popularity, presentation, or even ready comprehensibility affect what becomes accepted scientific theory/fact/paradigm.

I capitalize on that daily in my new job at the FDA.


reading this post may induce such side effects as apathy, diarrhea, genital warts and argentinian penguin herpes


PS: gimme those cranks

[Silver]

The history of science is rife with competing theories and personalities, and it's not such a pure world that popularity, presentation, or even ready comprehensibility affect what becomes accepted scientific theory/fact/paradigm.

Very true, but at the end of the day what makes the scientific method powerful is that it self repairs. All it takes it one reproducible experiment to shatter a paradigm. The confirmation of light bending in 1919 by Eddington is a good example of that.

If you're thinking more about applied science (technology) you're 100% right. Popularity, personality, and marketing play into that substantially.

[reflux]

I didn't say intelligence. I said education.
Okay, fine, whatever.

You're okay with generalizing the faithful as not educated? Or are you referring to the education levels of people who hold beliefs in both science and religion?

[Silver]

Okay, fine, whatever.

You're okay with generalizing the faithful as not educated? Or are you referring to the education levels of people who hold beliefs in both science and religion?

The second.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

However, I am just fine with generalizing church going people who believe in creationism as not educated with regard to biological science, the same way I am fine generalizing that people who believe in horoscopes are not the best people to consult on questions of astronomy.

[kidwoo]

However, I am just fine with generalizing church going people who believe in creationism as not educated with regard to biological science,

But darwin said monkeys turned into people!!

That's crazy!!

I ain't never seen no monkey do that!!

[Silver]

But darwin said monkeys turned into people!!

That's crazy!!

I ain't never seen no monkey do that!!

Bill Hicks had the proper reply to that one :D

(Paraphrased) Ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved? Eyes set really close together, big furry hands. "God made me in one day!"

Yep, looks like he rushed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk

[MikeD]

I still seethe at the smugness of a "BC" cartoon I saw when I was like 12. It was two cavemen discussing evolution...one says, "So you think we evolved from apes?" to which the other responds, "Yep."

The hero then says, in a fashion I can only imagine dripping with smarm, "Then how come we still got apes?" as if he'd just torpedoed the entire heathen ship full of hell-bound non-believers with that tart remark. Man, it still pisses me off to think of that one. Don't confront the issue if you're not capable of seeing the target, much less hitting it...

[kidwoo]

I still seethe at the smugness of a "BC" cartoon I saw when I was like 12. It was two cavemen discussing evolution...one says, "So you think we evolved from apes?" to which the other responds, "Yep."

The hero then says, in a fashion I can only imagine dripping with smarm, "Then how come we still got apes?" as if he'd just torpedoed the entire heathen ship full of hell-bound non-believers with that tart remark. Man, it still pisses me off to think of that one. Don't confront the issue if you're not capable of seeing the target, much less hitting it...


Dude you've got a flower, a guy in a skinsuit running enthusiastically towards a pink manpart, separated only by the letter Y, showing up every time you post.

You are most certainly not to be expected to understand the ways of the lord.

[MikeD]

Dude you've got a flower, a guy in a skinsuit running enthusiastically towards a pink manpart, separated only by the letter Y, showing up every time you post.

You are most certainly not to be expected to understand the ways of the lord.

You haven't been reading enough Umberto Eco.

[Secret Squirrel]

Woo's posts have eclipsed my menial understanding of the omniverse...so with that...

:picsstfu: :picsstfu: :picsstfu: :picsstfu: :picsstfu:


That should suffice.

[Kihaji]

Gawd damn that drives me crazy when there's some dipsh1t "mathmatics expert" who uses the success of the 'language' to verify the existence of the baby jeebus. Also heard on NPR was one of those freaks who's too stupid to realize what you've just described and takes the intricate functionalities of mathmatics as evidence of perfection....and therefore teh gawd.......completely disregarding the fact that mathmatics exist as an after effect of trying to describe already functional systems in nature.

ooooohh I just hate them!!!

It's like dropping to my knees when I discovered xtr componentry in the 90s.

So you hate some of the people who are unarguably the most educated people in all of history? Like René_Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes) or Godel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_ontological_proof)?


