Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 943
lazy_hp writes "The BBC reports that research into evolution's inner working has been named rtop science achievement of 2005 From the article: 'The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year. The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution. The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.'"
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Understand that some people live by faith or belief in something greater than "man is an animal". It doesn't make a difference to you does it? So how can it be "sad" if the people who believe in the Jesus, Hail Mary Mother Ghost of Alah or whatever, are happy believing in such?
I personally am not Protestant or into Judaism, but I don't wholly subscribe to the idea that I'm just meat. Finding out how about how my body did develop is a vital activity, on the other hand.
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the real winner of this in 2006 is the people who need a cheap labor source. After all,if you get a crap-ass education in one of these misguided school districts, it's going to be hard to get a job that pays more then minimum wage.
Some of the backers of ID are really just aiming to keep people uneducated and within control. Liberty will eventually win out-- the Catholics tried to control education and discourse 500 years ago, and they eventually lost. Hopefully the promoters won't get as violent as the Catholics did. Somehow I don't think that Jesus would approve of torture and burning people at the stake.
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just look on the horizon with a telescope -- you'll see a ship's mast come into view before the deck. Didn't this strike anyone as odd back then?
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact during the middle ages most people I understand thought it round as well.
The middle-eastern view seems to be that it was flat.
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUnive
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Incorrect summary (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:1, Interesting)
The Mind (Score:2, Interesting)
What does science have to say about awareness? Anything? I mean, isn't awareness kind of a big deal? If we start with the simplest creatures—self-replicating proteins—and procede to bacteria, then insects, then, finally, the most complex creatures that we know of: ourselves—well, at what point does awareness begin? Are there degrees of awareness? Is awareness a function of life, or vice versa?
What I'm getting at is, you say God had to come from something else. I ask, is that consistant with our current understanding of awareness? I don't have any answers myself, but I wonder, how long can science continue to ignore consciousness before it finds its collective self against a brick wall?
Food for thought.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you falling into the trap of confusing the colloquial definition of "theory" for the scientific definition? The Theory of Evolution is the basis of modern biology. You want to throw out modern biology because you think Evolution is not a fact? Do you have similar problems with the Theory of Electromagnetism being taught as "fact"? Does the fact that light exhibits behavior of a wave in some instances and as a particle in other instances invalidate the "old and outdated" Theory of Electromagnetism?
Are you also aware that ID teaches that the idea of speciation is wrong, that the various species were created essentially whole in an instant by an "Intelligent Designer? That is, birds did not develop from dinosaurs, but magically appeared with feathers, beaks, etc.
As John E. Jones III wrote in his judgement in Kitzmiller v. Dover:
You really need to get a hold of the full text of the judgement. It's quite an interesting read.
The Catholic church versus Galileo has nothing on today's evolution zealots.
The people that you call "zealots" seem to fall into non-mutually exclusive two groups:
1) Those that do not want the government to endorse a certain religious viewpoint.
2) Those that do not want children to receive a substandard education.
If you want to see zealotry in action I again highly recommend that you read the actual judgement. John E. Jones III outlines the zealotry of the school board and takes them to task for their zealotry.
To this date, no one has proposed a plausible alternative to the Theory of Evolution that hold up under the Scientific Method. Those people that you call zealots are generally those people that insist on reason, logic, critical thinking, and most of all, facts. If a devotion to facts makes one a zealot, then, please, call me a zealot.
Re:Slashdot Under Siege.... (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, it has nothing at all to do with creationism-
Oh, you are so wrong it hurts.
First of all, "design" and "create" are synonyms [m-w.com]. It has everything to do with creationism, it's just cleverly worded to avoid any direct mention of the specific religion that it is meant to support, in order to attempt to sneak it into public schools despite a constitutional ban of such shenanigans. Hence the ruling to that effect.
ID is not science by the very definition of science [m-w.com]! "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding", ID is based on ignorance and misunderstanding, it's the entire basis of the argument: "There's bit we don't know or understand yet, so a magical, invisible hand did it!"
Just because it's a lie supporting something you agree with doesn't make it true.
Re:Slashdot Under Siege.... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it just saddens me - I wonder how much better they could have done without it.
Or do you just assume that, if someone believes in religion, they're supporters of ID and incapable of rational thought?
Supporters of ID, no. As for rational thought, not incapable, but by definition they think irrationally more often than is good.
I don't understand the anti-religous crusade so many people seem to take on as their own little holy war. Why the hell can't you leave me alone? You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I won't teach your kids to believe what I do, and you can just stay away from mine.
Because you're wasting your life, and you're not seeing the glory of the universe that's out there. And you're doing it for such a stupid reason. When you're walking down the street and see someone banging their head against a building, you want to stop them.
If you want to talk about testable hypotheses, we can do that. You produce evidence contrary to my understanding of the universe, and I'll change my understanding. I'd hope you could do the same thing.
