I get being "critical" of science, and not just gulping everything down and accepting it. I get asking tricky questions and trying to disprove theories; after all, it's what usually has to be done in order to confirm a theory. I get all that. But this teacher took it just a tad too far.
Writing about the theory of evolution as "just a theory"? The theory of Big Bang as "just a theory", and liken it to pure fiction and fantasy? Remember, this guy doesn't appear to be fronting Creationism or anything, so from what we can tell, it's just an article showing pure ignorance.
Here's what I got to say to that nimwit: Galileo had "just a theory", Sir Isaac Newton had "just a theory", Albert Einstein had "just a theory" (well, he had several). Most of the prevailing building blocks in today's science started out as theories, generally laughed at by the societies they lived in.
And how about this: who the fuck are you to shovel ignorance into children's minds? If you're trying to teach kids to be critical and analytical, show them how to conduct research, how to check for sources, how to break down arguments into theories and hypotheses and prove or disprove those. THAT'S science. Taking a piss on the theory of evolution, isn't. Now fuck off and get a real job. Or an education.
NEW: Also, have a look at my buddy's blog, where he presents a few interesting points, backed up by sources and credible scientists.
Additional sources:
Forskning.no
Dagbladet.no
What you'll end up with
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think you would benefit from knowing a little more about the topic before getting into a fit. Contrary to what your mind has been "fed" there is relevant criticism against neo-darwinism that is rarely voiced in the media or in schools. Please read these texts first (Michael Behe, Jos Verhulst (on Louis Bolk's theoriers of "retardation"), Friedrich Kipp, Trond Skaftnesmo (Norwegian), Adolf Portmann - many more. Science will never progress if criticism of existing dogmas is being surpressed. Use your brain - for instance, Asbjørn Dyrendal who is called in as a "judge" in this article is not neutral - he is an active participant in the Norwegian Sceptics community. The same goes for Erik Tunstad who is in charge for the web-site forskning.no and who also is in charge for the NRK P2 "scince"-program "Verd å vite" - he started Skepsis. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy or a deliberate cover up, but the truth is not benefitting from all this.
ReplyDeleteHahaha, just you citing Michal Behe is hilarious. The man who in the Dover trial admitted under oath that if he regarded ID as a scientific theory, under the same definition he would also have to regard astrology as a scientific theory...documentary here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
scientific theories are not dogma. and there is no controversy. get over it.
Hi, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteGlad you mentioned astrology. Of course, being close to illiterate, you don't know anything about scientific research on astrology. In fact, the well known Gauquelin-effect has not been disproven to this day. If you want to read about it, start with ex-CSICOP-member Richard Kamman's article on the subject on the Internet:
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html
This article is also very embarrassing for the US skeptics. All this aside - if Behe's comment on astrology is all you can come up with as "proof" against "intelligent design", you have nothing to carry. Scientific theories can be dogmas, and today we have one: Neo-darwinism (along with reductionism, materialism etc.)
First of all, I am not trying to suppress anything of a scientific nature. But the rhetoric often associated with ID theories, and the new wave of creationists, goes something like this: "If you cannot disprove it, it is plausible", "If you cannot prove it, it is not plausible". Which is, for lack of a better word, retarded.
ReplyDeleteThe main issue I have with these so called scientific theories that "challenge" darwinism and whatnot, is their rhetoric. There are several examples of ID-fans to use a language very similar to the old Sophists. This is not me trying to discredit a valid criticism of the theory of evolution (of which there certainly are some valid ones), but rather expressing a wish for turbo-science and junk food-science to vanish.
Challenging well established theories is excellent, I am actually sort of challenging a few well established theories in my current masters (allthough they are considered less than world changing), if done in a serious and valid manner.
The main point about my criticism to this teacher and this case in particular though, is that posting what he did on the schools web page, is ridiculous. There is no way in hell a kid aged 6-12 should be forced to consider alternating theories on world creation. I am fairly positive children of that age are in no position to understand the complexities in two or more opposing theories of such magnitude.
First: I do not agree with every "ID"-theory, and I certainly don't agree with the idea of a "young earth" etc. Rethoric - I don't see the problem. It's the arguments that count. If you look at the arguments for intelligent deisgn/creation or whatever you call it, they are in fact good. The main arguments for ID is not "if you can't disprove it, it's plausible" - it's quite contrary - if you can't prove how Darwinism works for complex systems, Darwinism is not plausible, because even the smallest cells are much more complex than previously thought. Darwinism must give a step-by-step explaination for this, and it can't. Gradualism and random mutations are the core of Darwinism. If they don't hold up, the theory has problems. Thus Behe's point. In addition, there are other problems, like the fossil record (Gould), the "information problem", problems with explaining how less specialized forms can arise from more specialized forms etc. I agree that there is no way kids can understand these problems. But that doesn't mean that it's OK to teach them a theory that in important aspects (not all aspects) may be wrong (Darwinism). All the more serious when this theory has a depressing and cyncial perspective on life: There is no meaning or plan behind nature (these notions are just ideas made up by our genes to survive), beauty, moral, altruism and love are just illusions - the conceal greed, egoism and fight for survival. War and death is all there is, wrote to Darwin. Not really compatible with teaching the kids to be kind and unegoistical!
ReplyDeleteThere is a very long step between species A evolved from species B, to "OMG LIFE IS POINTLESS". And allthough Darwins theories may be faulty (it has not yet been disproven), what other option would you say is viable to teach?
ReplyDeleteAbout rhetoric - rhetoric, in the way I pointed to here, is in fact not presenting argumentation at all, but rather pointing out the flaws in other theories to make one self - ID or creationism in this case - seem more valid. In essence, it's saying "I must be right, because I proved you wrong".
I am not making you out to be a believer or fan of any of our discussed theories, by the way. What you believe in, and also what I believe in, is irrelevant. We are discussing prevailing theories of evolution and creation, are we not? And whether or not these things are relevant to kids, or in fact should be taught?
Flawed as it may be, I have no trouble understanding that man evolved from apes. This is extremely apparent, when presented with facts. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to understand every single facet of it, but I don't need to either. My field of study, lies in language and communication - how people speak to each other, how languages evolve and how humans learn leanguages. Quite interesting in itself, but pretty much irrelevant in this discussion. However, I'd be willing to bet several technical devices today are based on some of the studies that have been done in my field. And yet, people who use those devices do not need to understand the theory behind it.