Scientific explanations (and we're not speaking of evolutionary theory at this point, we are talking about the origin of the cosmos. You keep trying to conflate the two issues, but they are NOT the same) make it pretty clear that we aren't 100% sure, but we're working on it. (What we are sure about is that God didn't create the Universe on Day 1 and wrap it up on Day 6. There is simply no evidence for that.) It's also possible we may never be able to figure it out, or at least explain it in a way that makes intuitive sense to us.

How can we be 100% unsure of how, yet be completely sure that it wasn't God? And be very careful, the absence of evidence for is not proof against, it merely means we may not have the tools to measure the evidence yet.

And it is precicely for the reason that we cannot explain it or possibly be able to explain it why Einstein, and many great scientists, embrace a bit of religion/philosophy, it helps you fill in the gaps and all the cases that science cannot hope to explain.

[ohio]

unarguably
irregardless, that's just supposably unarguable.


How can we be 100% unsure of how

I'm 100% uncertain of what that means.

[Silver]

How can we be 100% unsure of how, yet be completely sure that it wasn't God? And be very careful, the absence of evidence for is not proof against, it merely means we may not have the tools to measure the evidence yet.


Short answer: We can't. However, we can look at the evidence and make a reasonable decision. We also can't be 100% sure that the Easter Bunny is a myth by your reasoning.

(Dennett talks about this kind of reasoning in one of his books. He likens it to playing intellectual tennis with a person who removes the net before he takes a shot, and then puts it up before you can return it...I think he was being too kind. I think it's more like playing checkers with a child who moves the pieces wherever he wants to without regard for the rules of the game, but expects you to follow them.)

[Old Man G Funk]

How can we be 100% unsure of how, yet be completely sure that it wasn't God? And be very careful, the absence of evidence for is not proof against, it merely means we may not have the tools to measure the evidence yet.
No one is saying we are completely sure it wasn't god. What we are saying is that we are completely sure that we can't scientifically say it was god. And, you are completely right, absence of evidence doesn't mean god isn't there, but it does mean that we can't say it is there. The plain fact of the matter is that evolution makes no claims about god at all, whether god is there or not. That Brownback claims evolution discounts god shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'd also agree with you that we don't have the tools to measure god, nor does it appear we ever will, which is why god is not a scientific concept and why evolution doesn't deal with god.
And it is precicely for the reason that we cannot explain it or possibly be able to explain it why Einstein, and many great scientists, embrace a bit of religion/philosophy, it helps you fill in the gaps and all the cases that science cannot hope to explain.
So, you are accussing Einstein of a god of the gaps fallacy when you don't even know what he was talking about? That's lame, especially because you happen to hold to that god of the gaps.

[Old Man G Funk]

But naming the process assumes you 1) have all the evidence and 2) are drawing the correct causal connections, neither of which is in any way possible. We are incredibly arrogant beings in our assumptions about our own ability to know things.

We impart an idea of 'order' on the natural world. Things in the natural world happen in a pre-conscious state. Our consciousness is an abberation.

My argument about evolution is like my argument about mathematics. Mathematicians think they're learning fundamentals of the world...a metaphysics of sorts. Yet, all math is simply a description of the world, a language which lets us approximate to varying degrees the workings of the world around us. It's an extremely useful tool, but not a way to get at "truth" or "reality" or some other metaphysical concept.

WTF are you going on about? How does naming a process make those assumptions? In the case of evolution, naming a process means that we have observed it and have a name for it, nothing more. And who the hell is saying that evolution gets at "truth" or "reality" in the case that you seem to be using it. It's the Creationists who try to impart these things onto science.

[kidwoo]

unarguably the most educated people in all of history?

unarguably the most educated people in all of history?

unarguably the most educated people in all of history?



DAMN YOU OHIO!!!!!!!!!

[MikeD]

WTF are you going on about? How does naming a process make those assumptions? In the case of evolution, naming a process means that we have observed it and have a name for it, nothing more. And who the hell is saying that evolution gets at "truth" or "reality" in the case that you seem to be using it. It's the Creationists who try to impart these things onto science.