Of course. And if you're doing that that's halfway there. But if you start believing random things without evidence, your worldview's not going to make a lot of sense.
But if you want to get into a contest of faiths, don't even bother. And don't think that atheism isn't a faith: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can prove to me that we as a species evolved, ultimately, from a tiny pile of organic slime clinging to a rock in some antediluvian sea. Check. You can't prove to me that no god exists, any more than I can prove to you one does.
Just like the fairies at the bottom of my garden. I haven't seen them because they turn invisible whenever humans are looking at them, of course. Occam's razor and assuming the absence of anything that doesn't have a reason to exist is the only way to get a reasonable view of things.
Your railing against religion (and everyone else's) as a whole (as opposed to railing against statements made based on religion that are demonstrably false, which is, of course, appropriate) is no better than any other zealot demanding that his religion is right and everyone else's is wrong.
We at least have some grounds for this - "religion is dumb because this religious person said this dumb thing" is fallacious but better than "my religion is better than yours" with no reason at all.
Re:Most people don't know what ID is (Score:3, Interesting)
dan_sdot: "ID does not address that question. Any answer to that question is as good as any other as far as ID is concerned. ID only talks about a `designer', however he came about."
ID doesn't address many questions ... it just gives up when the questions get difficult. "Beyond human comprehension," or some such cop-out.
Re:Evolution = the new evolved bigotry (Score:3, Interesting)
So if something has not been observed, it cannot happen? Interesting philosophy. Stupid; but interesting nevertheless.
What have explosions got to do with anything?
Technically speaking, a defined sequence is information, even if it is random.
Except creationism doesn't match the criteria of a scientific theory, so it rather fails at the first hurdle, doesn't it?
Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
Discreet mathematical statements are nothing but excercises in logic, the very same logic you learn in philosophy courses, so much so they mirror each other (differing in some places only in notation).
'Science' is going to have to figure out what it wants to accept as sciene and what it dosent. If it wants to accept mathematical logic as science then it also must accept at least some types of philisophical logic.
If it dosent want to accept any philisophical logic, it must uncermoniously give the boot to any branch of physics that isnt backed by physcial evidence.
Science is broken. ID is trying to fill the gaps left by generations of 'scientific' willful ignorance.
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Odd ideas will get support with evidence, it was only ~10 years ago that the idea of many ulcers being caused by bacteria was laughed at. Now it's accepted as fact. Creationism has never had a shred of evidence going for it, the promoters spend their time bashing science instead of looking for proof to support their ideas. Actually if memory serves the Discovery Institute(?) was formed to get said evidence. They've come up with nothing over the past decade and instead now attack science.
Just out of curiosity, what's your future PhD in?
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:1, Interesting)
- ulcers occur all around us, Creation will never again occur.
- ulcers are a fairly neutral topic, Creationism is not. Creationism is the basic tenet of Biblical Christianity, evolution that of Humanism.
I will agree with you that Creationism's proponents have sometimes hurt it more than they've helped it through their methods. There's not much we can do about that now, except improve going forward. There are a number of publications that support Creationism, they just can be hard to pick out from the crowd. If you were an archaeologist that had grown up in a public school, what interpretive framework would you use? Is it any surprise that explicitly Creationist publications are difficult to find today?
I read Slashdot, it should be obvious what I'm getting my PhD in.
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Literal interpretation has to be view in the context it is in. An exeeding high mountain might not be high enough but then again when most people fast, they become dilusional and see "visions" too. Is it even possible this is metaphorical language when the paasage is taken into context with the rest of the chapter. Jesus is fasting, the devil is tempting (and we know he lies from other passages) him, and the passages seem to be jesus refuting that temptation.
The 4 corners of the earth, was described to me that it referenced the four directions of the compass. North, south east and west, If you set out to the four corners of the earth you are sending someone in each direction. If land ends at a sea (the ocean) you have basicaly stoped at the end if you arent aware of anythign existing beyound that sea (referncing kindoms). It is possible if you don't have ship capable of going around the world, you could reach the four corners of your domain without the earth being flat. I havn't explored the other mentions you refered to but even in a literal sence, this doesn't realy say the earth is flat.
As for the bible being the literal word of god, My understanding is that's only refered to in the old testement. It was supposedly commanded to be writen by god thru man. Anything around or after the time of jesus is theoreticaly a history book and doesn't carry this distiction. Also translations of the bible may have went wrong too. Even at the time of jesus, the bible was writen in a ancient laguage not spoken. In order for him to read it, it had to of been translated at least once. I am in agreement with you. Taking the bible in the strick literal sence is foolish. There has to be room for error. Simple things like nuumbers can often be wrong. Alot of the words take on different meanings depending on the words around them so if one is out of context, the whole passage could have gon wrong.