Let's see. There was supposed to be a point to that last example. Ah, yes. If it stands true that Darwin's theory on evolution is by and large correct, it's enough for children to be taught it. It gives an understanding of how things came to be. And until you present me with a viable alternative, scientifically scrutinized and recognized theory, I will pretty much stick to Darwin.
As to life becoming meaningless if there is no plan behind it, how did you reach this conclusion? One needs to believe in a creator for life to have meaning? For art, love etc to be enjoyable? I am a little unclear on whether or not you were paraphrasing Darwin here, or if this is your view on what Darwinism must lead to. If Darwin said these things, then he was a git, with a brilliant theory none the less. If these are your words, your conclusion, I feel extremely sorry for you. Furthermore, it would seriously diminish your weigth in this discussion.
Darwinism, is still the mainstream theory and just that, it has several gaps/flaws in it and doesnt hold up anymore on several points. Yet it seems it's impossible to critise. almost just as bad as it was to go against Creationism before. 'ID' is something upcoming but currently also nothing more than several points of view which still need a lot of work.
ReplyDeleteOver here in the Netherlands where our 'Christian goverment' is trying to ram Creationism through the school system again. the compromise here is that all 'theory's will be adressed, same with religion's.
To come back on Topic however, the Teaching should reflect that the current theory's are just that and the kids should learn that they can question them, not get a opinion of one guy rammed down their throat.
I see your point, but is there any scientific proof to ID or Creationism? Young Earth Creationism can't be right, that's for sure, since we have stuff on earth that's been around for a very long time, and what
ReplyDeleteCreationism says about the sedimentary layers (that all fossils came to be at the same time) means we should've found human bones in the same layers as dinosaurs. All it would take to prove Creationism, was a single finding where this happened, and yet it hasn't. As for ID, I'm not sure about the scientific facts.
I am all for trying to poke holes in Darwin's theory of evolution, but like I said, as far as I'm concerned, it is the one theory that actually has some scientific basis. At the very least, it does account for a number of evolutionary aspects.
Teaching kids to be skeptical and making up their own minds, how to conduct research and choose theories etc, is all well and good. I just don't see the strong evidence supporting/justifying teaching out ID and Creationism at this point.
The words I cited from Darwin are correct. They can be found on the last pages of his "Descent of man". Look it up. I'm sure you haven't read anything Darwin wrote, yet you defend his theories. Please prove me wrong here. I don't have to give you an alternative theory to falsify a theory. That's a faulty claim. The main point for Behe and other IDs is that there is no way Darwinism can account for complex biological systems (random mutations plus natural selection). If randomness doesn't do it - well then there is only one alternative - nonrandomness. Logically that should imply some sort of creation/design/intelligence behind the world. I have alwys been amazed at how otherwise intelligent and rational people can believe that living organisms, in all their constructive cunningness (did you for instance know that the human skeleton is more than 5 times stronger than armed concrete?), is put together "randomly", with no plan. If I said the same thing about, say, a record player (a simple device compared to a cell), I will be deemed stupid or mad.
ReplyDeleteSo, if Darwinism has these serious problems, why teach children that these problems don't exist? That's fooling them. It's cheating and lying - the opposite of what science SHOULD do (of course, science isn't like that always, a point for Thomas Kuhn in his important work "The structure of scientific revolutions").
Humans and apes are nearly related, it's true. That doesn't mean humans evolved from apes - it could be, but it's unlikely by darwinian processes. Interestingly there may be an answer to the relationship: If you look at the ontogenesis of chimpanzees, their anatomy and psychology is extremely human-like when they are young. BUT: Upon hitting sexual maturation, there is an almost grotesque change in their appearance. Their bodies change radically, as does their psychology, they go from funny and playlike beings (human-like) to dangerous beasts. You can't teach an old chimpanzee any circus number, and they can kill you if you go near them. All chimpanzees in circuses are young. What's this? This is contrary to what we should expect. Chimpanzees should grow MORE humanlike as they grow older, not less. The solution, which you don't learn in school, may be that this is a reflection of an evolutionary (or rather devolutionary) path that chimpanzees has gone - they were once humans! How this has happened is difficult to say - we can only speculate as for now. BTW: Apes cannot walk erect because their anatomy doesn't allow it (hips, column, etc.). Before you can walk erect, you need a whole set of anatomical features. The idea of apes "reaching for food" and thus gradually becoming more erect, is implausible, unless you take Lamarckian theory in account (which in fact Darwin did himself at the end of his life!).
A last comment on the Darwinian worldview, and especially the later expanded version of this, neo-darwinism (created in the US in the 1930s). In our everyday lives we don't experience the world as meaningless. But this is more because IN PRACTICE we ignore Darwinian theory, than because we worship it. If we were TRUE Darwinists (neo-darwinists), there would be no such thing as meaning - it's just an illusion created by our minds (genes) so that we can bear out with life and reproduce ourlselves. Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore would agree totally with me on this. As for myself, I'm not a darwinist, and therefore I'm free to seek "meaning" and knowing I'm not decieving myself.
As for alternative theories: I recommend Jos Verhulst: "The first born" (based on Louis Bolk's research), a good case for the goethianic and anthroposophical view on evolution. Also books by Friedrich Kipp.
(sorry for my bad English - I'm Norwegian!)
Small correction: The Darwin-quote is from "Origins of species", not "Descent of man". Sorry about that - I'm writing this from memory (don't have my books around here). The full quote is: "Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted objects which we are capable of concieving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows."
ReplyDeleteYou're sure I haven't read anything Darwin wrote? Sigh. So I actually need to remember every single word, and preferably quote him for you to think I've read any of his work? Please don't stoop to such depths.
ReplyDeleteAs for what you said about falsifying: yes, there are parts of Darwinism that is being falsified. Other parts again - parts that have been questionable up until recently - have been solidified by recent findings. Check out research done on the creatures known as Extremophiles for instance.
As for apes not being able to walk upright - and here you really display your ignorance - that's a downright lie. Some species, the Bonobo being the most famous, do indeed walk upright. Not 100% of the time, but when it's needed. Can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0tAQcpLILQ
I am not a biologist, or a scientist who deals with Darwinism or evolutionary theories at all. Call me an above average interested fella. So I don't have books and names to drop, but when I can do a simple search on google and find apes walking upright to destroy one of your points, it's sort of frightening.
Also, you are correct in that you don't have to present an alternative theory to disprove a theory. And yet you do! You give me references to ID theorists. In all my searching, I simply cannot find any substantial scientific evidence for ID. I find loosely based thinkings.