You're right that I was not clear. My objection isn't specifically to naming a process, but to the arrogant conception that we're discovering processes at all. Evolution is not a process, in and of itself. It's a label we post-apply to random, chaotic reality in an effort to make it comprehensible. A process implies a top-down design, a beginning and an end, and a path or recurring cycle. We create the idea of evolution in our heads through inductive reasoning, while all we can know concretely is the fact that things that survive pass on their genetic traits.

In a way, science does indeed replace religion, for many people, as a way to answer larger questions of order and meaning...something that the (eggrandized) 'process of evolution' provides us.

But I don't think science is really very good at providing these things to us. It's great at building bridges and airplanes, growing food, making useful materials, etc...concrete things for which I'm infinitely grateful. But many of the larger the abstracts we create in our own heads from the empirical evidence available to us are not what we'd like them to be. There's a lot that's hidden from us, and we'll never comprehend. Chaotic reality is far too complicated. Simple behaviors and facts, those we can readily understand, give rise to things we can't simply can't predict, and we have a similar tendency/ability to overlay ourselves on history and create 'causes' which exist only in hindsight. But there are an infinite number of causes for any one period of time we choose to define (only in our own minds) as an individual event.

I've read a lot of what you post here, OMFG, and I don't think you and I (or Silver) will ever agree on this stuff, because I tend to focus on what I believe are the ridiculously finite limits of our knowledge and laugh at our scientific pretentions to solve bigger problems, like where we've come from and where we're going. Many much smarter people than I don't think the way I do, and they create more useful things than I ever will, so I'm not hostile to people who think in the Enlightenment scientific model.

I suppose it's all because I just read "The Black Swan" and it stirred up all my old college-aged philosophical angst. Some stuff the book says really resonates with me...(certainly not all of it, mind you) I reacted much the same way Taleb does when my economics professor presented me with the Utilitarian-based models of human behavior used in economics...I also spent a lot of time in my philosophy of history classes reading Hayden White and trying to escape the counterfactual model of history and false ideas of causality.

That didn't clear up anything at all, did it?

[JRogers]

You're right that I was not clear. My objection isn't specifically to naming a process, but to the arrogant conception that we're discovering processes at all. Evolution is not a process, in and of itself. It's a label we post-apply to random, chaotic reality in an effort to make it comprehensible. A process implies a top-down design, a beginning and an end, and a path or recurring cycle. We create the idea of evolution in our heads through inductive reasoning, while all we can know concretely is the fact that things that survive pass on their genetic traits.


How, in this respect, is evolution different from any other explanatory scientific theory? Just because evolutionary theory does not lead to definite material, utilitarian gains for us, how does our theorizing about the phenomenon differ from our theories on a multitude of other topics?

[MikeD]

It's not; I think we draw pretty arrogant conclusions a lot of the time, but, like I've said, my objections are much more philosophical than practical.

[Silver]

In a way, science does indeed replace religion, for many people, as a way to answer larger questions of order and meaning...something that the (eggrandized) 'process of evolution' provides us.



If I'm reading you right, I think you're saying that evolutionary theory provides people with the idea that we are meant to be here, that the somehow the universe had us in mind and we are the pinnacle of life.

Now, I would agree that there are lots of people who think that way, but I also need to point out that if you understand evolutionary theory that way, you don't understand evolutionary theory at all.


I tend to focus on what I believe are the ridiculously finite limits of our knowledge and laugh at our scientific pretentions to solve bigger problems, like where we've come from and where we're going.


I'm not sure we'll know the answers. I hope we will. What pisses me off to no end is someone who pulls out writings from a 2000 year old desert tribe and presumes to tell me that he knows more than the whole of human scientific knowledge. (I should disclose that I'm an optimist, and I think that if we can manage to not make the planet uninhabitable over the next 200 years we'll be much better off. Too many people in the past have said "That's impossible!" only to be proven wrong to make me feel comfortable with that position. Also, I should note that my views have changed at lot over the last 10 years. 10 years ago I wrote a paper (that I got a very good grade on) claiming that strong AI was impossible, computers could never be conscious, and that Searle's Chinese room made more sense than anything Dennett had ever written. I wish I could get that paper back and quote it in a thread like this...I'm sure I'd be pretty brutal.)

