An "Evolutionary" Step Backwards?

Remove all ads!

The point is that your misconceptions about evolution and the theory of evolution are not a valid basis for deciding what is good for students. That should be left to the scientist concerned with this theory (biologists, etc.).
And here, in Europe, scientist focus on getting the most out of evolutionary biology, since it is one of the fastest developing branches of biology.

 

Maybe because she was a sinner? But the Boxing Day tsunami wiped out people of varying personalities, histories and faiths.

Because if God is responsiable for the creation of the planet then he is the cause of everything that happens on said planet.

 

But When does the teaching of Evolutionary Biology occur? If it's post secondary on the student's dollar, I can live with that. When it comes to the State's dollar, the curriculum needs to be selected differently. He who pays the piper calls the tune...

 

So you would rather have uneducated students, because it fits you better?
What about different subjects - take medicine for example. Are you going to teach future doctors that bacteria, viruses or the immunology system do not evolve? Good luck with your healthcare then.

 

I have read that history lessons are already screwed over there anyway, so it should not be a surprise that history is next.

 

@Abom, you fail to see both points

That God 'kills' hundreds of thousands of people with one move does not make him unjust or unfair.

You misread my argument, I did not say:
"Why can only God affect the evolution at the start of it all"
I said:
"Why can God only affect the evolution at the start of it all"
As in, why not now?

 

Sounds pretty damn unjust to me. People being killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Take note that I WAS in Phuket when this happened and I saw the destruction first hand and I can assure you that there was nothing 'just' about it. People died and if you argue that God is responsible for evolution (something that is brought about by changes in the environment) then He was also responsible for the Boxing Day tsunami (quite ironic really considering it was the day after the birth of Jesus).

Considering both phrases don't make grammatical sense due to evolution being a continuing process I think you can give me some leeway as to not understanding exactly what you mean. What does "at the start of it all" mean? The start being creation? It doesn't make sense because evolution is a continuing process.

The points I'm making about God being unjust and linking it to evolution are because if you want to teach Creationism in science class then the facts have to add up. There can be no contradictions. All questions must have an answer of some type and what’s more you need some 'proof' - not just something some guy wrote down in a book 4000 years ago. If we accept that as scientific fact we might as well teach in science class that all soldiers are ferried off to Valhalla (sp?) by steel-clad Viking girls to fight for eternity for the same reason: it’s in a book!

 

Unjust by whose standards?

I have trouble understanding your argument, there can be no beginning because evolution is a continuing process?

Did you mean that God can't intervene with evolution because evolution is a continuing process? Well, the evolution of a species depends on who is the fittest, if God suddenly flooded the entire earth, only the swimming species would survive, therefor: survival of the fittest.

Here is a creationist theory for you: "God sparked the big bang" see any contradictions?

Can't be allowed into science class without facts, what can we teach them there then? Atoms? Oh damn, we have no proof of atoms, it's still a theory...

[ February 21, 2005, 14:50: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

There's plenty of proof for the atomic theory - as long as we're not talking Dalton here. You can even see individual atoms in an ion trap. Don't be mislead by the term theory. We know so much about the microscopic world that we could call atoms a fact; the only thing that prevents us doing so is that we are not God.

 

By the definition of the word "Just".
As far as I am aware, it's fairly universal (OK international) that "Morally right and proper" does not include the slaughter of innocents, I imagine especially if you follow the vast majority of religious teachings.
So either the Church has got it wrong and it's OK to slaughter innocents, or else "God" wasn't responsible for the Tsunami, which leads to the idea that (s)he didn't make an attempt (and therefore presumably succeed) in stopping it, which makes me believe that (s)he does take a whole lot of interest in whats happening in the world and therefore probably wouldn't be too interested in "evolving" a new orchid every twenty years or so.

On the subject of evolution, it can be fairly easily watched in insects. A new species of mosquito has evolved on London Underground in the past 30-ish years which is no longer capable of breeding with the species it devolved from (The genitalia have changed) This is fairly easy to show when an insect has many generations in a single year. Another one is being investigated after a number of underground construction workers have incurred large painful swellings (no jokes please) after being bitten by mosquitos in some very rarely used tunnels.

 

Doesn't the creator of the world define moral? Doesn't he set the terms for justness and unjustness?