I am not a Darwinist, not any other -ist. I just find thinking about what we've found (fossils, skeletons etc) makes sense if you view it out of a general summation of Darwins theory on evolution. Just to pre-empt you, since you will likely bring up transitonal fossils, there's a great list covering those here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Also, for criticism on Behe (who seems to be someone you place a lot of trust in), and his criticism of Darwinism when it comes to complex biological systems, here's a list of articles that deal with that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
When you stop basing your assumptions on people who have time and time again been not only discredited and falsified, but don't make any new contributions themselves, please present me with something credible in ID theory. I have yet to see any theory or findings that have the quality to be falsified, which in science is a law, and which is also being used in part to discredit Darwins theories.
I think you overestimate the case of apes walking erect. They are not what qualifies for erect walking. Erect walk is 100 % erect (humans), not 1% (bonobo). If you read me carefully, I have not claimed that humans have not evolved from apes, this MAY be true, I claim that darwinian processes can't account for it.
ReplyDeleteFalsifying Darwinism: The cornerstone of neo-Darwinism is step-by-step evolution driven by natural selection coupled with random mutation. If this don't hold up as a vehicle for evolution, then it's not a minor issue - it's a major blow.
How about trying to read on of Behe's books? Is that a scary thought? Talkorigins - please give me something better. They are not serious. They are "debunkers". Please don't get me wrong - I respect your stance - I only wish you could try to be slightly more open to other theories than orthodox science.
There is really just one "good" transitional fossil - that is Archeopteryx, the small "dinosaur bird". It's admittetly a good case, but it's got two big problems: keratinized beak and feathers are fully developed. Beak and feathers are the main characteristics of birds, so they are not transitional (see the great swiss biologist Adolf Portmann's wonderful book on birds about this subject).
If you don't take TalkOrigins seriously, at least respect their links. Some of those "debunking" Behe, are professors and Ph.D.'s from Harvard etc. I won't disregard something just because you call them debunkers and unserious. Most of the articles linked to by TO, are serious thesis, papers and articles released and peer reviewed, with full source lists and total transparency. I have yet to see you present anything of the kind which doesn't involve me having to order books online by people who have been thoroughly been discredited as "scientists".
ReplyDeleteAbout apes, here's what you wrote: "BTW: Apes cannot walk erect because their anatomy doesn't allow it (hips, column, etc.). Before you can walk erect, you need a whole set of anatomical features." Clearly, Bonobos walk upright, and _some_ of them even look EXACTLY like humans (their way of walking) when they walk.
Also, be very aware that Darwinism does NOT say a species has to evolve "forward" as we would say. There are cases where a species has, in our eyes, degenerated, simply because their living conditions made a degeneration more effective, or preferable. And again, this is just stuff I've read, but I don't have the books or the direct sources. It still doesn't make my points invalid.
As for what you say about transitional fossils, I'll take the word of several scientists, among them the manager of the British Museum of Natural History (or whatever the name is) along with several other respected scientists over you. Yes, Archeopteryx is one of them, and the most known, but you obviously did not check the link I presented to you. Bash the site all you want, like all the other Creationists, it still doesn't make them wrong.
This discussion will end here. I am not interested in spending more time than I've already done, batting back and forth with someone who is obviously already set on something. I don't know Darwinism backwards and forwards, nor do I feel the need to. Until someone disproves the general summation of it, and finds a RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC and DISPROVABLE theory to otherwise prove evolution, or indeed how we got here, with something that holds up scientifically, I'll stick to Darwin, no matter how fucked up his view on life was.
Michael Behe is a professor in biochemistry. He writes books in his own field. Of course, he should be evaluated like any other scientist. But this should happen fairly, and not by some witch process, which in fact is close to what we see. He has answered the criticism convincingly.
ReplyDeleteBonobos (quote) "look exactly like humans when they walk". This is plainly wrong. The reason they don´t is that their anatomy is very different than humans - they don´t have the finely tuned anatomy to walk erect the way humans do. I recommend you look at pictures of the anatomy of bonobos compared to humans, You will then get my point.
To walk erect sustained like humans - which is the perfection of erect posture - you need a whole set of coordinated anatomical features. These features must be there FIRST, then you can start walking "humanly". I hope this is clear now, and that the likelihood of these features evolving in a Darwinian step-by-step way is small.
Talkorigins has an agenda. That agenda is to defend materialisitc science, darwinism, reductionism and basically an atheistic world view. They SELECT articles according to this agenda. If you don´t see this, you are naive, I´m sorry.
Transitional fossils - when the senior paleonthologist of the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson was asked in 1979 why he didn´t have any illustrations of transitional fossils in his book on evolution he answered: "If i knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them". At the same time Gould and Eldredge were making similar confessions in the US (but, of course, as good educated darwinists, they tried to "save" darwinism with their disputable theory of punctualism).
The case for Darwinism isn´t nearly as strong as what the media, school, and others tell us. Important empirical and theoretical issues get no attention. That´s not a good sign - in fact there is something close to a witch hunt going on if you make doubts public on this subject. I better hide my esoteric books before the situation gets really bad ...
Thanks anyway for taking the time to discuss with me. Take care!
Fantastic of you to still post after I said this discussion ended. The only I'm going to comment on, and which I hope you read thoroughly, is the so called quote from Patterson:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Now, PLEASE, read that page, no matter how much you think TalkOrigins conspire against anything critical to Darwinism. It doesn't get much clearer than a friggin letter from Patterson himself, pointing to be misquoted.
After that, please refrain from posting here. Any further posts in this column will be deleted, from you or anyone else. Call it censorship or whatever, I really couldn't care less how people see it.
Helge: (...) if you can't prove how Darwinism works for complex systems, Darwinism is not plausible, because even the smallest cells are much more complex than previously thought. Darwinism must give a step-by-step explaination for this, and it can't.
ReplyDeleteThat is not true, considering we're dealing with practically infinite time and mass. Do you have a mathematical equation or anything remotely resembling proof covering this? By the way, they do not believe the cell was the first thing to reproduce. There are far more primitive things that can do that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
Helge: In addition, there are other problems, like the fossil record (Gould), the "information problem", problems with explaining how less specialized forms can arise from more specialized forms etc.
Why is that a problem? You seem to have the modern evolutionary synthesis all wrong, because natural selection doesn't imply specialization. It's all about what species adapt best to their environment.
Helge: Chimpanzees should grow MORE humanlike as they grow older, not less.
And what part of neodarwinism indicate that? Just curious.