[Kihaji]

I'm not sure we'll know the answers. I hope we will.

Actually, if you believe in science, it is proven that we will never have a complete understanding of anything. Study Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to understand why.

[Silver]

Actually, if you believe in science, it is proven that we will never have a complete understanding of anything. Study Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to understand why.

And here comes the net down again. Because, after all, that's not what Brownback is arguing. He has a complete understanding. It was God! Voila!

(Odd again that you would take a theorem that applies to formal mathematics and make the blanket statement that we will never have a complete understanding of anything. Very postmodern of you...)

[Kihaji]

And here comes the net down again. Because, after all, that's not what Brownback is arguing. He has a complete understanding. It was God! Voila!

(Odd again that you would take a theorem that applies to formal mathematics and make the blanket statement that we will never have a complete understanding of anything. Very postmodern of you...)

Godel's Incompleteness theorem doesn't just apply to Mathematics, it applies to any formal system. But, since modern science uses mathematics as it's basis, it applies both directly and indirectly, you can't have completeness if your base is incomplete.

I also wasn't mentioning this in the context of what Brownback said, but yes, it would also apply that religion will never have all the answers as well.

[Old Man G Funk]

I've read a lot of what you post here, OMFG, and I don't think you and I (or Silver) will ever agree on this stuff, because I tend to focus on what I believe are the ridiculously finite limits of our knowledge and laugh at our scientific pretentions to solve bigger problems, like where we've come from and where we're going.

OK, we can disagree, but I hope it's not due to a misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not a study of "why" we are here. Science is the study of the world around us, and to that end it really is rather utilitarian. That we can make computers and airplanes, etc. speaks to that quite well IMO.

Also, you should note that evolution is indeed a process. It is the process by which nature induces random mutations, then selects for those that help survival. True, that is not always the case, as a squirrel that has the best genes in the world could get hit by a car before reproducing, but that's why evolution is said to work on populations, not individuals.

Just because evolutionary theory does not lead to definite material, utilitarian gains for us, how does our theorizing about the phenomenon differ from our theories on a multitude of other topics?
Evolution isn't utilitarian? Next time you need some antibiotics, rethink your statement please.

[MikeD]

Also, you should note that evolution is indeed a process. It is the process by which nature induces random mutations, then selects for those that help survival.

The only place we differ is the definition of process. To my thinking, process implies design and/or purpose, neither of which 'evolution' has. 'Evolution' is a neat (and useful) way for us to discuss what we think has happened over our world's biological history, which has been entirely chaotic, arising from several simple and recurring events.

Dictionary.com half agrees with me and half with you. (although the definitions, not being exclusive, pretty much agree with you, I suppose...)

1. a systematic series of actions directed to some end: to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: the process of decay.

I don't object to the verbage of 2., per se, but I don't like the way people think we've 'discovered' a 'process' of evolution. We've simply given a blanket name to chaos.

In another thought (partially arising from an observation in The Watchmen, isn't it odd that life is directly contradictory to our 'law' of thermodynamics indicating ever-increasing entropy? Should that actually be our definition of 'life?'

MD

[MikeD]

Evolution isn't utilitarian? Next time you need some antibiotics, rethink your statement please.

Or ask any fruit fly with trendy red eyes.

[ohio]

I don't object to the verbage of 2., per se, but I don't like the way people think we've 'discovered' a 'process' of evolution. We've simply given a blanket name to chaos.


That reads as if you believe that there is only one degree of chaos... completely random and unpredictable. You know that viewed at the correct altitude there can be order even in chaotic systems. Are you comfortable with asserting that there are observable patterns or order to evolution, rather than using the word "process?" Is the issue that "process" implies a beginning/end or defined progression?

