The irresponsibility of ID

Remove all ads!

When looking at discussions of this kind I must say: How reassuring it is that over here there are no attempts (that I am aware of) to subvert science by infusing it with religious content, robbing science of its invaluable neutrality and freedom of thought in the process. The very idea is unacceptable.

Once religion is allowed into science dogmas are bound to take hold sooner rather than later. With the advent of dogmas science's qualities such as inquisitive curiosity and self-criticism surely go down the toilet bowl. The means by which science constantly questions and improves itself would be lost, rendering it useless to those who want to learn. Pretty much like religion.

 

Gnarff, I need some help with this one, because I just don't seem to get what you are saying. What is this proposed middle ground you are referring to?

It's like you're saying the world is round, and I'm saying the world is flat. How can you reconcile the two thought processes? It's actually worse than this. It's like you had a boat and you used it to sail around the world, and then I STILL maintained that the world is flat, despite having no evidence beyond my unshakable belief that this was so. To put it simply, why would any scientist attempt to find a middle ground, when they have evidence that to them proves they are right?

They are hominids (or to put it bluntly, that means they are ALL humans). They just aren't modern humans. Just like gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are all monkeys - Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo sapiens are all members of the class of hominids (and hominid is scientist-speak for human). That's what I've been trying to get you to understand from the begining - modern humans did not evolve from apes because there have been other hominids (i.e., humans) that walked to earth before modern humans did so, and we evolved from them.

I'm having difficulty understanding why you are so against this concept. The thought that humans evolved from another hominid instead of a monkey - I thought you would find this more palatable.

 

Perhaps, almost as arrogant and ignorant as those who, just as vehemently, preach creationism and ID. The real shame comes from those who understand how accurate the fossil record is and still use lies and deception to cover such things up. Rhetorical question -- are lies and deception used to promote the Lord's work or the devil's?

 

The idea of what's going on since creation, that's what I can deal with, but when man is created in the image of God, there needs to be no changes. I wonder if too much is being read into fossil records. How do you know that Dinosaurs were reptillian as opposed to mammals? This just strikes me as a big assumption...

Again, it stems from the sixth creative period, where Man was specifically created, in the image of God.

Well, it's partly the fossil record I am questioning. I suspect that people have made assumptions to fill in the blanks in the fossil record to make an interesting story.

Passing these assumptions made from the fossils as proven fact? Is that not some form of deception?

 

Never were much into dinosaurs as a kid, I see. The dinosaurs - at least the most famous (like T-Rex, etc.) were obviously reptillian. Bone structure and fossilization patterns are concordant with scaly skin (which rules out fur), and the reproductive systems pieced together from not only the bone structure and fossilation patterns, but also eggs found in every stage of incubation near either inside the egg, birthing, or in a nest found near an adult indicate that they did indeed lay eggs (which rules out live birth). Fur and live birth - two of the defining characteristics of mammals. Since "fish" seems like a silly choice, reptillian is easily the best... *ahem* ..."assumption."

I think you're confusing conclusion with assumption. A conclusion is what you make by piecing together aquired evidence. Assumptions are what you make when you have none, but insist you're right anyway.

Mad-lib time: "Well, it's partly the bible I am questioning. I suspect that people have made assumptions to fill in the blanks in the history of humanity to make an interesting story."

See how that works? Goes both ways.

It makes a lot more sense to me (and many people) that the events depicted in the bible were exaggerated (and in some cases, concocted) as a means to explain the mysteries of the world, life, and the human condition. As a man of faith, I believe the bible to be metaphorical rather than literal. You want to talk about evidence - what evidence do we have that the bible isn't complete hooey? It's been written and rewritten so many times in the last two millenia, how are we to know the difference? Unless you've been alive for the last 2,000 years, I doubt you can (which is where the faith part comes in). Especially when people (for instance: yourself) seem to object to any use of science to prove or disprove the veracity of the bible's claims? I would think that if your faith is so strong, you would embrace science as a means to convince others of what you know it your heart is "the truth," rather than attack scientists as trying to dismantle religion. I admit, there are some people out there who, yes, are trying to use science to disprove the bible. But that doesn't mean all scientists are in it for that purpose. Science is the search for fact and truth. What it's used for depends entirely on the scientist.

I think this whole debate says more about you than it does the few scientists clamoring to "disprove" the biblical account. If what you believe is the truth - undeniable universal fact, as you seem to testify - then not even science can disprove it. What are you worried about? It seems more to me that you see the chink in the armor of your own faith and you're fighting ferociously to protect it.

First of all, there's a hell of a lot more evidence that substantiates the fossil records (like...you know...fossils) than does the events of the bible, and people have been searching for biblical artifacts for a hell of a lot longer. Doesn't that tell you anything? Second - it isn't a form of deception to make a conclusion based on evidence. But if there's a non-religious source of evidence that proves the events in the bible took place as written, I'll gladly shut up. Until then, I think you may have to acknowledge the difference between faith and fact.

One more thing, sidenote observation really:

For an uber-mormon, Gnarff, you've got quite the potty mouth. And believe me - I know me some mormons.