3000 years ago, it was 'just' to wipe a nation from the face of the earth in God's name.
2000 years ago, it was 'just' to wipe barbaric nations from the face of the earth, after all, they had no culture..
1000 years ago, it was 'just' to make the streets of foreign cities run red with blood of the 'innocents' in the name of Jesus Christ.
500 years ago, it was 'just' to empty entire lands of unbelievers, dogs of Satan.
60 years ago, it was 'just' to force the Jews into concentration camps.


Morals were changing, always changing, there is no such thing as a justice, a true moral, a true set of thoughts, it's what we humans came up with, because when we believe something to be true, we cannot phantom the thought that we are wrong.

[ February 22, 2005, 09:00: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Doctors pay to go to med school. They pay the piper, they call the tune. Publicly funded education, the state pays the piper, the state calls the tune.

Further, with viruses, is it evolving or just the offspring of the previous virus adding slightly different traits, like we have slightly different traits from our parents?

 

Gnarfflinger, your quest for enlightenment and christendom does you honor. But perhaps this isn't the right battlefield? We have science and we have religion. It may be a philosophical exercise to link both, but they have nothing much in common. Not the same basis, not the same aims, nor the same methods or ways of thinking. How should one be exchanged for the other?

It's like sports and music. It is good to have both around (for some at least), and life is certainly richer if you don't exclude one for the other. But wouldn't you agree that there is not much of a competition between both? It doesn't make any sense if the sportsman claims he has won the contest because he runs faster, whereas the musician claims the trophy because he sings higher.

As an afterthought: any soon-to-be doctor attending med school is paying, sure enough. But he doesn't set up the curriculum, does he? After all, he's there to learn - if he could "call the tune", he wouldn't need any further tuition, would he.

 

With viruses, it's evolving. With humans, it's evolving. This "adding" of new traits are examples of evolutionary processes. You are debating your misconceptions of the theory, not the theory itself.
And of course is the public the best expert, when it comes to biology. They surely know better then biologists . It's a great education system you're proposing.

 

@ Morgoth

Sorry just can't help myself, what have ghosts got to do with it?

Oh damn this is off topic. You imply, or nigh on state that the Tsunami was god willed and therefore that god being responsible for killing people is Fair, Just and Moral. Once you start to take that attitude it's a fairly small step to say that killing people in gods name is Fair, Just and Moral because you are doing his will. People are even convinced he has told them to do it, and for all anyone else knows he might have. After all he is credited with getting people to do good deeds, if (s)he is willing to kill people, you would have thought (s)he would be willing to get others to kill people as well. Of course their is no proof of the existance of god, therefore there can be no proof that he didn't tell them to, and yet the vast majority of humanity, including religions (Gods mouthpiece on earth or whatever) will denounce the act.

@ Chimera
I'm not a Biologist but have rather a lot I call friends. During a discussion they were all fairly unanimous in stating that humankind is no longer "evolving" as a race. Evolution occurs as a result of the increased chance of breeding a characteristic which offers a competitive advantage in a given situation. (an example being a species of moth which "evolved" to produce a change in the colour of it's wings in particular industrial regions.) Humans no-longer do this, but adapt the environment around themselves. An increase in brain power is not an indication of evolution itself, just better means of being able to utilise what we already have.

 

Humans are evolving. There is the evolutionary pressure of diseases which still can't be cured. There is a large percent of human population not having the luxury to "adapt the environment", which you are ignoring (the most popular example being the malaria/anemia case in Africa). There is the pressure of the changing environment itself - increased pollution etc. As long as a given population lives in a changing environment - and humans are - it'll continue evolving.

 

I kind of argued the way you did, but this was the opinion of about ten biologists doing their masters degrees at one of the best Science Uni's in Britain and also apparently the view of their professors - so I gave up being as I'm an electrical engineer.

 

It's pretty simple to understand that evoloution is a fact. It does happen and replacing evoloution with creationisim in schools is both insane and stupid.

 

Apparently is not much
To stop evolving every offspring of a given species would have to have the same chances of survival (regardless of different genotypes) in a given environment. Is this the case with humans? No.

 

@Carcaroth, phantom does not only mean ghost, look it up.

I imply that if a god exists(the one we kept talking about) then he has caused the great flood.
And yes, then it would be just, fair and whatnot, because he defines what just and fair is it.

From an atheist point of view, there is even nothing wrong with killing an innocent.
There is no guidline to follow, no rules set in stone, no real moral.