Helge: If we were TRUE Darwinists (neo-darwinists), there would be no such thing as meaning - it's just an illusion created by our minds (genes) so that we can bear out with life and reproduce ourlselves.
Exactly! Nice isn't it. We can make our own meaning :). Seems like you didn't get it all wrong after all.
Helge: Talkorigins - please give me something better. They are not serious. They are "debunkers".
May be, but their theories are sound nonetheless, and they base them on facts - not fantasy - like many creationists. Found some info on Behe there as well, by the way: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Helge: There is really just one "good" transitional fossil - that is Archeopteryx, the small "dinosaur bird". It's admittetly a good case, but it's got two big problems: keratinized beak and feathers are fully developed.
That doesn't prove that there is no transitional species between Archeopteryx and its ancestors. Organic matter decay, and the fossil record is small overall. At least that far back. Findings of newer species does indeed show these transitions.
Ferskvare: There are cases where a species has, in our eyes, degenerated, simply because their living conditions made a degeneration more effective, or preferable.
Put the other way: If degeneration doesn't cause them to die out, they won't, obviously.
Helge: Talkorigins has an agenda. That agenda is to defend materialisitc science, darwinism, reductionism and basically an atheistic world view.
True enough. Except the last thing: «Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
Answer: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity» (cite from TO). But I would think they believe in the theory, so there is no reason why they shouldn't defend it.
Creationists are allowed to defend their theories too, but they need to provide sound evidence and use proper logic, like the rest of us.
Speaking of logic: Check out this video of a guy defending darwinism on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c
PS! Blogspot seriously needs support for blockquotes.
I guess there is no pont in me writing this, since you have promised to delete my postings. Since Audun now has been allowed to post a long qusetionarrie to my postings, it should be fair that I'm allowed to answer this - but do as you feel.
ReplyDeleteI read the link you gave to talkorigins on Patterson. It really didn't change much, did it? The examples Patterson give of transistional forms are all VARIATION (horses, asses, zebras, rhinos, tapirs) - with the exception of, as I mentioned, archeopteryx. I have no problems with variation - it appears all through the animal kingdom. But transitional forms between SPECIES are, according to Gould and others, "generally lacking": "Transisitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but abundant between larger groups." There can be no doubt that Goulds "stasis" and "sudden appearance", with species appearing fully formed in the fossil record, poses a serious problem for gradualist Darwinism.
Audun - your comments are interesting, and I'll try to adress them the best I can.
"Infinite" time and mass can't do much alone. It's like making a theory of the cathedral Chartes, saying that given infinite time and mass, it can appear by leaving a pile of clay near Paris (which, if you think of it, is exatly what materialistic science teaches in it's consequence). If you want a mathematical calculation for probabilities, I can recommend Lee Spetner's calculations on this in "Not by chance!" (1996).
Why should apes grow MORE humanlike with age? Good question. It is because in neo-darwinism a fully grown animal is at it's most developed after sexual maturation (reproduction stage). This means that apes should be more humanlike as adults as they are then more developed. The other way is the case.
The problem with "far more primitive things" reproducing themselves, is that if you look cloeser at them, they ar not primitive at all. A spaceship is more primitive. But this is not the only problem - then there is the problem of getting to the next step - a functional more complex organism.
Specialization is a key word for understanding animal kingdom. It means adaption to a particular environmental niche. It makes you good at one particular thing, or a small number of tasks. Here Darwinian selection plays a role (but probably not the only role). It makes for variation at the species level. In generel, the more specialized, the more limited. Humans are the least specialized form - a hand can be used for numerous tasks. This is partly why we rule the earth. Going from less specialized (general) to more specialized (particular) is a possible evolutionary path, the other way is improbable.
No surprise that talkorigins try to debunk Behe. But Behe has answered his critics. convicingly. I recommend his last book, "The edge of evolution".
Christians who adhere to neo-darwinism have not understood it properly. The point with the theory is to explain life and nature WITHOUT divine interference. This doen't mean that they can't agree on certain aspects which are obviously true in Darwins theories (Darwin was, by all means, a great scientist).
Creationists, of course, must be logical. Many creationists are not. I try to be. BTW: I'm no creationist in the common sense of the word. I just believe in a spiritual reason for life.
Right-o, I'm going to let this continue. I think Audun might have a better grasp on the theory here, and as such better suited to take this discussion on the level it is at.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought though. Why does there have to be a contradiction between believing in a God, and also Darwins evolution? I see no contradiction here, unless the God in question is the Biblical one (or Allah, or the other Gods who are viewed as the creators). I know a lot of scientists who believe in _a_ God. If you disregard to books of Moses, and citations in the Bible claiming god created the world, what you're left with is what they believe in.
I am not a believer in God myself, but I haven't ruled out the possibility yet either. I just haven't seen or felt anything that would convince me there is a god. There are plenty of things I have experienced, for which science doesn't have an explanation though. At least yet.
But you guys seem fairly well matched, so I'll leave you to it.
Goodie. I was afraid this topic would be closed. By far the most interesting reading I've had in awhile.
ReplyDeleteHelge: "Transisitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but abundant between larger groups."
ReplyDeleteThat is true, but as I mentioned the fossil record is sparse generally. Fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose.
See this image. Example B and C is one explanation why speciation is hard to prove, since all records of the transition may be lost because the amount of fossils are too low. This is also explained by the theory of evolution, since species competing on the same field have less chances of survival.
There are, however, more examples than Archeopteryx. Wikipedia has an excellent visual article on that. In the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented, and surely the donkey/horse and the mule is an example of how much an animal can change in just one generation. Just imagine the possibilities over millions of years. The whale is another example, and humans themselves as well.
Also there are other transitional fossils found lately, that neodarwinists predicted should exist, like Tiktaalik and Yanoconodon, which by the way also shows the transitions and evolution of the ear.
If you're still not convinced I'm sure I can find more examples.
Helge: It's like making a theory of the cathedral Chartes, saying that given infinite time and mass, it can appear by leaving a pile of clay near Paris (...)
Yeah, or like a million monkeys hammering on typewriters being able to cite the works of Shakespeare. I've heard that one before too.
The first big problem for this claim is that it doesn't do one single thing to undermine the theory of biological evolution, because that theory is not about how life originated. Nature does not operate randomly, it operates according to constant laws, which always dictate behavior.