[ December 14, 2005, 09:58: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Not much that I have seen that shows that the Bible is right and all the other mythologies of every other culture in history are wrong. But I guess if you doubt the Bible, then that just shows that you don't have enough faith.

 

Not at all, HB. What I doubt are the word-for-word accounts, not the message. The message is what's important anyway, not the specifics. I don't have to believe that Moses actually parted the Red Sea in order to accept that he did indeed live, influenced many people and accomplished great things. The message - that's what I have faith in, and you don't get that from a book.

 

For me evolution is not that much contradictory to religion. And I say that as a catholic.
But there were, and stil are some problems with evolution for me, both based on logic, and on my faith.

First, and something about that was already in previous posts, Aldeth wrote that last stages of evolution were something like ape - hominid - human.

So, if we assume that this hominid is in fact a primitive human, that means that at one point of history an animal gave birth to a human. Even if this is about a very intelligent animal and it's descendant is a very primitive human, I have quite a big problem with that. And definitely need a good proof.

On a religious ground this is even more troublesome, because that means that someone with a soul (religiously speaking - the most important aspect of a human) was born by an animal without one. But I understand that science can't help me with that...

Next problem, I haven't ever seen a good proof that one of the advanced species changed into a completely new one. We can easily observe mutations, but that's not enough. And don't tell me about microorganisms in labs, on a road from amoeba to modern human there have to be more than that...

To finish this rant, last problem is teaching about evolution in school. Adults know that this is a theory, hiphotesy, whatever you call it, but children take it as a fact, truth, however we put it. Like I did, when I was in elementary school, only to find out few years later that this is not that much obvious. So question is - if this is not proven without doubt, why teach it ?...

 

*sigh* Another one.

Well, not exactly, but I think I get your point. I think the mistake that you're making is that at some point we have something that you classify as an ape, and then at some other point you have something that you classify as a human (which in its broadest sense is true). Then you erroneously make the assumption that at some point you had a mother ape holding a baby human. It doesn't work that way. There are many, many intermediary steps, but at no point is the jump directly from mommy gorilla to baby human.

@ Gnarff,

To build off of what DR said, skeletons of today provide a great deal of information about what types of animals lived in the past by comparing the two. There is a general skeleton type for each class of animals. There's one for fish, one for amphibians, one for reptiles, one for birds, one for mammals. Then there are further skeleton structures that are more detailed within sub-groups. Like all primates have a skeleton structure, but so do all horses, all cats, all dogs, etc.

When you find fossilized remains of something, the most logical way to classify it is to compare the remains to modern equivalents and try to figure out where they belong. Dinosaurs meet every standard of classifying them with reptiles. The only pronounced difference between dinosaurs and modern reptile is that the dinosaurs were a hell of a lot bigger.

On rare occassions scientists find a fossil whose skeleton structure doesn't match with anything we know today. In that case, scientists appropriately place these animals into a separate classification from everything else. An example of this is a therapsid. Therapsids are something between a mammal and a reptile, with features of both, but a skeleton structure that is also distinct from both.

 

It's highly doubtful that ID would manage to be a threat to antibiotic/drug production and use - mainly because the pharmacological companies usually take into consideration mainly money. If there are problems in developing/ studying a new drug/ therapy method in one country (not only because of moral/ religious beliefs, but also e.g. patents), there is always another.

The only problem would be education of people, whom no one would want to hire, but that's what you choose. That and ecological problems caused by an uneducated government (see Lysenkoism) - but again, that's what you choose.

Biology (or rather biochemistry) is one of the fastest developing sciences now and evolutionary theory (especially in the context of genetics) is a very important and rapidly growing field. So don't worry - evolution won't be forgotten

 

As I understand it, humans/hominids did not decend from apes, but rather apes and hominids evolved from a common ancestor species. In that sense apes are our cousins, sort of, and we are not their decendants.
Dont know whether that is correct, though.

That sounds like we are the highest achievement in the evolution of our species, the product with which it all ends, so to say. Something that cannot be compared or topped. The extraordinary. The pinnacle. That's not what I believe, as it is misleading.
Just as the earliest hominids slowly evolved into something that we are now, who is to say that we wont in the future evolve (devolve??) into something different. Evolution is an ongoing, flowing process, and I dont think it ends with the current hominids. I think if one can wrap one's mind around the concept that we, "modern" humans, are just another, but not necessarily the final, version of the hominid's branch, one can more easily understand the career of our species.
Evolution made us what we are, it goes through us and will take us to someplace where we might be more, or considerably less, than we are now.

 

@Aldeth

If you could avoid those "sighs", please...I'm afraid that unless you are professor of anthropology, you have no right to look down on those that have a different opinion. You don't know how much I know about this topic, and about specialists I confront my, sometimes strange, ideas with. I noticed one thing - the wiser scientist, the more doubts he\she has. The best answer I've ever got about evolution was "This theory has many flaws, but it's the best we have at the moment, so..."