[Old Man G Funk]

The only place we differ is the definition of process. To my thinking, process implies design and/or purpose, neither of which 'evolution' has. 'Evolution' is a neat (and useful) way for us to discuss what we think has happened over our world's biological history, which has been entirely chaotic, arising from several simple and recurring events.
Evolution implies no design or plan, so in that we agree. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand evolution.
I don't object to the verbage of 2., per se, but I don't like the way people think we've 'discovered' a 'process' of evolution. We've simply given a blanket name to chaos.
But we did "discover" it, didn't we?
dis·cov·er /dɪˈskʌvər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhv-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown): to discover America; to discover electricity.
2. to notice or realize: I discovered I didn't have my credit card with me when I went to pay my bill.
3. Archaic. to make known; reveal; disclose.

In another thought (partially arising from an observation in The Watchmen, isn't it odd that life is directly contradictory to our 'law' of thermodynamics indicating ever-increasing entropy? Should that actually be our definition of 'life?'
Sorry, but nothing violates the second law of thermodynamics, and this is not a problem for evolution.

[dhbuilder]

one thing that h.c. creationists fail to grasp is that the seven day theory they believe in, doesn't mean seven days like we know them now.

seven days is a relative time frame.

and for those that shrug off evolution by saying that they see no immediate evidence of it.
all you have to do is look around at humans and see the physical change in appearance, now that our eating habits have been altered due to fast food and a sedintary life style that most lead.

evolution at it's best. right before your very eyes.

[kidwoo]

one thing that h.c. creationists fail to grasp is that the seven day theory they believe in, doesn't mean seven days like we know them now.

seven days is a relative time frame.



True.


I've known for years that "god the father" really means "jeffrey the omnipotent groundhog"


DARE YOU SMITE ME!!!!????

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y263/justclas/horrorbeaver.gif

[dhbuilder]

might as well be him, as any other diety.

[Kihaji]

one thing that h.c. creationists fail to grasp is that the seven day theory they believe in, doesn't mean seven days like we know them now.

seven days is a relative time frame.

and for those that shrug off evolution by saying that they see no immediate evidence of it.
all you have to do is look around at humans and see the physical change in appearance, now that our eating habits have been altered due to fast food and a sedintary life style that most lead.

evolution at it's best. right before your very eyes.

Being fat is not evolution, evolution is a genetic level system. Being fat is just being fat.

[dhbuilder]

but it's a result of the enviroment that surrounds them too.

they evolve from being a physically active being that was prevalent just a generation or so ago.
to a drive through and sit down and do nothing lifestyle.
(a choice indeed. but one that comes from a quickly decreasing choice of opitons for those that don't make the effort to not fall victim to it.)

an evolving product of an evolving enviroment.

we can throw the industrial revolution into all of this as well.
speeding up the process at a rapid rate.

[Secret Squirrel]

True.


I've known for years that "god the father" really means "jeffrey the omnipotent groundhog"


DARE YOU SMITE ME!!!!????

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y263/justclas/horrorbeaver.gif

omfg....I just fell out of my chair...

[Silver]

but it's a result of the enviroment that surrounds them too.

they evolve from being a physically active being that was prevalent just a generation or so ago.
to a drive through and sit down and do nothing lifestyle.
(a choice indeed. but one that comes from a quickly decreasing choice of opitons for those that don't make the effort to not fall victim to it.)

an evolving product of an evolving enviroment.

we can throw the industrial revolution into all of this as well.
speeding up the process at a rapid rate.

There is no way that genetic evolution in the last 20 years has caused the obesity rates to skyrocket. You can blame that on genes that are 50,000-100,000 years old, at least.

Changes in lifestyle are not the same as genetic changes.

[BurlyShirley]

There is no way that genetic evolution in the last 20 years has caused the obesity rates to skyrocket. You can blame that on genes that are 50,000-100,000 years old, at least.

Changes in lifestyle are not the same as genetic changes.

However, humans are much taller and have larger feet than they did just 100 years ago.

[Westy]

However, humans are much taller and have larger feet than they did just 100 years ago.

I think that can also be related to nutrition. I know a few people with Crohns disease and they are pretty small folks despite having taller parents, they are short because they couldn't get all the nutrients they needed when growing up. Of course there is also the argument that we are absorbing all the hormones and steroids we give to the animals we eat. My nephew just turned two and could probably buy beer without getting ID'd if he could stop drooling and making choo choo sounds.

[BurlyShirley]

I think that can also be related to nutrition.