Assuming that monkeys bang at "random", there would be no greater chance that a money would hit the letters ABC in sequence than that they would hit JDW in sequence, but the chemical world does not work that way. Atoms have properties. What are the chances that the following atomic structure would form "randomly", H2O? No different that the formation of HCN or N3 or O3 or H3 or C2H if you consider atoms to operate randomly, but atoms do not operate randomly. This applies to more complex forms as well.
Most creationists use the laws of nature (physics etc) when talking about contingency, but totally discard these laws when discussing complexity.
Helge: (...) It is because in neo-darwinism a fully grown animal is at it's most developed after sexual maturation (reproduction stage). This means that apes should be more humanlike as adults as they are then more developed.
I've never heard neodarwinists claim that an animal has to be at it most humanlike when it reaches the reproduction stage. I really need a cite for this one. If this is the case, I disagree with neodarwinists on this point.
I also disagree that animals by default are at their peak in development when they reach sexual maturation. That is only true when it is convenient for its reproduction and survival.
Helge: Humans are the least specialized form - a hand can be used for numerous tasks. This is partly why we rule the earth.
Try telling that to a bacteria or virus ;) You seem to enjoy reading. Why not pick up War of the Worlds the next time you're at the library. It's fiction, off cause, but it might put some perspective on things nonetheless.
Helge: Going from less specialized (general) to more specialized (particular) is a possible evolutionary path, the other way is improbable.
That is your view, and not that of the modern theory of evolution. Evolution imposes what species are best fit for their environment, whether that involves specialization or not.
The variation in species that has developed indeed favor specialization, so that is one reason why species get more specialized.
Helge: But Behe has answered his critics. convicingly. I recommend his last book, "The edge of evolution".
I may read that some time.
Helge: Creationists, of course, must be logical. Many creationists are not. I try to be. BTW: I'm no creationist in the common sense of the word. I just believe in a spiritual reason for life.
Like ferskvare, I'm an agnostic, and I certainly believe that the theory of evolution is compatible with many religious beliefs.
I hope the discussion hasn't ended quite yet. Seems like we were starting to get an actually intellectually charged conversation going.
ReplyDeleteDo continue, guys :)
First: Thanks, Grumpy for not deleting my last posting. Also thanks, Audun for making qualified and good arguments. I will try to adress some of your points here (if Grumpy allows me).
ReplyDeleteAudun, your claim that "infinite time" can do the trick for Neo-Darwinism, is contradicted by the fossil record. This, because species appear suddenly and fully formed, and then stay that way for long periods of time ("stasis"). Now, for Gould and Eldredge trying to rescue Darwinian theory with their hypothesis of punctuated equilibrum, they meet a serious problem, because the probability of of the right random genetic changes (amidst all the unfavourable ones) occuring
and being "selected for" within a short timespan, leading to appearance of new species, is even more remote than the
prospect of such changes occuring over a long periode of time. I cannot propose any other explaination for this than some kind of guided/directed/intelligent principle at work,
and this is not what Neo-Darwinism can offer (random mutations).
"Species get more specialized" in the course of evolution. On the contrary -they get less dependant on the environment as we follow the path of evolution. The fossil record shows a
progressive path where species get more able to control the environment instead of being locked to it. Amphibans' lungs
liberate them from the water, birds and mammals developed constant inner temperature, thus being freed from the tyrrany of cold or warmth. The ultimate perfection here are
humans, who can adopt to almost any environment (bacterias are locked to their the environment).
The theory of evolution is not about "how life originated". That's true. But it is a theory of how life developed after that. This is what the theory is about - random muations
plus natural selection. If that doesn't work, then we must think new.
I'll admit that Tiktaliik is an interesting possibilty as a transitional form at the species level. As a fossil it is of poor quality, though, and it has some problems, in that the bones in the fins are not axially connected to the skeleton - this poses a problem when walking on land. Also, the bones in the fins are not as clear as precursors to tetrapod limbs as first thought (C. Boisvert in The Scientist). Other anamolies are explained with the term "homology", which is a vague term. I'm a bit skeptical, given the fact that Darwinists are very eager to find transitional fossils.
The evolution of the inner ear is not clear (as pointed out in the article on this fossil in Nature). Indeed, the ear is a good example of Behe's irreducibly complex system.
I often get pushed into a position of being a creationist. I'm not. Humans may have evolved from apes of some kind - this is not my main issue with Darwinism. (Still, the fossil record for a ape-human evoulution remains unclear. For instance, Richard Leakey changed his previously assure opinions on this in his later late, saying that "any attempts at specific reconstruction of the human lineage were premature." So, again, I'm waiting and looking).
"Nature is not random". I agree. But that's the opposite of what Neo-Darwinism claims: Random mutations is a key word in the theory. Indeed to avoid the unpleasant idea of evolution having som kind of direction or plan, Neo-Darwinism chooses to ignore the obvious fact that evolution is progressive - from simpler forms to more advanced forms of life, ending up in humans - advanced enough to make a theory of how nature made them. The reason for this is clear: Neo-Darwinism can't explain a progressive development.
The "laws of complexity" in Darwinist theory - can you please explain them?
According to Darwinist theory, chimps have never reached a human stage in their development. Before they eventually reach this stage (an improbable thought), they cannot show human traits. The adults chimps are the only ones who can make this evolutionary path. The young cannot take evolution "in advance".
The theory of evolution is not incompatible with religion. But the theory of Neo-Darwinism is - it is part of the materialistic science that evolved in Western Europe in the 19th century (Darwin, Comte, Hume, LaPlace, Marx, Freud etc.). The famous scientist Emil du Bois-Reymond (1817-1896) said: “Brücke and I, we have sworn to assert the truth that no forces are effective in the organism other than the strictly physico-chemical.“ This is the ideological backscreen for Darwinism.
I am softening up a bit more to this discussion. For example, I enjoy the discussion on fossils. What I don't get is this: most articles I read (just general articles about some extinct species) claim that there is a general low number of fossils; that fossils by and large are scarce. Now, I agree that a transition would take time, and as such, should have as large chance of showing up as any other type of fossil. This, is starting to rock my foundation a little.
ReplyDeleteAbout chimps though. Wouldn't it be more logical to look for chimp-like behavior in humans, than the other way around? Also, and this might just be a shot in the dark, if you compare, say, lions and tigers, they certainly have serious differences. I do not know how closely related they are, but surely we can agree they are both cats. And surely we can agree they are both carnivores. The lions live in Africa, while tigers live in Asia. Seemingly then, they both evolved from a common ancestor. Or is this where Darwinism is wrong, and you, Helge, would claim that they both popped out from nowhere?