I think that we have a problem of definition here. Definition of human. I'm begining to understand yours, but tell me - how can one being be partially human ? 10% human, or 90% human ? What does it mean ? Does it mean that those primitive tribes that live even today at few various places on Earth like their ancestors thousands years ago are not wholly human ? Even more serious - that those from us that have drastic mental or physical ilnessess are not human ?

No offense, I would really like to know your answer.

 

Dendri, you are completely correct, although perhaps not in the way you originally meant. Evolution is certainly an on-going process that does not have an end-point. The reason for this is because evolution is in no way directed. It's not working towards some end-goal, or some final product. New traits are introduced through mutation, and some are beneficial, but the vast majority are actually detrimental. Also, even if you do happen to get a mutation that is beneficial, there is no guarantee that such a mutation is the "best" solution to a problem. Evolution doesn't guarantee that you get characteristics or traits that are optimally honed to your environment - it just guarantees that within a given gene pool the most beneficial traits - i.e., ones that "work" - are passed on to future generations.

 

Heh, or sigh, or whatever...I'm pretty sure that this one answer of yours is pretty flammable...How many unanswered questions do you need to abandon a theory ?...also, unless we find out a new and revolutionary way to retrieve information from our surrounding, research could not be that fruitful because many very important finds were destroyed or misused a century or so ago...by those very enthusiasts of evolution... ...

But seriously, that was "best aswer" because answering person was the most respected from all I asked. (And before you heh, sigh, or whatever, that's not only my opinion).

I can accept theory of evolution. But I need proof. And those that accept this yet-to-be-proven theory without a bit of scepticism, are...well...ehm...
And if research made by now will deny most of what you think ?...What then ?...And none true scientist can really admit that that cannot be a case. So what is the point of teaching this theory ?

 

@ Arendil,

I'm sorry I didn't see your post sooner. Evidently, you were posting at the same time I was, and I didn't notice your post until I revisited the thread, even though you actually posted a few minutes before me.

And a professor of anthropology I am not. However, I am a biochemist with a concentration in genetics and evolution, so will that work for you? Granted, my career has taken me much futher down the chemistry part of my degree that the bio part, but I assure you I am well versed in what I speak of.

If research comes out that disproves our current understanding of human evolution, then the human family tree will have to be re-drawn. In fact, one major re-write of this has taken place in the last five years or so. For the longest time it was thought that neanderthals were our most immediate predecessors. However, as genetic sequencing techniques have been refined over the years, it is now understood that there was a greater difference between modern humans and the most recent neanderthals than there was between modern humans and the oldest neanderthals.

Obviously, this came as a surprise to many people in the field. What it also did was prove conclusively that neanderthals could not possibly be our immediate ancestors. For this to be true, we would have to find evidence showing more similarities rather than more difference between the earliest and latest neanderthals as compared to humans.

While I will readily agree that no scientist would claim that no revisions to the current understanding of human evolution are possible, I would disagree that any scientist would think the entire theory or evolution would be disproven. Yes, as our understanding of evolution increases, we may have to tweak things here and there - like removing the neanderthals from human ancestry - but proving that evolution as a concept does not work? That's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

It means nothing, because something cannot (as I think you presupposed) be 10% or 90% human. You either are human or you are not. That is why I said that in the broadest sense, you statement that something either is or isn't human, was correct. That having been addressed, there is a big difference between something being a human, and something being a MODERN human.

There's no way to give a simple answer to your overall question - which I am assuming is this: At what point do we draw a line and say this is a human and this isn't? As that's quite a lengthy answer indeed, I'll wait for your response before giving it in full. I don't want to answer a question you aren't even asking.

 

BTA,

Is it really off topic to discuss evolution in a discussion about ID? Kinda seems like discussing Republicans without bringing up the Democrats to me. Substantiating one kind of pulls the wind out of the other. Or is it new topic time?

 

I am still blown away by how heated this simple scientific debate has become. Maybe it is because, from reading some of these posts, people seem to think that evolution or creationism or ID4, or whatever you want to call it, is something specifically to do with the creation/development of humans.

Surely humans are just one tiny tiny tiny tiny piece of the whole biological world and that in any system of biological / supernatural development, humans would just be a minor footnote or insignificant afterthought.

Isn't it a bit vain to assume that this whole system is all about humans? Aren't there more insects than mammals? And isn't it true that there more different types of bacteria and even a greater weight of bacteria in the world than all the other types of animals put together?

Maybe if we put it all into perspective and realise that it's not all about US, we might be able to relax a little and stop taking this whole debate personally.

 

Not really. Evolution suggests that we humans evolved like every other organism on earth. Creationism contests that humans were created specifically in God's image, instantly and appeared in the state we know them in today, unchanged from the day of creation. If either argument is displaying vanity, it's certainly not evolution.

The entire evolutionary system isn't just about humans, but it is the very premise of evolution that has propelled our species to the dominant organism on the planet. Survival of the fittest. In a way, we made evolution all about us - because we played the game better than any other organism. Evolution also takes into account every species on the planet. So as you say, it is also about the trillions of insects and other organisms on the planet. They all have evolutionary descendants, too. So do all fish, birds, reptiles and mammals.

I think people take this debate personally when they can't handle having their belief system challenged.