Or the virtual opening of the flood gates to the gene pool by way of mass transit.

[dhbuilder]

There is no way that genetic evolution in the last 20 years has caused the obesity rates to skyrocket. You can blame that on genes that are 50,000-100,000 years old, at least.

Changes in lifestyle are not the same as genetic changes.

then explain diabetes, cancers, autisms etc....
(and actually obesity is becoming more of a genetic situation.)
all products of the environment that continues to evolve.
whether its a natural process, or us phuquing everything out of its natural progression.

lifestyles changes lead to genetic changes.
when whatever it was that crawled up out of the water, shed it's gills for lungs and scraped its flippers for feet..........etc.....

[dhbuilder]

However, humans are much taller and have larger feet than they did just 100 years ago.

that sure wasn't a lifestyle choice now, was it ??

[kidwoo]

then explain diabetes, cancers, autisms etc.........

You think those are new phenomena?



lifestyles changes lead to genetic changes.
when whatever it was that crawled up out of the water, shed it's gills for lungs and scraped its flippers for feet..........etc.....

That's funny.

Because that's exactly what happened. Just like that.

[ohio]

I made out with this hot chick and it caused some rapid evolution in my pants. You can't argue with that.

[Secret Squirrel]

I made out with this hot chick and it caused some rapid evolution in my pants. You can't argue with that.

That brings to mind a new pick-up line that you can use at scientific conventions...

"Hey baby, want to go mutate the genetic code?"

[Silver]

then explain diabetes, cancers, autisms etc....
(and actually obesity is becoming more of a genetic situation.)
all products of the environment that continues to evolve.
whether its a natural process, or us phuquing everything out of its natural progression.

lifestyles changes lead to genetic changes.
when whatever it was that crawled up out of the water, shed it's gills for lungs and scraped its flippers for feet..........etc.....

No, they don't.

What you're describing is known as Lamarckian evolution. Lifestyle changes do not lead to DNA changes.

[BurlyShirley]

No, they don't.

What you're describing is known as Lamarckian evolution. Lifestyle changes do not lead to DNA changes.

...well they can and do, but not exactly like is being suggested. If for instance the human lifestyle required us to walk 50 miles a day in search of food, and the weak and hereditarily obese began to die off, over time human form would begin to reflect something more adaptive to that. If humans became so sedentary that fat, flabby jabba the hut type females began choosing only fat, flabby jabba the hut type males...and at the same time skinny athletic types began mating only with those like themselves...you could begin to see some sympatric speciation.

[ohio]

You think those are new phenomena?


Well, yeah. Autism didn't exist until Rainman, duh.

[Secret Squirrel]

D-d-d-d-definately K-k-k-kmart...

[Westy]

Or the virtual opening of the flood gates to the gene pool by way of mass transit.
My brother did marry some Indian chick. Who knows what kind of crazy genes there are over there. I'm just glad the kid didn't have eight arms or an elephant head.

[MMike]

My brother did marry some Indian chick. Who knows what kind of crazy genes there are over there. I'm just glad the kid didn't have eight arms or an elephant head.

But he'd be a great juggler.....

[fluff]

Also, you should note that evolution is indeed a process. It is the process by which nature induces random mutations, then selects for those that help survival.

That's a statement that I am uncomfortable with. You may not have meant to but you have implied (to my ears) a purpose. The use of the word nature implies an abstract that has direction - inducing, selecting add to that.

Mutations are random, which mutations survive is down to circumstance, luck and the results of cause and effect.

It is more a chain of events than a process.

[fluff]

My nephew just turned two and could probably buy beer without getting ID'd if he could stop drooling and making choo choo sounds.

Tell him to get a gun instead, then he can simply hold up the liquor store if they refuse to serve him.

[Kihaji]

then explain diabetes, cancers, autisms etc....
(and actually obesity is becoming more of a genetic situation.)
all products of the environment that continues to evolve.
whether its a natural process, or us phuquing everything out of its natural progression.

lifestyles changes lead to genetic changes.
when whatever it was that crawled up out of the water, shed it's gills for lungs and scraped its flippers for feet..........etc.....