Another example, humans. Skin color, skeletal traits etc. Are these not the result of adaptation? And if humans can adapt that quickly (we really haven't been around that long) is it really that far fetched to think we had a common ancestral race? Not in the "all men sprang from Abraham, or Adam and Eve" sense though.
The difference between adaptaion and evolution, the way I see it, is time. Some claim that carbon dating could be wrong. Ok, so let's say it is. We're still finding fossils, in the ground, where older species are "below" younger species. Is it really that far fetched to think that life evolved accordingly?
Sure, how life ORIGINATED, I really don't have a clue. For all I know, any scientific theory I've read on this subject is just as reasonable as men from outer space planting the first cells here, or a God creating life. What I _do_ know though, is that the last 4-5 millenia is fairly well documented (taken into account what technology was available at the given time). So we've at least been around since a while before that.
This is just a rambling post, by the way. I have absolutely no scientific claims to make here, no books or anything. I am open to the possibility of evolution being wrong, but I tend to be sceptical. So far, evolution in general, seems more logical to me than ID theories. Not saying ID can't be right, just saying that at this moment, I think evolution is the way things went. Sadly, I do not have the knowledge to understand the specifics, especially not when it comes to micro-biology, cell structures, development of the inner ear etc.
In the defense of ID, I'm going to point to Galilei. He was persecuted like a villain for claiming the sun was the center of our planetary system. I mean, proper. The entire world (for the most part) thought the earth was the center. Sure, many will claim that this civilization or that knew the earth wasn't the center from studying the stars, but fact is most of the so called enlightened world still thought the earth was the center. Today it would be ludicrous to claim earth was the center.
I'm saying this just to remind myself and others, that there is that possibility we might be wrong. I don't _think_ we are, but there's a chance.
Now, I have a question for you, Helge. Do you have any good, serious articles (online) that supports ID theory, I mean more than run of the mill articles "debunking" Darwin? I am, and this actually isn't a joke, very interested to read such articles, if you have any links. If there is any scientific evidence supporting ID, that hasn't been refuted, it would go a long way in convincing me I need to re-think things.
Until next time.
Interessting topic.
ReplyDeleteI am not particulary good at discussing and debating, but i am tired of ID and have to get som anger out.
If there is an intelligent creator, he sure is evil. All of you have probably read this before:
"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"
David Attenborough
ID is not based on evidence of any sort, and it can not be disproved. This is in my mind exactly enough to classify it as bullshit. Until the gravity shifts, i'll believe in the theory of gravity. Same with every other scientific theory based on logic, deduction and empirical data.
I'll stick to what can be observed, what we know and what can be deducted until proven wrong. I'll accept the fact that my existence doesn't mean shit in an universally context, and nothing happens when i die. Make the best of the time you are here, do the things that make you happy. Cliché i know, but it is true.
Thanks, Grumpy for good comments. Also thanks to Johan for your opinions.
ReplyDeleteGrumpy: Chimp-like behaviour has been studied thoroughly, and what is interesting is that most of these studies focus on YOUNG chimps - because this is their intelligent, humanlike stage - after that they become "impossible". When you hear of the
amazing feats of chimps (which really can be amazing), it's young chimps (pre-sexual) performing them. Basically, studying adult chimps for learning about human behaviour is futile, when the young do it much better.
An interesting comparision are newborn penguins. They flap their wings frequently, even though they
cannot fly. Older penguins rarely do this. This may be seen as a "remnant" in early ontogenesis of a stage they once where at - a flying bird - but have since left.
I understand you confusion in respect to species and
variation. I may have used this term innacurately. The exact definition of "species" has been subject to much debate. The taxonomic levels in classification, I think, go from class
(reptiles, mammels etc.), to order (carnivores, ungulates etc.), to family or genus (felines, canines, ungulates), to species (lions, tigers, pumas) - but I may be wrong here. For instance some speak fo horse when they mean the genus/family, and the same for cats and dogs. The higher up we go in the taxonomic level, the fewer transitional
fossils. Like you point out, in for instance cat family (felines), you find a great deal of variation at the species level. It seems that the organism has an inherted plasticity, making diverse forms possible. The processes for this are debatable. This pasticity seems to have it's limits - the first horse does not differ much anatomically from every later species in this group, except in aspects as size, and certain details. The same can be
said of cats and dogs - a lion has the same main
charateristics (anatomically and physically) as
any other member of the feline family, as goes for wolves and foxes and any other member of the dog family. They are variatons of "typus". The limits in form may serve as a way to avoid chaos - the laws of form are, within certain bounds, quite strict.
These families didn't pop out of nowhere. The question is where, and how. I have my own theories, but I cannot I go into them right now (I don't have the time - I'm at Deichman).
Humans also show diversity, absolutely correct. But this is also limited to details and variation - the main form is constant - we see the same "barrier" in respect to plasticity as in animal families.
A clue, though, for understanding human origin, may lie among seals. This is rarely pointed to in Darwinism, which points to apes. Seals are amazingly human like (think of seals playing with balls in circus), The face of a seal resembles human
faces even more than apes. Their body shape is largely unspecialized, except that it is fit for swimming. A human embryo at the end of the 2nd month is very similar to a seal. What does this mean? Well, probably you won't take this seriously, but it may point to a stage in evolution when man was in his "making" (and had not densified), but where some humans densified too early, becoming seals (the
climatic conditions at earth were very different at this stage). Seals appeared fully formed in the fossil record, in the two innitial periods before the Tertiary, the Pliocene and the Miocene. There are no preceding forms resembling them. So seals are a kind of proto-mammal (with no descendants), being the first mammals to part from humans. The seal family contains many species - sea-lions, sea-dogs,
"hvalross" etc. The Eskimos have great respect for the seal, maybe because they understand the close connection to humans - whereas the "civilized" world has behaved like savages toward this wonderful animal.
Fossil record is important in the study of evolution, but I think relying to much on the fossil evidence (or lack of evidence) is a wrong path. Other ways must supplement this to give clues to the origin of life. For instance the study of onotogenesis and organisms as a whole, not just made up of parts.
As for the dating of fossils etc., these can be debateable, but the methods are probably generally good. The question is interpretation, and tha fact that a lot lies in darkness. Some writers say there is evidence that modern humans lived as long as several million years ago (Michael Cremo).
Really good that you try to think that wolrd views may chang. Think of the Berlin wall - 30 years ago no one would have thought it would fall in the near future. But it did.
As for theories on the net of ID - well I can't give you one right now (time is running out!) - but try to look at Jos Verhulsts pages, or an anthroposophical view of it. Try also to look at Michael Behe's pages.
Johan - life can be evil, it's true. Now, why this is, I can't explain. But all religions have some kind of evil force (the devil, Lucifer, Satan etc.) to explain what messes things up. Believing in ID does not mean that you believe all creation is good - it only means that intelligence (good or bad) lies behind life. Maybe the "evil" forces forces have some kind of meaning too, that we don't see right now.
ID can be oserved - not by seeing the "deities" behind, but at looking at their work. Certainly, to my understanding, Darwinism (Neo-Darwinism) has been proven wrong - so why do you still cling to it? And - your existence probably means something to a lot of people (friends, family etc.). So - take care!
That was a good read. I'm really starting to love this discussion. I mean, we're all intelligent people here, no matter where our fields of expertise lie. The reason I snapped at you in the beginning, Helge, is probably because I've seen too many conspiracy nerds that have "watched some documentary", or read some webpage - all with factual errors, contextual slaughtery etc. Alas, I was myself in a period some years ago, where I just swallowed everything whole.
ReplyDeleteI was simply afraid I was dealing with someone of that caliber once again.
Now, the classification of species I was sort of aware of, but only in a general way. It's great to get some more insight into these things. Also, I think it's good that you speak out on behalf of "there being a design behind it", rather than "God must have designed it", because in my mind, that opens up a range of possibilities.
This is going to be pretty far out there, and it's not something I personally believe in, just a possibility:
What if Earth is just a giant ant farm?
As in, someone pulled strings to make stuff happen here, to get us going, and is observing the results. Crazy idea, huh.
What I find intriguing, is the "hints" throughout history of "visitors", to put it that way. Now, I don't see clear and unbiased evidence anywhere, but there certainly are some good hints and interesting observations all over the place. Medieval paintings with objects that are clearly not stars or comets etc, texts with hints to beings that were "human-like, but not humans at all" etc. And maybe some of the strangest things are the sudden development of fairly advanced technology and science in certain Egyptian, Mayan and South-Asian cultures, along with the pyramids (their location, time of building etc).
I like to play around with all these ideas. I might not think them true, but I really enjoy the "what if" scenarios, and what it would mean for our history, science and religious beliefs if such things were discovered.
Oh well, this post didn't quite turn out as contributing to the discussion as I would have liked, but I just felt like rambling some more.
Audun, you're up :)
Just a small comment to my last posting. I see that I was in a hurry writing, so a few misspellings have creeped in here and there. Also, I have written "ungulates" two times at the taxonomic level - they should be only once, at the "order" level. And - my comment on lions should be "anatomically and PSYCHOLOGICALLY" (not "physically"). Thanks!
ReplyDeleteYou have some great arguments too, Helge, and certainly "bake my noodle". I really enjoy it, and don't think I've had a more interesting conversation in years about science.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll just address some of your arguments this time. We've come as far as I believe we can get on some of the subjects, and I guess we'll just have to agree that we disagree.
On specialization (in more detail than last time): It is not always the case that species "liberate" themselves from the bonds of the environment. In some cases it's the opposite. Almost all animals living today in extreme environments won't survive elsewhere, and are prone to environmental changes. And it goes both ways; amphibians that developed lungs cannot survive under water, because they lost their gills.
In fact, evolution scientists see a relationship between population density, regulation (death/birth rates), the individual habitat range of the biological species and many other factors affect specialization. Other scientific studies indicate that, collectively, the results reveal a tendency for directional evolution toward increased specialization, but also indicate that specialization does not always represent an evolutionary dead-end that strongly limits further evolution.
In other words evolution is a self-correcting mechanism. I guess that's why it has worked for so long.
On random mutations: You say that species appear suddenly and fully formed, and actually that has occurred in our lifetime. A new species of lizard appeared in no more than 36 years, so you simply cannot ignore the fact that "random genetic" changes occur and are being "selected for" within short timespans! The theories around these rapid changes are beyond my technical knowledge, but there is apparently something called pleiotropy, which causes one single gene to influence multiple traits.
The stasis in evolution is also explained in a blog about the phenomenon, and seems perfectly logical to me. When change can occur that fast it's no wonder why it seems like there are "missing links" in the fossil record.
Helge: "Nature is not random". I agree. But that's the opposite of what Neo-Darwinism claims: Random mutations is a key word in the theory.
"Nature is not random" does not equal random mutations are impossible. Ref. what I said about atoms.
Helge: The "laws of complexity" in Darwinist theory - can you please explain them?
No, I can not. Did I mention that somewhere?
Helge: According to Darwinist theory, chimps have never reached a human stage in their development. Before they eventually reach this stage (an improbable thought), they cannot show human traits. (...)
I'm sorry, but I didn't get one word of that. Please elaborate, if you will. I think your well ahead of me here.
Ferskvare: About chimps though. Wouldn't it be more logical to look for chimp-like behavior in humans, than the other way around?
Funny you should mention that. Actually many species have traits hidden in their genes, that can only be explained by evolution. Chicken with teeth is one example.
Ferskvare: I'm saying this just to remind myself and others, that there is that possibility we might be wrong.
Thanks for the reminder. Should have that as my screensaver, really :)
Helge: Thanks for your reply. I agree that life is evil, and humans are the worst of all evil beeings.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, there is evil in life, ID and religion. I'm just questioning why a designer or god would invent such a thing. If so, 'evil' has to have an intelligent purpose, but as a creator i would have looked at ways of creating life without the bad part, that seems reasonable in my head.
I believe this strange world and all the diverse species that live here can be explained by the theory of evolution. This is (as far as I know) the foundation of ID, there has to be something behind all this crazyness. I am open to new ideas, but i dont see anything intelligent about it. On an abstract level, randomness is responsible for us beeing here in this moment of time commenting this blog.
I like ferskvares idea that 'visitors' pushed us in the right direction at some point. Wish it was true, but again, there exists no concrete evidence for it, and probably never will. Could explained a lot though.
I know my existence means a lot to many people, and vice versa, thats why i added the universally context to it.
Don't know if i'll post more comments, i'm not at the same level of knowledge as you guys. Keep on debating, i'll watch.
Thanks for all the comments, guys. I've just lost a long reply because of a stupid mouse-function on the PC - I'll try to reconstruct what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteFirst - this must be my last posting here - I don't have Internet at home and this is getting expensive (Internet cafes). I've had a great time discussing with you. You have made me read, think and rethink - this whole debate has been very fruitful. I must also give you credit for acting good and honest - not giving in to ridicule and oversimplified arguments (which has been my general experience in similar debates).