Please read up on evolution before you speak idiocy. Environment does not cause evolution. Environment selects.

The fishies didn't grow lungs because they were exposed to a non-water environment. The fishies with lungs were the ones that survived. It is a HUGE difference, and in a way, if you believed what you state, it would mean that man could control evolution, IE Intelligent design.

[MikeD]

Also, you should note that evolution is indeed a process. It is the process by which nature induces random mutations, then selects for those that help survival. True, that is not always the case, as a squirrel that has the best genes in the world could get hit by a car before reproducing, but that's why evolution is said to work on populations, not individuals.



Look at the construction of your sentences--they give agency to nature. You say it induces and selects things. This implies a top-down organization and an itent. Nature does not induce or select anything...we characterize what we're seeing (things that survive surviving, things that die dying) as selection and induction, but selection and induction are not there a priori. That's all I'm saying.

It's more of a linguistic and philosophic point than any practical scientific one, but I do think it leads to us psychologically putting the cart before the horse in terms of how we consider our own knowledge and the workings of the world.

[ohio]

Please read up on evolution before you speak idiocy.

CRIPPLE FIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHT!!!!!!

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/j/T/timmy_CrippleFight_400.jpg

[MikeD]

oooooh ****.

[Old Man G Funk]

That's a statement that I am uncomfortable with. You may not have meant to but you have implied (to my ears) a purpose. The use of the word nature implies an abstract that has direction - inducing, selecting add to that.

Mutations are random, which mutations survive is down to circumstance, luck and the results of cause and effect.

It is more a chain of events than a process.

I don't see the implied purpose that you and Mike D seem to be picking up. "Nature" in this respect merely represents "natural" processes, like random mutations and selection.

Nature does not induce or select anything...we characterize what we're seeing (things that survive surviving, things that die dying) as selection and induction, but selection and induction are not there a priori.
Not there a priori? Huh? It seems to me that you are saying that nature is pure chaos, but it just so happens that we see this pattern of evolution because we want to impart patterns to things since we are human? My answer to that would be that genetic algorithms work, that finch beaks do change to suit the environment, that animals that are trapped on smaller islands go tend to get smaller, etc.

[MikeD]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

There's simply no way to 'discover' anything in nature (in a scientific sense, not a geographical one), because it's all there prior to our consideration and without regard for our interpretation. We just build convenient groupings which help us simplify chaos for our understanding and communication.

The changes you see don't happen with regard to an algorithm or because of evolution. They happened, and we call the results evolution when we look backward, based on evidence we gather.

Edit: Went on a run and thought about this some more. If we were talking about the process of stalagtites and stalagmites forming, I'd have no objection to that...can't exactly figure out why, but I think it's because that's so simple and readily observable...it's not really an abstraction like evolution, and there's no implication of a larger order in the world based on stalagmites forming...it's just the observable phenomenon of mineral deposits collecting over time. Dunno. But I think we're at a standstill anyhow... Either way, yeah, evolution should be taught in schools, so we're arguing a pretty fine point.

[JRogers]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

There's simply no way to 'discover' anything in nature (in a scientific sense, not a geographical one), because it's all there prior to our consideration and without regard for our interpretation. We just build convenient groupings which help us simplify chaos for our understanding and communication.

The changes you see don't happen with regard to an algorithm or because of evolution. They happened, and we call the results evolution when we look backward, based on evidence we gather.

I believe that I understand your point, but I'm not seeing how or why it is relevant in any other region besides a ontology or epistemology. Language is inherently rearward looking- it simplifies and distills something already in mind. That's what gives it utility.

I don't see how someone claiming, say, that the water cycle is human invention designed to simplify a chaotic and ultimately pointless system (i.e. not carried out with a conscious end in mind, unless you ascribe some deistic guidance) adds much. I'm still reading your thoughts and coming away with "Yeah...okay.....so what?" What am I missing?

[MikeD]

What am I missing?

Absolutely nothing. I was shocked this went on this long...it was more of a side comment than an attempt to divert the thread. It is an entirely epistemological point.

[BurlyShirley]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.


I just disagree with this. EVERY species undergoes a series of changes over a period of time. That fact is not a human mental construct, it is a natural truth. That we have a name for it doesnt mean we invented anything either. The guiding force is environment and the guiding principle is fitness.