Here we go: Grumpy - visitors has been proposed by for instance Däniken. There are other similar ideas going on, like Zeta-talk (on the Internet). This is not my view, but still interesting stuff.
Audun - you have been a hard nail. We don't agree, but that's OK. Your arguments are good.
Specialization certainly poses a problem for environmental indepependance. Darwinists often cloud this point by looking at too many factors, or by only looking at the species level. The case becomes very clear when you look higher up at the taxonomic level. Amphibians can spend some time in the water (hunting food, laying eggs) as well as on land - fish cannot spend time on land. So we are one step up here. Reptiles - the same. Birds get one step up from reptiles because they can function in a greater temperature span, as well as on land (forests, lakes, shores), in the air, and in water (penguins). But they are more like "flying mammals" taking control of the air element - on the ground they are clumsy. Mammals, with the exception of the air element, are the rulers of earth. Lungs - they don't pose a big problem for living in water. Think of whales and dolphins - they are the rulers of the sea. Their only enemies can be humans (the cruel whale-hunting for instance). The most unspecialized mammalian form, the human, has even spent some time on the Moon, an environment for which he has no physical adapation. This should put the directionality of evolution in perspective.
Random mutations coupled with natural selection have a limit to what they can do. In "The edge of Evolution" Behe tries to explain this limit. The edge, he says, lies "somewhere between the level of vertebra species and class". Random mutation can account for many minor changes in forms, also changes in the appearance of animals, for instance the different shapes and and sizes of dogs, the patterns of coloration on insect wings etc. What random mutations CANNOT do is to build new regulatory systems - that is, the control machinery that is necessary to build animal bodies (like a computer program). It can only make minor changes, or (most likely) mess the program up (lethal muations).
Behe: "In the laboratory, the fruit fly has been studied in large numbers for over a century. Although its existing genetic control systems have been subjected to all amnner of experimental insults, resulting in some bizarre birth defects, during that time no new, helpful, developmental-control programs have appeared." The same goes for other observations, for instance of malaria parasites. "There is no evidence from our best evolutionary studies that random mutation leads to gene regulatory networks of the complexity of cell differentiation - that is, class-level biological distinctions." (s. 200).
Stasis is a problem because it proves that evolution isn't a continuous process. That is contrary to what we know about random mutations: They follow a CONSTANT statistically random pattern, a basis for the "molecular-biological clock" (Dawkins, 1986).
Stasis is only explainable if we leave the concept of random mutations playing an important role in evolution. They cannot make the building program needed for stabilized forms. Only ID can! (ore intelligent beings, whoever they may be). Remember that natural selection does not "build" anything - it only chooses which forms are "fit" - like a jury in song contest, ruling out the lousy songs (the jury didn't write the songs).
Random mutations seem to happen often, that's true. But they are not compatible with an idea of a "plan". "Randomly" and "planned" are logic opposites.
Chimps - according to Darwinism, they emerged before humans. That means the arrived at stage when human forms had not yet arrived. So the young couldn't take "evolution" in advance - the processes working for an erect walk, and bigger cranial capacity etc. had not yet worked on the anthropoid apes. Young chimps are not the only apes showing this trait - it's also clear in young gorillas, orang-gutans, makakes and more. If you meditate upon it, the only explaination can be that they were previously more human, and have since left that stage. The great zoologist and Nobel prize winner K. Lorenz, said of this: "When I see a kid chimp playing with building toys, or putting small boxes into bigger ones, the suspicion always creeps in, that these beings long ago stood much higher than today, and that during the course of specialization, abilites have been lost which now surface in the kids play, only as a shadow." (1959). These abilities cannot be seen as "training" for adult life, because chimp adult life has no use for them - adult chimps recede to typical "lower" mammalian behaviour (Lorenz).
Johan - humans can be both evil (the worst) and good. Some humans try to fight evil - like Amnesty and various organiziations. Some good humans also fight for animal rights, against cruelty towards our brothers the animals. Let's hope that the good forces win, not the bad ones.
Why "evil" creeped in, I cannot say. I agree that an allmighty creator should have prevented this. But maybe he likes his "servants" to have freedom - also meaning that they can go wrong, and do bad stuff.
As for evidence for "visitors", or at least some mighty supernatural forces, crop circles are a wonderful phenomenon. Don't listen to all the media propaganda about them being man made. With more knowledge of this phenomenon, it's clear that this explaination is unlikely - other reasons must be considered.
I could give more points - like the meaning of the long childhood of man, the "primitivenss" of man's physiognomy (neothony), and the fallacy of gene-reductionism (Dawkins, Blackmore). But this must wait till some other time.
Thanks, Grumpy, Audun and Johan for giving me a decent debate at a high level. I have done my best - I'm not a genius and some points may have been made too unclear. There is even the possibility that I may be wrong!
Take care, guys!
Awesome last post, Helge. I do thank you for the time you spent here, making this blogpost into a very interesting discussions.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to skip answering most of your post, because - to be honest - it's way over my head. But, there are a few things I really find interesting.
First of all; evil. I think - and this is not based on anything other than a wild imagination - that evil (as we label it) is the counterforce to good (another label). In fact, actions are just actions. They have consequences, they may have reasons or something that caused them, but actions are in themselves neither good nor evil.
Intention, however, is. And here's my thought. Chaos. There needs to be chaos. But there also needs to be balance. So "good" always struggles to conquer "evil". The struggle, is sort of the point. By the way, this is regardless of whether or not there is a God. For those who believe in a God, the struggle is sort of "doing God's work". For those who don't believe in a deity, but rather fights "evil" based on values, principals and morale, it's just as justified out from personal beliefs.
Now, chaos is necessary. The struggle, that is. Because without it, there would be nothing to struggle for. Without counterforces, nothing would give meaning. Just think about it, without hate, could we have love? Without darkness, could we have light? Etc, etc.
To summarize, I think intentions can be good or evil, but we need both in order for the world to make sense. Sort of. Kinda. Haha.
This was just some late night rambling. Stuff I needed to say I guess.
Anywho, cheers Helge, and let's hope we can discuss another subject next time :)
One last comment: Thanks, Grumpy - and I cannot say anything else, than that I agree with your thoughts on darkness and chaos.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to pitch in with a link to what seems to be a missing link in the evolution of man.
ReplyDelete