All I can get from your post is something like, "There are no colors, only the reflections of light which we interpret as colors with our human eyes" to which Id reply....what the hell are we supposed to do? The world can only be described as it can be understood by the human mind.

[MikeD]

I just disagree with this. EVERY species undergoes a series of changes over a period of time. That fact is not a human mental construct, it is a natural truth.

Yep.

That we have a name for it doesnt mean we invented anything either. The guiding force is environment and the guiding principle is fitness.


Nope. It's not guided by any principle. That's applied after the fact, by us humans. Principles are linguistic constructs.

But this is a useless debate, since we pretty much agree on most everything except a fine, and immaterial (in practice), point.

MD

[Secret Squirrel]

FSM 4 life...

[Old Man G Funk]

Finch beaks did change, animals trapped on islands did get smaller. These things happened without regard to any larger process as the result of some things living and other things dying. We collectively group these phemomena together and call it 'evolution,' and viola, a process is born. There is no guiding principle. These things are human mental constructs. These constructs are useful tools which draw parallels in common situations, for sure. But these common situations arise from common circumstances, not an abstract process. Look at divergent/convergent evolution...very useful terms, but not descriptive of a process...just our interpretations of results.

There's simply no way to 'discover' anything in nature (in a scientific sense, not a geographical one), because it's all there prior to our consideration and without regard for our interpretation. We just build convenient groupings which help us simplify chaos for our understanding and communication.

The changes you see don't happen with regard to an algorithm or because of evolution. They happened, and we call the results evolution when we look backward, based on evidence we gather.

Edit: Went on a run and thought about this some more. If we were talking about the process of stalagtites and stalagmites forming, I'd have no objection to that...can't exactly figure out why, but I think it's because that's so simple and readily observable...it's not really an abstraction like evolution, and there's no implication of a larger order in the world based on stalagmites forming...it's just the observable phenomenon of mineral deposits collecting over time. Dunno. But I think we're at a standstill anyhow... Either way, yeah, evolution should be taught in schools, so we're arguing a pretty fine point.

I'm not sure I'm getting the point you are trying to make, except that you think the world chaotic, not ordered?

I object to your characterization of stalagtites and stalagmites being a "process" but evolution not, especially because evolution does not have any implication o "a larger order in the world." Both impart the same amount, which is the physical laws that we observe. And, yes, evolution is a process that follows those physical laws (which went to my point on evolution working on populations, not single critters.)

I think we can discover things. We discovered gravity, didn't we? We didn't know about it until it was "discovered" and then we did. True, it was here all along, but it wasn't known to us, until we uncovered (or discovered) the phenomena. I would also argue that your point about everything being there regardless of our interpretation may very well break down in the quantum regime, where Schrodingers cat is alive and dead simultaneously until we make an observation and the wave functions collapse and we find the cat to be in one state or the other.

OK, no more semantics. Evolution in schools, YES!

[MikeD]

Schrodingers cat is alive and dead simultaneously until we make an observation and the wave functions collapse and we find the cat to be in one state or the other.

OK, no more semantics. Evolution in schools, YES!

Wasn't Schroedinger's cat meant to point out what he felt was an absurdity in quantum theory...? Ie, the cat is alive or dead, and we know it's one, but we can't know which until we check? I thought he meant to point out that a cat simply can't be half alive and half dead, and it's not truthful to represent it as such just because we don't know which it is...and that this mix of states was just as wrong in particle physics.

Ed: Sort of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat

[Old Man G Funk]

Wasn't Schroedinger's cat meant to point out what he felt was an absurdity in quantum theory...? Ie, the cat is alive or dead, and we know it's one, but we can't know which until we check? I thought he meant to point out that a cat simply can't be half alive and half dead, and it's not truthful to represent it as such just because we don't know which it is...and that this mix of states was just as wrong in particle physics.

Ed: Sort of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat

Sort of, sort of not. It's one of the few things Einstein is said to have been wrong about. Although for macro items the observation doesn't hold, it does for quantum objects. This is how quantum cryptography works IIRC.